MQA now in administration

Mike in NY said:
MQA was declared insolvent on April 3rd. The high court appointed two administrators who have 8 weeks to submit a plan to creditors.

Partners should really think hard about cutting bait, no reason for a company like WiiM to spend another dime/minute on developing anything more for MQA playback at this juncture.
Click to expand...
No surprise. It's BS.
 
Skye said:
believe everything you read online
Click to expand...

Pot calling the kettle black? The bulk of the audio trade press have misinformed their readers on MQA. Their clients are actually the advertisers and not the readers, they make their money from advertising in the publications (including online), their stance on MQA therefore needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Take a strong look at the verified evidence surrounding MQA, including the McGill University blind listening study, given you are so willing to play the "MQA sounds fabulous" subjective card.

Don't worry man, MQA is vanishing from TIDAL very quickly, it won't take much longer for it to fade from memory entirely unless the Lenbrook business development folks are proficient in performing miracles.
 
Brantome said:
Well, here’s something you read on the internet which I agree with due to the pedigree and reputation of the company who penned it

MQA is Bad For Music. Here's Why. | Linn UK

www.linn.co.uk www.linn.co.uk
Click to expand...
The article, points the problems that afflicted MQA since beginning. They aren't on technical side but on the commercial and presentation one. They claimed was an esoteric and mysterious way to get miracles.
In reality it's a very effective way to get practically same reproduction results of hi-res sources at half size and bitrate. At presentation time it made sense.
MQA is not bit perfect compared to original file but it's not lossy in the way usually we think about mp3 or related.
MQA takes some of less and unused significant bits of signal, those lying in the obscure depth of 24bit and use them to carry ultrasonic info of original sampled signal. Consider that those info, are wery few even in 192khz standard hi-res flac. This ultrasonic part is the only really lossy compressed in traditional terms, while the sonic (and audible) part of signal loses some not significant bits that usually lie at the background noise.
Over this process there are a list of self claiming "miracle upsampling processes" that contribuited, with royalties fees, in the bad name of system.
A other "commercial" aspect, was the licensed D/A process, that following the thinking of MQA creators, being the same for everyone regardless the DAC used, gives reference results.
All those aspect are obviously "opinabile" and surely non sense when the files carrying MQA are 44.1 16bit, instead of 48 24bit, just to light some little bulbs.
MQA was not evil, it was just bad depicted...
 
merifon said:
MQA was not evil, it was just bad depicted...
Click to expand...
Setting aside the questionable apects of the commercial side of the process; MQA was the solution to a problem that no longer exists.

To suggest that it sounded in some way better than say flac, is misguided imho.
 
I am amused by how worked up some people get over MQA.
 
DRC said:
I am amused by how worked up some people get over MQA.
Click to expand...
I can fully understand this "some people". MQA and its promises was the biggest nonsense, fraud, hoax...name it. Personally I felt simply pranked.
What I can not understand is that "some people" still believing and defending this bs. "Better than FLAC. Sounds different. More details."
With the knowledge of today there is no, absolute no reason for this. If Tidal gets some day hopefully totally rid of it I would name it not progress, I name it correcting.
 
Just to be clear, I'm not a fan of mqa and have always wished I didn't have to go through it. Unfortunately Tidal had the interface I preferred and I'm happy that now, hi-res flac has taken its place. I believe that the wrong way in which it was presented and the insistence on attributing miracles to it (for a fee), triggered a negative reaction from critics who superficially did not consider its actual characteristics. In any case, the reasons that could justify the use, I believe, are generally outdated.
 
In a similar vein, many years ago when CD's were all the rage, some discovered using a green magic marker around the edge of the disc improved the sound of aforsaid digital recording. Forums debated the colour of the marker, the shade of the marker, the colour of the laser in the player, it got ridiculous. All this for squeezing more frequency out of a mass produced recording. It all comes down to if you the listener can actually discern that difference. Im just glad i can still hear.
 
WiimNoob said:
In a similar vein, many years ago when CD's were all the rage, some discovered using a green magic marker around the edge of the disc improved the sound of aforsaid digital recording. Forums debated the colour of the marker, the shade of the marker, the colour of the laser in the player, it got ridiculous. All this for squeezing more frequency out of a mass produced recording. It all comes down to if you the listener can actually discern that difference. Im just glad i can still hear.
Click to expand...
Peter Belt by any chance? He did promote some weird stuff ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top