Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you'r trying to do, you don't need wildcards,. You can use the Finder's bulk-rename functionality to remove a certain number of characters from the beginning or end of the files' names.
  2. What about those who have a disposition that's not pre-existing, but rather is based on the content the comments you've posted here in this thread?
  3. Mastering can't save it - it's just a dreadful album. (No offense intended towards you.)
  4. In that case, if you are using the latest macOS (Mojave) - or maybe even the prior one, I can't recall for sure - you can now bulk-rename files in the Finder. So you can select all the files in a folder, then right-click (or Control-click, same thing) and the contextual menu will come up. Select "Rename X Items..." and then a little window will come in where you can select all kinds of options: add text, remove N characters, and so on. If you are using iTunes and the issue is that song titles in iTunes have unwanted numbers in them, then in that case there are free AppleScripts out there that can batch-change the tags on music in your iTunes library. But from you description it sounds like the Finder-based solution is what you're looking for.
  5. How can you still be flogging this argument, when just a day or two ago you admitted - volunteered the info, in fact - that the major labels are still providing "thousands of albums" worth of high-res music in conventional PCM format? MQA's piggybacking on streaming services is irrelevant if high-res PCM is already showing up in large volume on those services.
  6. Where is there evidence that a streaming customer can hear the difference between an MQA file and a 24/48 file? Also, the file size is only one-quarter of the corresponding hi-res file if the high-res file is 24/192. If the high-res file is 24/96, then the MQA file is only about 25% smaller. And if the high-res file is 24/48, the MQA file is bigger. @Lee Scoggins, why would you even say that an MQA file is "one quarter the size" of the original file when you know - and you know that everyone else knows - that this is true only for 192kHz originals? I'm serious - I truly would like some insight into why you think anyone would read that from you and not conclude that you were spinning and willfully leaving out important information. Why bother doing that when you must know someone will call you on it immediately?
  7. You have bit-depth losses because MQA stores the folded-up ultrasonics in the 15th and/or 16th bits. And there are plenty of high-res files with no losses in the audible range, including 24/48k files, which are smaller in size than MQA files. 25% smaller than 24/96 and approx 60-75% larger than 24/48 is not an advantage of any significance (if at all). And business-model advantages via a premium tier do not require MQA, as evidenced by the massive number of lossless redbook and conventional high-res PCM options available. (This is something you've been told repeatedly and have simply ignored.) It has been shown over and over that "sound improvements via the debarring filters" is at best a subjective perception, and is not in any way backed up by evidence, because the filters are too uniform and simple to achieve deblurring in any reliable manner, and because no filter can do what MQA claims when the source is a multitrack recording with multiple and/or unknown ADCs and DACs in the production chain. And for the umpteenth time, you already know all of this
  8. I'm going to go out on a bit of limb here and say I have a positive reaction to much (though not all) of what @ARQuint writes in this comment. I do think that some participants in this thread are unwilling to make a distinction between (A) strongly and forcefully defending important points, and (B) making repeated ad hominem and uncivil attacks. There's a bit of irony - one could even say hypocrisy - in posts here that insist that "facts are facts" and then immediately proceed to pepper their criticism of pro-MQA folks and "old guard" audiophile press members with snark, sarcasm, unproven insinuations, and so on. Let me be clear - I am not in any way saying or implying that facts are not facts. As I hope folks know, I am 100% dead-set against MQA for the reasons @mansr, @Jud, and many many others have stated (and the reasons I've repeatedly articulated myself in response to @Lee Scoggins' comments). But at some point, discussion becomes pointless without civility - not because we all have to be nice to each other or gloss over real disagreements, but rather because the entire point of discussion is to impact others' perspective: to educate and hopefully to persuade. And if you simply insult those who disagree with you, you're just preening for those who already agree. You might as well shout into a mirror for all the change your comments will make. That said, while I do appreciate and agree with Andrew Quint's emphasis on baseline civility, I do take exception to the equivalency he sets up between Jud and Lee Scoggins. The evaluation of arguments cannot be objective to the extent that mathematical principles are, but I think by any reasonable standard Jud's arguments here are more substantive, more internally consistent, and more attentive to the technical facts of MQA than Lee's are. Moreover, everyone should note that immediately after pairing Jud and Lee, Andrew Quint then pairs Lee and the more shall-we-say rhetorical anti-MQA folks here - a group of which Jud is most decidedly not a part. I mention this because it highlights the flaw in Andrew's both-sides framing of this discussion. Lee certainly is not as nasty or biting as many of his detractors - but the quality of his arguments are no better than those of the folks Andrew is upset about here. By contrast, Jud's arguments - not to mention mansr's and many others' - are far superior. And there is no equivalent pro-MQA voice here with substantive, compelling, fact-based arguments. This is why I think @The Computer Audiophile's good-faith investigation into MQA inevitably led him away from the hoped-for middle ground and into anti-MQA territory. The facts simply don't support MQA's value or its claims - and if the repetitiveness of this 400-page thread has any value, it is that it demonstrates that even with virtually infinite time and opportunities, MQA cannot make its case. So civility, yes. But false equivalence in the name of civility? No thank you.
  9. I agree that the labels still are letting out 24/96 of albums - and if you are correct that it's "thousands," even better. But as usual, @Lee Scoggins, you appear unwilling or unable to acknowledge or understand the consequences of your statement for your own argument. You have argued strenuously that MQA is necessary/beneficial because it will spur more high-res releases, owing to the "giving away the Crown Jewels" problem the labels have, and/or to the "authentication" verification afforded by MQA's blue light But if the labels are in fact continuing to release thousands of albums' worth of conventional high-res PCM files, then your argument is proven to be incorrect. Given that, all that remains of MQA is its claim to sonic superiority based on its filtering. Remember, MQA cannot claim any sonic benefit based on resolution because even if you ignore the fact that MQA is approximately 17-bit and is lossy above 24kHz, it's competing with 24/96 (and at times 24/192) PCM files. So all that's left is the Meridian's slow-slope, apodizing fliers, which prioritize phase linearity over frequency linearity (and produce high aliasing distortion in the process). I certainly have no problem with the fact that you (based on your prior comments) prefer MQA's filtering. But that subjective listening impression is in no way, shape, or form an argument in favor of MQA as a format, as preferred sonic engineering solution, as a technological ecosystem, or as a business model.
  10. @Lee Scoggins, I'm not responding solely to your original article - which you should understand given that the volume of your comments and claims in this thread alone is far, far more extensive than the entire content of your article. That said, by your own admission the focus of your article - and a major focus of your comments here - is the "business case" for MQA, in which you repeatedly and explicitly state that MQA will result in a significant increase in the availability of high-res music. You also have responded to concerns about MQA here at CA, repeatedly and explicitly, with the argument that consumers will decide. My point responds directly and specifically to these two claims you have made: The main venue for MQA currently is streaming. And because MQA is bundled in a streaming tier - which is not even just a general high-res tier but an even more broad lossless tier including redbook - there is absolutely zero evidence for your claims that (A) MQA spurs more high-res, and (B) that consumers have any ability to choose or not choose MQA. MQA is a producer-side technology that (with exception of niche high-res downloads and hyper-niche Japanese MQA CDs) is not available for consumers to either choose or not choose. MQA is like a cable channel: it's bundled in a tier, and so it's impossible to gauge demand or uptake unless you have additional, more specific evidence to determine whether it's a driver of that bundle (like ESPN, in this example) or just along for the ride (like Nat Geo or some such). And you have no such evidence.
  11. It is not a straw man argument, Rather, you are deflecting and evading the issue. In your comment hereyou mention "hirez" acceptance in general, and you studiously avoid mentioning MQA acceptance - when the uptake and growth of MQA is by your own frequent admission your main focus of interest. Of course high-res streaming does indeed stand a better chance of adoption if it's bundled as part of a premium tier that includes lossless redbook as well as high-res. No one is disputing that, and it's not at issue in any way. But that has nothing to do with MQA. The point of my comment - and the point you continue to deflect and refuse to acknowledge - is that bundled tiers do not measure consumer interest or adoption of a specific format/option within the tier.
  12. Yes, that is what mansr, and I, and many others here, would say. Not everyone agrees, though.
  13. Yes, this is a key point, which @Lee Scoggins and other MQA promoters studiously refuse to acknowledge: One cannot gauge consumer sentiment about MQA except by looking at MQA CD purchases and MQA digital-file purchases. One cannot gauge consumer sentiment about MQA because consumers cannot choose MQA streaming - MQA becomes part of a streaming subscription tier that includes lossless redbook, lossless high-res, and MQA. The choice to opt in to a higher tier cannot be read as a choice in favor of MQA.
  14. There's nothing "incorrect" about an asynchronous DAC. In this context, "asynchronous" does not mean "out of sync." Rather, it means that the DAC does not depend on the source for timing/clocking, which makes the DAC more robust and jitter-resistant.
  • Create New...