Jump to content

botrytis

Members
  • Content Count

    437
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About botrytis

  • Rank
    Newbie

Personal Information

  • Location
    West Central Iowa

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The point is I have. People tell me that is not what you heard. Nothing more I can do. This has happened more than once and on more than one forum. As I said, people have read in the audio magazines that MQA is the best thing since sliced bread. They ask me, what do I know.? This is the impasse we are at. You have the disingenuous audio press pushing MQA, yet I have determined, for me, it is not a good thing (sounds terrible, etc.). How can I compete with the audiophile press? Then we have people, like Mansr, Archimago, Chris, etc. that go out of their way to explore and test MQA, along with other things (like DACs, etc) and prove that MQA is not all they say. What do they get? Condemnation and belittling from the audio press as well as MQA itself. That just tells me they knew it was a load of horse poop from the beginning.
  2. Linn Records has this one. It is well recorded and excellent sounding, if you like jazz. You can get in CD quality up to 192/24 ALAC/FLAC
  3. Here is there argument......
  4. Have you read the rest of my post? Nice obfuscation by quoting only what you want. Quote the whole post. You have taken it out of context which invalidates your argument. SACD came out with CD and vinyl (with Reel to Reel being a smaller portion). So, there was no need to really use SACD if you didn't wanted to. If MQA gets popular, that will be the only choice as the recording industry has bought into it.
  5. But, the point is you can copy an SACD. I have done it. The point of MQA is it is one encoding to conquer all. If MQA gets to be a standard, then that is all we shall see. Chris has already seen that with ROON and Tidal. That is not a good situation. If SACD is DRM, does that mean a vinyl LP has an ARM (since it is not digital, it is Analog Rights Management)? What about RtoR? or Cassettes? See how silly our argument is? These formats were put out with other formats, NOT EXCLUSIVELY. That is a huge difference.
  6. What it tells me is that there IS NO NEED for MQA. PERIOD. If it didn't sound better, why spend the money. THAT IS THE POINT. Ball is in your point to prove otherwise.
  7. We already have WAV, DSD AND, FLAC that can handle high-res, why do we need another that is encoded and can only be used by those with the proper equipment? I am not one that can spend constantly on equipment to chase the latest new-fangled thing. I have my TEAC UD-501 and unless something comes around that sounds as good, to me, for the same price I got this one, well it is sitting being used on my shelf. What benefit does MQA give to me? Don't say the same nonsense that was spewed forth from the magazines. I want proof, scientific proof. I am a biochemist by training, BTW.
  8. If audiophiles know that MQA actually distorts the sound and can make the music sound worse, don't you think Audiophiles would not buy it? It was like HDCD, it really did nothing for the sound, so why pay more? MQA has a DRM built in, you can't play MQA without either the software and a DAC designed for it If that is not DRM, I don't know what is. The issue is, the audiophile press, who the audiophiles trust (well not the ones on this board ) and since the press just regurgitated the talking points of MQA without looking at them and discerning if they are true or not, they have damned themselves. It makes them look bad and untrustworthy. MQA is supposed to be BETTER THAN REDBOOK (majority of it is supposed to be high-res). If it can't sound better that that, MQA is just junk. I have heard files go either way. There is no clear cut advantage to MQA, so why spend MORE money on it?
  9. Yes. That is what MQA says in their claims. That is just like the master. Well, if we can't even figure out what master the MQA file is from and no one is sharing that information. How can we prove what MQA says. With high res PCM, you can tell what master they came from because they tell you. This is a junk claim. NO - the critics already have proven that MQA is a house of cards. It is up to MQA to prove that it is not. It is up to MQA to step up to the plate and prove a positive, not a negative. Paul, I appreciate your salient writing but you have it wrong here. It is up to MQA and all their supporters and that seems to include you, that what the critics say is not true. It is just that plain and simple. So far, MQA has done nothing but repeat the same platitudes and attack people who question them.
  10. It is what they are used to. Kind of like people who prefer vinyl over CD's and digital. No one is wrong. The point of MQA is to control the music and also to resell what is already out there again. I mean, reselling was done going from vinyl to CD and then SACD. MQA also has a DRM system built in. It is not an after thought, it is the reason MQA was developed.
  11. https://www.paragonsns.com/installing-wilson-wamm-dagostino-relentless/ Even with 2 Thor's Hammers - WOW.
  12. I think the problem is, people have read all the Stereophile and other audio magazines about how great MQA is, without actually listening and determining for themselves. They made the decision to believe that MQA IS BETTER, so subconsciously they actually determine that it is. That is how human hearing, etc works. Blind listening throws that into this type of belief system (not the right term but writing fast) into a conundrum and hence many do not want to do it or complain loudly that it is not the right way to do it. BUT, it is the only way to take out human built-in biases.
×
×
  • Create New...