I’m all for recycling and it seams so are MQA with their marketing.
Environmentally friendly? Boy that’s a whole new desperate reach for Bob and company. He must have forgot they promote the need for new electronics to get the full MQA upsampling experience.
I don’t think anything Bob, MQA or anyone else says will change the sceptics mind. That’s ok, by the way as ‘a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still’.
Especially if they haven’t taken the trouble to listen to full MQA in more than a quick sound bite.
I know, some have, some haven’t… but I’d sooner the kids heard MQA than MP3 for sure and us grown ups can choose for ourselves. MQA isn’t about to rule the world, it’s an option. I’m lovin’ it… 
Sure, you’ll have to a little more explicit, I can’t read your mind and you’re not making any sense.
Oh dear…Tell me how you demonstrate nothing happening, surely it’s self evident unless something is happening. Have you had a long day?
This.
I took the time to read the material on Stuart’s blog. Really disappointing, to be honest. I want to believe that the digital process can be improved, but the blog is nothing more than innuendo and eye-swirling jargon.
And the industry press isn’t helping: that post comparing SACD to MQA CD was classic subjectivist commentary.
While I understand the importance of bandwidth savings, the MQA team cannot produce results from a formal listening test to back their claims of a better listening experience. So, for me, PCM is all I need.
So, today I start the process of moving my streaming collection from TIDAL to Qobuz to save the $$$.
Perhaps you are right, but maybe they are competing against the more prolific marketing for “High-Resolution” audio. You see the black/gold HR labels everywhere now as if the device/format will bring the best audio possible. I think the chances of getting better sounding music are higher with an MQA label than a High-Resolution label.
Please don’t extrapolate what I’m saying…I’m only talking about the label which is the most visible aspect of a brand/marketing. I’m not saying MQA by its very nature will offer a better sound experience than a “high resolution” PCM. I’ve always noted mastering techniques, speaker/headphone performance, etc. will always have a greater effect.
Because they can afford the extra bandwidth? Because they can get more music on their device? Or because they have a meridian system with commuter correction in their pocket?
They definitely can’t hear the difference with air-pods and the 10 snapchat notifications going off a minute.
No that’s really only in the hands of the individual engineers and artists. Well mastered and engineered music sounds fabulous @ 16/44.1.
I think this is a fair statement because they are offering what I believe is an incontrovertible statement. “Perspective” is conceptual, and the concept they advocate is
‘High Resolution’ has incorrectly become associated with recordings that use higher-than-CD data rates (i.e. PCM sampled higher than 44.1 kHz or using more than 16 bits). These simplistic definitions are stuck in the digital domain and tell us nothing about resolution in sound – it only tells us the size of the digital ‘container’ used to distribute information. For human listeners, ‘Resolution’ means to ‘Resolve’ or ‘Separate’ individual details or elements. For sound, this happens in the time domain and it follows that ‘Resolution’ must be defined in analog (since we listen to sound on air) – after that it’s ok to consider how any recording or distribution method compares.
We can debate whether MQA achieves any improvements over existing methods but I don’t think this perspective is debatable.
This is the picking apart and extrapolation I was hoping wouldn’t happen. I noted in my post that mastering and engineering trumps format and yet you answer as if I did not understand that. My point was just considering the label and nothing else.
Ok then, no an MQA label won’t result in better sounding music as they take the hard work of the engineers and DSP it to prevent the best quality from getting in the hands of the consumer.
Nothing MQA does can be considered fixing the sound quality of hi-res source content.
High Resolution’ has incorrectly become associated with recordings that use higher-than-CD data rates (i.e. PCM sampled higher than 44.1 kHz or using more than 16 bits). These simplistic definitions are stuck in the digital domain and tell us nothing about resolution in sound – it only tells us the size of the digital ‘container’ used to distribute information.
This is a prime example of what I was talking about. Redefining well defined terms. High resolution is well understood as a digital term. It is simple, not simplistic. Adding additional criteria serves only to obfuscate. The purpose here is not to communicate, but to mesmerise.
Exactly. In that respect the statement “High resolution is an experience, not a specification” is as laughable as it is desperate. Dangerous but oh so convenient relativism.
I do agree they aim to use these concepts to prop-up their product…but every company does this.
Don’t you think the term “high-resolution” while you and I understand it to be simply about digital sampling will convey more than that to the general consumer? Do you not agree that companies use this as a marketing label to imply their product will sound better? That is, the implication is that it stands for more than just digital sampling…
Thanks, but I also didn’t say there was cause and effect here. I didn’t say: “MQA makes sound quality better” or “MQA will result in better sounding music”. What I said was that if you just go by the label, it is more likely you will find good sound with an MQA label than a “High-Res Audio” label. Why? Because my experience shows that most MQA releases are good masters whereas many “High-Res” tracks aren’t. I’ve been disappointed by more “High-Res” albums than MQA. Again, I’m not suggesting MQA is inherently better than high-res PCM. I’m only commenting on the marketing and suggesting that “High-Res Audio” is just as pernicious of a branding effort, if not more, than MQA.
Giving examples of “other dangerous monopolistic threats” that aren’t opposed is emphatically not this. Please, do tell what dangerous unopposed threats you had in mind.
You were saying that consumers should make the choice not to consume monopolistic goods, @anon72719171…
This is an interesting and different discussion to the usual MQA discussion.
Is it well understood as a digital term? Or marketing term?
I hate it when people ‘reference’ Wiki but here goes 
Are you saying the studios have been holding back the good masters just in case MQA processing came along one day?
No, I’m saying plenty of bad masters have been released as “High-Res.” Also, plenty of lame audio products include the label.
monopolistic harvesting and use of data? The relentless buying out of competitors (Alphabet et al) and various forms of monopolistic behaviour, news barons influence of public debate, global warming.
If you don’t like MQA, don’t buy it
That’s fine until that’s all there is. Which is their goal.
