Jump to content

MQA is Vaporware

Recommended Posts

On 5/13/2019 at 4:35 PM, Em2016 said:


How does "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) look versus "MQA stereo original resolution" (first MQA unfold only).... ?


And even "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) vs DXD?


@FredericV - the reason I ask is because at my end, even "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) versus DXD doesn't like great on my end... and there's no MQA even involved...


On the other hand, "Stereo 24BIT/96kHz" (non-MQA) look versus "MQA stereo original resolution" (first MQA unfold only) looks very similar...


Hoping you can check and confirm...

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It would be interesting to read @John_Atkinson's reasoning for disregarding the information Charley sent to him. Perhaps disregarding isn't the right word and I don't want to put words into JA's mouth. Either way, would be good to know JA's side of this one. Not seeking a headline, but rather just some info. 


Chris I've asked him personally and not gotten an answer. People have been wondering since May of 2016 (Audio Nirvana) "why the near hysteria by Stereophile reviewers/staff over critical commentary regarding MQA."


Maybe John Atkinson wasn't used to being criticized?  I certainly got a lot flack from the industry when I criticized a speaker review in Listening #166 but none from John when we met at RMAF 2016 and discussed it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, bring back good old CA. Conversations about Hifi, not what has become a political campaign.


Sad days. I wonder what the sponsors think, the advertisers? Chris is facilitating this discussion and is anti-MQA. I wonder if there is an economic cost to this...


This really should be a private topic by now, hate is never pretty, especially in public.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Some people have expressed an interest in censoring content

There's some utter rubbish written here, it demeans the site IMHO. I visit less because of this rubbish (pretty Neutral on MQA). I'm not typical but if it puts clickers off...


Of course you might get more clickers if you encourage a hate fest where certain types relish offensive banter, so maybe it actually pays?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, firedog said:


Andrew hasn't gone "all in" on MQA. Read what he's written, he's not a big fan or supporter of the format itself. His role here has been more of one defending his publication and it's sister publications from the derision we've thrown their way for their fanboy attitude to MQA.  And to appeal for "civility".


Also to be fair, JA has acknowledged that there are some non-SQ, market  and market control issues around MQA. Even if it doesn't seem to bother him too much. 


I can't agree with you here.  The background is right, but Andrew's and John's qualifications seem odd in the face of the overall 'all-in' nature of their publications coverage of MQA.  It comes across as aloof and tone deaf.  Andrew in particular is clearly much more interested in defending his publication, industry insiders and reputation, and his narrow and elitist understanding of "audiophile community" than the truth of MQA.  These guys are first and foremost "Old Guard" country club members and defenders of the status quo, and so they are part of the overall phenomena of MQA.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...