microRendu and MQA

[witchdoctor]

I think it would not be a good idea to buy MQA files. MQA is a fig leaf for the music industry. It gives them a way to offer, thru streaming, something like hi-res and do it using something like DRM. They can say that they are offering listeners a true hi-res experience without exposing the real high resolution master file to the stream of commerce where it would certainly be abused. They learned their lesson after the file sharing debacle and will not make that mistake again. They will never offer a real hi-res file of any commercially viable music. Maybe classical music recorded in an old church in Norway but not any artist that they can count on to sell in large numbers.

 

You must have a machine that prints money, take every available MQA track on Tidal and multiply by the cost of a hirez disc and then ad in the cost of a hirez dac. If you prefer DSD rock on but to me its not worth the $$$$$ to buy discs, dacs, and SACD players.

[witchdoctor]

16 hours ago, barrows said:

Audiophiles should resist MQA, simple as that.  MQA is not bit perfect, and adds artifacts not associated with the original music.  From a technical point of view, MQA is faux high res.  It is bewildering to me that the same people who complain mightily about some hi res downloads and their exact provenance are willing to promote MQA's awful money grabbing policies, exclusivity, and the addition of artifacts to music.

If we do not resist MQA at all points, it may become a standard, and music will suffer for it.  Demand real hi res, not MQA bastardized music.

If the SQ is no good no reason to "resisist", people will not buy. As for your real "hirez", I see those SACD's and DVD-A are taking the world by storm, who in the world would ever use streaming again when they can buy all those wonderful discs?
Good luck with your revolution.

[witchdoctor]

15 hours ago, firedog said:

"Most people hear major improvements" is just a conjecture on your part. No actual data behind it. Only your impressions. Your impressions aren't data or facts. No one knows what "most people" think.

 

I apparently know more about MQA than you. The Dragonfly Black doesn't do the first unfold. It is a renderer, which means it applies the MQA "deblurring". It depends on desktop software to do the unfold.

If you look hard the ME2, which actually processes MQA, can be had for about $130. I've done plenty of MQA experiments with it and aren't particularly impressed by MQA.

As I said, I think there are much more effective ways to improve a sound system, and they work for all files, not just MQA files. That's why I don't think it should be anyone's priority in buying equipment.

Rather pretentious to claim you are the wisest person in the world, don't you think? Why not just start a new thread, you can call it
"Why I am always right and you are all just numb skulls"

[witchdoctor]

8 hours ago, firedog said:

What's your problem?

 

I made no such claim. DarwinOSX made a statement about how MQA and the Dragonfly work that was patently incorrect, while at the same time accusing me of not understand it and suggesting I read up on the subject.

So not pretentious to claim I know more about it than him - which is all I claimed. It apparently is true, based on his demonstrated lack of understanding of the subject. 

 

He also claimed that "most people" agree with him about MQA. Based on what? There's no basis for such a claim. If you and he like it say so. I have no argument with your taste. But don't try the tired tactic of claiming your opinions have the authority of "most people". 

 

Sorry you don't like the tone, but calling that ignorant isn't pretentious, it's simply a fact. Not understanding your own lack of knowledge and telling others they should "readup" on the subject is clearly also arrogant. 

 

Read the posts again. I reacted to his statement that MQA was a must have feature. So I asked him if he had actually heard it. The truth is that it's pretty clear  that "most audiophiles" still haven't heard MQA. (You pretty much can't unless you have one of a very few new DACs, some specific software, and a subscripton to Tidal or a small number of downloadable files for comparison). At that point he hadn't stated what his experience is with it. I wasn't asking to put him down, but to understand if he was merely taking a position based on enthusiasm without experience or one from experience. I guess I should have phrased it better.  I didn't say MQA sucked, criticize him personally for liking it, or accuse him of having no taste, etc. I simply stated that I didn't think MQA added much to the overall  listening experience and that there are more effective ways to improve a system.  

 

But, apparently the fact that I don't share his enthusiasm for MQA is very hard for him to take. He also used that as a jumping off point to engage in personal invective about how I must be someone who "pooh-poohs" anything new. Without a shred of evidence, I might add.

 

So it's pretty clear who's being intolerant and operating from a position not based on facts. Hint: it isn't me. 

 

Or is the real issue simply that you also can't take it when someone isn't a MQA fanboy?

 

Hint, it is you

[witchdoctor]

5 hours ago, Albrecht said:

Hi,

There are more reasons to resist MQA, most importantly is the exploitation of artists, and the Netflixization & limiting of content by the MQA delivery system.

If MQA can get more people to pay for streaming and pirate less that is better for artists.

[witchdoctor]

22 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Are you sure about that? Better than what? Do you read Adrian Utley's article on how much artists average during streaming? Is it better to get paid almost nothing from streaming than selling your CD or download or Vinyl on TuneCore or bandcamp? Is it better or worse to be on labels like Six Degrees that still makes CDs and offers both redbook downloads and gives its artists more points per unit? Finally, - if the labels are using MQA as DRM, do they take more money out of what they should be paying artists to cover the licensing costs of MQA?

I am sure pirating rips off the artist. I am sure artists prefer legal streaming vs pirating.