Article: MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

[rickca]

30 minutes ago, mansr said:

The blue light goes on if the top 16 bits match the cryptographic signature. That's probably difficult to fake. Let's say it's impossible. All that means is the file has been passed through a genuine MQA encoder with the right private keys. It says nothing about what the input actually was. If you send an upsampled file for encoding, you'll get back a signed MQA file claiming to originate from whatever fake sample rate you provided.

So the whole assurance of provenance thing is just a story.  The blue light is assurance that the potential MQA DRM mechanism is intact.  The file is therefore considered genuine from an MQA perspective.  In the imagination of marketing spin, it's the sound of the studio.

[rickca]

3 hours ago, Chiger Yelam said:

I see no reason to mistrust the audiophile press on this issue as it is their job to give informed and unbiased reviews

Sure, and I can trust my elected officials to represent my interests because that's their job.  Exceptionally naive position.

[rickca]

The article is actually very reserved in tone given the big gap between MQA claims/press accolades and reality.  

[rickca]

6 minutes ago, Archimago said:

The way I see it, the only way MQA can succeed will be in spite of consumer protests, not because of consumer support.

Your comment had me wondering which products have ever succeeded in spite of consumer protests?

 

[rickca]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

I have not heard the MQA version sound worse than the PCM original

Yeah, not exactly a WTF moment.

[rickca]

8 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

I request that CA posters read the full text of what I wrote, in order to comprehend the context.

OK I read your article again to get the full original context.  It's still embarassing.

[rickca]

7 minutes ago, Archimago said:

The problem is that audiophiles who are trying to understand what is happening here have been made to jump through hoops to address the claims one by one without the assistance of the mainstream press - the ones we should hope are working for audiophiles as partners in truth, clarity, and education.

Kind of utopian.  It clearly doesn't work this way.  Did it ever?  We are on our own.

[rickca]

8 minutes ago, Archimago said:

why not freely share them in the forum

Because it doesn't generate clicks for Stereophile.  

[rickca]

27 minutes ago, crenca said:

Not a chance

When you go all-in 'birth of a new world',  you can't back out.  The cheerleaders are going down with the ship if it sinks.

 

I don't even think Iverson's point about being unable to evaluate deblurring and compression independently is a strong argument.  You first need to ask exactly what deblurring means in the first place and whether MQA actually does what it claims to do.

[rickca]

8 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

I was intending to examine the deblurring.

Were your readers not interested in this two years ago?