Jump to content

Currawong

Members
  • Content Count

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Currawong

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. What Thuaveta said. I look at it as more "I want to believe" with MQA instead of the UFO. If a person has any genuine intellect, they would, upon learning the truth of something, re-evaluate what they have previously learned or believed, and express themselves based upon that from then on. What we have instead, with some people, is not just people who don't want to accept the truth (in this case about MQA), but actually make fanatical efforts to argue against it. More usefully, reviewers could learn more about digital audio, as I have from reading the MQA threads, and expand their knowledge, making them better and more useful in their job, and improving the quality of the magazines or sites they write for.
  2. I think that the "render" really being up-sampling and not part of the actual MQA file is the most damning bit. You can't talk your way around adding data that wasn't there in the first place.
  3. That's a great list, thanks. I just need pictures to help things along. 1. Not lossless. That's where I usually start. Covered by this patent pic. 2. Doesn't have the full dynamics of CD Quality. Ok, I missed that one. Got a link to the discussion of that? 3. Leaky filters. Got that from "MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions" 4. Authentication. Ditto above. I remember great post someone made in one of the other threads about all the manipulation and electronics a regular audio master has had done to it before it is sent out on a format, so the ADC processing is irrelevant. If anyone recalls it, please link me. 5. ADC used filters. That was mansr's deconstruction of the baked-in filters inside the MQA code wasn't it? 6. 96k limit. As per the image from a couple of pages back showing totally different HF content? 7. It was 18-bit, 176k FLAC according to Archimago wasn't it? 8. DRM. That was in materials sent to studios wasn't it? I don't recall exactly where though. Nothing personal at all. But this does come across as a "You're just being emotional" argument and doesn't address what I wrote at all.
  4. The problem I've had with these MQA threads, given that I'm here to research the technical elements, is sifting through all the crap. When I was moderating Head-Fi, the same thing would happen in the "Sound Science" forum, or "un-Sound Science" forum as some people nicknamed it, as it was more about chest thumping on how high-res/cables/whatever is snake oil, and would quickly descend into suggestions that a person who thought otherwise was deluded. At least one person here (who posted very useful technical info at point) is someone I banned at one point for this kind of abuse. I really would like a good technical summary, but sifting through something close to a thousand pages across multiple threads for all the good info would take too long, and I can't find Chris' presentation any more online. Really, all this pissing on Bob (understandable as it may be) really doesn't help anything. How do you explain to someone who has no technical understanding why MQA is dubious? It is possible to conduct business with integrity and honesty, without compromising principles. It says much that you seem to consider normal business behaviour to be lying, and when caught, making up alternative bullshit to justify those lies. Worse still attempting to change standard science-based definitions of terms to mean something they don't to sell your product, i.e. Trying to re-define high-res as something that isn't high-res at all. That means that they don't have a "point of view" rather than what could be described as a "post truth" goal, to sell The Audiophile's New Music. More fundamentally, their "point of view" doesn't negate the actual science and the reality. So asking Chris to kiss-and-make-up with them is of zero benefit. You're asking Chris, and everyone here to just forget everything they have done wrong, and are still doing wrong, and give them a chance to redeem themselves. Really? There is nothing MQA can say (other than admitting the truth) that is of any interest to him, or anyone, except those wanting to live in the lie.
  5. The specs on the Indiegogo project say 200 lumens and 1080p picture size. The shitty Alibaba one is only 50 lumens and 854x480. I somehow doubt that such a tiny lens will give a good 1080p image though.
  6. Probably the Tiny Desk concert with the most views ever. The talent this guy has is astounding. Even if you aren't interested in Hip Hop or R&B (such as myself) it's amazing to watch.
  7. Given how good smart phones are nowadays at taking photos, it isn't actually that hard to get a couple of bright lights, (or just a very bright room light) point them in the general direction of the products and take something half-decent. It just takes practice. Since I'm currently of the opinion that, whenever I see a reviewer say that they heard more detail from something like a NOS DAC that they are actually hearing more distortion they are mistaking for detail, that the real problem is likely that they really don't know what they are hearing. Their impressions of MQA likely falls under this problem. And in case the above is misunderstood, I have both a NOS DAC and an MQA DAC here and I have been enjoying listening with both. I just don't feel I'm under any illusions about what is causing my enjoyment. I just don't think that anyone else who has the title of "reviewer" anywhere should be either.
  8. Myself, and others, have been saying this for years. I think this is where much of the problem lies. If the baseline quality had been this to begin with, I reckon most of the arguments over digital wouldn't have come about in the first place. "According to legendary musician and record producer Don Was, now president of Blue Note Records, "what record producers and artists intend for the audience to hear is the first commercially released issue—not some hypothetical master tape or enhanced later version. By that sensible measure, every remastering, reissue, or change in format—whether from 78 to 331?3rpm, mono to stereo, LP to CD, CD to hi-rez, or hi-rez to MQA—is simply a lower-fidelity interpretation of the original. That's why I've never felt comfortable with remasterings." To his arguable discredit, he does make everything he reviews sound like the second coming, and does write in the favour of whatever he is reviewing. I haven't read his Mytek review, but I am more inclined to think, since I'm a reviewer, they are more afraid of alienating subscribers who DO think MQA is wonderful and complain if they aren't catered to. If they were really so in bed with manufacturers, they surely wouldn't measure products, especially given that they reveal how "fundamentally broken" NOS DACs are. Maybe their mistake was to take BS at his word (bad pun intended), and now it's like the man who buys a pristine-looking second-hand car, assured by the supposedly trustworthy salesman that it is in perfect condition, has a crash, and all the bog filler falls out from where the previous owner had done the same thing....
  9. To be fair to JA, I think the suggestion that they are trying to market MQA is somewhat unfair. I noticed Herb Reichert gently pissed on MQA in the Kitsune DAC review, for example. Of "the acoustic objects within the stereo image having somewhat greater palpability", this reminds me of my impressions of the MQA-similar GTO filter in the iFi Pro iDSD, which brings instruments more forward, and makes them feel a bit livelier. My issue would be that the whole MQA process is unnecessary to get that kind of result with music. Not unlike how the slightly V-shaped sound signature of tubes (something which a designer I know could fake in solid-state circuits by adjusting the crosstalk) and even-order harmonics make the music sound "richer" (or whatever word one wishes to use) I think MQA simply picked distortions that would appeal most to listeners. But again, the whole process is simply a trick, and the MQA folding, and etc. is completely unnecessary.
  10. I can't edit my post to fix this for some reason, but it looks as if this was a bug, as it now syncs without issue.
  11. A friend of mine once commented, "The true measure of intellect is seen in the ability of a person to re-evaluate what they believe to be true when additional and clarifying knowledge is received, and then apply this knowledge in their life so as to intimately embrace the higher truth that has been revealed in the endeavor to receive still Higher Truth." It was referring to spirituality, but it is equally relevant to anyone's life and profession. I believe many of the issues with people who fanatically believe in things is that they simply don't want to even consider any view that would shatter their belief. I've observed that many people are this way, and nothing can "remove the beam from [their] eye". The discussion here has been very helpful towards increasing my understanding of digital audio. Sadly the above reality means it has not been for some who really should be learning more. Just an observation which you may find useful: I found, after moderating forums for many years, that I tended to see the worst in what I read from other people. Why did you bring this up at all? The whole point of the discussion to begin with is that MQA was based on flat-out lies, and the implication, analysis, is that it can act as a trojan horse for the music industry to wreck the quality of available music, potentially even device-limiting playback. Heck, I just ripped a CD in iTunes to use in a classroom (from a textbook) and iTunes refuses to copy half the tracks to my phone due it not being available in my region. This even though I purchased the textbook. And this isn't even MQA! So the paranoia isn't far-fetched at all. From what we've seen, they wont get better sounding music, not access to more music as a result. So you are right, it needs to be opposed. However, I'm not sure why you agree it needs to be opposed yet hold the view that "people with $7/month subscriptions might get better sounding music" from MQA if that is so.
  12. It's more than that. Take Getz and Gilberto on TIDAL. The MQA version has, in effect, been EQ'ed, with boosted bass and some weird distortions in parts of some tracks. Then there's INXS Kick, which has a serious pitch change. Some of the changes make it seem as if they've run one of those sound enhancer plug-ins over the music to ensure there is a distinct difference for consumers to hear. They are trying to tie this in to being a result of "MQA" when really they've simply altered the music itself, something that doesn't require the fancy compression scheme at all, or the filters.
  13. If that is all it was, but given they have obviously applied some form of DSP to it (at least with the TIDAL tracks I've compared), in some cases adding high-frequency aliases of the music, I'm not particularly convinced.
  14. Isn't that a contradiction?
  15. I know Lee has now been banned, but it still gets me how someone can't see the contradictions in their own comments, i.e: The high-res part could be chopped off (rather than the bits within the audible range) and people probably wouldn't hear it either. Heck, given a lot of the "hires content" is supposedly ADC noise (according to Dan Lavry and others) it would make more sense.
×
×
  • Create New...