MQA Discussion

[Still-One]

This is getting absurd. It seems everyone who gets behind MQA has an agenda and is only in it for the money while those who speak out against it are all unquestionable friggen geniuses (yes not the correct plural use).

[Antonmb]

Jim is right, it seems we're quick to cast aspersions on any "expert" who disagrees with our view. I have read reasoned arguments on both sides of this discussion, and read dismissals of other viewpoints on both sides as well. I respect the opinion of the Chesky brothers: they were the first ones to bring us hi res downloads and have produced many excellent-sounding recordings. I also respect the opinions of Linn, who produce excellent-sounding recordings and make equipment that sounds great and is based on transparent engineering principles. There are knowledgeable, experienced, intelligent, legitimate voices speaking out both in favor of, and questioning, MQA. However I also recognize that most of these voices on both sides of the issue have commercial interests at stake, and may be subject to some bias: so as Dan says, caveat emptor, on both sides of this discussion.

For me, there are a couple of factors to consider: One is that, while I was an early adopter when I was younger, I'm less interested in being one at this stage in my audio journey. I've seen enough new technologies over the years that started out as the next great thing only to be quickly surpassed or simply not succeed because they either weren't commercially viable or properly marketed, or turned out not to be everything they were hyped to be. So when Robert Harley or John Atkinson say something is the greatest audio innovation in the last however-many years, I'm a bit jaded and prefer to wait a bit to see how it plays out before committing. I'm pretty sure Julian Hirsch said the same sort of things about quadraphonic and Bob Carver's "sonic hologram."

The second factor is the attempt to insert MQA into the recording and production chain as some "authentication" process, with the ultimate implication that music that hasn't been processed by and brought to me under the auspices of MQA will somehow be inauthentic. So while I can see the benefit of MQA as a compression scheme for streaming hi res via Tidal, I really don't think I need MQA to tell me that, for example, music recorded in DSD and engineered, mastered and produced by and downloaded from Channel Classics is "authentic."

I use both Qobuz and Tidal, but primarily to preview potential purchases, as background music, or the occasional search on a whim for a song that's not in my library. For this type of streaming, 16/44 is more than good enough. For those for whom Tidal is a primary source of serious listening, it's wonderful news if MQA allows you to improve from 16 bit to 17 or 19 bits, or whatever you get when MQA uncompresses the "folded" 24 bit recording. While I haven't heard it myself, it seems logical that this would result in better sound, and I applaud it.

As for downloaded music, I am skeptical that adding another compression/decompression process - and everything I've read indicates this is compression, regardless of whether you cloak it in marketing terms like "folding" and "unfolding" - brings a benefit to already well-produced hi-res music. I will certainly listen for myself and try to be open-minded when I can find an opportunity to compare music sourced from the same master, but even if there is a gain, the music I hear now from good sources is already so good that I'm not sure any improvement less than jaw-dropping will outweigh for me the insertion of yet another profit-taker between me and the artist.

These are of course my personal opinions, and I apologize if they offend.

[jdandy]

Tony.......No need for apologies to anyone. .

[Douglas]

Tony...Spot-on! I agree 100% with your viewpoint.

[audio bill]

Nothing offensive about your post Tony, it's a very well thought out and objective overview of the situation. Thanks for sharing it with us!

[jdandy]

Here is an interesting article by Dr. Jim Lesurfs: MQA or “There and back again”

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/origa...reAndBack.html

[bart]

Originally Posted by jdandy

Tony.......No need for apologies to anyone. .

Indeed.
One of the best contributions to this thread.

[Antonmb]

Thanks Bart and Dan

Jim Lesurf's articles are among the more cogent and thorough explanations I've seen yet of what's going on with MQA. Very interesting reading, although some of it was well over my head.

[bart]

Originally Posted by Antonmb

Thanks Bart and Dan

Jim Lesurf's articles are among the more cogent and thorough explanations I've seen yet of what's going on with MQA. Very interesting reading, although some of it was well over my head.

Tony, don't worry, over mine too.

[BuffaloBill]

The article by Jim Lesurfs promotes a finding that MQA is about a problem that doesn't exists. He notes a previous fact that 24/192 doesn't contain any more useful audio information than 16/44.1 but it does contain more noise. As a result MQA is an attempt to stream 24/192 using less bandwidth but in the process offers less quality than 16/44.1.