Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I think the JA's and AQ, et al, are just trolling the forum.  How many questions about MQA have they answered without any deflection or disingenuousness? My count is zero.

 

Yep.  

 

It's a game of three-card monte, yet some of us want to believe that they play an honest game, or do most of the time, or want to, etc.  MQA is the Queen...think you can find it 😉

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTgoGH6JsbEQ-IQIKhyxpP

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

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

This forum is like the original Stereophile ( and TAS ). It is run by people with a love of music. J Gordon Holt and Harry Pearson wanted to share their love of music and the equipment that produced it.  They were perhaps not the best businessmen.

Then came Archibald and Atkinson.  They turned Stereophile into a successful and influential business.  The key word is business.  The decisions made at Stereophile are business decisions.

 

Does the magazine still exist?  I went to their website and clicked on Subscribe>Print Magazine and Subscribe>Digital Magazine and I get Server Not Found.

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It would be interesting to read why the old guard has elected to nor pursue the objective information about MQA. We've read just about everything else from them, but still no explanation for why this stuff has been ignored. If MQA is the second coming of digital, it should hold up just fine to objective criticism. 

 

We've heard, among other things:

MQA is the best thing that's ever happened to digital

There may be some drawbacks

It sounds fantastic

It unfolds to a trillion gigahertz (joking)

etc, etc, etc...

Yes, it is such an amazing sonic revolution that many experienced listeners can't consistently hear it. The "old guard' writers and magazine editors can, though. Ask JVS, he's never heard an MQA track that wasn't a sonic revelation. 
It must be wonderful to have better hearing skills than everyone else. 

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

And who could forget these unforgettable ditties from Stereophile:

  1. "So much more emotionally compelling, and so much more nuance."

     

  2. "The pacing and accents are more palpable."
  3.  

    "... the increased clarity of the spatial relationships between the players and the surrounding hall ambience."

     

  4.  

    "Listening to my recording with MQA literally brought tears to my eyes, because it was the first time I could hear what I heard in the hall."
  5.  

    "It was immediately apparent how much deeper I could listen into the soundstage with MQA. Due to MQA correction of minute timing errors, special relationships were clarified to a significant extent".

     

  6.  

    "I heard the winds in the back of the orchestra as I've never heard them before."

     

  7.  

    "The taps on the timpani and bass drum sound more natural, rather than like generic thwacks, and the sonic signature and dimensions of the hall are clearer."

     

 

Many of those don't bother me. Writers have creative license to describe these things how they wish. Number 5 could be innocent ignorance of what's going on and number 4 could use an explanation that all of this sonic change could be done without MQA.

 

 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I certainly hear what you're saying. A technical editor could correct that before publication. 

Why? Everyone knows MQA deblurred the track in question.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
2 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

And who could forget these unforgettable ditties from Stereophile:

  1. "So much more emotionally compelling, and so much more nuance."

     

  2. "The pacing and accents are more palpable."
  3.  

    "... the increased clarity of the spatial relationships between the players and the surrounding hall ambience."

     

  4.  

    "Listening to my recording with MQA literally brought tears to my eyes, because it was the first time I could hear what I heard in the hall."
  5.  

    "It was immediately apparent how much deeper I could listen into the soundstage with MQA. Due to MQA correction of minute timing errors, special relationships were clarified to a significant extent".

     

  6.  

    "I heard the winds in the back of the orchestra as I've never heard them before."

     

  7.  

    "The taps on the timpani and bass drum sound more natural, rather than like generic thwacks, and the sonic signature and dimensions of the hall are clearer."

     

 

 

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Many of those don't bother me. Writers have creative license to describe these things how they wish. Number 5 could be innocent ignorance of what's going on and number 4 could use an explanation that all of this sonic change could be done without MQA.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, mansr said:

It makes a specific technical claim, placing it in a different category than the other quotes.

 

 

Were all these made by JVS when comparing an MQA track to the equivalent PCM?

 

If so, then they all rest on the technical assertions (all false) of MQA.

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

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...