MQA is Vaporware

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, Currawong said:

 

I know Lee has now been banned, but it still gets me how someone can't see the contradictions in their own comments, i.e: The high-res part could be chopped off (rather than the bits within the audible range) and people probably wouldn't hear it either. Heck, given a lot of the "hires content" is supposedly ADC noise (according to Dan Lavry and others) it would make more sense. 

Hi,

Lee never answered a question, whose answer would have shown what he was saying was incorrect, and hence MQA is a scam.

 

To me, he was either a shill or troll.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Tintinabulum]

9 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

As others have stated, this is the thread that keeps on giving. I can see the MQA supporters huddling now. 

 

“OK your turn.”

”Hell no, you first.”

”Alright send the new guy in to defend MQA.”

I see it exactly the other way (on fora in general), "they" take it in turns to bash MQA, send someone over to Roon, keep that thread alive (MQA hate). As much is said here "maybe the other fora need NEW members". To me, it's a conspiracy against MQA. Nothing new comes out but it's just re-hashed for the purpose of the Campaign. 

 

 

[Tintinabulum]

1 minute ago, Shadders said:

Lee never answered a question, whose answer would have shown what he was saying was incorrect, and hence MQA is a scam.

Why does what Lee say have to do with MQA being a scam? A bit of a leap there..

[Shadders]

11 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

There are many professional engineers who favor MQA but I guess these opinions don't count either.

Hi Lee,

I know you cannot respond, but one aspect on this :

 

Do those people who back MQA rely upon the major three labels who are part owners of MQA, for their income ???

 

Brian Lucey indicated that there was euphonics in the system.

 

I would expect those people who rely upon the three major labels may be very much less inclined to voice their opposition to MQA, and may even support it, for their livelihood depends upon it.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

2 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

Why does what Lee say have to do with MQA being a scam? A bit of a leap there..

Hi,

No, since MQA has been shown to be a scam, Lee is aware of the proof that it is a scam. So by not answering simple questions, yet responding on this thread with more technical statements, then he is selectively ignoring those questions whose answers show he understands the proof that MQA is a scam.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Tintinabulum]

Sorry, what Lee says has nothing to do with MQA being a scam or not. There's no logic there. For me MQA isn't a "scam". I have a different understanding of the word. 

 

So if Lee said something different, MQA wouldn't be a scam? This sort of thing is the reason the debate has become what it has.

[Shadders]

6 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

Sorry, what Lee says has nothing to do with MQA being a scam or not. There's no logic there. For me MQA isn't a "scam". I have a different understanding of the word. 

 

So if Lee said something different, MQA wouldn't be a scam? This sort of thing is the reason the debate has become what it has.

Hi,

I never stated Lee has anything to do with MQA.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Tintinabulum said:

To me, it's a conspiracy against MQA. Nothing new comes out but it's just re-hashed for the purpose of the Campaign.

 

Yes, we all get our marching orders from the shadowy figures who make millions from FLAC compression.  😉

[Tintinabulum]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

Yes, we all get our marching orders from the shadowy figures who make millions from FLAC compression

Or like minded people effectively carry out a campaign because they want to (or any number of other reasons), who brought money into it?

 

[Tintinabulum]

42 minutes ago, Shadders said:

I never stated Lee has anything to do with MQA.

Well that's where we started! I quoted you. Re-read this if you need to. 

[mansr]

I think Lee's replacement has arrived.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Maybe a thread like 'audio imperfections and how we describe them'  what does it mean

 

Heck, I've been trying to get people to tell me what jitter (various types) sounds like for years. Not as a challenge,  but as a way to start training myself.

 

You described a process of training yourself to hear particular types of distortion; I think it would be quite valuable for consumers to be able to do that with a variety of different kinds of distortion.

[Shadders]

Just now, Tintinabulum said:

Well that's where we started! I quoted you. Re-read this if you need to. 

Hi,

Understanding what MQA is, as per the proof in this thread, is not the same as Lee has something to do with MQA. He can be aware of what MQA is, and not answers questions which disprove his statements, yet still not be affiliated to MQA.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

Or like minded people effectively carry out a campaign because they want to (or any number of other reasons), who brought money into it?

 

 

That isn't what "conspiracy" means. Re-read what you posted if you need to.

[Tintinabulum]

31 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Understanding what MQA is, as per the proof in this thread, is not the same as Lee has something to do with MQA

Read where I quoted you.

[Tintinabulum]

34 minutes ago, mansr said:

I think Lee's replacement has arrived.

And the schoolyard gang is called out... one by one...

[Tintinabulum]

31 minutes ago, Jud said:

That isn't what "conspiracy" means. Re-read what you posted if you need to.

 

32 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I've re-read twice and your comment doesn't make sense. 

[Tintinabulum]

This is what CA has become... what a shame.

 

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

And the schoolyard gang is called out... one by one...

 

Quite the schoolyard - the school apparently has a nice course on DSP.

 

So instead of doing what you're accusing others of (in essence, being unfair to MQA), please provide pertinent technical arguments with graphs as applicable, just as the folks who've critiqued MQA have done.

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, Tintinabulum said:

 

I've re-read twice and your comment doesn't make sense. 

 

Let me explain it then. You said there was a conspiracy here against MQA.

 

When I then joked about a conspiracy, you responded that there was effectively a campaign of like-minded people. In other words, a bunch of people here don't like aspects of MQA and say so.

 

I pointed out that a bunch of like-minded people saying similar things isn't a conspiracy. "Conspiracy" means that people say similar things because they got together and planned it.

 

Hope now that I've explained this using simple words, it makes sense to you. Still maintain there's an anti-MQA conspiracy here, where we all meet and plan this in advance?

[beetlemania]

13 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

There are many professionals who like MQA? Are you talking about the same ones that like anything that will get them a free piece of gear or some other fringe benefit?

 

If TAS wasn't such a monument to ethical and principled reviewing, I'd almost think you were referring to RH. 🧐

[Tintinabulum]

13 minutes ago, Jud said:

Hope now that I've explained this using simple words, it makes sense to you. Still maintain there's an anti-MQA conspiracy here, where we all meet and plan this in advance?

Nope, sorry I have no idea what you're going on about. I'll re read it though. (or you could put you point in one sentence)

 

[Jud]

1 minute ago, Tintinabulum said:

Nope, sorry I have no idea what you're going on about. I'll re read it though. (or you could put you point in one sentence)

 

 

Feigning incomprehension when called on a false claim.  I am so very not surprised.

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

That isn't what "conspiracy" means. Re-read what you posted if you need to.

 

You are right if course, but it is gang think or mob think. People will voluntarily act crazy in concert to be one of the “in” crowd. 🦍

[Samuel T Cogley]

It seems that MQA's latest play is mobile phones.  I'm struggling to understand how MQA thinks there is any appetite for lossless 44/16  in the mobile market let alone something MQA claims is "as good as" 96/24 content.

 

How many audiophiles do you know whose mobile phone is at the center of their home system?  The typical mobile phone usage model is using cheap, low fidelity earbuds or some Bluetooth end point.  Bluetooth at best can sound as good as high bitrate lossy compression, but typically is stuck around 250-350 kbps, with only LDAC (requires special hardware) providing something like truly lossless streaming.

 

Is something like LDAC phone -> LDAC headphones where MQA thinks they can make strides?  LDAC headphones aren't cheap.  And as such, they'll likely be a big theft target in public transportation scenarios.  The other glaring issue is Tidal, who only just recently got MQA's "first unfold" to work on mobile platforms.  I guess we'll never know how much of that work came from MQA vs. the alleged Tidal developers.  You need Tidal to get MQA and Tidal's music selection is a mere fraction of what mainstream services like Spotify and Apple Music offer.