I'm no MQA proponent, I'm on the sidelines watching it. and I'm quite skeptical.
however; looking at these links for anti-MQA info....they are all 6 months to a year old. so the recent activity and feedback from end users is not considered by these articles. not to dismiss their concerns, only that it's just part of the picture.
I'd like to see industry feedback including actual up to date experience with it for the whole picture.
By all previous years experience, proprietary closed formats in audio don't got big popularity.
Except mp3. But mp3 become popular because in past time communication channels was slow and HDDs have small size, comparing modern ones.
It was technical reasons, that was obvious and suitable for consumers.
Currently I don't see such reasons, that give some advantages for end-users.
MQA give traffic economy comparing FLAC. But it is need now or don't?
MQA is not a closed format. In fact it is the most open yet.
It can benefit legacy DACs and also play on an iPhone, bluetooth budget system etc.
As far as I know, MQA algorithm is not opened in full details. In computeraudiophile it discussed and learned as "black box".
Also this algorithm may be used after purchasing the license.
Open format is FLAC, as example. There coding/encoding algorithm is available in programming source codes and description.
Yes. For mobile phones 2 times lesser space may have sense. For bluetooth too. Though there unclear lossy matter (can't be checked practically without available encoder).
My 'open' comment is referring to the support for legacy DACs.
Boy am I glad to see some pushback on what I perceive to quite possibly be the greatest wholesale "performance" hoax yet attempted on the entire audio industry.
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |