MQA: Yes or No?

[sphinxsix]

'Stereophile's AXPONA 2017 poll.

Don't want to comment on it, just check it out, guys.

 

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-yes-or-no-axpona-2017-poll#yDyYCb4EuSK2Ok52.97

 

[witchdoctor]

The majority of people asked didn't want to answer. They could have inserted didn't care.

[realhifi]

Nicely done.  Polarizing yes.  It pretty much went as I would have thought as to who was for it and who was not.

I wasn't surprised by any of the comments. 

[mrvco]

Has John Atkinson made his special MQA files publicly available?

 

Regardless, nothing surprising.  MQA is both subtle and polarizing.  A combination that is fine for cables and tweaks, but not for actual content.

[crenca]

Here are the demographics of those on camera:

 

Industry Insiders:  19

 

Consumers:           2

 

As usual per the "audiophile press" (in this case Stereophile) , This is simply the industry talking about itself to itself and something selfish...  

[realhifi]

I didn't get that impression at all. Seemed like there were both sides of the "argument" represented in the video. 

[mrvco]

Watching that video and I could be completely misreading it, I get the impression that the jury is clearly still out on MQA (MQA media events notwithstanding).  I do agree with the Roon guy to some extent that if you can get 24/96 content via MQA from Tidal without paying more, then why not (especially if Tidal maintains the non-MQA lossless versions)?  But the direct comparison that I'm most interested in from the "golden ears" in the "audiophile press" is between 24/96 MQA content and native 24/96 FLAC content for like-for-like releases.