MQA chapter 11

[S Clark]

Will the MQA ongoing bankruptcy \ reorganization affect anyone here?

[GDHAL]

This is old news and in my view no surprise. MQA is lossy. Why would anybody want that when lossless abounds?

Best

Hal

[S Clark]

This is old news and in my view no surprise. MQA is lossy. Why would anybody want that when lossless abounds?

Best

Hal

I just saw it reported yesterday... and don't follow digital stuff anyway.  However, it was just a year or two back that guys were loudly proclaiming it to be the be all and end all.   

[GDHAL]

Not this guy...

[Nick B]

Never really had any interest in MQA as I'm mostly 16/44 anyway. Bit I am very surprised by the bankruptcy. Will read the article this afternoon.

[GDHAL]

Never really had any interest in MQA as I'm mostly 16/44 anyway. Bit I am very surprised by the bankruptcy. Will read the article this afternoon.

I'm surprised only in that it took this long. 

You're golden at 16/44 anyway. 

Best

Hal

[Emil]

16/44 , if done correctly, can sound awesome!
Questions the need for MQA or Hi Rez

[P.I.]

 

16/44 , if done correctly, can sound awesome!
Questions the need for MQA or Hi Rez

Indeed!

[GDHAL]

While it's true there is no "need" for anything greater than 16/44, I can tell you there is a "want". As in a marketable product.

MQA forget about. It's lossy and on that basis alone puts it out of contention.

But (lossless and uncompressed) high-res (defined as 24/96 or higher PCM, DXD or DSD) offers the best digital experience I've heard.

EDIT: and it's the high-res streaming, the latest crave, albeit compressed, where many audio folks are spending their cash. Even when folks are purchasing music to download (not streaming) they're presented with high-res options, at a higher cost...and folks are buying it.

Best.

Hal

[Emil]

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/tidal-adopting-hi-res-flac-hifi-plus-subscribers