At last! Lenbrook Group unveils its plans for the future of MQA lossless streaming

[What Hi-Fi?]

The Lenbrook Media Group has unveiled its plans for MQA and the future of MQA Labs.

At last! Lenbrook Group unveils its plans for the future of MQA lossless streaming : Read more

 

[Friesiansam]

FLAC works very nicely thank-you so, why bother with MQA unless you use Tidal?

 

[crimson69666]

The Lenbrook Media Group has unveiled its plans for MQA and the future of MQA Labs.

At last! Lenbrook Group unveils its plans for the future of MQA lossless streaming : Read more

There's no such thing as "HiRes audio", having more bits per sample is just lowering the noise floor which is already well below human earing threshold using regular CD quality. As for using higher sampling rate, same applies. 44.1 Ks/s was problematic when CD came out because filtering was using very high order brickeall analog filter. It was resolved long time ago using ouversampling. This is basic undergrad knowledge for digital finit bandwidth signal theory, don't listen to peddlers...

As for MQA, it is trying to give another spin at their false claims, being a lossy and closed source / royalty "audio fool" codec... As for their (again false) claim to provide "better tool for encoding", that is complete BS... Huge majority of music is recorded digitally and we already have open source FLAC codec for lossless and high quality MP3 codec (LAME is very very good!).

Never forget the most important: Audio quality is a direct function of the quality of the recording process and mixing by a talented audio "engineer". The rest of the chain has very very low influence on the result...

 

[crimson69666]

...they want another spin at their false claims and get your money...

FLAC works very nicely thank-you so, why bother with MQA unless you use Tidal

 

[crimson69666]

There's no such thing as "HiRes audio", having more bits per sample is just lowering the noise floor which is already well below human earing threshold using regular CD quality. As for using higher sampling rate, same applies. 44.1 Ks/s was problematic when CD came out because filtering was using very high order brickeall analog filter. It was resolved long time ago using ouversampling. This is basic undergrad knowledge for digital finit bandwidth signal theory, don't listen to peddlers...

As for MQA, it is trying to give another spin at their false claims, being a lossy and closed source / royalty "audio fool" codec... As for their (again false) claim to provide "better tool for encoding", that is complete BS... Huge majority of music is recorded digitally and we already have open source FLAC codec for lossless and high quality MP3 codec (LAME is very very good!).

Never forget the most important: Audio quality is a direct function of the quality of the recording process and mixing by a talented audio "engineer". The rest of the chain has very very low influence on the result...

...and for analog, the digital media is superior, you only need a talented person using a good ADC. Again, there is so much falseness spread out by peddlers wanting you to think that analog is "superior" when it's all the opposite...

View: https://youtu.be/UqiBJbREUgU?si=4PEQFthrMgq-NGQm

 

[manicm]

FLAC works very nicely thank-you so, why bother with MQA unless you use Tidal?

Trouble is, with the absence of Qobuz in my region I do use Tidal, especially since it's cheaper and offers hires and Atmos too.

 

[Friesiansam]

Trouble is, with the absence of Qobuz in my region I do use Tidal, especially since it's cheaper and offers hires and Atmos too.

Qobuz suits me better but, I've never set out to criticise anyone for using Tidal.