Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

Just another reason why I don’t stream. Frankly, I have more than enough music that I enjoy without ever having to buy another thing. So, no MQA. I guess I will finally have to hand in my audiophile card.

 

If your music was MQA, you wouldn't be an audiophile anyways.

Boycott Warner

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

Here’s a good one. Amazon streams MQA if that’s what’s supplied by the label. sneaky. 
 

Just tested it with a known album. 
 

If anyone has a specific album they want me to test let me know. 

 

Hehe. At least all the trouble to get the Node 2i proved useful.

 

Can you test 2L recordings :

 

Hoff: Innocence
Hoff Ensemble

 

Arnesen: MAGNIFICAT 4. Et misericordia
Nidarosdomens jentekor & TrondheimSolistene

 

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

RecordingsNugs.Net Opens the Floodgates to Live Hi-Res Recordings

111220_stream_on_oct-nov2020.png

Source - https://www.soundandvision.com/content/nugsnet-opens-floodgates-live-hi-res-recordings

 

According to this graphic, MQA is superior to FLAC-HD.

Laughable. 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

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

RecordingsNugs.Net Opens the Floodgates to Live Hi-Res Recordings

111220_stream_on_oct-nov2020.png

Source - https://www.soundandvision.com/content/nugsnet-opens-floodgates-live-hi-res-recordings

 

According to this graphic, MQA is superior to FLAC-HD.

If MQA is announced to be superior (top shelf quality), will PCM FLAC (4 shelfs below) come at a more interesting price in the future???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the usual MQA mouthpieces that broadcast any bit of MQA propaganda are being very quiet about the fact that studios are supplying MQA masters to music streamers.  Seems like they don't want people to know what's happening.  It's like they are trying to slip MQA in behind peoples' backs.

From day one it seems that MQA was less than forthcoming about what MQA was and what their intentions were. We were told that MQA was a lossless compression process that corrected every defect in the recording chain.  We were told that MQA was not DRM.  We were also told not to look behind the curtain.  But people did.  And saw the truth about MQA.

There is just a very bad smell about this whole scheme.

Boycott Warner

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2020 at 5:53 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Here’s a good one. Amazon streams MQA if that’s what’s supplied by the label. sneaky. 
 

Just tested it with a known album. 
 

If anyone has a specific album they want me to test let me know. 

 

Hi @The Computer Audiophile

 

Where you able to test these albums on Amazon Music HD?

 

2L recordings :

 

Hoff: Innocence
Hoff Ensemble

 

Arnesen: MAGNIFICAT 4. Et misericordia
Nidarosdomens jentekor & TrondheimSolistene

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What about a lawsuit against MQA clan, wouldn't that be possible based on their lies while introducing the product to the market.? According to law, can you say any bullshit while introducing and advertising a new product.? Wouldn't an eventual lawsuit (even if lost) make the mainstream press more interested in the truth behind MQA and thus make much more people realize what's really going on here.?

And last but not least - who could sue them.? (maybe us.? 9_9)

 

 

What’s true of all the evils in the world is true of plague as well.
It helps men to rise above themselves.
 
  ―  Albert Camus, The Plague.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

 

Hi @The Computer Audiophile

 

Where you able to test these albums on Amazon Music HD?

 

 

2L recordings :

 

Hoff: Innocence
Hoff Ensemble

 

Arnesen: MAGNIFICAT 4. Et misericordia
Nidarosdomens jentekor & TrondheimSolistene

 

I’m taking the weekend off :~)

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

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

Arch just made me think about something else when he mentioned illegal downloading of MQA, or lack there of. Give the availability of licensed software decoders, the fact that there’s no “pirate” version of a software decoder online should also be telling. Nobody wants MQA, otherwise there’d be demand for an illegal decoder. 
 

It is clear to me that MQA provides ZERO benefit to the consumer.   Even the  idea that 'MQA' provides traceability to the consumer is false.  I am pretty sure that MQA can withstand the mastering damage done against recordings, so MQA means nothing at all WRT quality.   Just because they get someone to sign-off on a recording is also MEANINGLESS.   The industry has learned to accept the needlessly compressed recordings (for example, most people probably haven't recently heard an accurate playback of dynamics of a piano)*   (It only takes a reasonably experienced ear to detect the 'flattened' sound of pianos on most recordings.)   MQA WILL NOT FIX THAT PROBLEM.

 

* Certain boutique recordings are clean, but few mass produced recordings have avoided the ubiquitous, industry standard distortion process.

 

If MQA meant anything, it should be impressed on a master tape copy, immediately as it is played-out/decoded onto digital media.  The signal/encoding must be fragile enough to break-down (or be detected as damaged) if any damage is incurred on the recording.

 

The industry doesn't really care about the quality of their product, just the profit (which, in a way is the correct goal), but we (the consumer) are truly being cheated.   When we spend $10-$100 on a copy of a recording, we should be getting a clean version.   MQA doesn't help this situation, but ONLY adds an incremental layer of damage.

 

John

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The industry doesn't really care about the quality of their product, just the profit (which, in a way is the correct goal), but we (the consumer) are truly being cheated.   When we spend $10-$100 on a copy of a recording, we should be getting a clean version.   MQA doesn't help this situation, but ONLY adds an incremental layer of damage."

 

The industry must care about profit, or they wouldn't stay in business.  They must care about the quality of their product.  If an industry continues to put out a poor quality product, people will not buy it.  This should be the case with the products that Warner is putting out.  People should not be buying the Warner products.

 

Boycott Warner

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

"The industry doesn't really care about the quality of their product, just the profit (which, in a way is the correct goal), but we (the consumer) are truly being cheated.   When we spend $10-$100 on a copy of a recording, we should be getting a clean version.   MQA doesn't help this situation, but ONLY adds an incremental layer of damage."

 

The industry must care about profit, or they wouldn't stay in business.  They must care about the quality of their product.  If an industry continues to put out a poor quality product, people will not buy it.  This should be the case with the products that Warner is putting out.  People should not be buying the Warner products.

 

I agree -- what can we do about it?   1)  cannot legally redistribute 'good' versions that are seldom available  2) no matter how people complain, the answer is to 'remaster', which doesn't fix the problem.

 

I can reverse the evil compression even on many remasters!!!   That is *bad*.  There shouldn't be an ability to correct a problem -- because it shouldn't be there to begin with.

 

The "MQA"  kind of thing has, in a distant way, been with us since CDs came out.   The manifestation was that 'digital sound' back in the '80s that was misattributed to digital technology.   Just chatted with a friend who was also alive during the time of CDs coming out, (an AT&T Bell Labs co-worker), and he quit buying CDs in disgust also.   People like me aren't alone -- I knew what recordings sounded really sound like, and I had to finally reject almost anything that I purchased.    There wasn't enough people like me and my friend Harold -- more people should have simply quit buying the CDs.    People generally don't hear 'sound quality', but they have a 'listening experience' ...   As long as the 'sound quality' isn't too terrible that it can be adapted to/accomodated, then it will only minimally interfere with the 'listening experience'.

 

This is why the industry has gotten by without needing to fully expose their intellectual property, still making the majority of the population adequately satisified.   The industry has gotten the best of both worlds.

 

John

 

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...