Simple MQA poll.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

I just vaguely remember Chris saying it in a reply to someone and I had no reason to disbelieve it at the time.

There are obviously more site viewers than there are registered accounts. I assume there are cookies or something to track regular visitors that don't sign in.

[Spacehound]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

There are obviously more site viewers than there are registered accounts. I assume there are cookies or something to track regular visitors that don't sign in.

I use Adblock Plus and Ghostery. I'm not paranoid, I just like the pleasure  of trying  to piss off the gubmint and its assorted lackeys. It's why I bought a pay as you go phone with cash, top it up with cash,  only switch it on if I want to make a call,  and never use it anywhere near where I live

 

We used to make fake Greenpeace 'assemble at XYZ'  calls, hide in the 'hills', and watch the police wasting their time.

[Sonicularity]

I'm against MQA only because of the information I know about it right now.   I didn't initially start out against or for MQA, and my opinions could certainly change as more data is provided. 

[PunkRiot]

I voted for yes. I am not smart enough to predict future so I don't take into consideration long term impact of MQA. 

How I see it today: I would not buy MQA digital download, I see no reason to choose it over hi resolution PCM. I buy PCM. 

For streaming, I use Tidal. For some albums I have two options 16/44.1 FLAC or MQA. For headphones I have a DAC that supports MQA, so I use MQA. For loudspeakers system I use FLAC version. So far there was no situation that only MQA version is there. 

For me it is just another option in Tidal. Sometimes I use it, sometimes not.

 

When I see only MQA version of the album in Tidal and it won't play on my old multi-bit PCM1704 based DAC (for some reason) I will change my vote:).

[Spacehound]

53 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

I'm against MQA only because of the information I know about it right now.   I didn't initially start out against or for MQA, and my opinions could certainly change as more data is provided. 

I'm in their home country. The  names 'Meridian' and 'Stuart' put me off from day one.

[realhifi]

I wonder how a poll like this would look like if it was at another audio site. Or at a Hi-Fi show?

[manisandher]

Unfortunately, I can't vote:

 

- I'm very interested in exploring MQA's encode/decode process and the claimed improvement in temporal performance (at the cost of potential aliasing and imaging, the consequences of which are being massively over-blown IMO

- I have zero interest in MQA renderers and the MQA origami process

- I am actively against replacing redbook (and to a lesser extent hires, which hardly exists anyway) with MQA

 

All in all, I'd be content for MQA to remain a niche format for those who wanted to pursue it. But I doubt this would be enough of an incentive for the MQA ecosystem to develop much further.

 

Mani.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Voted: Against

 

Reason: Spencer Chrislu from MQA has stated unequivocally that MQA is marketed to the record labels as a way to "protect the crown jewels", and those "crown jewels" are high resolution PCM files.  Also, to date, I've not experienced myself, or heard anyone I trust proclaim that MQA is better than the PCM file it's sourced from.  Best case, "as good as".

 

MQA has not, as far as I can see, motivated the record labels to increase the sound quality of their digital masters.  Peak limiting and off the charts loudness still rule the day.

 

MQA is a scam and the professional audiophile pundit class (with a handful of exceptions) have utterly embraced it as the savior of audiophilia.  It's a classic Emperor's New Clothes story, and a teachable moment in consumerism IMHO.

[Melvin]

 

I voted against.

 

Unfortunately, it appears MQA is poised to become the standard “end to end” mastering/distribution scheme providing a near-perfect DRM structure for the record companies. I envision a future where all mastering is done with MQA encoding .. 1 master to rule them all .. there will be no need for the studios to distribute any other format. Efficient and protects their investment. Why wouldn’t they want this? 

 

Just think, there will soon be a market for “pre-MQA CDs” costing twice (if not more) than the price we pay now .. not that anyone still buys CDs .

 

[realhifi]

Evidently this poll has stalled.  It looks as though there is far less actively involved member base here than I thought there was. Interesting results but about exactly where I thought it would end up.  If in the future MQA becomes a standard for the music industry it will be interesting to revisit this and see how folks feel about it then. 

[realhifi]

23 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Reason: Spencer Chrislu from MQA has stated unequivocally that MQA is marketed to the record labels as a way to "protect the crown jewels", and those "crown jewels" are high resolution PCM files.

I can’t say I disagree with the recording companies wanting to protect their product.

[Spacehound]

16 minutes ago, realhifi said:

I can’t say I disagree with the recording companies wanting to protect their product.

How does selling a download of the crown jewels do any harm? Some do it already.

And a certain amount of trust is needed or the world stops.

 

As for pirates they would not buy it anyway, they don't pay for much music,  So what's lost?

[realhifi]

4 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

How does selling a download of the crown jewels do any harm? Some do it already.

And a certain amount of trust is needed or the world stops.

 

As for pirates they would not buy it anyway, they don't pay for much music,  So what's lost?

To be honest the cats out of the bag anyway. Once there is a 24/192 file of a recording out there then it’s pretty much “out” and can be copied and distributed freely as much as one wants. 

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

How does selling a download of the crown jewels do any harm? Some do it already.

And a certain amount of trust is needed or the world stops.

 

As for pirates they would not buy it anyway, they don't pay for much music,  So what's lost?

There are even studies suggesting that pirates actually spend, on average, more money on legitimate media purchases than non-pirates.

[Samuel T Cogley]

40 minutes ago, realhifi said:

I can’t say I disagree with the recording companies wanting to protect their product.

 

You'll forgive me if I don't embrace this as a reason to be enamored of MQA.

 

I don't want DRM, and there's no amount of lipstick that will make that pig pretty to me.

[Spacehound]

26 minutes ago, mansr said:

There are even studies suggesting that pirates actually spend, on average, more money on legitimate media purchases than non-pirates.

Maybe they are keener on music than we are 

[Spacehound]

31 minutes ago, realhifi said:

To be honest the cats out of the bag anyway. Once there is a 24/192 file of a recording out there then it’s pretty much “out” and can be copied and distributed freely as much as one wants. 

At IBM we put totally  spurious code in sometimes. When a rival  claimed they had not copied it but  'reverse engineered' it the court made them pay us lots of money 

[mansr]

Just now, Spacehound said:

At IBM we put totally  spurious code in sometimes. When a rival  claimed they had not copied it but  'reverse engineered' it the court made them pay us lots of money 

For the same reason, dictionaries sometimes contain one or two made-up words, and maps occasionally feature minor details clearly deviating from reality (hopefully in a harmless way).

[davide256]

If something isn't cut and dry for an improvement, it shouldn't be an industry standard. 

[beerandmusic]

I voted neutral....I will never use MQA, but i am not against it's advancement for anyone who cares...

 

I would "think" the only reason for anyone "against" it would be manufacturers where they don't care to support it, and that it may cost their bottom line.  Why else would anyone really be against it, if it doesn't affect them?

 

I am not against mqa anymore than i am against the manufacturing of cottage cheese....i will never eat it, but i could care less.

 

Thinking about it, I actually am against it, because it draws too much attention from this board (grin).

[botrytis]

36 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I voted neutral....I will never use MQA, but i am not against it's advancement for anyone who cares...

 

I would "think" the only reason for anyone "against" it would be manufacturers where they don't care to support it, and that it may cost their bottom line.  Why else would anyone really be against it, if it doesn't affect them?

 

I am not against mqa anymore than i am against the manufacturing of cottage cheese....i will never eat it, but i could care less.

 

Thinking about it, I actually am against it, because it draws too much attention from this board (grin).

 

The term 'Advancement' is not true, especially when the file is done from lossy compression. Now, if they were able to losslessly compress the file from 192/24 to say 48/17 - then that WOULD BE AN ADVANCEMENT.

 

Right now it not.

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, botrytis said:

 

The term 'Advancement' is not true, especially when the file is done from lossy compression. Now, if they were able to losslessly compress the file from 192/24 to say 48/17 - then that WOULD BE AN ADVANCEMENT.

 

Right now it not.

 

advancement in usage or popularity...e.g. for or against mqa.

 

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

 

advancement in usage or popularity...e.g. for or against mqa.

 

 

I think advancement in technology - but point taken 

[beerandmusic]

6 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

I think advancement in technology - but point taken 

I just meant "the movement"....like the "advancement of the avocado diet".

[botrytis]

6 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I just meant "the movement"....like the "advancement of the avocado diet".

 

I understood - no worries.