- Thread Author
- #61
Is MQA Fading Away?
- Thread starter nicoff
- Start date
I missed the implication there, you are right. Even though I am not a fan of MQA, I think both the specifics of JPM's criticism of MQA and his assessment about what the digital processing industry believes and strives for (as if the industry were a monoblock with only one opinion about engineering and sound quality) are wrong.
opcorn:From the Letters section in the latest TAS, Harley writes
"The MQA light on MQA-compatible DACs illuminates to confirm that the bitstream decoded by the DAC is identical to that created in the studio"
Why would he write this? MQA acknowledges that their codec is "lossy" (in a data sense) although "audibly lossless" (whatever that means). Once data is encoded, some of it is lost and can therefore never be accurately recovered, only approximated during reconstruction, so the bitstream can't be "identical" no matter how good it sounds.
More, what he says about the "MQA Light" is also not what MQA claims, which is that the audio data is correctly decoded according to the MQA DSP algorithms.
If MQA were so great, why have its proponents (essentially from the time of its introduction) felt the need to make statements about it that are factually untrue?
"The MQA light on MQA-compatible DACs illuminates to confirm that the bitstream decoded by the DAC is identical to that created in the studio"
Why would he write this? MQA acknowledges that their codec is "lossy" (in a data sense) although "audibly lossless" (whatever that means). Once data is encoded, some of it is lost and can therefore never be accurately recovered, only approximated during reconstruction, so the bitstream can't be "identical" no matter how good it sounds.
More, what he says about the "MQA Light" is also not what MQA claims, which is that the audio data is correctly decoded according to the MQA DSP algorithms.
If MQA were so great, why have its proponents (essentially from the time of its introduction) felt the need to make statements about it that are factually untrue?
So MQA is in bankruptcy (insolvency) proceedings (finally!!)
I wonder what @LeeScoggins has to say about this (not too long ago he was assuring everyone that MQA was on solid financial ground, all available evidence to the contrary).
I wonder what @LeeScoggins has to say about this (not too long ago he was assuring everyone that MQA was on solid financial ground, all available evidence to the contrary).
crwilli
Active member
DVD-Audio was not Bob Stuart's, it belonged to Panasonic and the DVD Working Group. Bob Stuart developed the MLP lossless (part of the name, and actually lossless) codec, still in use as part of Dolby TrueHD.
Not necessarily anything. Some possibilities that I can see?
No change (if TIDAL has continuing rights to the current MQA titles it offers)
TIDAL buys MQA and more MQA titles continue to be produced (unlikely since TIDAL's financial situation is probably similar to MQA's)
If TIDAL's MQA albums are only "on loan", MQA could disappear completely
TIDAL could drop MQA and offer true hi-res digital a la Qobuz
Someone else could buy MQA and continue as usual (also pretty unlikely but more likely than TIDAL buying it)
TIDAL could cut its losses and disappear
Another question is whether some DAC prices will drop if MQA decoding is no longer part of the DAC.
- Thread Author
- #71
The list of failed audio formats keeps growing. We can now add MQA to the list.
The Biggest Failures in Consumer Audio/Video Electronics History | Audioholics
I anticipate that the demand for new MQA-capable DACs will vanish and that used MQA-capable equipment will soon be flooding the market (at much lower prices of course).
The Biggest Failures in Consumer Audio/Video Electronics History | Audioholics
I anticipate that the demand for new MQA-capable DACs will vanish and that used MQA-capable equipment will soon be flooding the market (at much lower prices of course).
Lee Scoggins
Member
Too early to call it a failure. What if they find a buyer? Could be a return for investors.
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,092
Where in the hell is the return for investors coming from? What makes you think any amount of investment can turn MQA around?
MQA is one more example of an audiophile solution in search of a problem.
:roflmao:
This is a silly article on a silly website. Most of us have little respect for audioholics.com and this is a good illustration for why. It mixes some technologically sound developments (Betamax, DAT, SACD, DVD-A) which failed for marketing reasons with some items most of us have probably never heard of (H-PAS?) and a variety of ill-conceived from the start products (DCC, Elcaset, DIVX, HD DVD). MQA probably belongs in that last category, with the striking difference that it has enjoyed an unwarranted degree of support from the (supposedly) unbiased non-trade periodicals and webzines.
- Thread Author
- #76
:roflmao:
Mr Peabody
Well-known member
I wouldn't count it out yet, some of the biggest names in digital is on board. That may not be a lifeline though.
Mr Peabody
Well-known member
nicoff;35894 I anticipate that the demand for new MQA-capable DACs will vanish and that used MQA-capable equipment will soon be flooding the market (at much lower prices of course).[/QUOTE said:
Puma Cat
Well-known member
Don't hold your breath, Lee.
At the end of the day, to remain viable in the marketplace, any product or service has to create a value proposition for customers, and I just don't think MQA did that. Just my 2¢. Cheers.
- Thread Author
- #80
Not so fast. There are some folks that are looking at buying MQA DACs because they use Tidal (I think you are one of them). If MQA goes away, Tidal will drop MQA as well. Those folks will no longer need MQA-capable DACs and will likely be moving to other streaming music services for high def content. Then they will be checking out other DACs that were not on their radar before and will get rid of the MQA DAC that they own. You follow?