MQA disappointing

(crenca) #1992

I agree, and when it comes to titles that have already been released in Hi Res obviously the answer is “it’s complicated”…but moving forward DRM and MQA (or something like it) would certainly be progress from their point of view.

1 Like
(ein) #1995

[Moderated]

MQA is lossy, unauthenticated, DSPier format with mega tones BS, but - and that’s good - slowly, but divinely, MQA go away.

So, MQA is worse than any uncompressed music, worse than every very high Q lossless files (hi-res >24/96) cos only 17/96 max. resolution & lossy, even worse than many standard flac red-book files (PCM, near 1411kbps).

No Master. No Studio. Lossy, needless, only for $ form licences.

4 Likes
(Chris ) #1996

Do I need this? Take it up with MQA Ltd

#1997

I was looking at a thread about Tool albums being in hires and someone posted this link:

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

It explains why 44/16 files are actually better. And I’ve seen posts from Rob Watt’s (Chord dac designer) that mention the same thing. That he can get back to original recording using cd quality. Includes a high rolloff filter for when you listen to hires.

So for me, I’m kind of over the hires vs MQA arguments. Just use cd quality when available. Also switched back to Tidal from Qobuz because I found it more important to have the albums actually available and not care about any minor differences in sound quality.

3 Likes
(Andrew Cox) #1999

Here’s the thing. Incessant ranting on topic is allowed. Describing other posters as engaging in incessant ranting is not. If you don’t like said incessant ranting, don’t read it. Move on, do something else. Don’t post about how other posters are incessantly ranting and you don’t like it as that will get moderated.

6 Likes
Moderation policies and “incessant ranting”
#2000

Looks like there’s no much to argue the fact it has been so long… guessed 5yrs since it was announced? Not much has been taking place since then. Initially, they thought it was going to be big n over time I guessed they realise by now it is a niche market (Thanks goodness, otherwise it will become the next Dolby). The thing is people has moved on enjoying their music in various formats. This thread is getting a bit ‘toxic’ to read.

(Andrew Cox) split this topic #2001

A post was split to a new topic: Moderation policies

(Neil Russell) #2002

At present, that is true. BUT MQA has the ability to introduce DRM (or equivalent) at any time they want to, and there’s no way around DRM if they eventually go that route.

1 Like
(Adam Goodfellow) #2003

If we hunt around we can general find supporting and technically very convincing articles as to why X is better than Y. I have seen technically very convincing articles of why 44.1k @ 16 bit will always be good enough. Likewise I have seen equally convincing articles of why hi-res is needed and in particular 192k @ 24bit is a great choice and nothing better is needed. Maybe they are both right for different reasons, maybe not.

Maybe what we (as humans) learn in the future will turn all of this on its head yet again :wink:

Personally, the greatest annoyance across formats is that the video world went with multiples of 48K while the audio world went with multiples of 44.1K and now seems to be getting dragged into sample rate conversions whichever way they go.

Maybe there is merit in 7056000 samples @ 32 bit float as the only way to avoid all this :slight_smile:

#2004

The fear of all freedom loving peoples.

#2005

I take it you hate freedom, Slim? :wink:

#2006

Well I’m still not entirely sure I need better than 16/44 files. Chords dacs do a great job with just cd quality. And then you find supporting articles saying you don’t need better. But then I’ve seen the same thing said in the past about mp3 files. And the arguments for just using cd quality apparently might not be accurate info.

If we only need cd quality then there’s no point even comparing MQA vs hires.

I think I personally prefer the hires files slightly to cd quality and MQA. At some point I’ll go back to Qobuz once their library improves a bit more.

#2007

Not at all, just the concept of MQA.

Let’s not start something afresh.:smirk:

#2008

Oh no, please not that again! :wink:

(Daniel Beyer) #2009

IMHO, a large determinate of the sound is the mastering. I’ve heard high res masters that sounds like garbage compared to previous CD releases. And, I’ve heard the opposite. There is a reason that some of us hunt down specific releases.

3 Likes
(Adam Goodfellow) #2010

I get the impression a lot of artists consider streaming services to be the new pirates given how little they apparently get back from it :slight_smile:

3 Likes
#2011

Off topic but isn’t streaming mostly promotion for their tours and merchandise. Thought artists never made much off actual records sales.

(Adam Goodfellow) #2012

Some artists used to make a lot from records. I’ve seen the streaming accounts for well known artist I knew and quite honestly I was shocked at how little she made from it.

So yes - touring seems to be the main income these days especially with recent huge hikes in ticket prices.art

(Chris ) #2013

Bob Talks, Authentication…