Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

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
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?

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
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
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”.

You are not a sound quality measurement device

Link to comment

"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

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

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.

IMG_2271.JPG

mevdinc.com (My autobiography)
Recently sold my ATC EL 150 Actives!

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
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
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.
 

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...