Jump to content

MikeyFresh

  • Posts

    1283
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

Retained

  • Member Title
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

6774 profile views
  1. In reading through that piece, the author finds reason to mention mQa fourteen times. If you add the editor's footnotes, mQa is mentioned no less than sixteen times, in a 2 page review. So many other aspects and features of that product are glossed over, or entirely skipped, in order to fully flesh out the mQa love fest the reviewer evidently experienced. How anyone reading that review wouldn't be able to read between the lines as to the true purpose (mQa promotion) is beyond me. Shame on the writer, the editor, and the publication as a whole in devoting so much time effort and space to such a sham. I think they do Cambridge Audio a disservice there. What about all of the readers that have no interest in mQa but are force fed that level of garbage just to keep up the crusade? Aren't most other interesting aspects of the product design completely short changed in such a devout gushing? Pathetic.
  2. Me neither, and I think that would also have been true in the lead up to the sale of Stereophile to AVTech Media in spring 2018. The mQa click bait would have been one thing helping to prop up whatever little value the publication had left with regard to the sale terms.
  3. I'd ask you to define "old', or how it is you'd know any particular thread participant's age (you don't know my age for example), but then if I did I'd just be feeding the troll. Talk about grumpy, pot calling the kettle black? 😖
  4. You've completely dodged the direct question then of why you don't just ignore the topic. Why keep coming back just to troll and complain? Where is your own super compelling fresh new content?
  5. Funny then how you are willing to spend any time on it at all if that's your take. Or are you just trolling and attempting to derail this thread by saying stupid shit that people will react negatively too?
  6. Exactly, and there has been no "bickering like children" despite the recent ridiculous accusation of such. Further, if that post thinks it's so "simple", and all he need do is not use mQa, then goodie for him, however the greater fight remains quite important and present. Proof of that lies in what mQa has done to TIDAL, rendering it a non-choice for consumers. If everyone just sits back and takes the so-called "simple approach", we could lose other options too.
  7. They aren't? Can't I still hear the unencrypted master on Qobuz, or buy a download of it at HDtracks? I think you meant they're in the process of disallowing that on TIDAL, no?
  8. Exactly, he just recycled their debunked BS all over again, same old story there. Thats right, he just octupled down on that whole story.
  9. I wonder if that Brooks Berdan gig replaces his western Pennsylvania-based "agency" and relocation of 2017, or if it is in addition to that: https://www.gavin.fish/about/
  10. Not. Right, so now we have members intent on "borking" other member's networks, and you come riding in to the rescue? Sure, sure... I'll take nothing.
  11. Thanks for that clarification, it seemed in you wanting to toss out all of the optimizations and updates he's made over time, that you already must know those have no sonic impact, and can be safely tossed out for the purposes of your experiment. Those aren't caveats, they are his baseline system attributes that contribute to the overall performance, something he has first hand knowledge of, but you don't. Thats really big of you, so gracious. I never said anything about his initial response, but in reading through it again at your urging, I don't see anything too lengthy as to require a roll of toilet paper. You seem to know an awful lot about bullshit, a veritable expert on it, how did you become so intimately familiar with bullshit?
  12. Funny but it sounds like thats exactly what you are saying, that you know what his baseline system sounds like, and that it isn't any different than what you'd be sending him. What's next, you telling him that all of the system optimizations and tweaks he's implemented to date have zero sonic effect and can thus be tossed aside for your little "experiment", you know, the one that you already know the results of?
  13. Is that what you use and have always used in the making of your own recordings?
  14. Almost nobody ever cared about this so-called "elegance" at all. Exactly, and the crowd listening on mobile devices over a cellular connection isn't that gravely concerned with sound quality, and always had the option of using lossy streams to control their data use. Translation: it does not exist. Also denied vehemently by mQa's many influencers, right here in these pages. A solid reason to never subscribe to TIDAL, even if there were no other choices available.
  15. What about the various ADC chip makers and gear manufacturers, haven't they demanded to be in on this incredible new world/paradigm too? Don't they wish to aid and abet in providing "better than crown jewels" sound quality. Aren't they concerned about all that horrible smearing taking place in the time domain? Don't they listen to TIDAL "Masters"?
×
×
  • Create New...