MQA is Vaporware

[Kal Rubinson]

55 minutes ago, bambadoo said:

Seems like 2L is starting to only deliver in MQA now... 2 latest albums from the new webshop (that MQA/Roon guy helped with)

What did Chris say earlier? 

"glory days of pure lossless pcm are over"

Download the multichannel tracks. 😉

[Kal Rubinson]

4 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

They haven't figured out how to MQA multichannel music yet?

Sure they have.  That's how I obtained the multichannel MQA tracks that I have.  What they have not done (I am glad to say) is to release any commercially.  As a result, labels that are MQA-ing their stereo catalog are leaving their MCH stuff untouched.

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, R1200CL said:

That’s just because there’s hardly any MCH DAC’s …

In this context, that turns out to be advantageous. 🙂

[Kal Rubinson]

19 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Re dual layer SACD:  The Cd layer can be from any master -- ................................................... -- you don't know until you check.

If you care. 🙄

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

I know you only want the multi-channel version.

Or, if not available, the stereo DSD.  

[Kal Rubinson]

21 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

I said in an earlier posting that this (Tom Gillett writing for Stereophile under the pen name Sam Tellig) was agreed to 2 years before I joined Stereophile in 1986. I honored that agreement, even though I disagreed with it.

And it was not much of a secret, even then.

[Kal Rubinson]

19 minutes ago, Cebolla said:

 

You'd expect applying DSP to the MQA Core signal would corrupt the MQA Core signal's encoded MQA rendering data - Roon must be using some special MQA functions which somehow preserve and/or restore the MQA rendering data when DSP is applied.

I was told a couple of years back that DSP could be accomplished exactly that way: first unfold with storage of rendering data, DSP, restoration of data, rendering.

[Kal Rubinson]

6 minutes ago, ChrisG said:

Technically, Roon only pays royalties to MQA when the user plays a file that is MQA encoded. If you don't use Tidal w/ Roon, there are no royalties being paid. 

What if you use Roon to play an MQA-encrusted file from your own library? 

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

If you used a DAC that is a full decoder and renderer, you can turn off the decoder in Roon -- so no royalties paid from Roon; however, then you cannot have both DSP and mQa. 

None of my DACs are MQA-enabled and I have only a hand-full of non-commercial multichannel MQA files.  I don't really care about decoding/unfolding them.   

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, JoeWhip said:

They claim that it is because why waste their time but it is more likely because that manufacturer will no longer send in stuff to review or buy ads.

I do not know who "they" are but it ain't me. 

[Kal Rubinson]

2 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

So you have never said that you did not want to publish negative reviews because it was a waste of time and would rather stick with equipment that were worthy of positive reviews?

I can attest to the contrary.  While JA was editor, he consistently encouraged negative commentary, when deserved.

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Super Lossless.
 

Ultra Lossless.

 

Lossless Lossless. 

Hyper Lossless.

Meta Lossless.

[Kal Rubinson]

13 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information? "Peter Aczel"

The gullibility is a consequence of not wanting to understand or accept the "reliable sources of scientific information."  It is a choice.

[Kal Rubinson]

46 minutes ago, garrardguy60 said:

Is it a always a case of consciously not wanting to understand, or is it an inability to understand?

 

Consider this question by looking at an example from the sell side of MQA; namely, the staffers and contributors to the pub for which you write.

I am not going to engage in this discussion.  My comment was intended to be more general than MQA as, to be sure, was Aczel's intention.  

I was really objecting to using the term, "gullibility" as being too simplistic a diagnosis.