Yes, you should stay, even when it makes the true believers feel uncomfortable. Blind belivers don’t like it when others claims prove for their assertions 
2 Likes
No, please stop. Twice, once in this thread, once in another, you have misinterpreted or intentionally distorted Bryan Lucey’s quote, which is even posted verbatim in this thread.
For reference, here again is the relevant portion of the cited quote:
“MQA has no future in the world of serious engineers in my view…”
Note, “no future,” which you have misunderstood or conveniently omitted. That qualifier makes a difference. MQA may be a current concern among “serious engineers.” Mr. Lucey still may be a serious engineer, who previously/currently has worked on MQA encoded releases. That previous/current experience even may have informed him on his perspective of the future (or lack thereof) for MQA.
So, check back in the future. Unless Mr. Lucey continues to work on MQA releases, your character assassination is unwarranted.
AJ
1 Like
It’s best not to guess these things so I actually I asked Brian directly about this.
He had nothing to do with producing the MQA versions of the 2 most recent #1 albums mentioned in that interview (which is what I asked him about). Somebody else at the label did the MQA stuff.
It’s usually not hard getting the correct info.
2 Likes
I am not guessing anything. Someone at the firm worked on the MQA titles that have been released in the last 2 or 3 weeks. If Lucey wants to dump the blame on other engineers who work there, well…nice guy too work with,
No, James, you’ve clearly misquoted in order to aid your point of view, with little regard for reality.
A very common trait among the MQA fans, together with the tendency to tell the others to shut up, move out, or how much they’re just shills with vested interest in destroying the good people behind MQA.
Reading over the MQA discussions at the CA Forum, I found an interesting statement by Mr. Connacker, the founder of that forum:
He wrote in October 2017:
“Meridian has a pile of intellectual property that could use a home. Said another way, the company has many solutions in search of problems.
MQA was at first going to be used as the solution for Pono. Not sure, what problem this solution addressed, but the team at Pono (when real businessmen ran the company, not Neil Young or his industry chronies) decided MQA didn’t make sense.
Then MQA had to find a new problem to solve or market at which to take aim.”
So it looks like the MQA “present” is here because the Pono people rejected it…
And record labels rejected The Beatles before they became famous.
This whole matter is being discussed as it were ever in our hands! If there is a commercial impetus to go with MQA, it will happen regardless of any discussion for or against! We are just a bunch of enthusiasts anal enough to spend our time thinking and talking about this.
You are posting quite a quantity about MQA for not wanting to be anal. (Your own words).
There is not only evidence, it is a fact, that MQA is a lossy codec. And most probably it introduces distortions in their conversion process. Is there a mastering?
On the other side: Tidal is the only streaming service available within Roon.
People are interested in a high definition streaming provider. They want to have that. That “solution” is offered by Tidal. The industry wants to have that. They can resell their equipment.
But right now it looks like that MQA is not a high def format. It is exactly what audio engineer Bryan Lucey said in his statements.
Well I did say we. That includes me! I have no problem at all with that.
But to stay on topic, you say MQA isn’t high definition. Why do you say that, what is your logic?
I expect, un-decoded it’s normal resolution CD quality which compared to MP3 is HR, however, the extra resolution is hidden below the noise floor and revealed when unfolded. This then is HR depending on the encoded resolution.
Repeat:
There are some rather interesting statements in that interview like:
“It’s definitely a lossy codec”
“There’s also some harmonic distortion which some people could find pleasing, If I want that distortion in the master I would’ve put it there in the first place. The results of MQA I would call fatal to the source material even as they are very subtle.”
“MQA has been targeting the weakest players in our world, the audiophiles. And they’re targeting those most dependent on pimping new tech, the audiophile press.”
“A cynical marketing scheme to be kind about it.”
“I’m most concerned about the bogus claims that MQA is fixing approved masters. Not possible, and a rude assertion to trillions of hours of hard work by teams of people making records for decades. Pure marketing hyperbole.”
“MQA has no future in the world of serious engineers in my view, it’s a corporate money scheme at this point.”
That sums up what I think about MQA rather precisely.
Yes it is and MQA have never stated that it isn’t.
However, by having higher resolution (or definition) than standard rebook-
It is per defininition highres and that is not a matter of opinion or down to semantics.
MP3 on Steroids:grinning:
and yes: forget the simantics
We have seen that. No actual mention or assertion that it is low resolution! In fact no objective criticism at all. Just a man who legitimately sees his skill set affected or eroded. From a professional viewpoint I know where he is coming from but I don’t get “MQA is low Res.” from any of that.
Ok. You too changed into that “pluralis majestatis” scheme of we.
I think YOU have seen.
Ha ha! Don’t say stuff if you can’t back it up! He gives opinions about his job which are pretty damning about MQA, but nowhere does he say he considers MQA to be less than high resolution. That is your opinion and I suspect you said it for effect rather than having clear evidence. On the other hand others have stated that MQA will give the equivalent resolution of about 96k at about 17 bits. That I believe meets the criteria to be considered high resolution. Not as high as the numbers that accompany folded MQA would have us believe but high enough.
Now I came back to hifi from the AV world where lossy codecs were not frowned upon like they are in the audiophile universe. There a clever codec like DTS at full rate was a glorious thing to experience despite its lossy nature. I think MQA is quite cute. Not enough to rush out and buy an expensive compatible DAC but enough to be interested in where it might lead us.
More on the new lossy format:
https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/congress/2017/Fahrplan/events/9113.html
I’ve listened to a lot of MQA on various Dac’s and like it. I would like more of it and the full unfold done in software instead of just the first one and also on mobile devices.
Like any format the quality of MQA depends on the quality of the source file.
There is no DRM in the standard sense. Just the ability to detect an MQA capable DAC and use it and if not then MQA will play just fine without one. People are using the term encryption and DRM without understanding either of these things.
Most of the people moaning and bitching about MQA have clearly never heard it and repeat falsehoods and suppositions about it without understanding what they are talking about.
It’s particularly rich to quote a recording engineer that has his own vested interests in mind and is part of the problem of poorly recorded music. Bass heavy etc. Like they are impartial.
I’ve read all the anti-MQA articles and its really easy to point out the BS in most of them.
It’s odd how some people go on and on about MQA when it doesn’t affect them in the slightest and never will. If you don’t like it don’t use it. You can play an MQA file just fine without an MQA Dac.
3 Likes
I am listening to MQA albums with the Meridian today and they sound just fine, which is all that matters. I normally don’t read threads like this without first taking my blood pressure meds, but I felt adventurous today.
1 Like
Yeah…the meridian is my main dac but I also used a Brooklyn dac. I’ve done a lot of AB’ing between regular Tidal and MQA version of the same thing and also some downloads. In general the MQA version sounds cleaner and more detailed.
1 Like