Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

We can now add Cookie Marenco to the Quack and charlatan list. The fact that a recording engineer who touts offering music at the highest possible recording and mastering quality would partner with MQA is proof positive that she is either desperately selling out or is as gullible as shit.

 

To provide music in a lossy format is my cue to never visit her site again I have bought a few recordings from her (Quilles & Cloud) and never will spend another shekel. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

Cookie Marenco is a respected engineer and producer with 5 Grammy nominations. She has recorded Brad Mehldau, Ladysmith Black Mambazo, and Mary Chapin Carpenter and uses her real name. It's highly doubtful that "Ishmael Slapowitz" has any qualifications as an audio professional and has exactly one criterion for who is worthy in the field and who isn't. Most, me included, recognize that Slapowitz gets his jollies by riling people up and is here for his entertainment value. But I also feel it doesn't reflect well on AS for an especially conscientious and generous member of our industry like Marenco to be subject to preadolescent name-calling.

 

It also doesn't help the case of more thoughtful critics of MQA.

 

Andy Quint

 

 

I don't respect anybody who runs a business catering to audiophiles and decides to knowingly sell a scientifically proven defective product.

 

Enough of your BS. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard Dr Rod Crawford (designer of some of Linn's great speakers) say he likes it. He has given me some great help in the past. However I can't see a technical reason to want it, and given the drastically mixed reviews, I honestly don't expect to spend the time and cost to do a test.

 

Maybe it'll die before it takes hold. It wouldn't be the first time something possibly good died young.

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


Andy what about the thoughtless supporters of MQA? And as far as who is an audio professional I stand by my two sentence review of the Okto stereo DAC in Stereophile. COVID hurt my recording activities in 2020. I’m hopeful later this year I can get a new favorite in a studio. 

What have you recorded in the past?

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing The Audiophile Style Podcast

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dr Tone said:

The special facebook MQA advertising group is branching out and still spewing disinformation.

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/comparison-of-pcm-and-mqa/149787/277?u=drtone


Why is PV on every forum / blog / FB group which mentions MQA?
Why does he never learn and keep talking about second and third unfolds?

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 post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FredericV said:


Why is PV on every forum / blog / FB group which mentions MQA?
Why does he never learn and keep talking about second and third unfolds?

He must never sleep 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This may have been covered before, but the current statement on approval on a number of MQA enabled products says

 

" This indicates you are playing an MQA Studio file, which has either been approved in the studio by the artist or producer, or has been verified by the copyright owner"

 

In many cases now (e.g. Bob Dylan, Paul Simon) Sony, Warners or Universal Music are the copyright owners. I wonder who in that company is responsible for the verification and what rigorous verification processes they implement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification.

 

According to copyright..org

 

"The ownership of the sound recording copyright rests with the ‘author’ of the recording. But this is not necessarily a human author in the usual sense of the word. In UK law the author of a sound recording is the ‘producer’, a legal term usually taken to be the record company that paid for the recording to be made".

 

US law may be different.

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

Why does he never learn and keep talking about second and third unfolds?

 

"I want to believe" factor? He failed to consider that the file Jim was given at Stereophile had not been "folded" at all, but had been processed in whatever other way the MQA group desired. They obviously handed out carefully DSP'ed files to the press, which I don't doubt sounded more impressive than the originals, and, because the "origami" hadn't stripped the frequencies higher than 48k, still had the ADC noise visible.  Unless I'm mistaken, the amount of ADC noise in there would require a 32-bit file to encode, if they wanted to shove those bits underneath the noise floor of a 24-bit file.

 

It's worth noting that the AES paper they keep linking to has a demo file with a much higher noise floor. This makes me wonder if, with those lower-noise-floor files if compression IS necessary to make MQA "work" with them regardless.

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...