MQA controversy

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by old tech, Mar 4, 2018.
  1. old tech
  2. Roseval
    I’m most of all surprised it is on CA.
    The owner is not exactly a critical mind.
     
  3. castleofargh Contributor
    pretty good summary IMO. while I tend to believe that most aspects don't really matter anyway, overall my understanding of MQA aligns with this article.
    this article will hopefully be reference enough for us all to move on. we're advertising MQA too much even when we say we don't want it.
     
  4. RRod
    Oh boy, there's some 'paper' coming out on this soon eh? Let me guess, it will show barely significant results that no one else will be able to replicate. Archy is just helping their cause at this point; that's not saying anything about his thoughtful analysis, but rather how the Intrawebz works these days.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2018
    gregorio likes this.
  5. buzzy
    An excellent article that makes some very good points, both on audio and on the broader issues.

    I have to say this minor point rubs me the wrong way, as it's a shame to see this particular dead horse still being beaten in the audio world:

    And since when did the “casual mobile music listener” care about high resolution streaming considering the largest services like Apple Music and Spotify don’t even support 16/44.1 lossless ....
    Maybe it wasn't intended this literally, but it should read "And there's no reason why the 'casual mobile music listener' should care ..." Given the environments most people listen in and the attention they are giving the music, other considerations are far more important to their enjoyment than differences in audio quality. The real miracles of audio in the past several years have been in expanding the range of music easily playable anywhere and anytime. For most people, audio quality isn't the hobby, it's listening to music.

    While not having as dramatic an impact on listeners' enjoyment, the audio quality achievable has steadily improved, as bitrates, codecs and devices have improved. The quality gap for mobile and casual listening has almost completely closed for most listeners willing to buy decent moderately-priced gear. (Almost because Bluetooth still needs new standards and devices. A lot of the in-place Bluetooth audio gear has issues.) And over the last 15 years or so, the gap has closed a great deal even for those who are paying attention to audio quality.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2018
    Currawong likes this.
  6. Currawong Contributor
    The many pages of comments on the article are worth reading as well. What is most telling to me is that now Bob's site only talks of a "studio preview" and not the "studio master" written all over the articles in various publications.
     
  7. visanj
    MQA reminds me of Sony's LDAC in bluetooth space but atleast Sony is solving problem providing 900 kbps bluetooth transmission when rivals offer less
     

Share This Page