MQA Declares Bankruptcy

Sorry most audiophiles did not like the sound quality. Have you forgotten what we did to Sony for SACD?

That’s speculation. You hang out on AS and other forums with a small number of very vocal MQA critics. A good number of audiophiles and industry professionals love the sound of MQA.
 
Well, I own it and I really like the sound of many of my SACD's.

Same here. Love the format. DSD sounds more analog than PCM based on my recording classical artists in both formats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MPS
That’s speculation. You hang out on AS and other forums with a small number of very vocal MQA critics. A good number of audiophiles and industry professionals love the sound of MQA.

They love the sound of the remasters. Most MQA tracks I've heard have been studio remasters, and of course would have sounded way better in non lossy, non "unfolded" 16/44.1khz FLAC.
That's how shady MQA is, they didin't even allow for an apples to apples comparison most of the time.

You are a contributor for TAS, I understand MQA pays TAS for advertising and as such you benefit indirectly from it, but you should stop trying to defend this lost cause, it really isn't good optics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adyc and Al M.
Lee will never give up the ghost.

He will, once MQA has died its long awaited definitive death. Then there is nothing to talk about anymore.

This event will be followed by efforts in the audiophile press to pretend that MQA never existed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lagonda and marmota
@Lee Looks like (Based on their website) that DCS has their own unique MQA implementation? Perhaps this is why Lee's MQA experience has been positive than from what others have posted here.

  • Features a full MQA™ decoder. This MQA™ implementation is unique, as it is the first opportunity to enable a DAC which, by providing exact rendering to beyond 16x (768 kHz), matches the desired temporal response with very low modulation noise
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lee and rdg
There are many unusefull shitty examples that survived. For example Dolby B and C which sound terrible but still can be found on every cassette deck including walkmans.
Dolby worked if everything is well aligned and the levels are correct, if anything is off then it did not work as intended. Something as little as dirty heads can throw the levels off, let alone having azimuth misalignment.

The only people that believed Dolby did not work, never had a correctly setup deck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MPS
They love the sound of the remasters. Most MQA tracks I've heard have been studio remasters, and of course would have sounded way better in non lossy, non "unfolded" 16/44.1khz FLAC.
That's how shady MQA is, they didin't even allow for an apples to apples comparison most of the time.

Many MQA recordings available on Tidal are not remasters and can be directly compared with the Hi-Rez version available on other streaming services. MQA sounds different - I have listened to such comparison - we know that due to its intrinsic properties, it is not a bit exact process. They openly claim it.

You are a contributor for TAS, I understand MQA pays TAS for advertising and as such you benefit indirectly from it, but you should stop trying to defend this lost cause, it really isn't good optics.

IMO this is the kind of unfair and unpleasant comment that has driven many valid contributors out of WBF ... :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keith_W
Many MQA recordings available on Tidal are not remasters and can be directly compared with the Hi-Rez version available on other streaming services. MQA sounds different - I have listened to such comparison - we know that due to its intrinsic properties, it is not a bit exact process. They openly claim it.

It sounds worse, not different.

IMO this is the kind of unfair and unpleasant comment that has driven many valid contributors out of WBF ... :(

Him and everyone are free to use the ignore button, no need to go anywhere.
 
It sounds worse, not different.

We already had understood your preference, other though differently as Lee referred.

MQA is way more unpleasant than me, maybe just as much as you arguing everything for the sake of arguing every single day.
There's no need to go, just use the ignore button and don't deal with it if it bothers you.

You fail to understand freedom of speech and that posting about what we appreciate is much more interesting than negative hate. MQA was a failure? Yes, It seems so. But it was a commendable effort, carried by high-end enthusiasts and many people appreciated it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AudioHR
Dolby worked if everything is well aligned and the levels are correct, if anything is off then it did not work as intended. Something as little as dirty heads can throw the levels off, let alone having azimuth misalignment.

The only people that believed Dolby did not work, never had a correctly setup deck.
nope, it (Dolby B and C) doesn't work, if you don't mean degrading sound quality.
 
You fail to understand freedom of speech and that posting about what we appreciate is much more interesting than negative hate. MQA was a failure? Yes, It seems so. But it was a commendable effort, carried by high-end enthusiasts and many people appreciated it.

It was a commendable cash grab atttempt. Many people also appreciates things like stealing, coprophagy or sharing their wives with others (to name just a few examples), so I'm afraid that isn't a valid argument.

Our conversation ends here btw, don't want to spend years and thousands of posts arguing back and forth with you over the most obvious things like you do with many users here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adyc
He will, once MQA has died its long awaited definitive death. Then there is nothing to talk about anymore.

Well, many people have MQA files they love. I even have a few Peter McGrath great recordings - the fact that MQA is dead does not reduce their musical quality.

This event will be followed by efforts in the audiophile press to pretend that MQA never existed.

I do not think so. It will be remembered as an audio fact - even AES had articles on it. Vinyl has many failed attempts, according to current preference audiophile standards. Each, at their launch was considered revolutionary and an great improvement in sound quality. In fact they failed. I think we should separate the technical and audio part from the business, political and ethical aspects when addressing MQA.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AudioHR
It was a commendable cash grab atttempt. Many people also appreciates things like stealing, coprophagy or sharing their wives with others (to name just a few examples), so I'm afraid that isn't a valid argument.

Nice try to move the talk to a mud fight ...

Our conversation ends here btw, don't want to spend years and thousands of posts arguing back and forth with you over the most obvious things like you do with many users here.

Fortunately ...
 
@Lee Looks like (Based on their website) that DCS has their own unique MQA implementation? Perhaps this is why Lee's MQA experience has been positive than from what others have posted here.

  • Features a full MQA™ decoder. This MQA™ implementation is unique, as it is the first opportunity to enable a DAC which, by providing exact rendering to beyond 16x (768 kHz), matches the desired temporal response with very low modulation noise
Yes, the dCS implementation is said to be the best version.
 
Question for you…how do you know this situation is not what the UK calls a “solvent administration”?
Lee a Solvent Administration would give me exactly what I want, the liquidation of MQA Ltd.

The actual term is Member’s Voluntary Liquidation and is the process of winding up the affairs of a company that is profitable and solvent. It doesn’t apply to MQA Ltd.
 
That’s speculation. You hang out on AS and other forums with a small number of very vocal MQA critics. A good number of audiophiles and industry professionals love the sound of MQA.

Lee, industry professionals who love the sound of MQA should take this time while Licensed Insolvency Practitioners create a restructuring plan in the next few weeks to reflect. And then consider finding another line of work.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Lagonda
Lee a Solvent Administration would give me exactly what I want, the liquidation of MQA Ltd.

The actual term is Member’s Voluntary Liquidation and is the process of winding up the affairs of a company that is profitable and solvent. It doesn’t apply to MQA Ltd.
More speculation.

We don’t kknow key information like, how much is Scala6 worth, what the current balance sheet, income statement, and licensing agreements look like, prospects for buyers of company or technology, etc.
 
More speculation.

We don’t kknow key information like, how much is Scala6 worth, what the current balance sheet, income statement, and licensing agreements look like, prospects for buyers of company or technology, etc.

Lee if you read and understood the 2020 and 2021 MQA financial statements and Reinet Investments 2022 interim financials you would know I’m not speculating when I say MQA Limited ran out cash and then entered Administration because they couldn’t pay their bills.

Bottom line is Bob Stuart, Mike Jabra and Ken Forsythe failed and the only question now is when should Bob and Mike have realized MQA Limited was a lost cause.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marmota

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing