MQA
- Thread starter Rosewind
- Start date
- Status
mansr
Objectionist
Maybe the trolls are striking for higher pay.
Rosewind
Lost in Translation
This is as complete a picture I can make as to what I have learned and have had confirmed in the course of this MQA thread:
MQA is a lossy format
MQA does not mean smaller file sizes than FLAC, and neither do MQA files represent less of a load on the internet and hardware when streamed
MQA changes the lossless source file so fundamentally with its lossy process that it cannot be reconverted back again to its lossless original
MQA is nothing more than an intrusive equalizing filter that changes the original lossless source file into a lossy one by forcing it through a magic sound and noise bath claimed to improve sound quality to please the human ear and mind
MQA is a locked and closed DRM capable encoding and decoding system
MQA only authenticates that the MQA process has taken place - and even that cannot be relied upon in all cases - and MQA certainly does not authenticate any original master recording.
MQA enables the copyright owner at any time to change the playback quality of the music file at will, just like lossy MP3 can be changed.
MQA may sound subjectively better to a few people than FLAC.
MQA may sound softer to the ear than FLAC and may help tame bright speakers
MQA seems to be worse at deblurring and worse at dynamics than FLAC and WAV although they claim MQA to be much better than FLAC in those respects
MQA seems to perform worse through headphones than FLAC when it comes to listener's fatigue
MQA inserts itself - with claims of authenticated master quality sound - in every aspect of the music business from the recording process to the hardware that is bought by the end users.
MQA aims at making itself the only music format available for streaming
MQA also aims at being used for cd and vinyl records
MQA requires payments by everyone in the great music chain from studios to end users through licensed software and hardware.
MQA is a money making machine that benefits only the MQA organisation and its stake holders.
MQA still remains lossy, unwanted and superfluous at the end of day.
MQA is a lossy format
MQA does not mean smaller file sizes than FLAC, and neither do MQA files represent less of a load on the internet and hardware when streamed
MQA changes the lossless source file so fundamentally with its lossy process that it cannot be reconverted back again to its lossless original
MQA is nothing more than an intrusive equalizing filter that changes the original lossless source file into a lossy one by forcing it through a magic sound and noise bath claimed to improve sound quality to please the human ear and mind
MQA is a locked and closed DRM capable encoding and decoding system
MQA only authenticates that the MQA process has taken place - and even that cannot be relied upon in all cases - and MQA certainly does not authenticate any original master recording.
MQA enables the copyright owner at any time to change the playback quality of the music file at will, just like lossy MP3 can be changed.
MQA may sound subjectively better to a few people than FLAC.
MQA may sound softer to the ear than FLAC and may help tame bright speakers
MQA seems to be worse at deblurring and worse at dynamics than FLAC and WAV although they claim MQA to be much better than FLAC in those respects
MQA seems to perform worse through headphones than FLAC when it comes to listener's fatigue
MQA inserts itself - with claims of authenticated master quality sound - in every aspect of the music business from the recording process to the hardware that is bought by the end users.
MQA aims at making itself the only music format available for streaming
MQA also aims at being used for cd and vinyl records
MQA requires payments by everyone in the great music chain from studios to end users through licensed software and hardware.
MQA is a money making machine that benefits only the MQA organisation and its stake holders.
MQA still remains lossy, unwanted and superfluous at the end of day.
Rosewind
Lost in Translation
Ah yes. Forgot that part. I am sure I will be reminded of that soon enough.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
I can easily put together a very similar set of technical detractions for tube amplification, for example, or for vinyl replay, for that matter.
Yet, audiophiles chose them every day, on sonic merits alone.
tuga
Legal Alien
There's no accounting for taste.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
You are really not a nice person. I label you "merzavets."
DimitryZ
pfm Member
tuga
Legal Alien
I'm sure there is. Maybe not at PFM though. And there's surely one for vinyl too.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
You are not using I statements again.
The stuff about DRM and "changing quality at will" are just bizzare lies.
And you forgot the worst part (for you):
MQA is preferred in sound quality by audiophiles and recording professionals in blind testing.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
90 pages?
DimitryZ
pfm Member
I guess I don't look at them. Are they as nasty as this one?
Rob998
Scimmia Nordoccidentale
DimitryZ
pfm Member
mansr
Objectionist
If you're not in them, probably not.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
- Status