Jump to content

yahooboy

Members
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About yahooboy

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Well if You consider a result before taxes going from 264K NOK in 2015 declining to 49K in 2019 doing just fine, then You're right
  2. They not only promote it they also haven't found out it's not lossless, as of the 19th.2020. As a HiFi publication I find that a bit embarrassing MQA (hi-res): A lossless compression format that packages hi-res files for more efficient streaming. Used for Tidal Masters hi-res streaming. https://www.whathifi.com/advice/mp3-aac-wav-flac-all-the-audio-file-formats-explained
  3. 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
  4. 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 ?
  5. Well, not even glancing in that direction. Until MQA is not included
  6. 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
  7. Well I've noticed quite a few threads (mentioning MQA) that seem strangely incoherent, as if several posts are missing......
  8. 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
  9. Not really, You've got to remember where ROON came from (Meridian) there might be very positive feelings toward the former employee
  10. Anyone having a recommendation for a car receiver ? 1DIN
  11. Sad, Had just ordered a Kenwood receiver, which is now cancelled. Have to start looking for another
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. Well I basically do not trust ANY company trying to push MQA. So this company is of the list
×
×
  • Create New...