Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About yahooboy

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Well I needed to know when the last possible version without MQA was available, so I could stop updating before MQA infested my system. I have written extensively with Damien regarding the inclusion of MQA. I have not bought the latter versions 3.x for precisely that reason. (Did the same with ROON as well as TIDAL) I don't want to support MQA therefore I don't support companies that support MQA ! My little contribution to putting MQA out of business
  2. The way I see it, including MQA in Your products equals endorsement. Anyone that endorses a fake product will not get a purchase from me. I mean why would I give money to someone that sell a product that includes a scam ?
  3. Well, not even glancing in that direction. Until MQA is not included
  4. Was just looking up the terms of using the FLAC container: What FLAC is not: Lossy. FLAC is intended for lossless compression only, as there are many good lossy formats already, such as Vorbis, MPC, and MP3 (see LAMEfor an excellent open-source implementation). DRM. There is no intention to add any copy prevention methods. Of course, we can't stop someone from encrypting a FLAC stream in another container (e.g. the way Apple encrypts AAC in MP4 with FairPlay), that is the choice of the user. Seems to me that someone has not read these terms. Have written to Monty Alexander of Xiph.org to get his two cents
  5. Well I've noticed quite a few threads (mentioning MQA) that seem strangely incoherent, as if several posts are missing......
  6. Well they seem very defendant regarding MQA, had writings back and forth with them on several occasions. They either don't understand MQA (highly unlikely) or they are so much in bed with MQA that they have to/or feel they have to market a scam (probably a part of the contract.) They won't enable a sorting of MQA and non MQA files. They are deleting posts on their site that badmouths MQA, in general they do not like anyone questioning MQA I cancelled My sub due to their stand on MQA
  7. Not really, You've got to remember where ROON came from (Meridian) there might be very positive feelings toward the former employee
  8. Anyone having a recommendation for a car receiver ? 1DIN
  9. Sad, Had just ordered a Kenwood receiver, which is now cancelled. Have to start looking for another
  10. I do believe as a manufacturer You should back each and every part of Your product. If You include MQA, that's an endorsement. As a constructor/manufacturer You are informed by MQA what that entails. In the case of ELAC (for instance) the information about the ills was available when the DDP-2 was under construction. I have talked to a lot of manufacturers whose product i liked but that included MQA, almost all of them had included MQA because it was the latest buzzword. A lot of them don't even understand how MQA works (or the implications of this) So the manufacturers just included it to have another thing on the checklist. When I buy from a manufacturer, I don't want buzzwords or "features" that have been proven to not do anything (good) for the sound And I will not support anyone that endorse MQA
  11. It's about the signal that ELAC sends as a company, by including it in their product they are endorsing all the ills that MQA is. One way to rid the world of this illness, is letting manufacturers know that any association with a company that has been shown to have a strange take on the truth, looses them sales.
  12. Well I basically do not trust ANY company trying to push MQA. So this company is of the list
  13. Currently looking into reporting MQA to the Danish Ombudsmand. This from the forbrugerombudsmanden.dk website Claims must be documented Companies must be able to provide evidence of the claims they use in marketing their goods or services. It is a good idea to have the documentation ready when the marketing starts. It is a requirement that companies can document the claims they use about their goods or services in advertising and other marketing. It must be proved if a company, for example, claims that a watch is waterproof or a car wash can prevent rust. When the company begins to market the product or service, the company must have certain knowledge that it can provide evidence of the claim. The documentation must be available at all times if it becomes necessary to document the claim.Therefore, it may be a good idea that the company has obtained the documentation already when the marketing of the product or service begins. WHAT IS SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION? What the documentation should contain depends on the claim used to market the product or service. The claim does not necessarily have to be scientifically proven, but the requirements for the documentation are high. For example, if a company markets itself with the fact that it is cheapest, it must be possible to document that the claim is based on a representative and relevant comparison. If the company cannot provide evidence of the claim, the claim will be considered to be in violation of the Marketing Law's requirement that information in advertising and other marketing must not be incorrect or misleading. The way I see it this will be a hard sell for MQA and will be implemented all over the EU, anyone up for collecting documentation against MQA's claims ?
  14. Can you inform us about a new release date? +1
  • Create New...