Jump to content
Rt66indierock

MQA is Vaporware

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, FredericV said:

Another article which tries to weaken those who have debunked MQA, and try to lead the reader back to the canned articles from MQA?
 


https://audiophilereview.com/audiophile-news/what-does-master-quality-mean-to-me-or-you.html

It's pretty much a nothing blog piece that says nothing other than "let's just enjoy the music". Not really about MQA. Waste of a web page.


Main listening (small home office):

Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>CAPS IV Pipeline Server + Sonore 12V PS>Kii Control>Audiolense DRC>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.
 

Secondary Listening: CAPS Pipeline>IFi iOne DAC>Schiit Freya>Kii Three . Also an SBT and a RB Pi 3B+ running piCorePlayer as an SBT emulator. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

It is interesting that the pro MQA posters who behaved poorly are frequently named and criticized, while those against MQA who behaved poorly are seldom if ever named and the criticisms are vague and brief ---one could say "minimized". Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to name some of our own shortcomings in this thread, to own them? Who are these few bad apples and how bad were they really? Certainly not nearly as bad as the Shills of Audiophiledom!

 

Thank God there is no hypocrisy among our good membership or one might think there is a social media ethics problem of some sort here. And what on earth is Mr. Connaker on about in claiming there is a problem with so-called "civilty" on the forum, enough so that changes are proposed because of a few very vocal members. Surely not on the paragonal MQA thread!

 

After all, the OP has made clear numerous times that he does not see the "problem" as a problem. And one or two have made clear that they have no issue with banned members returning in disguise, like Anonymous, becaused they were chased off by snitches and civility police. TOS be damned, it is the right thing to do for a higher cause!

 

"AT EVERY DOORWAY before you enter, you should look around, you should take a good look around— for you never know where your enemies might be seated within."  --- Havamal

 

Happy New Year, gentlemen.

how have those who call out MQA "behaved badly"? In your opinion? Who cares what you think.

 

Lying, ignoring facts, contesting verified scientific data, and disingenuous contact only deserves smash mouth responses. 

 

If you don't like it, tough. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FredericV said:

Another article which tries to weaken those who have debunked MQA, and try to lead the reader back to the canned articles from MQA?
 


https://audiophilereview.com/audiophile-news/what-does-master-quality-mean-to-me-or-you.html

Steve Stone is laughable,  has zero credibility, and is clearly desperate writing for such a bottom feeding website. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting this back on track. One has to wonder why the posts about Bob Stuart and Peter Craven in the last few days. 

 

MQA is not making headway in the market. How do you listen to MQA files five years after the splashy introduction? In my case Tidal and a few download sites. I certainly will question why the press gave it so much attention. Raising a good question about the real influence of the audio press. Should be a good way to start the new year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

I certainly will question why the press gave it so much attention. Raising a good question about the real influence of the audio press.

 

An assessment some will say is glass half empty:

 

Two threads were started on the same day at AS (then CA):

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware

 

and

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/

 

 

For all the good the first has done and will continue to do, the latter has more views and shows us that the Old Guard status quo still has the majority right where they want them.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:


BS's "facts" have been refuted dozens of times already in this thread.

 

What would be the value of doing it again?

What value is there is nasty attacks, personal or otherwise? 


Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Share this post


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

I’m currently on vacation, so will not go into detail. But, Bob’s points have all been debunked several times. I don’t believe people want to waste their own time to wack the mole in another location. 
 

In these days of releasing music to streaming services right after it’s created and the freedom of distribution afforded to artists, I’d bet the farm that the vast majority aren’t interested in another layer in the process (MQA) that nobody has asked for, other than MQA. 
 

Rhetorical question, if MQA Ltd stopped its push on all fronts, do you think the product would die? 
 

If yes, then there is no demand, no need, and no interest in MQA. 
 

If the product is that good, these advertorials wouldn’t be necessary every few months. 

or what if MQA were free. What if the company just said, "hey, we like music, we think it is important music is well presented, so we are open sourcing MQA for everyone to use freely.  Just so the world can benefit for our research."

 

They give up on profiting from it, and make it a gift to the world.  Then if no one wants it .............


And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, esldude said:

or what if MQA were free. What if the company just said, "hey, we like music, we think it is important music is well presented, so we are open sourcing MQA for everyone to use freely.  Just so the world can benefit for our research."

 

They give up on profiting from it, and make it a gift to the world.  Then if no one wants it .............

I’m all for making money from one’s product but it should be commensurate with the product’s value to customers. In this case it’s near zero and I’m not sure which side of zero. 
 

And yes, what if it was free and nobody wanted it. Wouldn’t surprise me. 


Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Share this post


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...