MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 hours ago, rickca said:

Does this group have a name yet?

MQ-Nay :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, mcgillroy said:

Looks like Xivero, authors of the "Hypothesis Paper on MQA" took a page from MQAs playbook and now offer their own set of filters to remove pre-ringing throughout the recoding and playback-chain:

 

https://www.xivero.com/xipodizer/

 

 

 

 

Oh how blasphemous, they are even charging real money for their product. 

 

Only joking. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

Streaming doesn't count you have to able to buy.

 

I'll respectfully disagree with you on this one. Saying a streaming technology is vaporware because one can't purchase and download music using this technology, is a bit strange. MQA is all about streaming. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, Digital Assassin said:

However, this is not the story told at the beginning.

 

Here is John Atkinson quoted, with two totally untrue today fact:

 

As MQA needs to be applied at the mastering stage in a recording's production, it doesn't improve the sound quality of your existing CD collection. It is really only relevant to downloads.

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/ive-heard-future-streaming-meridians-mqa#iVGw34mUHUGtC4bm.99

 

The story kept on changing, and keeps on changing to this day.

 

I hear what you're saying, but I'm not certain that's the best information to support your point :~) 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

Not too long ago you could find threads here on CA about people fussing over the parameters for iZotope sample rate conversion, with tiny fractions of changes allegedly responsible for massive changes in sound. These threads were all the more funny because many of these people did not even understand what the parameters meant, and how illegal/invalid many of the filters they generated were. But blacks were blackerder, veils were lifted and then removed totally, the musicians were here and the listeners were there, over and over again, that much closer to the true sound.

 

 

What a great opportunity to help those who lacked the education to understand what they were doing. 

 

I'm guessing you offered some quick tips?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, esldude said:

Would you posit a guess as to how well that would go?

 

It would be welcomed by the 99% of reasonable people here and unwelcome by the vocal 1%. 

 

I assume an illegal or invalid filter would be cause for concern for anyone, including us knuckle dragging audiophiles :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

After two decades of attempting such education one tends to give up. At least in certain quarters.

 

 

I hear ya. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

"To rewind a tad, all business is about profit. That's the nature of the beast. Nobody goes into business to work for free or give stuff away. However, when business involves collaboration with other commercial entities, it's common sense to expect balanced contracts which are mutually beneficial to all parties concerned. "

 

Sounds like President Trump talking about our foreign trade agreements. Common sense needing to prevail for both sides.  

Two thumbs up.  

 

Not defending anyone here, but this is usually accomplished through negotiations and each party weighing the pros and cons. If the contract doesn't make sense to sign, you don't sign it. I'm totally fine with any company offering whatever terms and conditions it wants in a contract, as long as I'm not required to sign it by law. Hopefully a somewhat free market will prevail and people will decide what's best for them or their companies. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Digital Assassin said:

No, sounds like fraud and collusion, Actually.

 

Who is colluding and committing fraud with respect to MQA? if you're talking politics, I understand, but let's keep that out of the MQA discussion.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Digital Assassin said:

Yes, sir I am talking both..first..politics..perhaps address the poster above?

 

Second: Yes MQA has fraudulently marketed their product. The only thing true about it is that it does fold down higher sampling rates to a smaller container. Everything else is a marketing lie.

Collusion: with the audio press and currently with mastering engineers being recruited as "reps".

 

I hear you, but wouldn't stretch it that far. MQA has some wiggle room :~)

 

I hope the press was just clueless rather than colluding, but that doesn't help the end result.

[The Computer Audiophile]

23 minutes ago, Digital Assassin said:

So...would does it seem credible on any level that tenured for decades editors of the only two US remaining audiophile print magazines are clueless? One who markets himself as an electronics engineer, a recording engineer, a musician, and who has measured thousands of components and speakers...clueless?

 

Or buttering the bread. I don't mind at all defending colleagues, and providing counterpoints, all sides need to make their points, but....

 

 

I hear ya. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Digital Assassin said:

Maybe I am off the mark, but you seem here to strike a perfect balance. The very fact you have these forums means you understand that consumers must be served. I don't know of any other audiophile publication, virtual, or print, that has this much exchange of information. I thank you.

 

Hi DA - Thanks for the kind words.

 

It's no secret that I feed my family from advertising income generated from CA. However, without putting the CA Community and readers / consumers first, there is no advertising income and there is no CA. For the most part ad prices are based on the amount of traffic a site receives. It's in my best interest to serve consumers and hope the income follows. It never turns out well for those who mix up the order of who is most important in this type of business. 

 

I could go on and on about this, but I hope my point is clear. It's just not worth it for me to chase advertising dollars by catering to manufacturers and putting the CA Community second. It also feels gross to think about running a business with those priorities mixed up. 

 

P.S. There are some very cool companies who totally understand this. They realize a stronger independent community is better for them than a site that is in their pocket. I enjoy working with these companies. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi @PeterV, releasing someone's name to the public, who wishes to remain anonymous, is against the rules here at CA. I've removed identifying information from your posts. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

People's employment has been jeopardized due to their real names being released here on CA. 

 

I don't wish to help people interested in such nefarius activity. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, JoeWhip said:

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/07/kih-46-mqas-missing-link/

 

another negative look inside MQA. The audiophile press will really have egg on their faces after all is said and done I believe.

 

It's the same content as @soxr posted

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

Indeed but this time on an audio publication not a forum. 

 

Um, OK.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Sal1950 said:

How do you define a "real studiomaster"?

Just curious.

I just recorded my voice in my mobile phone. It's the real studio master :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

It all went down hill there when JGH started to accept advertising.

 

You kids get off my lawn!

 

:~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

For a  $500 premium you can get them pre burned in.

 

 

But not cryogenically treated?

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

Chris,

 

Why the snarkiness? The only difference between the original Berkeley DAC (your long time reference) and your even more beloved "Reference Series" (at nearly 3x the price) was upgraded passive parts quality - things that shouldn't make a difference yet obviously do to a trained listener with a familiar system playing familiar music. Specifically, a chassis machined from solid billet instead of bent sheet metal and a change from "standard" FR-4 PCB material to Rogers 4000 series, a low-loss material designed for GHz range circuits.

 

I think this is more than enough about who can hear what differences, and is certainly not the place. Please return to discussions about MQA.

 

Thanks,

Charles Hansen

 

It was just a joke.

[The Computer Audiophile]

There's actually much more that's different between the Alpha and RS. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Paging Prof. @wgscott for a Cliff's Notes version of the above :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

Ha!

[The Computer Audiophile]

iTunes doesn't require anything above 44.1. Apple asks for it, but that's it. 

 

44.1 is still the norm because the need for so many channels. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Good. That pretty much says what I said. High res is a recommendation, not a requirement and studios are capable of high res, not necessarily using it.