Count Arthur
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2020
- Messages
- 2,230
- Likes
- 5,004
Last edited:
-
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!
An interesting talk about MQA
- Thread starter Count Arthur
- Start date
OP
Count Arthur
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2020
- Messages
- 2,230
- Likes
- 5,004
- Thread Starter
- #4
Reading the Linn artlicle: https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music, it suggests that MQA has much less to do with sound quality and assurance of quality and much more to do with rent seeking, forcing people throught the recording, distribution and playback, chain to purchase or licence hardware and or software in order to be compatible with the format.
Internet speeds are getting faster and cheaper and file storage costs lower, so the argument for compression and reduced file sizes makes ever less sense as time goes on.
I think I'll give it a miss.
Internet speeds are getting faster and cheaper and file storage costs lower, so the argument for compression and reduced file sizes makes ever less sense as time goes on.
I think I'll give it a miss.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2016
- Messages
- 790
- Likes
- 1,583
MQA is lossy compression indeed.
Kind of highres MP3
A good read: https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/
Kind of highres MP3
A good read: https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/
solderdude
Grand Contributor
Yep that should have said 100kHz.
OP
Count Arthur
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2020
- Messages
- 2,230
- Likes
- 5,004
- Thread Starter
- #8
An interesting point about "orphaned DRM". I recently tried to install some old software on my PC, but no joy. It included some "phone home" DRM, where it tries to connect to a server to be authenticated, however, that server was no longer there, so I'm locked out. I thought I'd bought this software, but apparently not, I was merely paying for the right to use it for some arbitrary period that wasn't specified when I paid my money.
In a world where planned obsolescence is a thing and products contain ever more complex combinations of hardware, software and firmware I think we need to force companies to either support products in perpetuity, or explicitly state how long they will last or be supported. Many industrial and computer hardware products have a MTBF (mean time before failure) rating, something similar for consumer products might reduce the amount of shoddy goods that come to market and quickly end up as landfill or "e-waste".
I work in IT, but wherever possible, I avoid "smart" and "connected" products, as the dumb versions will very likely outlast them and/or work more reliably in the first place.
Experiential: I bought a Project Pre Box S2 for my desktop in preference to other DAC/Amps in the same price range partly based on many positive reviews (not so much here) and partly because I was curious about MQA and wanted to experience it for myself.
The purchase has done two things: it has upgraded my desktop significantly. I think the Project's DAC section is fine for my desktop use although the amp section is weak just as the measurements indicate. Secondly, it has convinced me that should I opt to augment or replace my speaker based ("reference") system's DAC, MQA would not be a deciding factor in my purchase. I can't quantify any benefits through listening. In fact, nothing about MQA makes up for poor recording or mastering.
All in all, the MQA experience has left me unimpressed. I'm not even clear I can hear any important differences when I upsample standard 16 bit/44.1K files but that's another story. I can imagine I hear differences, though. Maybe that's enough reason for some people to invest in MQA or maybe they have better ears than I do and can simply hear things I can't. Either way, MQA is stricken from any future "must have" list. If it's included in a device I would otherwise select it wouldn't stop me from buying in, but it's not something that would make me buy a specific unit. I did that already with the Pre Box and don't need to do it again.
Lest this be seen as a pan of the Pre Box....it isn't. It's perfectly adequate to my needs though an upgraded amp section would be nice.
) and partly because I was curious about MQA and wanted to experience it for myself.The purchase has done two things: it has upgraded my desktop significantly. I think the Project's DAC section is fine for my desktop use although the amp section is weak just as the measurements indicate. Secondly, it has convinced me that should I opt to augment or replace my speaker based ("reference") system's DAC, MQA would not be a deciding factor in my purchase. I can't quantify any benefits through listening. In fact, nothing about MQA makes up for poor recording or mastering.
All in all, the MQA experience has left me unimpressed. I'm not even clear I can hear any important differences when I upsample standard 16 bit/44.1K files but that's another story. I can imagine I hear differences, though. Maybe that's enough reason for some people to invest in MQA or maybe they have better ears than I do and can simply hear things I can't. Either way, MQA is stricken from any future "must have" list. If it's included in a device I would otherwise select it wouldn't stop me from buying in, but it's not something that would make me buy a specific unit. I did that already with the Pre Box and don't need to do it again.
Lest this be seen as a pan of the Pre Box....it isn't. It's perfectly adequate to my needs though an upgraded amp section would be nice.
Last edited:
Software is almost always licensed so you buy a license. I have some pretty expensive SW that I can no longer use because I changed computers and my old DRM code is locked out by some server or the company is out of business. And a couple that I simply cannot find the original disc cover with the secret product code on it, blah.
BOB STUART AWARDED THE PRINCE PHILIP MEDAL BY ROYAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/news...aqTuytyGixd3aATilTB7LCae4BbvBpdpZyw7HZJoEtfRQ
Messala said it best, It goes on Judah, it goes on...
- Rich
https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/news...aqTuytyGixd3aATilTB7LCae4BbvBpdpZyw7HZJoEtfRQ
Messala said it best, It goes on Judah, it goes on...
- Rich
Last edited:
OP
Count Arthur
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2020
- Messages
- 2,230
- Likes
- 5,004
- Thread Starter
- #12
And the "Obscure reference to a 1950s movie" award goes to....
The whole thing about mqa is based upon the assumption that more bits and higher sample-rates than CD will result in better audio. Well, 24 bits will have lover noise floor than 16 bits, and higher sample-rates will make construction and implementation of filters easier. Maybe. But how many of you think noise floor is a problem when listening to CD music, and what is the point sending higher than 20 khz signals into the speakers? Do we really need better than CD at all?
Last edited:
A fair question. We certainly don't need what MQA is offering.
What's next, licensing for interconnect cables?
- Rich
Sgt. Ear Ache
Major Contributor
Since very very few people (as in almost nobody...and under real-world listening conditions, probably literally nobody) can actually hear a difference between lossless and 320kb mp3, no...we really don't need better than CD at all.
MQA got me started in higher res audio. I purchased a DAC that was MQA enabled and got a taste then purchased a much better DAC that was also MQA enabled then started downloading high res music files after auditioning them on Tidal. I can attest that non MQA downloads sound better than the same MQA Tidal tracks. So now if I find something I like on Tidal I’ll purchase the non MQA file from hdtracks or some of the other sites that offer high res audio. I have several duplicates now of 16 bit red book cds and 24 bit 92-356.2khz files and almost always the higher res files sound better. There are a few duds though.
Yes. But are they made from the same master? I think the best test is to downsample some high-res files to 16/44 and compare. Blind of course.
It doesn’t matter to me if they are the same master or not. If it sounds better I don’t care how they got there. It’s all about the music to me. Some high res absolutely doesn’t sound as good as the original cds.
It plays a very big role in relation to the question I asked, ie whether in the light of MQA there is a need for high-resolution audio files at all.
Last edited:
