Sure - lot’s of people love deep fried oreos - they will give you a heart attack… they not good for you and your health and they are not really a quality item, just starches and sugar…
Same with MQA - a lossy format with the companies pushing it deliberately obscuring that fact in order to get back to the dark ages of DRM - remember when iTunes downloads could only play on Apple products? The record companies want that kind of control back hence the introduction and support of this hateful thing… ugh… kind of troll-y for a new member but man, this (MQA), and people calling records “vinyls” will set me off for sure…
Maybe we should rename FLAC to “MQFR” (Master Quality For Reals) and have a bright orange LED light up on devices whenever an FLAC file is played - that should bring some people back…
Sure - audio is subjective though… hard to prove although, well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - and certainly the claim that a loss-y format like MQA sounds as good or better than a lossless format IS an extraordinary claim that has not been proven by any of the MQA supporting entities.
So, well, that MQA sounds great is just an opinion, not a controlled experiment that would validate any claim…
BUT
Is not even about the sound - is the false claims that get me - in order to implement the control that companies desire, their implementation takes measures that degrade the data. Therefore MQA is a format that corrupts the music we have paid for.
But I will stop - do not desire to get into polemics… not so soon.
But this is not the consequence of delivering your music enveloped in an MQA container. You would be equally pleased with the same source in their native resolution as FLAC, or most likely even more content. And then we could drop this DRM aspect along with all the other bull thats being spread around this acronym.
Ffs, this almost as hilarious (or stupid) as world politics.
One of the points in MQA is that the music companies only have to deliver their content in one container, nevertheless the capabilities of the device, that enables the playback.
I guess that fx DG in the future will deliver music in MQA containers, nevertheless it is to Spotify, Qubuz or Tidal.
Is all about the mastering my friend !
I do remember the polemics… what was it? around 2014, 2015? wasn’t one of the HiRes websites get caught selling upsampled files?
[Edit - removed some stuff re: MQA - like I said, trying not to get into it…]
13 days later I see this - ha - Anyways, MQA is relying on the MISCONCEPTION that DRM ONLY APPLIES TO THE ABILITY TO COPY FILES - WRONG.
DRM it is about complete control of the ability to play, analyze, backup and IDENTIFY the digital item. MQA is fully DRM-ed
And yes, most of that could apply to SACD - THE PHYSICAL platform. We understand the limitations and characteristics of a physical platform - Something from the past, yes; yet, being physical, there are still many things about it that the controlling entity can’t take away from you. And is not loss-y - nor does Sony lie about it. For that, SACD over MQA, ANYTIME.
DSD is not DRM-ed.
You rights are not an option; they are not a personal decision. Anytime your rights are taken away under the illusion of good sound - or security - we all suffer.
If you buy a car, it has to have wheels… But that’s BRM… (Brmm Brmmm) I want a hover car, non of those pesky wheels
Get an MQA DAC and get over it is my advice, if you want MQA. That’s just how it works. If you don’t want MQA, then don’t bother. MQA don’t rule the world yet and it would bother me if they did.
In the final analysis, MQA just sounds better…
1.- That is a weird analogy - train of thought got derailed… You mean you put wheels on your MQA files?
2.- I don’t want Dolby ATMOS. So I don’t get it. However that platform is not an attempt to take away my consumer rights. MQA is. THAT is the reason I oppose it.
3.- Re: Sound. Who did the final analysis - was it a peer reviewed controlled experiment with a sufficient sample size? Was it the company selling the thing ? Or just an individual’s opinion under uncontrolled circumstances? Meaning, well, just an opinion. NOT universal truth.
None of those reliable. And furthermore, sound has nothing to do with it. Go to ASR and see why. Again, the erosion of consumer rights is what bothers me.
Err… I would say love is all that matters… or music, but even THOSE would be incorrect in the context.
Context is “opposition to MQA” not life in general…
That said, straight from the ASR philosophy… sounds matters… a little bit… and there is a threshold… and is WAY lower and WAY less expensive than expected.
(different discussion though)
Why I a getting into this? Have to fight my inclination for fight for justice and the Real American Way. Hope you are not offended or frustrated but won’t be replying… gotta stop sometime… And get to work!
The context is Qobuz dipping their toe into MQA. I’m all for it because, like Chris, I like the SQ of MQA. I also like Qobuz high resolution. It’s all good.
I don’t see liking MQA and high definition as mutually exclusive events.
Looks to me like the context is that labels are polluting Qobuz’s catalog with MQA and Qobuz isn’t happy about it because their USP is industry standard high resolution that plays on any equipment.
Hi ladies & gentlemen, boys & girls (adopt whatever fits you)
I first noticed this phenomenon when I test-listened to an iFi audio GO BAR. The MQA led lighted up when I was listening to Qobuz files. Whatever…I make no big deal from it as Roon can unfold/render this (am I right?) just switch this on and put your DAC on none or renderer only when in doubt.
This off course does not apply to Tidal aficionados. I first had Tidal, but because my music taste also includes more obscure European classical music and Folk, I switched to Qobuz. It still is all about the music…isn’t it?
Shame it’s the best sound of recorded music I have ever experienced in my home…
