[Mediahound]

you don't get to say that what the other guy likes is crap

Actually, you don't get to say what I can or cannot say. Sorta telling that you think you can. I'm entitled to the above opinion especially when it's based on some actual measurements. Again, MQA cannot even publish measurements supporting their own claims for fear of what it will reveal!

 

[gimmeheadroom]

Actually, you don't get to say what I can or cannot say. Sorta telling that you think you can. I'm entitled to the above opinion especially when it's based on some actual measurements. Again MQA cannot even publish measurements supporting their own claims for fear of what it will reveal!

Again you miss the point. Your argument is a piece of swiss cheese. If we sum it up, you believe you're right because you say so. That's not enough. You haven't said anything interesting or even thought provoking. So into my ignore list you go!

Buh bye

 

[GoldenSound]

Again, just opinion about whether it sounds better.

You drank the Chord kool-aid and that would be fine if you didn't try to say the MQA Kool-aid was somehow not ok. You can't have it both ways. Either opinion is valid or it's not. If it's not, then your posts are off-topic except in the sound scientology forum. If opinion is valid, then you accept that the other guy gets to like what he likes, just like you get to like what you like. And most of all, you don't get to say that what the other guy likes is crap just because your leader says so.

MQA and Chord are not in the same bracket.

One is providing a solution that does objectively conform better to the entire principle upon which PCM digital audio is based, and can be easily tested, demonstrated, predicted etc.

The other is making claims that are unproven (or proven false) and goes out of their way to make their product incredibly difficult to test or confirm any of their marketing claims whatsoever, and is not based upon better adhering to a core principal of digital audio.

What any one person enjoys subjectively is entirely upto them. But in terms of what is either objectively correct/better, OR what company is acting in a transparent vs deliberately obfuscated and misleading manner, they're entirely different.

 

[Sebastien Chiu]

MQA and Chord are not in the same bracket.

One is providing a solution that does objectively conform better to the entire principle upon which PCM digital audio is based, and can be easily tested, demonstrated, predicted etc.

The other is making claims that are unproven (or proven false) and goes out of their way to make their product incredibly difficult to test or confirm any of their marketing claims whatsoever, and is not based upon better adhering to a core principal of digital audio.

What any one person enjoys subjectively is entirely upto them. But in terms of what is either objectively correct/better, OR what company is acting in a transparent vs deliberately obfuscated and misleading manner, they're entirely different.

Yep, this is a crucial thing to keep in mind.

It's very easy to mix these kinds of things up when emotions get in the way, and it's your own hard-earned money that you're spending.

 

[Ragnar-BY]

What I really don't like about MQA:

1. They are trying to present everything in such a way that their technology is some kind of "compressed" music which supposedly can be "unpacked". Although in fact this technology is a downsampling and upsampling. That is the same thing that was done in the industry before. MQA codec itself did not bring anything new or useful.
2. This is a "closed" system. They collect royalties from everybody (DAC manufacturer, recording studio, streaming platform, et.c.), who's using it. They also introduced some artificial restrictions, that are introduced only to push people into buying "MQA capable" gear. Sony did the very same* thing with their SACD format and this led to the fact that the wonderful format never became widespread.

At the same time, I really like few things that they do:

1. Their attempts to improve recordings at the mastering stage, by working with recording studios.
2. Introduction of MQA-CDs, which hopefully will lead to increase of market interest in physical media.
3. Their marketing sparked people's interest in sound quality. Which is very good for the industry, because it made everyone involved react in some way.

Soundwise it mostly depends on your DAC. When I had HMS-DAVE in my system, MQA "first unfold" played worse than "pass through" which was simply feeding the HMS with 16/44 stream and allowing Watts filter to do it's job. When I had Meridian DAC with MQA support, MQA was clearly playing much better than just 16/44 stream. Since then I switched to NOS DAC, ditched both MQA and Chord upsampling and feel very happy without it

____________________________________
* Same in terms of royalty and restrictions. The SACD format itself is a much better thing than MQA, because it actually brought us DSD which was something new and different at the time, not just another downsampling-upsampling tech.

 

[Roseval]

MQA and Chord are not in the same bracket.

One is providing a solution that does objectively conform better to the entire principle upon which PCM digital audio is based, and can be easily tested, demonstrated, predicted etc.

The other is making claims that are unproven (or proven false) and goes out of their way to make their product incredibly difficult to test or confirm any of their marketing claims whatsoever, and is not based upon better adhering to a core principal of digital audio.

As both target the audiophile community, it would be helpful to tell us which is the "one" and the "other"

 

[GoldenSound]

As both target the audiophile community, it would be helpful to tell us which is the "one" and the "other"

Chord is the former, MQA is the latter.

There can be a debate for both about subjective sound. But Chord's stuff is based on well known, easily testable principles.

MQA's is based on their own explanations and made deliberately difficult to test (with all testing done so far showing that many of the claims are rubbish)

 

[gregorio]

1. Their attempts to improve recordings at the mastering stage, by working with recording studios.

That was just marketing again I’m afraid. What they claimed was largely impossible and made no difference to the recording or mastering.

The SACD format itself is a much better thing than MQA, because it actually brought us DSD which was something new and different at the time, …

Not so much. 1bit 64x sampling had been around for nearly a decade before Sony released SACD, all Sony did was rename it “DSD”, made it recordable rather than just a transitory format and used copy protection. By the time Sony released SACD the recording industry had already moved on to multi-bit and even higher initial sampling rates.

G

 

[Ragnar-BY]

Not so much. 1bit 64x sampling had been around for nearly a decade before Sony released SACD, all Sony did was rename it “DSD”, made it recordable rather than just a transitory format and used copy protection. By the time Sony released SACD the recording industry had already moved on to multi-bit and even higher initial sampling rates.

By "brought us something new" I mean that Sony made a new product for music lovers. No matter was it already used by industry or not, we listen to music through formats that we can buy. SACDs were something that gave audiophiles new experience. It is a pity that Sony's pursuit of fast profit did not allow this format to become truly popular.

 

[gregorio]

It is a pity that Sony's pursuit of fast profit did not allow this format to become truly popular.

The format was fundamentally flawed, plus Sony overcharged for it and a fair amount of the false marketing they invented for it still plagues the industry today. Mind you, MQA “takes the biscuit” on that front.

G

 

[Mediahound]

This just in:

MQA’s main financial backer is seeking an exit. In order to be in the best position to pursue market opportunities and expedite this process, the company has undergone a restructuring initiative, which includes entering into administration and is comparable to Chapter 11 in the US.

https://www.whathifi.com/news/mqa-is-going-into-administration

 

[Mediahound]

It seems like the writing is on the wall for MQA certainly if they don’t find a buyer/investors, but even if they do, how can their business model be sustainable? I don’t think it ever was.

 

[GoldenSound]

It seems like the writing is on the wall for MQA certainly if they don’t find a buyer/investors, but even if they do, how can their business model be sustainable? I don’t think it ever was.

They've been losing about £4,000,000 per year for the last few years.

The business turns over about 600k per year, but with a 4m loss, it had been continuing on the aim that it would snowball and become something of a 'de facto' audio format and revenue would increase immensely. Ofc that never happened.

I don't think there are going to be many investors willing to put money into it.

Even just silly things like; if your business only turns over 600k per year, and loses 4m per year, MAYBE your highest paid director shouldn't be taking home £400,000 per year.....

 

[taipan254]

They've been losing about £4,000,000 per year for the last few years.

The business turns over about 600k per year, but with a 4m loss, it had been continuing on the aim that it would snowball and become something of a 'de facto' audio format and revenue would increase immensely. Ofc that never happened.

I don't think there are going to be many investors willing to put money into it.

Even just silly things like; if your business only turns over 600k per year, and loses 4m per year, MAYBE your highest paid director shouldn't be taking home £400,000 per year.....

Id love to look at the financials. Where did you find them?

Also I wonder if they have IP that is in progress that isn’t publicized that they could sell - that would change the calculus for a potential buyer.

 

[OhHeyItsLou]

The better play for MQA would have been to get other streaming services to adopt the format. They banked on Tidal's dominance to sell the audio format standard. Can't create a "standard" when it's only used on one platform.