MQA Discussion

[BuffaloBill]

Originally Posted by morfeeus

MQA is much more, being lossless compression. Just to clarify, MQA has far more benefits towards getting or retrieving far more details captured within the original studio recordings.

Based on what independent study? Maybe you could provide so we can compare the findings to those of John Siau and Andres Koch.

[Still-One]

Originally Posted by BuffaloBill

Based on what independent study? Maybe you could provide so we can compare the findings to those of John Siau and Andres Koch.

If you can't hear it, spend your money elsewhere. Just don't tell us we aren't hearing the improvement.

[nicoff]

Let's see... a company or a person puts their money and time in creating a product. They are able to patent it. Then they decide to market it. They manage to find companies willing to use the product. The product is then marketed to the consumer. The consumer (with his/her wallet) will determine if the product will be a success or a failure. If it is a success, someone may make a ton of money. If it fails, then someone may lose a lot of money. Isn't that the way free markets are supposed to work?

[Mike-48]

Originally Posted by nicoff

Let's see... a company or a person puts their money and time in creating a product. They are able to patent it. Then they decide to market it. They manage to find companies willing to use the product. The product is then marketed to the consumer. The consumer (with his/her wallet) will determine if the product will be a success or a failure. If it is a success, someone may make a ton of money. If it fails, then someone may lose a lot of money. Isn't that the way free markets are supposed to work?

If MQA were a drug, the mfgr would be required (in the USA) to prove efficacy and safety before selling it. My point? That the "free market" is a great way to make money, but is no guarantees that products have any intrinsic value. It sells instead what people can be made to want -- another example is rhino horn, or its modern equivalent, pills that purport to enlarge the penis.

Marketing is the art of inducing people to desire what they do not need, so that money can be made. It is not intrinsically bad, though I don't think much of it. Marketing is often used to sell useless products (e.g., audiophile Ethernet cables). Fortunately, we also have freedom of discussion, in which we can debate whether a marketed product has value other than making money for its originator.

The "free market" itself in my opinion has no goodness in the sense that ethics, kindness, or truthfulness do. It is an economic system that can benefit many. It has been shown to require various types of regulation to prevent scams, harmful products, and monopoly power.

[nicoff]

Originally Posted by Mike-48

If MQA were a drug, the mfgr would be required (in the USA) to prove efficacy and safety before selling it. My point? That the "free market" is a great way to make money, but is no guarantees that products have any intrinsic value. It sells instead what people can be made to want -- another example is rhino horn, or its modern equivalent, pills that purport to enlarge the penis.



Marketing is the art of inducing people to desire what they do not need, so that money can be made. It is not intrinsically bad, though I don't think much of it. Marketing is often used to sell useless products (e.g., audiophile Ethernet cables). Fortunately, we also have freedom of discussion, in which we can debate whether a marketed product has value other than making money for its originator.



The "free market" itself in my opinion has no goodness in the sense that ethics, kindness, or truthfulness do. It is an economic system that can benefit many. It has been shown to require various types of regulation to prevent scams, harmful products, and monopoly power.

MQA is not a drug.

[jdandy]

Originally Posted by nicoff

MQA is not a drug.

nicoff.......Are you sure? .

[James Tanner - Bryston]

Hi Guys

This has been a great discussion - a little humour - a little satire - a little preaching - a little ridicule and lots of great info.

james

[nicoff]

Originally Posted by jdandy

nicoff.......Are you sure? .

I'm not sure anymore [emoji848] time for another pill!

[gbaby]

Originally Posted by James Tanner - Bryston

Hi Guys

This has been a great discussion - a little humour - a little satire - a little preaching - a little ridicule and lots of great info.

james

From this discussion, I"d say, keep my music unadulterated.

[Sea music]

I thought I would share my MQA experience. First the equipment. Bluesound
that can decode my Tidal to 96kHz. My N100H Aurender that is not MQA compatible as of yet, but still plays at 48kHz when Master is selected on tidal.
And my Mcintosh Mct 450 playing red book cd's not Sacd. Why not Sacd?
Because I simply did not have one to match up with the Tidal Masters selection.

I used Natalie Merchant "Tigerlilly" MoFi gold cd. This is an excellent recording,
and sounds as good as most Sacd's that I own. First up is the Aurender against
the Mct 450. In the past I have not heard much difference between the two when both playing 44kHz sources. With the Master at 48kHz I definitely prefer
the Aurender. Second I compared the Bluesound at 96kHz against N100H playing
at 48kHz. I would say it was a tie. That in itself is amazing because they are not
that close when both playing 44kHz. The Aurender is clearly better.

What did I hear? More pronounced bass but still very clear. More detail. What
I came away with is how much I like the Aurender and its sound. And that
with Tidal Master and a relatively inexpensive Bluesound you can achieve very
good sound. All equipment was playing through a Mcintosh C2600 preamp.
Hopefully Mcintosh will release an MQA update for my very new C2600. I don't
see Aurender doing it for my N100H as they already have the A10 out.