Jump to content

FredericV

  • Content Count

    602
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About FredericV

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. He just wrote this: https://audiophilereview.com/audiophile-news/an-audio-test-that-may-or-may-not-prove-something.html where he mentions Archimago's article
  2. He spilled the beans: he ignored all the independent research:
  3. Sometimes you wonder if they are playing dumb just for sake of trolling: or they are completely misinformed like the HB project
  4. Hans Beekhzn also believes there are 3 unfolds, while 24 bit stops at around -144dB, so how is this graph even possible? It's a complete fabrication by HB (or copied). So why is this completely incorrect graph still on Hans's site? http://thehbproject.com/nl/artikelen/38/6/MQA---Kwaliteitsgarantie The article mentions "kwaliteitsgarantie" which means quality assurance, but the articles by Hans lack any quality journalism.
  5. Let's use @mansr tools to educate him a little bit, shall we? So he claims MQA can contain 4 resolutions, but he obviously is mistaking resolution and upsampling. The first unfold can achieve 17/88.2 or 17/96 Then the second unfold can upsample to any value set by the orig_rate field as shown in the output of @mansr tool. If your MQA dac does not support that resolution (e.g. you try 352.8 kHz but your dac is a 24/192 dac, it may actually try to use 24/176.4 instead), but that does not make MQA a format which contains 44.1, 88.2, 176.4 and 352.8K resolution in the same file format. MQA is not DXD resolution, it can only do a fraction of DXD. Also notice that MQA files have similar data rates independent of the original being e.g. 24/96, 24/192, 24/384 or 24/768 as it decimates to 17/96 in this case and tries to pack that in a 24/48 container. For 44.1K multiples like DXD, you can clearly see the limitations of MQA:
  6. OMG they still believe there are 3 unfolds ... so he quotes Archimago's article but clearly he has understood nothing, as he would have known better ....
  7. The latest MQA shill has arrived. MQA would probably sound acceptable at hi-speed on the slope, the noise and wind would mask it's inferior SNR compared to real hi-res
  8. I no longer have the time to read this topic fully, so who is willing to make a weekly executive summary?
  9. If checksums are identical (e.g. SHA256 of 2 files are identical) and you hear a difference, something seriously is wrong with you or your gear
  10. When we were in Marriot Munich last year, we were visited by Axpona's organizer, and we get his marketing mails since. So I did send some remarks about the MQA claims, and all I got was this reply: There you go: MQA pays, and they can say whatever they want in their announcement, and the organizer just copy/pastes the announcement including all the lies which were debunked here at CA / AS.
  11. For me the holy grail is Archimago's intermediate phase: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/01/musings-more-fun-with-digital-filters.html the MQA filters with one cycle of postringing just do not sound as natural - we have both selectable in our product (in total 10 different filters) - but I never use the MQA alike filter - it was more an exercise to know why MQA sounds the way it sounds: not natural.
  12. I can agree that people can get lost in forum discussions.
  13. I was also tired of LeeS and the repeated MQA marketing speak. The same could be said of PV. They never learn and keep posting the same BS. They all deny being paid by MQA, but follow the money: why would anyone keep wasting their time here repeating the same old BS, if they were not being paid? If they are not paid, what do they gain? It just does not compute. It's more plausible they are getting paid or they get some other reward for pushing MQA.
×
×
  • Create New...