Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: MQA is a 'lossy' codec... posted by SteveJewels on January 23, 2020 at 04:19:13
#1) Bottom line: MQA is a proprietary lossy format that requires proprietary licensed technology, processes, and equipment to encode and decode to near lossless quality.
#2) MQA is a solution to a problem that does not exist.
#3) No one truly understands what's going on behind the proprietary smoke and mirrors.
#4) It's an unnecessary assault and money grab on high-end audio with proprietary lock-in and licensing royalties to the creators. I think it will eventually die on the vine and fizzle out.
There's more but that sums it up for me. #2 is the big one in my mind
what recording professionals think of it? I linked to Brian Lucey's comments here .
"If I want that distortion in the master I would've put it there in the first place...
MQA has been targeting the weakest players in our world, the audiophiles. And they're targeting those most dependent on pimping new tech, the audiophile press...
I'm most concerned about the bogus claims that MQA is fixing approved masters. Not possible, and a rude assertion to trillions of hours of hard work by teams of people making records for decades. Pure marketing hyperbole...
MQA has no future in the world of serious engineers in my view, it's a corporate money scheme at this point..."
Thanks for linking back to the article. If you read some of the comments below the article you'll see this one about MQA Authentication from mastering engineer Brian Lucey.:
Warren Mc says:
your comment about authentication leads to the broader question of provenance. What level of documentation is going to be required, to support the blue light? It's easy to set a bit of metadata on a file to say it's authentic, but who authorises the engineer to mark the art as authentic, and what proof of the production chain integrity do they need? We had all this already with the Chesky HD Tracks up sampling debacle, except in that case the fudged output was observable with tools. How would we do that with a proprietary lossy process?
Brian Lucey says:
I have authenticated nothing here, and my work is on Tidal as MQA. Nuff said.
Maybe That's why he wasn't contacted for Authentication.
"Does Brian Lucey Own the recordings he's made?"
I don't know.
" Maybe That's why he wasn't contacted for Authentication."
If he was the creator but wasn't contacted for authentication (perhaps because he no longer owns the rights to his own work) then who "Authenticates" it? Anyone who says it's authentic?
In my opinion:
- MQA is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
- MQA is a smoke and mirrors process for the purpose of generating licensing revenue for its creator. Fold, fold, unfold, unfold. Why?
- MQA is deep in proprietary technology (wear your high water boots) but in the end offers no sonic advantages it purports to offer.
- MQA offers no technical advantages over plain unadulterated hi-res files for downloads or streaming.
I didn't follow the Q&A below the article proper.
MQA is first and foremost a revenue model.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: