crenca Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 4 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said: Interesting note. Today, Starbucks started a promotion that gives you bonus points for signing up for a Spotify account. What's the corporate connection? Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Brinkman Ship Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 Just now, crenca said: What's the corporate connection? I don't think there is..a few years ago, Starbucks was giving away Apple iTunes download cards. Link to comment
Indydan Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 1 hour ago, mansr said: Which rag was it that ran those articles comparing the "height" of the sound with different FLAC settings? I don't remember that one. Link to comment
crenca Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 8 minutes ago, Norton said: bizarre ill-tempered monomaniacal crusade Right there, right there! The consumer reaction against the efforts of these publications to promote something that is against their interests is neither "bizzare" or "ill tempered". That's just rhetoric - emotivism on your part. What is "bizzare" is their obvious anti-consumer stance. Yet, for some reason it bothers you Norton, even though you claim you are not an industry insider. Why? You don't like the tone of the debate? So what, the substance is there - not that you contribute to the substance. What is it about MQA that you find worth defending? The sound? So what, the sound is not the reason it exists . Are you sure your not an industry shill? What is it about MQA that deserves support Norton? What is the substance of your complaint Norton beside the fact that you don't like the debate itself? MikeyFresh 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 1 hour ago, mansr said: Which rag was it that ran those articles comparing the "height" of the sound with different FLAC settings? http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/new-methods-for-quantifying-sonic-performance-part-two/ Teresa 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Brinkman Ship Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 9 minutes ago, crenca said: Right there, right there! The consumer reaction against the efforts of these publications to promote something that is against their interests is neither "bizzare" or "ill tempered". That's just rhetoric - emotivism on your part. What is "bizzare" is their obvious anti-consumer stance. Yet, for some reason it bothers you Norton, even though you claim you are not an industry insider. Why? You don't like the tone of the debate? So what, the substance is there - not that you contribute to the substance. What is it about MQA that you find worth defending? The sound? So what, the sound is not the reason it exists . Are you sure your not an industry shill? What is it about MQA that deserves support Norton? What is the substance of your complaint Norton beside the fact that you don't like the debate itself? The biggest complaint of the Norton type is we are shattering the illusion of a vast catalog of magically "corrected", 'deblurred", and "authenticated" hires music for 20 bucks a month. Link to comment
Popular Post crenca Posted June 5, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted June 5, 2018 Just now, Brinkman Ship said: The biggest complaint of the Norton type is we are shattering the illusion of a vast catalog of magically "corrected", 'deblurred", and "authenticated" hires music for 20 bucks a month. He is complaining, but he can not say why. As Shadders points out he does not understand the central sham technical claims of MQA. He is bold enough to complain about your rhetoric and to proffer a conspiratorial theory of a whisper campaign, but then he hypocritically uses over the top and emotive language of "bizarre ill-tempered monomaniacal crusade" and the like. He says he is complaining of, and I quote "I simply can’t abide hypocrisy, unfairness and double standards in any aspect of life. " Yet, just a few posts later exposes himself as a hypocrite by unfairly and hypocritically characterizing the Audiophile who sees through MQA. He's all over the place and contradicts himself at almost every turn. I should probably stop searching for the substance of his complaint, as it probably does not exist... Shadders and MikeyFresh 1 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
adamdea Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 3 hours ago, mansr said: Probably something using phrases like boxed in, veiled, digital, artificial, lifeless, robbed of its soul, and so on. My money would be on “ etched, superficially impressive but ultimately fatiguing and lacking in nuance”. Hugo9000 1 You are not a sound quality measurement device Link to comment
Popular Post Bill Brown Posted June 5, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted June 5, 2018 I am not sure what you are worried about, Norton, in the last few pages you have simply been told that you "do not understand," "do not care," "like a little IM, etc.," "claim that you are not an industry shill," "rely on authority and reputation," practice "emotivism," and are a hypocrite. Of course while Crenca cutely lines through words like "confidence game" and "mutilates." Don't worry. Anyone who doesn't immediately fall in line with every single belief of these zealots (and signal their allegiance with adequate vehemence) is similarly treated. They fully believe they are morally justified in any behavior by their righteous crusade. Bill christopher3393 and look&listen 1 1 Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Popular Post Brinkman Ship Posted June 5, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted June 5, 2018 21 minutes ago, Bill Brown said: I am not sure what you are worried about, Norton, in the last few pages you have simply been told that you "do not understand," "do not care," "like a little IM, etc.," "claim that you are not an industry shill," "rely on authority and reputation," practice "emotivism," and are a hypocrite. Of course while Crenca cutely lines through words like "confidence game" and "mutilates." Don't worry. Anyone who doesn't immediately fall in line with every single belief of these zealots (and signal their allegiance with adequate vehemence) is similarly treated. They fully believe they are morally justified in any behavior by their righteous crusade. Bill Sorry, we are not giving ONE MAN who has bled out 40 million dollars in the audio business control of digital audio reproduction, processing, distribution, and future developments and advancements. Thuaveta, Shadders, MikeyFresh and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment
Popular Post crenca Posted June 5, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted June 5, 2018 25 minutes ago, Bill Brown said: ....of course while Crenca cutely lines through words like "confidence game" and "mutilates" Not cute, clever ? Why don't you and Norton commensurate on your own civility thread? You can play that tiny little fiddle in the background while you lament ? Brinkman Ship and MikeyFresh 1 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Brinkman Ship Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 3 minutes ago, crenca said: Not cute, clever ? Why don't you and Norton commensurate on your own civility thread? You can play that tiny little fiddle in the background while you lament ? Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 Looks like MQA Control Central has re-activated the Shill Brown account... crenca 1 Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 "Clever," eh? Hmm..... I think you meant "commiserate?" Perhaps not clever enough See what I mean, Norton? Took one post for me to be called a shill again....but this from the one who labeled me (I think) the "expert on ducks and imposters" (wish I could figure out what that meant). "Sorry, we are not giving ONE MAN who has bled out 40 million dollars in the audio business control of digital audio reproduction, processing, distribution, and future developments and advancements." I can actually appreciate the last comment as reasonable. Thank you "Brinkman Ship." Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 Perhaps you can appreciate how your posting patterns, and the general attempts by MQAers in the past lead to suspicion. Do you have any disclosures to make? Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 I have disclosed tons about myself here, including my complete lack of affiliation with anything in the audio business. It is ok for you to ask but not Norton? Hmm... Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
mevdinc Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 I said this elsewhere on the Forum. Yes, MQA does sound different, mostly quite a bit loader which gives the impression that the MQA version sounds more impressive/bigger with highs sounding more detailed. Just now listened to Kenny Dorham album of Quite Kenny, there are 4 versions on Tidal as can be seen from the attached pic. Lets number them 1-4 from the left. I'm using Audirvana Plus for playback which does the software unfold. So, my findings are based on the first unfold, maybe it will sound more different still through a MQA DAC. Number 4 is the MQA version which is clearly louder than Numbers 1 and 3. Number 2 is very similar to MQA version in terms of loudness. To me Number 3 is the best version, when I up the volume by 3db it sounds about the same level as the MQA, and also sounds more pleasant, definitely prefer it over MQA. For some reason Number 3 has missing tracks, so I'm using Number 1 instead for regular listening. Anyone with Tidal, Audirvana+ or Roon can try this out too. It would be interesting to know what others have to say. mevdinc.com (My autobiography) Recently sold my ATC EL 150 Actives! Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted June 5, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted June 5, 2018 I'm not sure I understand why one has to have an "understanding" of the technical aspects of MQA to legitimately participate in the discussion. Someone's opinion about the sound of MQA - or any other audio technology, for that matter - isn't dependent on having a technical understanding. Yes, you can argue that the non-SQ aspects of MQA are vitally important, but many audiophiles have no interest in those issues, and are simply interested in whether it "sounds good" to them or not. Telling them they should be against it for reasons that they think are irrelevant isn't a good way to convince them of your position. Our fears about it's market controlling evil potential aren't hard based factual arguments, but just our understanding of the issue. Teresa and Bill Brown 1 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Shadders Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 Hi, Maybe those people who like MQA should try a QSound album : http://www.qsound.com/spotlight/users/recording-artists.htm I have Sting's - Soul Cages, and it does sound very good. I have other albums not QSound processed, and they sound good too. For those who have heard MQA - would like to know if MQA is similar to QSound ? Regards, Shadders. Link to comment
Shadders Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, firedog said: I'm not sure I understand why one has to have an "understanding" of the technical aspects of MQA to legitimately participate in the discussion. Someone's opinion about the sound of MQA - or any other audio technology, for that matter - isn't dependent on having a technical understanding. Hi, The disagreement is that one cannot challenge a person who understands that MQA is a scam/sham, and states that MQA is a sham/scam, for holding those views. If Norton likes MQA - then great. If someone else does not like MQA, then ok. But you cannot oppose people with technical views about MQA just based on the fact that they have not heard it. The technical views are still valid. Regards, Shadders. Bill Brown 1 Link to comment
christopher3393 Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 11 minutes ago, Shadders said: Hi, The disagreement is that one cannot challenge a person who understands that MQA is a scam/sham, and states that MQA is a sham/scam, for holding those views. If Norton likes MQA - then great. If someone else does not like MQA, then ok. But you cannot oppose people with technical views about MQA just based on the fact that they have not heard it. The technical views are still valid. Regards, Shadders. The technical views when technically correct are technically valid. Link to comment
Shadders Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 16 minutes ago, christopher3393 said: The technical views when technically correct are technically valid. Link to comment
crenca Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 1 hour ago, firedog said: I'm not sure I understand why one has to have an "understanding" of the technical aspects of MQA to legitimately participate in the discussion. Someone's opinion about the sound of MQA - or any other audio technology, for that matter - isn't dependent on having a technical understanding. True, however I think for Norton and others like him they don't really believe the technical facts. They suspect - Norton has said as much about posters here - that it is all a ruse, a whisper campaign by industry insiders who have something to $gain$ by working against MQA. They would rather believe the trade rags than the truth. Also, again (and again and again and again and again) MQA is not about the sound - that is the story that Bob S tells and the trade publications repeat. For Norton, or "Shill Brown", or anyone else to come on to what is one of the few places where MQA is actually discussed in an honest way and complain of "zealotry" and what not (especially while touting his own moral superiority as Norton does) is trolling behavior straight up. Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
FredericV Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 37 minutes ago, crenca said: True, however I think for Norton and others like him they don't really believe the technical facts. They suspect - Norton has said as much about posters here - that it is all a ruse, a whisper campaign by industry insiders who have something to $gain$ by working against MQA. They would rather believe the trade rags than the truth. If MQA becomes the only or dominant format, we lose our freedom to do whatever we like with real hi-res files. Instead of enjoying what the studio engineer worked on, we have to play lossy versions through an MQA decoder, and at best get something like 17/96 and several DSP artefacts introduced by MQA. Engineers like Brian Lucey and Dr. Aix / Mark Waldrep have openly opposed & exposed MQA. MQA tries to solve one issue, but introduces several new issues.We are only fighting for our rights, to take back what MQA is trying to take away. There is no financial gain. I would rather say MQA has created a loss in the sector: MQA is dividing the camps in 3: - the PRO mqa camp - the neutral camp - the CON mqa camp MQA has actually broken relationships in the hifi sector, and created opposing camps. New friends and new enemies since MQA. Divide & conquer. MikeyFresh 1 Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
Popular Post crenca Posted June 5, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted June 5, 2018 14 minutes ago, FredericV said: We are only fighting for our rights, to take back what MQA is trying to take away. There is no financial gain. I would rather say MQA has created a loss in the sector: MQA is dividing the camps in 3: - the PRO mqa camp - the neutral camp - the CON mqa camp IMO, there is no real "pro mqa camp" other than the writers for the trade publications and a rather small percentage of audiophiles (i.e. consumers with no industry affiliation) who simply like the MQA house sound. Many are in the neutral camp, but many more are in the CON camp. The more you understand, the more you are digitally aware - and correlated to this the younger you are, the more you recognize the voodoo. Even in the industry, most appear to be in the neutral camp, but as the Computer Audiophile and others report the truth of the matter is that even here most are in the CON camp - they understand the technical, business, and DRM implications of MQA even better than the average consumer. However, they acknowledge that because the trade publications went all in on MQA and are too embarrassed to back out, they have to play a political "neutral" game. I suspect however that this is all short term. It appears that MQA and the trade publications have overplayed their position in the market, and that in the medium and long term their influence will be less. They won't be able to lob an "end to end" hail mary like MQA in the future at least. This is not to say that the trade publications won't still be influential, but that an ever increasing number of consumers will be always looking for alternative sources of information, knowing that the "Old Guard" are not in the least bit interested in their interests or even the simple truth of a digital product like MQA. MikeyFresh, askat1988 and Ralf11 2 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now