People wanna argue or debate about nothing,if you don't like it don't listen to it,if you do listen to it,i don't like Apple but i don't knock em either.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
MQA Sounds Really Good!
- Thread starter watchnerd
- Start date
- Status
dkinric
Addicted to Fun and Learning
If only it were that simple. The concern is that if MQA takes off, under the false pretense of better SQ, we could all get stuck in that ecosystem, paying more for music and more for equipment for a lesser, prioprietary format. Licensing fees could make everyone pay more, lining the pockets of Meridian/MQA for exaggerated or even false benefits to the end consumer. There are real risks for ignoring it.
MQA is nothing new. It's basically a new version of the failed HDCD. A 24bit 48kHz MQA-encoded FLAC file is essentially a 17bit/48KHz losses file plus 8 extra bits of lossy compression which contain the extra spectrum. When no MQA decoding is used during playback, then these 7 bits serve as high-frequency noise, which represents added dither noise. When MQA decoding is used during playback, then these 8 extra bits are used for the unfolding process, revealing the extra spectral data of the full 192kHz original master, which is then merged into the final audio stream.
Does it really work? According to many measurements and tests, not really. It does slightly extend the frequency response, but it is still, not the real deal of true 192kHz sampling.
Does it really work? According to many measurements and tests, not really. It does slightly extend the frequency response, but it is still, not the real deal of true 192kHz sampling.
You seem to miss the big picture. The intent of Meridian and the record labels supporting it, is to replace the distribution of lossless HiRez and even Redbook files with the lossy MQA stream. Make no mistake about it, MQA is lossy, it may sound different or even better to you but then it does not sound like the master that the producers and engineers approved. The record labels have been upset since the original digital music began to be distributed. They tried a number of schemes to lock down the files with things like DRM, etc but pandoras; box had already been opened. Then along comes MQA and the music industry started applauding like trained seals. Finally they saw a way to protect their Crown Jewels and stop the lossless distrobution of the master files, get all the bought and paid for mouthpieces of the industry to claim MQA provided smaller files and better sound all from one genius piece of coding.
It's mostly all BS people, just another attempt to steal your access to lossless digital music.
Bend over at take it if you like.
As for me I will continue to fight against the juggernaut of backwards progress in home music reproduction.
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
It won't happen. MQA is dead in the water in my opinion. And if it isn't, get the BB63 (Mighty Mo) out of retirement, re-fit her, and put a full salvo of 16" shells on the waterline of the good ship MQA and send it to the depths of the ocean.
I'm ready. 
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
That's just your varmint gun isn't it Sal? Entry level garden defense.
Now... I looked at the site and it jogged my memory. I thought the rationale was to pack CD/HiRes files into a more compact package for streaming. Looks from the chart the goal was accomplished.
Is my memory accurate on this?
dieselmilk
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2020
- Messages
- 39
- Likes
- 34
It can do this, yes. But you can also spend a little to up your internet speed vs. buy an external DAC that is licensed to fully unpack the pseudo-DRM that is MQA.
Yes and no. One of their sales pitches is that MQA reduces the bandwidth. The reality is that it doesn't actually do that. MQA does not save bandwidth compared to plain FLAC at the same quality.
I recently read an article (some engineering rag, cannot recall which one) discussing MQA's bandwidth vs. MPEG, FLAC, AAC3, couple of other (not my field). The conclusion was the bandwidth reduction compared to non-lossy compression (e.g. FLAC) was negligible or even went the other way in one of the tests. All I could think of was an old Consumer Reports article on toothpaste that noted the claims on the tubes about being "XXX better than brushing alone" were strictly true -- they were comparing using toothpaste to brushing with just water, not to any other toothpaste or even old-time methods like using baking soda or whatever. So MQA may save a lot compared to no compression at all and that's a valid claim, but less so compared to other compression formats. That said, I don't really remember the article, so may be wrong or they may not have conducted a proper test.
Dude I still have 8 tracks ,vinyl ,cassettes ,cd's and music of all formats and bitrates ,I have amps ,instruments,midi,computer music software,and I don't call myself a audiophile i just like music,shoot a friend of mine still has his reel to reel and a massive album collection.
"As for me I will continue to fight against the juggernaut of backwards progress in home music reproduction." SAL1950 Post
Add my name to that list Sal...and...just curious...any of you ever hear LIVE music....i.e. no microphones--speakers---cables---mixing boards...Still possible...Carnegie Hall...Metropolitan opera...David Geffen Hall aka Philharmonic Hall @ Lincoln Center?? Just wondering
Add my name to that list Sal...and...just curious...any of you ever hear LIVE music....i.e. no microphones--speakers---cables---mixing boards...Still possible...Carnegie Hall...Metropolitan opera...David Geffen Hall aka Philharmonic Hall @ Lincoln Center?? Just wondering
My living room.
All the time, though realize a lot of venues these days (and for many decades) include sound reinforcement. Electronics can enhance a live performance, not sure everybody wants to limit their "live" performance listening to purely acoustic with no sound reinforcement. My wife and I are both amateur musicians (she on keyboard/piano/organ, me on trumpet/cornet/flugelhorn) who have also played professionally though music is not our day jobs. I've performed enough, and attended enough concerts, that I have no problem with the fact the the home reproduction experience is not the same as a live performance. Many times it is (much) better at home though you don't always get the same emotional connection with the performers.
When sound reinforcement is done well, it can sound stunningly good. I attended a classical performance recently where there must have been reinforcement, but it sounded for the world like there wasn’t. I wasn’t listening to speakers disconnected from the performers, I was hearing the orchestra from where they were seated.
For many, reproducing the sound of a live performance means reproducing the sound of the sound system in the venue. For those who don’t hear unamplified music, I think it has more to do with a sense of a large, reverberant space than the natural sound of the voices and instruments.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2019
- Messages
- 3,843
- Likes
- 3,791
The real intent of Meridian and the record labels supporting it, is to lock up music with DRM. Want to play the music you paid for in your car? Pay more.
Want to play the music you paid for while out walking? Pay more.
Want to play the music you paid for in kitchen, even? Pay more.
Want to play the music you paid for while out walking? Pay more.
Want to play the music you paid for in kitchen, even? Pay more.
- Status
Similar threads
