MQA: Why We Should Resist It

[For The Love of Music]

Some lose there, others gain here; at the end of the day, its life.

I enjoy my serving of MQA with no regrets and little investment.

[JBT]

MQA is Bad For Music


https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music

[SCAudiophile]

Originally Posted by JBT

MQA is Bad For Music


https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music

Whether you agree with the conclusions ir not, this is well written IMHO...

[W9TR]

An interesting article, well written. There were two big premises in the article.

1. Streaming is bad for music.
2. Proprietary formats are bad for music.

Let me unpack both of these arguments.

1. Streaming is here to stay and labels and artists are adapting. It has nothing to with MQA.

2. Proprietary formats are standard in the industry.

There is an exact corollary in the movie industry where Dolby and DTS have similar business models and extract similar royalties from every step in the supply chain. Everything in gear systems is proprietary.

They even watermark content like MQA does.

Another corollary is the Compact Disc. On introduction, the CD was a proprietary format owned and operated by Sony and Phillips. They controlled the production equipment and thus the path to market. You had to use their licensed mastering encoders and licensed disc production facilities. They controlled the brand licensing of playback equipment.

SACD is another totally proprietary format loved by audiophiles worldwide. It remains totally proprietary today. You couple argue this has stunted its growth. I’d respond that for the vast majority of consumers, it solves a problem they don’t have.

If you believe (or more likely just don’t notice or care) that Dolby is fine for movies, then why is MQA bad for music?

[JBT]

Linn does build streamers so I didn't get the idea the author is saying streaming is bad

[FreddieFerric]

Originally Posted by W9TR

An interesting article, well written. There were two big premises in the article.

1. Streaming is bad for music.
2. Proprietary formats are bad for music.

Let me unpack both of these arguments.

1. Streaming is here to stay and labels and artists are adapting. It has nothing to with MQA.

2. Proprietary formats are standard in the industry.

There is an exact corollary in the movie industry where Dolby and DTS have similar business models and extract similar royalties from every step in the supply chain. Everything in gear systems is proprietary.

They even watermark content like MQA does.

Another corollary is the Compact Disc. On introduction, the CD was a proprietary format owned and operated by Sony and Phillips. They controlled the production equipment and thus the path to market. You had to use their licensed mastering encoders and licensed disc production facilities. They controlled the brand licensing of playback equipment.

SACD is another totally proprietary format loved by audiophiles worldwide. It remains totally proprietary today. You couple argue this has stunted its growth. I’d respond that for the vast majority of consumers, it solves a problem they don’t have.

If you believe (or more likely just don’t notice or care) that Dolby is fine for movies, then why is MQA bad for music?

Just a point of clarification. The article says MQA is bad for music, it doesn’t say “Streaming” is bad for music.

[j3brow]

Originally Posted by W9TR

An interesting article, well written. There were two big premises in the article.

1. Streaming is bad for music.
2. Proprietary formats are bad for music.

Let me unpack both of these arguments.

1. Streaming is here to stay and labels and artists are adapting. It has nothing to with MQA.

2. Proprietary formats are standard in the industry.

There is an exact corollary in the movie industry where Dolby and DTS have similar business models and extract similar royalties from every step in the supply chain. Everything in gear systems is proprietary.

They even watermark content like MQA does.

Another corollary is the Compact Disc. On introduction, the CD was a proprietary format owned and operated by Sony and Phillips. They controlled the production equipment and thus the path to market. You had to use their licensed mastering encoders and licensed disc production facilities. They controlled the brand licensing of playback equipment.

SACD is another totally proprietary format loved by audiophiles worldwide. It remains totally proprietary today. You couple argue this has stunted its growth. I’d respond that for the vast majority of consumers, it solves a problem they don’t have.

If you believe (or more likely just don’t notice or care) that Dolby is fine for movies, then why is MQA bad for music?

All excellent points.

[1KW]

Originally Posted by j3brow

All excellent points.

+2

[JBT]

MQA: Archimago Adds a “Final” Nail to the Coffin!



http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6109

[Doug Lax]

I can say that I can tell a difference with my blue sound node on about 75% of the MQA tittles
. It is subtle but there seems to be more air and slighty less grain to the sound