Is MQA Bad For Music?

[Leonard Caillouet]

Frankly, I never took it seriously, but maybe that was a mistake. I assumed it would die on the vine because it is not really necessary and the license fees would be a firewall against the snake oil of it providing some sonic benefit. Perhaps I was underestimating the power of the sales pitch and the cheerleading stroke of Stereophile. I still think it will not go anywhere, but am surprised to see so many singing its praises.

 

[Jack]

It's a encode/decode scheme where all music, past, present and future, is to be "processed" through Bob Stuarts bank account, like laundry.
They don't include it in the patent submission block diagrams, but it's there.

I could be quite wrong but don't most owners of en encode/decode scheme hold patents that cause the user to pay a fee to the holder of said patent ? THX, Dolby, DTS, DSD, etc etc. I am thinking in the long run, only a few of the decoders, seem free, VLC, FLAC and WAV being goods example.

For some reason, I get the feeling that AJ is not in the Bob Stuart like column.

 

[Leonard Caillouet]

True, Jack, but most of those have clear enough advantages that there is perceived value (although I have doubts on some of them). The problem with this is that it could become entrenched at the production level and has no inherent value that cannot be attained with non-licensed methods. It could cost everyone with little or no benefit. And you could make a case for it stifling creativity in development of other technologies if it became pervasive. It is a licensing solution in search of a problem.

 

[Jack]

Frankly, I never took it seriously, but maybe that was a mistake. I assumed it would die on the vine because it is not really necessary and the license fees would be a firewall against the snake oil of it providing some sonic benefit. Perhaps I was underestimating the power of the sales pitch and the cheerleading stroke of Stereophile. I still think it will not go anywhere, but am surprised to see so many singing its praises.

Like anything one persons snake oil is another persons grand design. This MQA issue like many other encode/decode schemes will be decided by the public as to whether or not they wish to buy into this option. I have heard it and it sounds quite nice, but in all honesty my experience with the MQA option is very limited and would never be considered as a proper objective statement of findings. I personally have no wish to buy into it now or even in the future as I am just not interested in having to purchase more gear that can be used as a general decoder as well as an MQA decoder. I have enough equipment to do what I want and need and to buy into an as yet very small and limited new class of gear does not interest me and I suspect the majority of users in this hobby. Maybe the biggest enthusiasts of this hardware/software option are those that get the stuff for free.

 

[Leonard Caillouet]

What you said, Jack, "I have heard it and it sounds quite nice" is what scares me about this. Much of the support you see in the press is emphasizing the fact that it sounds good. What you heard that sounded good was probably not due to MQA, any more than most people who claim some $20K DAC sounds better than some $30K DAC. They are doing classic "prediction-proof" demos and of course it sounds good. But things already sound good, and what are the chances that this will provide any sonic benefits that people can't experience now with many technologies and products. Somewhere between slim and none, I think, and I don't want it adding processing overhead and cost to my music.

There should be no need for it in terms of making music sound better. Delivery systems should deliver what was created and the attention should be on producing and mastering it properly. The notion that a delivery method is going to universally "fix" the sound is just not necessary. Sure, Dolby had a fix for tape noise, as did dbx, but they ended up being unnecessary as technology evolved. This is fixing something that does not need to be fixed at that level and creating a wrapper that could create more problems than it solves.

 

[Jack]

I agree Leonard, I cannot really speak to what made the recordings sound nice as I had nothing with which to compare and as mentioned I readily admit that.

I also agree that in generalities maybe we do not need another sonic scheme that attempts to be everything to everybody. What I am in conflict with is the idea of trying to provide a better product that may actually work and perform better that other products. Had the industry followed the train of thought that "This is fixing something that does not need to be fixed at that level and creating a wrapper that could create more problems than it solves. we may never have experienced discrete surround sound for movies, DTS or atmos as examples. Maybe the CD would never have been considered let alone storing our music files on a hard drive which allows us to pick and choose our equipment...after all nothing sounded better than Vinyl.

As you clearly suggest the industry does evolve and new albeit not necessarily better options pop up as a result. Everyone has an idea that they think is better that others and we will decide what will stay and what will go the way of 8 tracks