No they are not, once the information is altered, you cannot get the original material back.
MQA states that they alter and reduce, so … no reverse here.
1 Like
That just goes to show how you miss understand. The musical information is protected and the traditional digital artefacts at ADC and DAC (digital gateways) associated with 16/44 files are prevented.
1 Like
Where did you see MQA stating they alter and reduce?
Asking for a friend.
Stop with the nonsense please.
Define those “artefacts”. The only artefacts I see are in GoldenSounds video when he’s showing the mqa.
1 Like
That video is bunk as he deliberately misrepresented MQA in his experiment as was described in the lengthy MQA reply. If you can’t see this, you don’t want to see it and debate Is futile. I will ask again why people are so scared of MQA when some report poor finances and the major players, I am gleefully informed, don’t use MQA and are unlikely to. I can’t work this out…
1 Like
Maybe you missed it, but there was a scientific reply to mqas made up marketing reply.
1 Like
Not interested in that as he clearly has an agenda and my practical experience tells me otherwise. I still wonder why there is such anti MQA passion as most providers don’t use it and are unlikely to going forward. I don’t get the fear of MQA I perceive in people…
Time to move on and talk about music…
2 Likes
He’s not having an agenda. His video is free and he’s not getting paid by BS is he?
I agree it’s time you move on.
Wish you the best!
2 Likes
I keep hearing about Bob Stuart, too, who clearly has an agenda – sell MQA as a format.
In fact, I am perplexed. By many things, but particularly by this apparent fetishization of what Stuart says. Let’s stipulate that he’s a technical expert; I don’t actually know if that’s true, he may be the business side of the company, but let’s assume it is. After all, he’s on the AES technical committee on high-resolution audio.
But if “Breaking Bad” taught us anything, it’s that technical expertise does not guarantee moral probity. In other words, just because someone knows what he’s doing, it doesn’t mean he’s not lying to you. What’s more, if there is something wrong with MQA, something broken about it, you won’t hear about it from Bob Stuart. He can’t tell you. He is bound by both financial and fiduciary bonds to the success of MQA Ltd., and almost certainly can’t say anything bad about it, legally, as an officer of the company.
Let me suggest an experiment that doesn’t rely on Stuart’s pronouncements: if MQA does represent a real advance in audio formats, surely the other technical experts on the subject of high resolution audio would acclaim it as such. Who is doing so? What other members of the AES are doing so? More specifically, what other members of the technical committee on high resolution are doing so? Any of them?
11 Likes
I’ll stop listening to MQA when it sounds worse to my ears on my systems than Qobuz. Or, Tidal raises the current $120 price to significantly higher than the Qobuz price of $150. In the meantime, I want to keep both Tidal (with MQA) and Qobuz for the redundancy and to feed Roon Radio with more options. I also like that Roon (and Audirvana) has two music sources. I hope they are looking for a third, maybe classical oriented for those folks.
2 Likes
I stop reading at
LOL
ROL
rOLMH
ROLMFHO
Or any other ‘hip’ juvenile abbreviation…
2 Likes
Link: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/?do=findComment&comment=1139813
3 Likes
Be extremely careful with this “source” of information. The CA website is well known as a cesspit of limited information, lots of disinformation about MQA. The standard rhetoric is “lies, financially screwing everybody, rubbish science” repeated in an infinite loop over years. Consider who in the industry would be willing to impart “confidential information” in that situation. It’s only likely to come from a collection of the equally disgruntled, and some of whom are competitors.
Sifting gossip from well reasoned sources is not a strong point of CA, IMO and IME, sorry to say.
An add-on: anyone at the highest levels of the music industry looking at the youtube video referred to by CA will certainly look at MQA’s response. People in that position know the level of trust and credibility to place in “sources” and have better engineering assessment available than you may imagine.
2 Likes
Some websites are a lot worse than others. Particularly when fanned by the website owner and many clicks == ad dollars (“look at all the people who frequent us”). This website and ASR allow discussion. Nothing much can be done about the group who run from site to site saying the same things though.
2 Likes
You can’t be serious…
4 Likes
After over 4 years, just in that thread, of prophesising the end of MQA, I’m inclined to completely trust this source, especially as there is no ‘tease’ to keep you coming back.
Yet am I the only one to think it is Taylor Swift who has been sharing the videos?
They allow limited discussion. ASR much less so than here…the only discussion allowed on ASR is discussion that agrees with Amir or his most trusted minions. Anything that challenges the measurement focused opinions is quelled.
4 Likes
After a review of the available evidence, I believe in supporting GoldenSound’s research on the MQA codec. I am now removing all MQA files I have on my hard drive* and am seeking to replace them with other lossless formats.
*If I cannot find a lossless version then I will keep the MQA file since it is at least better than lossy audio, hence the name Medium Quality Audio when lossy is low-quality audio 
4 Likes
Apparently it’s not that simple because many math operations are not reversible.
And exactly what math does this? How?
1 Like