MQA losing favour?

[Al ears]

An interesting article about hiresaudio and MQA files.

http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/highresaudio-to-stop-offering-mqa/?utm_source=Default+Hi-Fi%2B+List&utm_campaign=4dc42b8f8f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_14&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ff6dfd0295-4dc42b8f8f-163367665

Sorry but cannot seem to create a link on this device.

 

[insider9]

An interesting article about hiresaudio and MQA files.

http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/highresaudio-to-stop-offering-mqa/?utm_...

Sorry but cannot seem to create a link on this device.

This should work

 

[Al ears]

An interesting article about hiresaudio and MQA files.

http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/highresaudio-to-stop-offering-mqa/?utm_...

Sorry but cannot seem to create a link on this device.

This should work

Excellent work sir, my thanks.

 

[manicm]

This is old old news. And with conflicting reports from the HighResAudio owner too. MQA is still available to download on the site. And apparently he has changed his tune, pun intended - well he would like really really really authenticated MQA. Apparently some MQA albums are not authenticated enough i.e. he doubts if some were sourced from the masters. Wrongly or not, he's questioning what MQA is supposed to deliver.

Frankly this debacle is getting tiresome, and I don't believe he's doing his business any favours. Offer MQA or not, otherwise shut the trap.

 

[Frank Harvey]

In the comments below the article, from an MQA spokesman:

"The technical claims presented by HIGHRESAUDIO are fundamentally incorrect and ill-informed. These assertions are consistent with the few we have seen from others who are uncomfortable with the concept of studio quality audio that is convenient for all."

Who knows who is right? Until there's some solid facts, no one will know. Even when there are, positive or negative, it's down to our own ears as to what sound good or better.

 

[shadders]

In the comments below the article, from an MQA spokesman:

"The technical claims presented by HIGHRESAUDIO are fundamentally incorrect and ill-informed. These assertions are consistent with the few we have seen from others who are uncomfortable with the concept of studio quality audio that is convenient for all."

Who knows who is right? Until there's some solid facts, no one will know. Even when there are, positive or negative, it's down to our own ears as to what sound good or better.

Hi,

My interpretation is that the response from the MQA spokesperson does not answer the statements by the highresaudio person. All they state is that it is incorrect. Which points are incorrect ?

The answers on the computer audio website have the same approach - which is that assertions of the benefit of MQA have not been proven, and DSP analysis can be shown to support your assertions, although we still do not know how the system works.

It is as if they are saying, it is better because we say it is, and don't ask questions as we will not be providing a description on how it works, and you have to trust us on the critical aspects. It is a closed/secret system in parts, so you will never be able to decode MQA unless you sign the NDA and pay us.

If you look at nearly every standard adopted for audio - it is an open standard - and no NDA is required. Dolby and DTS require an NDA.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Frank Harvey]

At this stage, we don't know if there's anything going on behind the scenes - for all we know, sales of MQA might be threatening the sales of whatever product it is they make the most money out of.

 

[manicm]

As I said, HighResAudio, otherwise an excellent site, are confused. I emailed them in Feb and they replied back saying they would remove MQA in March. Well they're still selling MQA.

Either sell or don't, but cut out the cr@p. You're not doing your customers any favours by amateurism.

 

[audiventory]

The answers on the computer audio website have the same approach - which is that assertions of the benefit of MQA have not been proven, and DSP analysis can be shown to support your assertions, although we still do not know how the system works.

I alway thinks what MQA is simple compression format.

For me alway was strange claims about «sound improvement» compressed/uncompressed audio comparing original PCM.

If look to 2L.no samples, MQA cause better compression than FLAC. The samples may be considered as proof of compression.