MQA is Vaporware

[Spacehound]

Just now, Peter Markus said:

Strange the reviewer knows the music well. OK tnx  . I have to find out more m but get some strange reactions here which I do not understand

The reason is simple. And it's not just "here", far from it.

 

It's crap, pointless, has the potential to be degraded further at any time they want if you don't have an MQA DAC,  and has the potential to limit your choices - EG no more 192 or DSD, no 'studio masters'.

 

(Scoggins said he was "going  to find out more". He never reappeared as his only 'ability' was to repeat what MQA/Stereophile/TAS  fed him)

[The Computer Audiophile]

34 minutes ago, fung0 said:

 

Correct me if I'm wrong... but I seem to recall that, once upon a time in this thread, a number of people claimed that such a thing as an "MQA CD" would never exist. Just goes to show that "never" is never as far in the future as we might hope.

 

"...With no MQA designation on the album cover or disc..."

 

Just gets better and better.

MQA physical releases should not be sold as CDs nor have any Compact Disc logo. The only logo they should have is MQA which notifies the consumer of what s/he is purchasing. 

 

Good catch that the MQA logo isn't even there. It's advertised as CD on the link in that article.

 

 

[Spacehound]

Fastest gun in Minneapolis

[The Computer Audiophile]

Perhaps I'm wrong and it isn't an affiliate tag, but it sure seems like one.

[labjr]

37 minutes ago, mansr said:

I think @Peter Markus is Peter Veth. The account was created on the same day Peter Veth was banned, and I'm already seeing similarities in writing style. @The Computer Audiophile, could you look into this?

Wow you beat me to it!

[mansr]

23 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

MQA physical releases should not be sold as CDs nor have any Compact Disc logo. The only logo they should have is MQA which notifies the consumer of what s/he is purchasing. 

 

Good catch that the MQA logo isn't even there. It's advertised as CD on the link in that article.

 

In addition, who'd have thunk Jason is trying to make a little money on this album as well, but posting an affiliate link to a store? Perhaps it's Stereophile who's trying to make a little something?

 

Link in article - http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?ordertag=Comprecom9989-2259969&album_id=2265299

 

Actual link - http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=2265299

 

Here's a link to the affiliate program - http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/Page?affiliates

That's not an affiliate tag. ArkivMusic puts those tags in the links to featured albums on the composer/performer pages such as http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/Name/Johann-Sebastian-Bach/Composer/527-1.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

That's not an affiliate tag. ArkivMusic puts those tags in the links to featured albums on the composer/performer pages.

Thanks!

 

I've removed the text from my comment so as not to report fake news.

 

I just signed up for the affiliate program to see if I could reproduce the link. Guess I can stop the research.

[HalSF]

33 minutes ago, fung0 said:

 

Correct me if I'm wrong... but I seem to recall that, once upon a time in this thread, a number of people claimed that such a thing as an "MQA CD" would never exist. Just goes to show that "never" is never as far in the future as we might hope.

 

"...With no MQA designation on the album cover or disc..."

 

Just gets better and better.

For the first time I'm not just skeptical about MQA but I'm sort of aghast — the horribly confusing and unlabeled insertion of MQA into the context of an historically important classical release mastered by someone as esteemed as Bob Ludwig seems like a big deal, and not in a good way. It has a hint of the looming force-feeding that MQA alarmists have been kvetching about. A line is being crossed. 

 

Reading the Jason Victor Serinus review heralding this and then the comment thread that unsuccessfully tries to untangle how the heck MQA is operating on this CD is a total utter trainwreck. Every attempt to straighten this out and explain what MQA is doing and how comes across like guesswork and gobbledygook. 

 

Not to mention that Serinus's implication that the 99% of buyers who are going to listen to this CD without an MQA DAC will be hearing an inferior version seems like the opposite of a good sales pitch, assuming it was true. 

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, HalSF said:

For the first time I'm not just skeptical about MQA but I'm sort of aghast — the horribly confusing and unlabeled insertion of MQA into the context of an historically important classical release mastered by someone as esteemed as Bob Ludwig seems like a big deal, and not in a good way. It has a hint of the looming force-feeding that MQA alarmists have been kvetching about. A line is being crossed. 

 

Reading the Jason Victor Serinus review heralding this and then the comment thread that unsuccessfully tries to untangle how the heck MQA is operating on this CD is a total utter trainwreck. Every attempt to straighten this out and explain what MQA is doing and how comes across like guesswork and gobbledygook. 

 

Not to mention that Serinus's implication that the 99% of buyers who are going to listen to this CD without an MQA DAC will be hearing an inferior version seems like the opposite of a good sales pitch, assuming it was true. 

 

Of the many many qualities of MQA, one is that it is just PCM. Why would you tell the consumer anything otherwise? 

 

...

 

If MQA gets any traction at all there are going to be a lot more I told you so's...

[The Computer Audiophile]

Peter is claiming he isn't Peter.

 

[HalSF]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Of the many many qualities of MQA, one is that it is just PCM. Why would you tell the consumer anything otherwise? 

 

...

 

If MQA gets any traction at all there are going to be a lot more I told you so's...

So you understand what's going on with MQA on this CD? Please explain it to me because I couldn't be more confused. 

[crenca]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Peter is claiming he isn't Peter.

 

 

And who are you to deny what he hears... I mean who he is.  You objectivists are mean. ?

 

 

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Peter is claiming he isn't Peter.

 

 

Maybe Peter 2 is stealing Peter 1's Wi-Fi...

 

[crenca]

Just now, HalSF said:

So you understand what's going on with MQA on this CD? Please explain it to me because I couldn't be more confused. 

 

In a technical sense certainly not any more than others around here.  But I have been one speaking explicitly against the naive notion that MQA wants to be just another product among other audio products...

[Spacehound]

27 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Maybe Peter 2 is stealing Peter 1's Wi-Fi...

 

"Last night there were four Peters, 

Tonight there'll be but three,

There was Peter Veth,

PeterSt, 

Peter 1, 

And me."

.

Joan Baez - 'Peter Hamilton'

[beetlemania]

24 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Peter is claiming he isn't Peter.

 

If only there were some way to know . . .

 

Maybe Brink can give Peter III a lesson.

[Indydan]

2 hours ago, Peter Markus said:

Strange the reviewer knows the music well. OK tnx  . I have to find out more m but get some strange reactions here which I do not understand

 

« See you next Tuesday » Peter Veth.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, HalSF said:

So you understand what's going on with MQA on this CD? Please explain it to me because I couldn't be more confused. 

 

I too share your confusion about how MQA can be encoded into a Redbook container (16 bits)  but transparently "unfold" and "render" on MQA-enabled hardware/software.  Based on my limited understanding of how MQA encoding/decoding works, it seems pretty clear that those playing this "CD" undecoded will get substantially less than 16 bits of resolution.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I too share your confusion about how MQA can be encoded into a Redbook container (16 bits)  but transparently "unfold" and "render" on MQA-enabled hardware/software.  Based on my limited understanding of how MQA encoding/decoding works, it seems pretty clear that those playing this "CD" undecoded will get substantially less than 16 bits of resolution.

If I could get my hands on a sample track from such a CD, I'd be able to determine what happens.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Here's the MQA provided image for 16 bit data. It doesn't look pretty.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Here's the MQA provided image for 16 bit data. It doesn't look pretty.

 

 

Thanks for that Chris.  It still doesn't really clear up what the effective bit depth is decoded and undecoded.

[Brinkman Ship]

36 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

« See you next Tuesday » Peter Veth.

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Peter is claiming he isn't Peter.

 

 

I just hope the guy who keeps the Dad Troll Registry was able to catch this and add him.

 

it seems the time slices are getting infinitely small, perhaps so as to pack in infinitely many frequencies...

 

 

 

 

 

I mean infinitely many trolls

[Indydan]

58 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

 

I must be slow today. I don’t get the cartoon.

[Indydan]

MQA "enthusiast"                        Reason for no longer posting on CA

Peter Veth                                                          BANNED

WitchDoctor                                                      BANNED

Lee Scoggins                             SCARED of his BS being called             

out

Michael Lavorgna                    BANNED for telling someone to go fuck his mother

Peter Veth (as Peter Markus)  BANNED for acting like a dick and being an MQA shill

 

 

 

•