MQA Analysis

[boba2013]

First: Off for MQA at HighResAudio

http://www.highresmac.de/vorerst-aus-fue...hresaudio/

http://www.highresmac.de/mqa-mehr-audiophiler-quatsch/

Over the years we have had so many discussions on Lossless vs un-compressed such as the FLAC vs WAV discussions. It took quite a while for some to come to terms that music could be compressed and subsequently de-compressed with no data loss.

Those of us were use to lossless compression in communication and data systems so no problem understanding the algorithms being used.

MQA is Lossy which means, data is being changed from the original recordings. I don't care what anyone says, that is not the original file for which I want to put my money. I have a challenge understanding why any owner of a Devialet would want to embrace MQA. We searched and now have, an amp, DACs and a system that delivers as true a representation to the original recording that I can hear.

We now have companies that have paid the royalty fee for MQA who have made it a feature in their players to compress incoming audio sources to MQA adding in more "data" by dithering and bit destruction and rebirth that is totally un-necessary in my humble opinion.

To save bandwidth in streaming is their argument. Perhaps 2-3 years ago when this was first proposed but today, networks are more than capable of handling the streams.

Pushing MQA down our throats is just a swarmy marketing play. My .02 cents.

Bob