Whither MQA

[firedog]

Seems like there are several possibilities for the future:

1. MQA goes bankrupt because they cannot find a buyer.

2. A strategic buyer like Tidal or Apple or Spotify (maybe a label too?) emerges to capture the existing MQA algorithm (Keep the Tidal Masters revenue going perhaps) or the new SCL6 algorithm for Bluetooth or both.

3. MQA gets a new investor or Bob Stuart who is independently wealthy makes an investment.

Don't think #3 is true; that's why he needed family to keep MQA afloat till now. The fact that his wife's family is rich doesn't mean he is.

 

[Rexp]

Overall, although MQA made some poor digital recordings sound better it also made some good ones sound worse, so best it goes away. May mean I have to pay more for Tidal but that's fine.

 

[Ian B]

Like the leaky MQA filters don’t do the same thing, in some cases worse.

My understanding is where aliasing was demonstrated with MQA filters it was in improper DAC implementation where a standard PCM signal was sent through the filter in MQA mode. I could be wrong. Where it is demonstrated to be lacking is that those filters start rolling off well into the audio band, which is why it sounds so dark.

Personally, I don't really mind leaky filters to an extent if the sound is punchy and immediate. All those TotalDac, Audio Note, and Aries Cerat owners would seem to agree.

 

[GSOphile]

A good summary of the situation and some of the possibilities going forward.

MQA Files For Chapter 11 Protection: One Too Many Losses Or Will It Be Sold Off In "Bit" Sized Pieces?

MQA has filed for the appointment of administrators in the United Kingdom. Will they have to sell off SCL6 to survive?

www.ecoustics.com

 

[AudioHR]

An interesting discussion and obviously there are more than a few that dislike MQA.

Personally I don't have any particular agenda, if I am streaming something or perhaps playing something I ripped or downloaded and it sounds good I enjoy it. Now in Canada we don't officially have access to Quobuz so I can't compare their service with Tidal. To be honest if I am being critical I prefer vinyl but frequently I am engaged by what is offered by Tidal, MQA or not.

I am new to this forum and obviously there are many that have been able to invest in "What's Best " but I do think we should all respect what is best for the greater good. Most people today think that their EarPods and Spotify are what audio is all about, shooting down a service and technology that actually sounds good serves no purpose. Be careful what you wish for!

I am thinking that everyone on this forum is capable of selecting the best services / alternatives that are available to them. If you don't care for something then don't listen to it.

 

[Gregadd]

I totally agree that for the most part if you don't like something just keep walking. (Why Do I Hate Jazz?).
This is not a popularity contest. MQA committed fraud. The fact that you like it is irrelevant to that issue. The fact that you like it anyway is tragic. They could have been successful if they told the truth.

 

[AudioHR]

I totally agree that for the most part if you don't like something just keep walking. (Why Do I Hate Jazz?).
This is not a popularity contest. MQA committed fraud. The fact that you like it is irrelevant to that issue. The fact that you like it anyway is tragic. They could have been successful if they told the truth.

Well it's an opinion that should be tolerated even if if not agreed upon. No more tragic than those that prefer vinyl over anything digital, lol.

I would not claim to have any particular expertise on this debate but fraud seems harsh! I must have missed something in my fact checking? Is your assertion a fact, case closed, or an opinion still open for discussion?

What will make further discussion about the like or dislike of MQA irrelevant is it's financial stability.

So do I prefer MQA? Well no but I don't find it offensive. Streaming wise it is what is available to me and is better than many of the HiRez files I have downloaded. Is it acclaimed by all, no. Do many find it acceptable and better than typically compressed files, yes.

 

[Gregadd]

Well it's an opinion that should be tolerated even if if not agreed upon. No more tragic than those that prefer vinyl over anything digital, lol.

I would not claim to have any particular expertise on this debate but fraud seems harsh! I must have missed something in my fact checking? Is your assertion a fact, case closed, or an opinion still open for discussion?

What will make further discussion about the like or dislike of MQA irrelevant is it's financial stability.

So do I prefer MQA? Well no but I don't find it offensive. Streaming wise it is what is available to me and is better than many of the HiRez files I have downloaded. Is it acclaimed by all, no. Do many find it acceptable and better than typically compressed files, yes.

If it has not yet been extended yet. Welcome o WBF.
I certainly am going to tolerate (the error of0your opinion of the relative qualities of MQA.
As related to facts See, MQA, Worse than FLAC? | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com). I say fraud because they did not just make a simple error. They actively engaged in a falsehood and profited from it. A classic definition of fraud.

 

[Lee]

I totally agree that for the most part if you don't like something just keep walking. (Why Do I Hate Jazz?).
This is not a popularity contest. MQA committed fraud. The fact that you like it is irrelevant to that issue. The fact that you like it anyway is tragic. They could have been successful if they told the truth.

Fraud is a serious accusation. I think you need to back that with proof. The folding and unfolding worked. The apodizing filters worked. The MQA music file is audibly lossless. They never implemented any sort of DRM. Stuart and team delivered on what they promised.

I think too many here are letting their views on sound quality or the company filter away the innovation that has been done.

I would also encourage members to listen to MQA files using a good quality implementation of MQA like dCS or Meridian before drawing conclusions on sound quality.

 

[bryans]

I totally agree that for the most part if you don't like something just keep walking. (Why Do I Hate Jazz?).
This is not a popularity contest. MQA committed fraud. The fact that you like it is irrelevant to that issue. The fact that you like it anyway is tragic. They could have been successful if they told the truth.

This is a clear example of when I need a "thumb down" button.

 

[Gregadd]

I am a lawyer. While there is some statutory variations from state what MQA fits squarely in the definition of common law fraud. To wit: They falsely claimed their product was lossless. It demonstrably not. A fact to which they admitted. They no longer claim their product is lossless.

I will concede there may be some debate whether rhier fraud was civil or criminal
I leave that issue for another time.
Finally if you like MQA and don't mind rhat they lied to you,that's your perogative.

 

[bryans]

I am a lawyer. While there is some statutory variations from state what MQA fits squarely in the definition of common law fraud. To wit: They falsely claimed their product was lossless. It demonstrably not. A fact to which they admitted. They no longer claim their product is lossless.

I will concede there may be some debate whether rhier fraud was civil or criminal
I leave that issue for another time.
Finally if you like MQA and don't mind rhat they lied to you,that's your perogative.

I must admit I had to laugh when I read your post. You start by saying you are a lawyer and finish by making a statement about lying. Being a lawyer is one profession where truth telling seems to be up for debate these days.

 

[AudioHR]

If it has not yet been extended yet. Welcome o WBF.
I certainly am going to tolerate (the error of0your opinion of the relative qualities of MQA.
As related to facts See, MQA, Worse than FLAC? | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com). I say fraud because they did not just make a simple error. They actively engaged in a falsehood and profited from it. A classic definition of fraud.

Thank you very much for the welcome! I find this forum extremely interesting and I look forward to learning even more about the hobby I love.

I appreciate the links provided and I will read them and likely some others so I can bring myself up to speed on this subject. Sometimes the line between opinion and fact can get blurred, it will be enlightening to find out more about MQA.

For now I have no issue enjoying the MQA music that Tidal provides me. As I said previously I am more of a vinyl guy but I am open to good sound regardless of its source.

As an interesting aside. When I was at the Munich Hi End Show last May there was a demonstration in the CH room and they played a Buddy Holly track "True Love Ways" from a CD. It sounded incredible! Easily one of the best sounding pieces of music I heard that week. Go figure, a basic CD.

 

[Gregadd]

I must admit I had to laugh when I read your post. You start by saying you are a lawyer and finish by making a statement about lying. Being a lawyer is one profession where truth telling seems to be up for debate these days.

People result to ad hominem when they have nothing to say on the merits.

 

[Al M.]

Not intended as a dig -- from an editorial perspective I wonder how Robert Harley will respond to this news.

Nothing much will happen. While some here may still be defending MQA, in the press the news will mostly be greeted with stoic silence, and no one will concede that they were wrong. In three years time everyone will pretend that MQA never happened, and it will be "the name that shall not be named". That's how the world works.

 

[bryans]

People result to ad hominem when they have nothing to say on the merits.

Are you explaining your post listed below with this statement?

I am a lawyer. While there is some statutory variations from state what MQA fits squarely in the definition of common law fraud. To wit: They falsely claimed their product was lossless. It demonstrably not. A fact to which they admitted. They no longer claim their product is lossless.

I will concede there may be some debate whether rhier fraud was civil or criminal
I leave that issue for another time.
Finally if you like MQA and don't mind rhat they lied to you,that's your perogative.

 

[Gregadd]

 

[Lee]

I am a lawyer. While there is some statutory variations from state what MQA fits squarely in the definition of common law fraud. To wit: They falsely claimed their product was lossless. It demonstrably not. A fact to which they admitted. They no longer claim their product is lossless.

I will concede there may be some debate whether rhier fraud was civil or criminal
I leave that issue for another time.
Finally if you like MQA and don't mind rhat they lied to you,that's your perogative.

The terms I saw them use most often were "audibly lossless" and "perceptually lossless." I believe that was true as they were below the threshold of hearing.

 

[Gregadd]

The terms I saw them use most often were "audibly lossless" and "perceptually lossless." I believe that was true as they were below the threshold of hearing.

" I can't believe it's not butter." It is okay to say it tastes like butter. You just can't claim margerine is butter. First of all I don't think "audibly or perceptually lossless" is a thing. But just dig a little deeper. That argument is clearly debunked in the first part of the video I posted above. The more you struggle the tighter the constrictor gets.

 

[Elliot G.]

Isnt this much about nothing. The market has spoken and they lost. The format wars have gone on since I was a kid and the ones that people didn't want died. El cassette 8 tracks, the various home theater codecs, HDCD etc. I don't see a crime unless there were people financially harmed by this. Marketing is always over claiming. Just another Worlds Best Pizza sign on the sidewalk