Forums - Print Page

Forums
https://www.decware.com/cgi-bin/yabb22/YaBB.pl
AUDIO FORUMS >> Digital >> DSD vs MQA
https://www.decware.com/cgi-bin/yabb22/YaBB.pl?num=1487270595

Message started by Lonely Raven on 02/16/17 at 18:43:15

Title: DSD vs MQA
Post by Lonely Raven on 02/16/17 at 18:43:15

I've only skimmed - and of course, this is coming from a page called DSD-Guide - but I've heard grumbles about MQA from all corners.

http://dsd-guide.com/why-open-source-matters#.WKXyd1UrL3g

Title: Re: DSD vs MQA
Post by beowulf on 02/17/17 at 01:42:50

Though I agree about MQA and the problems with it.

Linn Audio calling something bad for the audio biz is pretty funny and hypocritical! The whole "Linn Effect" and "Flat Earthers" thing Linn (and aided by Naim) had going on in the 70's pretty much threw out sensible audio and from what I understand they pretty much stagnated UK audio science for almost 20 years and ruined a few good UK companies in the process such as Quad and KEF.

Title: Re: DSD vs MQA
Post by Jeff of Arabica on 02/17/17 at 17:47:46

I've read the article by Jim Collinson of Linn. He seems perturbed that MQA is "making money" at various levels along the supply chain to the detriment of the artist and consumer. Well, this is not the first time licensed technology has hit the audio/video world requiring fees to be paid on both the software and hardware side. Yes, money will be paid and money will be made, but such is the case with Dolby in the HT world. The real question is, "Does MQA provide value?" In other words, is there a discernible benefit this technology provides? If the answer is yes, then there is value and it should be paid for. Digital music producers/providers who are not MQA are of course going to be unhappy that customers are spending their money elsewhere but that is a natural byproduct of progress and innovation. I'm not defending MQA, but I find his argument self-serving and incredibly biased considering MQA is technically a competitor to Linn. As an audiophile and consumer, I am waiting for things to play out. It is then, and only then, that I can make a well-informed decision as to whether or not MQA provides a real benefit to the quality of music I so desperately seek out. If it delivers as promises, I personally will have no problem paying for it.

Despite claims that MQA is the evil empire, companies such as Tidal, Onkyo, Pioneer, to name a few, have signed onto this technology - as well as a growing number of artists. At the end of the day, we the consumers are the ones to decide if in fact MQA is legitimate, credible, and possesses value. If it does not, we will not support it and MQA will die on the vine and go away, like many technologies before it that failed to deliver value.

Spare me the "well-poisoning," self-serving rhetoric by pundits threatened by the success of this technology. I would much prefer that they direct this energy toward vetting the MQA technology - in an objective manner - and deliver to us consumers the information necessary to make informed decisions. Artists, hardware vendors, and content deliverers can each decide whether or not they want to adopt MQA. There are no guns to any of their heads. Any one of them can opt out and not adopt the MQA technology. That being said, who then are the victims?