• If you ever spot Spam (either in the forums, or received via forum direct message) please use the Report button at the bottom of each post to make sure a Moderator can handle it quickly. Thanks for your help in keeping things running smoothly!

Why We Don’t Need MQA

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

Frank Harvey

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
0
18,890
Al ears said:
I am not sure if that is even possible when it comes to older recordings. Who's master? and do you definitely want it when some later re-masters are miles better.
I would expect many of the masters currently being used are copies of the original, which have been remastered by him or her, so the record company should have the originals to provide certified, untouched MQA masters.
 

manicm

Well-known member
May 1, 2008
562
42
18,920
shadders said:
manicm said:
From what I've seen at 2L, MQA is a pound more expensive than 24/192 for premium albums at 16 quid. What's a pound between friends I say.

But for your major labels - they're still greedy thieves who see the consumer as criminals. For example - why the hell do we even have a disc format for 4K when USB/hard drive would have been a probably superior solution? Because like record labels, comsumer convenience be damned for all eternity.

4K disc sales are going to bomb. Likewise there are increasingly conflicting reports of whether Tidal is in the red or not. If high-res streaming fails one of two things will happen:

1. MQA will bomb, or

2. Labels will come to their senses and offer downloads.
Hi,

The reason for my post was that it has been indicated in the comments and other forums of CD's being MQA encoded.

This would NOT be of any benefit to the majority of people if that is all that the record labels offered.

We require that MQA is restricted to downloads only - as it is really an enthusiasts format.

Someone earlier stated that the format for MQA be forced upon everyone to move LPCM CD to MQA CD - so we only have the option of MQA CD's.

Since MQA by its very construction is reportedly high resolution, then every CD is automatically high resolution, whether you want it or not.

All that is required is a DAC to decode.

The issue is, record labels will not give away a high resolution recording for CD prices. MQA is already £1 more than the best Linear PCM high resolution download. Thus, forcing people to MQA CD's will increase the prices of CD's significantly. Assume £9.99 for a new released CD - this will be a 60% increase to £16.00 as per downloads.

I think that record labels must provide the options - whether download or physical - MQA and non MQA recordings must always be available.

Regards,

Shadders.
MQA is being sold as a high res format, if fulll decoding is available. On that premise I don't mind paying a quid more. You're comparing MQA prices to CD prices when you should be comparing hires prices to MQA prices.

I don't ever see MQA CDs being sold, or corresponding CD players being made - what's the point?
 

Al ears

Moderator
manicm said:
shadders said:
manicm said:
From what I've seen at 2L, MQA is a pound more expensive than 24/192 for premium albums at 16 quid. What's a pound between friends I say.

But for your major labels - they're still greedy thieves who see the consumer as criminals. For example - why the hell do we even have a disc format for 4K when USB/hard drive would have been a probably superior solution? Because like record labels, comsumer convenience be damned for all eternity.

4K disc sales are going to bomb. Likewise there are increasingly conflicting reports of whether Tidal is in the red or not. If high-res streaming fails one of two things will happen:

1. MQA will bomb, or

2. Labels will come to their senses and offer downloads.
Hi,

The reason for my post was that it has been indicated in the comments and other forums of CD's being MQA encoded.

This would NOT be of any benefit to the majority of people if that is all that the record labels offered.

We require that MQA is restricted to downloads only - as it is really an enthusiasts format.

Someone earlier stated that the format for MQA be forced upon everyone to move LPCM CD to MQA CD - so we only have the option of MQA CD's.

Since MQA by its very construction is reportedly high resolution, then every CD is automatically high resolution, whether you want it or not.

All that is required is a DAC to decode.

The issue is, record labels will not give away a high resolution recording for CD prices. MQA is already £1 more than the best Linear PCM high resolution download. Thus, forcing people to MQA CD's will increase the prices of CD's significantly. Assume £9.99 for a new released CD - this will be a 60% increase to £16.00 as per downloads.

I think that record labels must provide the options - whether download or physical - MQA and non MQA recordings must always be available.

Regards,

Shadders.
MQA is being sold as a high res format, if fulll decoding is available. On that premise I don't mind paying a quid more. You're comparing MQA prices to CD prices when you should be comparing hires prices to MQA prices.

I don't ever see MQA CDs being sold, or corresponding CD players being made - what's the point?
There isn't any and it's the first I have heard of the MQA format being used for anything other than a download or streaming. I think this could be erroneous.

MQA will only ever taken off as a streaming format in my opinion.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
92
47
18,570
Al ears said:
manicm said:
shadders said:
manicm said:
From what I've seen at 2L, MQA is a pound more expensive than 24/192 for premium albums at 16 quid. What's a pound between friends I say.

But for your major labels - they're still greedy thieves who see the consumer as criminals. For example - why the hell do we even have a disc format for 4K when USB/hard drive would have been a probably superior solution? Because like record labels, comsumer convenience be damned for all eternity.

4K disc sales are going to bomb. Likewise there are increasingly conflicting reports of whether Tidal is in the red or not. If high-res streaming fails one of two things will happen:

1. MQA will bomb, or

2. Labels will come to their senses and offer downloads.
Hi,

The reason for my post was that it has been indicated in the comments and other forums of CD's being MQA encoded.

This would NOT be of any benefit to the majority of people if that is all that the record labels offered.

We require that MQA is restricted to downloads only - as it is really an enthusiasts format.

Someone earlier stated that the format for MQA be forced upon everyone to move LPCM CD to MQA CD - so we only have the option of MQA CD's.

Since MQA by its very construction is reportedly high resolution, then every CD is automatically high resolution, whether you want it or not.

All that is required is a DAC to decode.

The issue is, record labels will not give away a high resolution recording for CD prices. MQA is already £1 more than the best Linear PCM high resolution download. Thus, forcing people to MQA CD's will increase the prices of CD's significantly. Assume £9.99 for a new released CD - this will be a 60% increase to £16.00 as per downloads.

I think that record labels must provide the options - whether download or physical - MQA and non MQA recordings must always be available.

Regards,

Shadders.
MQA is being sold as a high res format, if fulll decoding is available. On that premise I don't mind paying a quid more. You're comparing MQA prices to CD prices when you should be comparing hires prices to MQA prices.

I don't ever see MQA CDs being sold, or corresponding CD players being made - what's the point?
There isn't any and it's the first I have heard of the MQA format being used for anything other than a download or streaming. I think this could be erroneous.

MQA will only ever taken off as a streaming format in my opinion.
Hi,

Earlier in the thread, someone stated that CD in the current form should be deprecated, and only MQA CD's be available. The quotation is my response to that statement.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

Al ears

Moderator
audiventory said:
Al ears said:
MQA will only ever taken off as a streaming format in my opinion.
MQA may used in mobile devices for saving space (comparing FLAC).
Pointless, unless you care talking about something like a mobile phone with limited storage capacity. The low cost of storage these days mean file size becomes less important and the economics of buying more storage rather than paying out for yet another (MQA enabled) device is sound economics.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts