Ishmael Slapowitz Posted April 14, 2019 Share Posted April 14, 2019 21 minutes ago, daverich4 said: I wasn’t posting for or against MQA, I was just pointing out that I don’t think the people raging against MQA on this forum are going to affect it’s success or failure one way or another. ..and as usual you would be incorrect...😎 sandyk 1 Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted April 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 14, 2019 Success or failure is entirely in the hands of the content owners. You must influence them above all. Influence must start somewhere other than calling the CEO of Sony Music. Where? Places like this. Then it grows. You scare the labels into thinking piracy will result from forced MQA and they’ll back off. The movie industry decides there will be DRM and HDCP, so that’s what we have. It isn’t consumer driven. Shadders, troubleahead, Teresa and 2 others 5 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post Thuaveta Posted April 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 14, 2019 6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: The movie industry decides there will be DRM and HDCP, so that’s what we have. Quite a resounding success, too. MikeyFresh and lucretius 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Ralf11 Posted April 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 14, 2019 some of the people posting about MQA on this forum have already affected its success crenca, MikeyFresh and The Computer Audiophile 2 1 Link to comment
Paul R Posted April 15, 2019 Share Posted April 15, 2019 19 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Even if it is on YouTube it never happened according to some people. Well- spill the beans! What happened?!! Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted April 15, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 15, 2019 2 hours ago, Paul R said: Well- spill the beans! What happened?!! To the surprise of nobody, certain people were as pompous and abrasive as ever. I was told by people they’d never be on a panel or present with them again. Ralf11, Paul R and MikeyFresh 1 1 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
MikeyFresh Posted April 15, 2019 Share Posted April 15, 2019 2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: To the surprise of nobody, certain people were as pompous and abrasive as ever. I was told by people they’d never be on a panel or present with them again. Probably safe to say that Jbara is no pro at corporate governance, and Forsythe reacted poorly to his credentials being questioned? Ishmael Slapowitz 1 Boycott HDtracks Boycott Lenbrook Boycott Warner Music Group Link to comment
Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted April 15, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 15, 2019 On 4/14/2019 at 9:03 AM, daverich4 said: I wasn’t posting for or against MQA, I was just pointing out that I don’t think the people raging against MQA on this forum are going to affect it’s success or failure one way or another. And with due respect, I don't think your regular comments extolling the futility of rising in opposition of MQA in audio forums will have a measurable affect either. mansr, Ishmael Slapowitz, MikeyFresh and 4 others 3 1 2 1 Link to comment
daverich4 Posted April 15, 2019 Share Posted April 15, 2019 4 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said: And with due respect, I don't think your regular comments extolling the futility of rising in opposition of MQA in audio forums will have a measurable affect either. To paraphrase The Princess Bride... Extolling"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Ishmael Slapowitz and kumakuma 2 Link to comment
daverich4 Posted April 15, 2019 Share Posted April 15, 2019 @Ishmael Slapowitz You disagreed with my comment? You might consider looking up the definition of extolling. christopher3393 1 Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 18 hours ago, daverich4 said: To paraphrase The Princess Bride... Extolling"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” I'm well aware of the definition and I think the usage of that word is appropriate to describe your contributions to this thread. Was that word an odd choice to use next to the word "futility"? Perhaps. But your message is clear: protesting MQA is futile and foolish. Ralf11 1 Link to comment
danadam Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 Google finds exactly one other result for the phrase "extolling the futility" 🙂 Link to comment
Popular Post daverich4 Posted April 16, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said: I'm well aware of the definition and I think the usage of that word is appropriate to describe your contributions to this thread. Was that word an odd choice to use next to the word "futility"? Perhaps. But your message is clear: protesting MQA is futile and foolish. It must not have been clear enough because that isn’t what I was saying at all. When you phrase it that way it sounds as if I think the success of MQA is inevitable. I do not. While I don’t share the animosity towards MQA that many posters here do, I don’t have any desire to have that be the only game in town. But the factors that will decide that are much larger than any thing that’s posted on this site. Apparently several of the more prolific posters here disagree with that sentiment. That’s fine. Carry on. 4est and Paul R 2 Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 16 minutes ago, danadam said: Google finds exactly one other result for the phrase "extolling the futility" 🙂 Thanks for that. Still puzzled why it's even a thing though... Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 3 minutes ago, daverich4 said: It must not have been clear enough because that isn’t what I was saying at all. When you phrase it that way it sounds as if I think the success of MQA is inevitable. I do not. While I don’t share the animosity towards MQA that many posters here do, I don’t have any desire to have that be the only game in town. But the factors that will decide that are much larger than any thing that’s posted on this site. Apparently several of the more prolific posters here disagree with that sentiment. That’s fine. Carry on. Thanks for the response. Am I imagining that you're avoiding the point I was trying to make?: you mock MQA protesters and certainly imply that their effort is futile and foolish. Does your reply mean you won't do that anymore? MikeyFresh 1 Link to comment
Popular Post FredericV Posted April 16, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 16, 2019 OMG they still believe there are 3 unfolds ... so he quotes Archimago's article but clearly he has understood nothing, as he would have known better .... Currawong, maxijazz and Hugo9000 1 2 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
Ishmael Slapowitz Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 18 minutes ago, FredericV said: OMG they still believe there are 3 unfolds ... so he quotes Archimago's article but clearly he has understood nothing, as he would have known better .... Really hard to believe. I mean absurd. But then as has been stated ad nauseam we live in a post truth era. Link to comment
Popular Post FredericV Posted April 16, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 16, 2019 12 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said: Really hard to believe. I mean absurd. But then as has been stated ad nauseam we live in a post truth era. Let's use @mansr tools to educate him a little bit, shall we? So he claims MQA can contain 4 resolutions, but he obviously is mistaking resolution and upsampling. The first unfold can achieve 17/88.2 or 17/96 Then the second unfold can upsample to any value set by the orig_rate field as shown in the output of @mansr tool. If your MQA dac does not support that resolution (e.g. you try 352.8 kHz but your dac is a 24/192 dac, it may actually try to use 24/176.4 instead), but that does not make MQA a format which contains 44.1, 88.2, 176.4 and 352.8K resolution in the same file format. MQA is not DXD resolution, it can only do a fraction of DXD. Also notice that MQA files have similar data rates independent of the original being e.g. 24/96, 24/192, 24/384 or 24/768 as it decimates to 17/96 in this case and tries to pack that in a 24/48 container. For 44.1K multiples like DXD, you can clearly see the limitations of MQA: troubleahead, Ishmael Slapowitz and MikeyFresh 1 1 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
FredericV Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 Hans Beekhzn also believes there are 3 unfolds, while 24 bit stops at around -144dB, so how is this graph even possible? It's a complete fabrication by HB (or copied). So why is this completely incorrect graph still on Hans's site?http://thehbproject.com/nl/artikelen/38/6/MQA---Kwaliteitsgarantie The article mentions "kwaliteitsgarantie" which means quality assurance, but the articles by Hans lack any quality journalism. 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
Ishmael Slapowitz Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 11 minutes ago, FredericV said: Let's use @mansr tools to educate him a little bit, shall we? So he claims MQA can contain 4 resolutions, but he obviously is mistaking resolution and upsampling. The first unfold can achieve 17/88.2 or 17/96 Then the second unfold can upsample to any value set by the orig_rate field as shown in the output of @mansr tool. If your MQA dac does not support that resolution (e.g. you try 352.8 kHz but your dac is a 24/192 dac, it may actually try to use 24/176.4 instead), but that does not make MQA a format which contains 44.1, 88.2, 176.4 and 352.8K resolution in the same file format. MQA is not DXD resolution, it can only do a fraction of DXD. Also notice that MQA files have similar data rates independent of the original being e.g. 24/96, 24/192, 24/384 or 24/768 as it decimates to 17/96 in this case and tries to pack that in a 24/48 container. For 44.1K multiples like DXD, you can clearly see the limitations of MQA: Unfortunately, you are dealing with this: Link to comment
crenca Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 It looks like to me Steven Stone is simply trolling you. Hans however I don't think gets it - is that graph not straight from a Bob S presentation? Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
FredericV Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 4 minutes ago, crenca said: It looks like to me Steven Stone is simply trolling you. Hans however I don't think gets it - is that graph not straight from a Bob S presentation? Sometimes you wonder if they are playing dumb just for sake of trolling: or they are completely misinformed like the HB project 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
crenca Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 I suspect it's both. I don't know who Steven Stone is but like so many doing audio "reviews" he might not have any knowledge of basic digital software at all. He might not have liked being exposed so he is running with "perceptual lossless" and the like... Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
FredericV Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 Just now, crenca said: I suspect it's both. I don't know who Steven Stone is but like so many doing audio "reviews" he might not have any knowledge of basic digital software at all. He might not have liked being exposed so he is running with "perceptual lossless" and the like... He spilled the beans: he ignored all the independent research: 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
daverich4 Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 3 minutes ago, crenca said: I suspect it's both. I don't know who Steven Stone is but like so many doing audio "reviews" he might not have any knowledge of basic digital software at all. He might not have liked being exposed so he is running with "perceptual lossless" and the like... https://audiophilereview.com/authors/steven-stone.html Samuel T Cogley 1 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