MQA is the new MP3


#1

No, you have MQA to line corporate pockets, nothing more. MQA is the new MP3.


Lossless mp3 (44.1 KHz 24bit 2ch 244kbps) vs. FLAC
#2

I thought MQA was just 24/196 recorded music (mainly), compressed for streaming and then uncompressed by software or hardware once it’s been streamed. Very different from converting a file to a very lossy 96kbps of MP3.
MQA is a format purely for streaming as far as I am concerned - I don’t believe any of the ‘higher quality, just as the artist intended’ claims vs a standard hi res, non MQA, 24/196 recording.


(Chris ) #3

Clearly, that’s your view and I am well aware of it. That does not make it a fact…


(Music and Shawarma Lover) #4

It sure sounds much better than a 96kbps MP3, but it is still lossy. At some point science will identify where the audible loss or other damage occurs. There were also claims that MP3’s loss was inaudible, but clearly not the case.

I know you weren’t saying you were buying the marketing hype - just technically stating that MQA is not lossless. But it is a very high quality lossy streaming format.


(JohnV) #5

Well, not quite. MP3 was invented to further the dream of truly portable music. Twenty years ago, it would have been expensive and bulky to stream and distribute lossless.

Those that invented and harnessed the technology reaped the rewards. Usually, but not always, those people are part of a corporation. Most of the “linings” from their pockets are used to feed families, pay bills, and such. A few people get a lot more to spend, in large part because they bear the risk of failure.

MP3 EXACTLY fit the bill for 20th century music and turned a sick industry on its head.

If MQA is as half as effective as MP3 was, it will be a good thing.


#6

mp3 served a valid purpose, albeit it compromised fidelity and generations have grown up thinking the crap they hear on their iPhone earbuds is what good sound is.

mqa serves no purpose other than to reward charlatans and compromises fidelity under the pretext that it improves sq.


(JohnV) #7

Not necessarily so. MQA may drive streaming costs down, adding margins to the streamers. They may use that margin to lower prices, line their pockets, or enhance services. OR… it could go on to the ash heap of history. It is way too early to tell.

I have chosen not to be bothered by claims that don’t impact me. I am daily assulted with promises of a better sex life, a toned body, a sharp mind, and an everlasting life. You’ll go crazy railing at the charlatans.

No fidelity is compromised whatsoever. Stay with lossless.


#8

very altruistic of bob to come to the rescue of streaming services. It’s a solution to a nonexistent problem.

mqa is lossy, albeit they initially lied about it until called out at which point they tried to brush it under the carpet.


(JohnV) #9

I think you are partly right; it doesn’t enhance the users’ experience, IMO. But it probably could be a godsend to streamers out there worried about bandwidth expense. It’s not going to remain in the world for long if there is no benefit.


#10

When I grew up in the 1970’s my introduction to music was via a AM ‘tranny’ and ‘deaf aid’ earpiece! I think every generation has it’s ‘low-fi’ startpoint … that didn’t stop me investing in decent sounding equipment and source material when I could afford it :slight_smile:
Nick


(Henry) #11

MQA can’t be the new MP3 because MP3 never threatened to replace other music formats. Just to augment them. The problem is the flippancy of that statement misses the real concerns about MQA and does the anti MQA lobby a disservice.


(Kenneth F Krutsch) #12

Ha ha ha… that’s the funniest thing I’ve read all week.


(Henry) #13

I’d be interested to know where you stand on the matter. Is it because you think MP3 did pose a threat to CD or because you think MQA does not? Serious question.


#14

And yet there are threads like this -

BTW, John - are these listed in order of preference?:laughing:


(JohnV) #15

In order of bombardment frequency. And…HEY!.. preference too! How about that!