Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country


About Thuaveta

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Let's please not reach hasty conclusions and insult @John_Atkinson's intelligence: unless proven otherwise, it's much safer to assume that he has been a willing participant in the swindle.
  2. With all due respect, I had little hope that now that you've taken a step back from the daily grind, you'd use the time to finally learn the difference between an investigation and an informercial, John.
  3. So we've got three people with fingers deep in the MQA pot (Chris Horton, a representative for a major shareholder, the fracking CEO of MQA Ltd, a strategic advisor to the only (western ? haven't been following the China debacle(s)) streaming service that uses MQA, an exec for a company with tight historical and current links to the principals at MQA Ltd), one that isn't, and your conclusion is that @The Computer Audiophile is unfairly calling the panel an infomercial, because there's one person on it that is clearly extraordinarily competent and likely still has a shred of integrity left.
  4. Why would you ? MQA encoding is a 3-bit scam...
  5. It does, however, have a substantial turgescent member, fluffed by south african money, and it lives in a world where consent don't really matter.
  6. Nice car you have there, Chris. It's a pity you scratched it. You wouldn't want that to happen again, now would you ?
  7. Waitwaitwait... "the unified standards team that first developed lossless compression 30 years ago" ?!?!?! Anybody mind elaborating on that please ? (and yeah, MLP, I get it, but, still... if there's no nuance stripped in translation, a bit of a bold claim, no ?)
  8. Fish. Those things are called fish.
  9. i don't believe such a thing is possible...
  10. Of course it isn't a real problem, but it's one MQA fixes. Which'd make MQA's logic "let's degrade the signal, so that we can visually display that we're accurately transmitting a degraded signal". Birth of a new world, indeed.
  11. Since @The Computer Audiophile was saying there was remaining value in authenticating the transmission between a Tidal server and a receiving device, which I doubt, I was wondering how much loss a transmission between a Tidal server and a receiving device can take before it's audible, and will it be audible, or catastrophic ? (my instinct would be to say "none, because of SSL, it needs to be perfect anyway, so transport protocol error correction pretty much takes care of that")
  12. Ohnononono, I meant NON-MQA files, sorry I didn't make that clear enough... like, what would it take for the authentication to have any value on, say, a Qobuz stream...
  13. Would any of the more technically savvy members care to enlighten us on how big of an achievement this actually is, i.e, how much randomized uncorrected packet loss from a Tidal server would result in an inaudible alteration to a file once played back, and how much it'd take to make it audible ?
  14. I'd say it's less than a master, more than nothing at all: someone with "authority" authenticated the fact that what you're listening to is an official release, lossily recompressed in a way that they find to be either audibly transparent or at the very least acceptable for listening, as opposed to something that'd be officially released and unofficially recompressed in an audibly transparent manner. That they're even using the word "master" should tell everyone that it's a con, one that's marketing to emotions and not cold, hard reality, simply because like there is no such thing
  • Create New...