Stereophile Series on MQA Technology

[Norton]

44 minutes ago, Shadders said:

 

No one is pretending MQA is the enemy. 

 

Other than those on this site who instantly label as a shill anyone seen to be remotely hesitating in condemning MQA.

 

And just for absolution, I have never heard MQA, don't stream, don't own an MQA dac or music, nor have any intention to.  I do though prefer reasoned debate from forum members prepared to admit the possibility of a different viewpoint, honestly held.

 

 

[Norton]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi @seldomheard, do you care to reveal your real name and credentials? 

 

I suspect that is a question well worth asking of a number of other posters in the MQA threads.

[Norton]

15 minutes ago, mansr said:

Why? He says he has no current industry affiliations. Do you have proof otherwise?

 

I would have hoped the abusive  language  used  alone would have been enough to merit a ban.  

[Norton]

56 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

My point is that while JA/Stereophile have not taken direct advertising dollars from MQA, they were always going to be a "shill" for MQA 

 

 

 

I'm aware of the general use of the term, but wondered what you mean by a "shill"  in this context? Are the quotation marks significant?

[Norton]

23 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Sorry Norton, I am just putting it in quotes to signal that I realize it is a loaded term and that one person's shill is just another persons reasonable supporter...

 

Thanks for the clarification.  

[Norton]

3 hours ago, Thuaveta said:

For the curious, there's a wonderful talk on MQA right here. It might be a bit too reasonable and hydrogen-audio-ey for the wood-plug usb cable-set, but it's open-minded, structured, methodical, starts at the beginning and the "MQA is vaporware" thread is brought up.

 

I didn't bother listening after reading multiple inaccuracies and slants just on the introduction:

 

Tidal charges  more for MQA than non-MQA? 

 

You don't own a MQA download?

 

If you apply DSP after decoding you lose  the MQA license (?) and get < CD quality?

 

I wasn't aware any of those things were true, or at worst were true of MQA in particular.  Objective  and reasonable?  Just looks like a particularly clumsy prejudged kill job to me.  

[Norton]

1 hour ago, Fokus said:

 

You can only apply DSP properly after full decoding, but there is no decoder in existence that allows you to apply DSP to its output.

 

If you apply DSP before full decoding it will break the MQA code and will not allow you to decode.

 

The best one can do today is to take the unfolded digital output of Tidal or of a Node2 and apply DSP to that.

Even this was originally not allowed in the MQA paradigm.

 

But presumably you can apply whatever DSP you want to the decoded stream from Tidal desktop.  For example I can do whatever I want with the DSP options in my DAC once fed by Tidal MQA, the idea I then get  <  CD quality is patently absurd.

 

My real point though is that from the opening slide, it is clear that the scene is being set for propaganda rather than the objective analysis suggested above.  For example whether or not you own a download is a question that could be raised with any service or format (iTunes for example) it's nothing to do with MQA specifically.  Again the statement  that Tidal charge more for MQA, is disengenuous, Tidal charge more for all RBCD+ quality, not specifically for MQA.  By contrast with the scenario being hinted at here, most  Tidal subscribers seem pretty happy at getting MQA for no additional charge.

[Norton]

7 hours ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

It isn't inventory because it is intangible personal property.  Inventory is required to be tangible.  The costs of distributing digital downloads are miniscule.  Even now, the same file is offered in multiple formats.  If you are a fan of MQA please accept my condolences.  

 

But is an MQA  download any more "intangible personal property" than other music downloads (ITunes for  example)   Your point may be well made, but its not a MQA-specific point and is thus misleading when phrased as such.

[Norton]

49 minutes ago, FredericV said:

You should haven been smarter, instead of registering as Evangelist

 

What like "Brinkmanship"  you mean?  

[Norton]

22 minutes ago, mav52 said:

an occasional preacher, sometimes itinerant...any zealous advocate of a cause

 

He's come to the right site then.  I imagine he'll have a Damascene conversion in the company of an anonymous rich friend in a few days time and start the "MQA is the work of the Devil" thread.