A question about MQA

Status
Not open for further replies.
rbbert said:
I'm not referring to listeners; I'm referring to MQA the company, and its business relationships with the record labels. There has absolutely been an attempt by MQA to monopolize the commercial availability of "hi-res" music, which fortunately appears much less likely now than it did 2-3 years ago.
Click to expand...

Yes, but people on the forum are not MQA company. They are listeners, as you call them (often also referred to as audiophiles).

I would propose all the MQA haters should get a MQA capable DAC to try it out for themselves. Then they at least know what the others are talking about.

As far as I can see, this discussion stems mostly from theoretical argumentations of people who have not experienced MQA in their own system.

That’s why it‘s so boring. Go, explore, find out for yourselves. Be radical, learn something new.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Kuoppis said:
Yes, but people on the forum are not MQA company. They are listeners, as you call them (often also referred to as audiophiles).

I would propose all the MQA haters should get a MQA capable DAC to try it out for themselves. Then they at least know what the others are talking about.

As far as I can see, this discussion stems mostly from theoretical argumentations of people who have not experienced MQA in their own system.

That’s why it‘s so boring. Go, explore, find out for yourselves. Be radical, learn something new.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I think almost everyone here (perhaps everyone) discussing MQA has at the least a passing acquaintance with it in their own systems. Don't be so dismissive of others' experience and knowledge; in many cases it's likely to be more extensive and relevant than your own.

As I noted, my dislike of MQA has mostly to do with its (the company's) monopolistic attitude, which no matter how you look at it is bad for the consumer. If I found the sound to be consistently better (which I don't) I would still feel that way. As long as it stays at Tidal, and the industry continues to release "hi-res" music in other digital formats, I have no problem with it.
 
Anyone have seen a serious article about copying a digital file deteriorating the file with the use of say clean windows copy/paste? I heard this sentence here and I’ve been searching the net and I cannot find something convincing. This making me do nightmares!

On the contrary I read things on génération loss in Wikipedia saying there is no harm doing so!

So I am hoping !!!
 
kzhtoo said:
I’m not asking this to be a smart ass and I genuinely do not know the answer to my question. What is MQA so bad for the naysayers apart from MQA guys making a few bucks?

I do have a DAC that can fully unfold MQA files, although MQA was never part of my purchase decision. And I get my MQA from Tidal, and again, without or without MQA has nothing to do with my Tidal subscription. I never felt MQA files sound terribly bad over CD or Hi-Res files and they aren’t also exceptionally sound better than other formats. It really still depends on the particular recording or album. But if MQA helps reduce the bandwidth both for consumers and the streaming companies, why is it so bad about it?

Nothing will eliminate other formats unless the new technology is vastly superior in every way. But meanwhile a new format here and there to address a few gaps here and there, I’m totally okay with.

Note: I also have Quboz subscription.
Click to expand...

We have some things in common. I have a DAC that unfolds all the MQA laundry and I have Tidal and Quobuz subscriptions. That means I have access to all the MQA files on Tidal and I can play any MQA album I want. I made the decision after listening to numerous MQA albums that basically I don’t care for listening to MQA. If other people love them some MQA and think it’s the best sounding digital out there, more power to them.
 
mep said:
We have some things in common. I have a DAC that unfolds all the MQA laundry and I have Tidal and Quobuz subscriptions. That means I have access to all the MQA files on Tidal and I can play any MQA album I want. I made the decision after listening to numerous MQA albums that basically I don’t care for listening to MQA. If other people love them some MQA and think it’s the best sounding digital out there, more power to them.
Click to expand...

Power to the people man!
power to the people
 
rbbert said:
I think almost everyone here (perhaps everyone) discussing MQA has at the least a passing acquaintance with it in their own systems. Don't be so dismissive of others' experience and knowledge; in many cases it's likely to be more extensive and relevant than your own.

As I noted, my dislike of MQA has mostly to do with its (the company's) monopolistic attitude, which no matter how you look at it is bad for the consumer. If I found the sound to be consistently better (which I don't) I would still feel that way. As long as it stays at Tidal, and the industry continues to release "hi-res" music in other digital formats, I have no problem with it.
Click to expand...

So, why don’t you just state your don’t like their business modeL and be done with it?

Instead you venture into these wanna-be technical arguments, where a five-year-old can immediately see you are completely out of your depth. That’s nonsensical.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
mep said:
We have some things in common. I have a DAC that unfolds all the MQA laundry and I have Tidal and Quobuz subscriptions. That means I have access to all the MQA files on Tidal and I can play any MQA album I want. I made the decision after listening to numerous MQA albums that basically I don’t care for listening to MQA. If other people love them some MQA and think it’s the best sounding digital out there, more power to them.
Click to expand...

Well, that would be a wonderful attitude, wouldn’t it?

You should try it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Kuoppis said:
So, why don’t you just state your don’t like their business modeL and be done with it?

Instead you venture into these wanna-be technical arguments, where a five-year-old can immediately see you are completely out of your depth. That’s nonsensical.
Click to expand...
This is going to degenerate into a personal squabble. You are making ad hominem attacks where I have tried to point you to actual facts that dispute your POV.

If you have read the MQA patent application and still feel it is lossless, then I apologize, although to my knowledge no one else who has done so has come to that conclusion (and there have been extensive on-line discussions of this).

If you understand and use AccurateRip but still feel that CD data corruption is common, I would like to see some evidence.

I would request that you either respond on point or don't respond at all.
 
skbe said:
Anyone have seen a serious article about copying a digital file deteriorating the file with the use of say clean windows copy/paste? I heard this sentence here and I’ve been searching the net and I cannot find something convincing. This making me do nightmares!

On the contrary I read things on génération loss in Wikipedia saying there is no harm doing so!

So I am hoping !!!
Click to expand...

Heureusement, ils ont cela aussi en français.
77c91befbdf86bf8963f4d887fbfa297.jpg



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
skbe said:
Anyone have seen a serious article about copying a digital file deteriorating the file with the use of say clean windows copy/paste? I heard this sentence here and I’ve been searching the net and I cannot find something convincing. This making me do nightmares!

On the contrary I read things on génération loss in Wikipedia saying there is no harm doing so!

So I am hoping !!!
Click to expand...

If you are concerned that Windows 10 file copy isn't adequate (it's better than older Windows file copy algorithms), then use TeraCopy
https://www.codesector.com/teracopy
 
mep said:
We have some things in common. I have a DAC that unfolds all the MQA laundry and I have Tidal and Quobuz subscriptions. That means I have access to all the MQA files on Tidal and I can play any MQA album I want. I made the decision after listening to numerous MQA albums that basically I don’t care for listening to MQA. If other people love them some MQA and think it’s the best sounding digital out there, more power to them.
Click to expand...

I've heard MQA fully unfolded as well, and don't care about it either.
 
rbbert said:
This is going to degenerate into a personal squabble. You are making ad hominem attacks where I have tried to point you to actual facts that dispute your POV.

If you have read the MQA patent application and still feel it is lossless, then I apologize, although to my knowledge no one else who has done so has come to that conclusion (and there have been extensive on-line discussions of this).

If you understand and use AccurateRip but still feel that CD data corruption is common, I would like to see some evidence.

I would request that you either respond on point or don't respond at all.
Click to expand...

If you insist that computer data does never corrupt, I can’t help you.

I posted a link to a case study at a high tech facility, where they discovered they had some data corruption cases in their systems. Surprisingly, they were not aware. If you don’t understand what it says in that article, I can’t help you.

The data does not deteriorate fast, and not in a predictable way, but it actually does corrupt through potentially many factors. But if that is not something they teach in nurse school, I can’t help you.

I think Governor Cuomo stated it well in one if his tweets last week: There is no remedy against ignorance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
rbbert said:
If you have read the MQA patent application and still feel it is lossless, then I apologize, although to my knowledge no one else who has done so has come to that conclusion (and there have been extensive on-line discussions of this).
Click to expand...

First of all, if you say you have read a patent application, that does not tell us anything about whether you actually understood a word about what was written in it.

Secondly, as you seem to be proficient in audio codec encoding an decoding, how do you explain this: How is it possible that they take one MQA audio file, play it back, and it is 16/44 audio. Then they take the same MQA audio file, play it back, and it is 24/96 audio.

Is that some kind of magic, or what is happening? Can you please explain how that is possible?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Al M. said:
I've heard MQA fully unfolded as well, and don't care about it either.
Click to expand...

Personally, I have never met anyone who says MQA sounds always better.

What I have heard several people say, is that sometimes it sounds very good, sometimes it sounds ok, but it rarely sounds much worse than other formats.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
rbbert said:
If you are concerned that Windows 10 file copy isn't adequate (it's better than older Windows file copy algorithms), then use TeraCopy
https://www.codesector.com/teracopy
Click to expand...
Thank you for the advice
And you think this really makes a difference?
At the fist place I don’t know what I should be concerned about. Do you know that windows copy deteriorates sound quality of audio files?
Since I don’t manage to find something elaborating this on the web, I would be interested if you have some material
Thanks
 
I'm going to stop quoting your (mostly) irrelevant posts and ask again.

Do you use and understand AccurateRip? If so, what is your evidence that data corruption on manufactured CD's is common (not that it can sometimes occur, that's one reason AccurateRip exists)? If you don't use and understand AccurateRip, your comments about CD data corruption can easily be ignored.

Apparently you have not read the MQA patent application, so you are really not in a position to make any comments about it, what it says, or what it means. FWIW, even Bob Stuart (in an unguarded moment) admitted at a HiFi show (I think RAMF) that MQA is not digitally (data) lossless.

You have been posting many assertions without posting any factual evidence to support them
 
skbe said:
Thank you for the advice
And you think this really makes a difference?
At the fist place I don’t know what I should be concerned about. Do you know that windows copy deteriorates sound quality of audio files?
Since I don’t manage to find something elaborating this on the web, I would be interested if you have some material
Thanks
Click to expand...
For audio files I have found Windows 10 to generally work well, but TeraCopy is easy to use and relatively inexpensive, and I prefer it for copying large (40-50 GB) video files.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeraCopy
 
You say you have read the patent application, show that you have also understood it.

How is it possible that the very same audio file is in one scenario 16/44 and in another scenario 24/96?

And that’s not even difficult to explain.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top