A question about MQA

Status
Not open for further replies.
rbbert said:
I'm going to stop quoting your (mostly) irrelevant posts
Click to expand...

Yes, quoting where I say you have read something, but not understood any of it... That would not be very flattering, would it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Kuoppis said:
Yes, quoting where I say you have read something, but not understood any of it... That would not be very flattering, would it?
Click to expand...

I'm going to stop quoting your (mostly) irrelevant posts (except this one, obviously) 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
 
So far, your contributions to this thread seem to be

1) you like MQA
2) you know more than the rest of us
3) you don't actually have any useful information to contribute
4) you don't like to answer specific questions

if you disagree, prove me wrong, don't just assert it
 
With this whole patent application thing you are once more showing, you do not know what you are talking about. You do not have the slightest idea about software, or how software products are developed. That’s probably why you thought your home server is similar to what they are using at CERN [emoji3].

To understand how the product works, you would need to read the specification. But of course, that they do not hand out to people like you. It also would not help, because as a nurse you would not understand that either.

And you can’t explain even the simplest basics in the patent application you say you have read.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Kuoppis said:
With this whole patent application thing you are once more showing, you do not know what you are talking about. You do not have the slightest idea about software, or how software products are developed. That’s probably why you thought your home server is similar to what they are using at CERN [emoji3].

To understand how the product works, you would need to read the specification. But of course, that they do not hand out to people like you. It also would not help, because as a nurse you would not understand that either.

And you can’t explain even the simplest basics in the patent application you say you have read.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Is it buried in this thread or has it been posted?...the uspto patent application link for MQA. Design or Utility patent? Interested in reading it for myself. Please post or re-post the USPTO link. Thanks.




EDIT, FOUND IT:

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...81".PGNR.&OS=DN/20180167081&RS=DN/20180167081
 
MikeCh said:
Is it buried in this thread or has it been posted?...the uspto patent link for MQA. Design or Utility patent? Interested in reading it for myself.
Click to expand...

I have not seen it here. And to be honest, it’s not that relevant at all. It’s just something a couple wannabe MQA critics obsessed with, trying to get some credibility.

A patent application is typically just a sketch of some detail of an associated product. It does usually not tell what a final product actually does or does not do. It just outlines basic concepts, hardly explains the entire product.

Therefore, when some guys are boasting with ‘having read the patent application’, like our nurse here trying to get some credibility, they just expose themselves as ignorant show-offs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
There is also an interesting analysis here

https://www.xivero.com/downloads/MQA-Technical_Analysis-Hypotheses-Paper.pdf

The technical discussion of MQA only relates to its lossy nature, which is not necessarily related to its sound. As this author points out, all earlier lossy codecs have eventually been found unsatisfactory for critical listeners. That doesn't mean that will always be the case, of course.
 
Kuoppis said:
With this whole patent application thing you are once more showing, you do not know what you are talking about. You do not have the slightest idea about software, or how software products are developed. That’s probably why you thought your home server is similar to what they are using at CERN [emoji3].

To understand how the product works, you would need to read the specification. But of course, that they do not hand out to people like you. It also would not help, because as a nurse you would not understand that either.

And you can’t explain even the simplest basics in the patent application you say you have read.
Click to expand...
And you still can't manage to answer specific questions or address anything directed at you (your all so important contribution #4 above) ;) But you manage to misrepresent and twist others' words quite handily
 
I just want to say well recorded music sounds good in 320kbps mp3 format in a lot of the cases. At the same time I’ve experienced hi-res music sounds not so good in many cases. If a MQA album sounds good to my ears, it’ll be added to my list. If not, what’s next. Lossless or lossy, none of it can physically make my ears bleed, so I won’t lose any sleep over it. My stereo system is happy to play either.
 
So, we have a link to a US patent application. What does it tell us?

Not much at all. It just opens up a bag of additional questions. What it does not tell us, is how MQA has been implemented, how MQA sounds or whether MQA is any good for consumer audio.

We have nursie-boy here on this thread claiming technical this or that, about things he lacks any meaningful insight into. A medical professional, that’s just nonsense.

Nursie stated earlier he does not like the MQA business model, which is perfectly fine. Now he is posting pseudo-technical comments, completely out of his depth, trying to argue the technology is no good. Because he does not like the MQA business model.

So, let’s open that patent app bag a bit:
- What part of MQA does the application refer to?
- Does it cover the entire product, or just parts of it?
- Is it the only patent application related to MQA?
- This a US application, how does it relate to int’l filings?
- This is an application, what was approved, is anything approved?
- How does the patent app relate to any MQA product in-market?
- What parts of the patent application are used in MQA, if any?
- How does the application relate to actual specs?
- Which part of MQA is it referring to?
- Encoding/ decoding?
- Folding/ unfolding?
- Compression rate?
- Audio origami?
- Transport?
- ...

There are more questions than answers. A patent application tells us pretty much nothing about an actual product any company chooses to make, and release to the market. The company is not obliged to use any parts of a patent application in an actual product.

There are also many reasons to file an application. To protect a technology, to stake a claim in order to prevent someone else from entering an area, to support a technology to develop into a certain direction, to prevent a technology from developing into a certain direction. And so on.

So, some layman reading one patent application, even if he would understand it, gets us exactly nothing.
 
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!
Click to expand...
To set your mind at ease, reliable data transfer protocols incorporate error detection and retransmission. This ensures a perfect copy is made over the Internet, on your personal computer, or for whatever else. The only times this will fail is if the original data is corrupted or something is broken, perhaps due to a physical failure, in which case you should be informed of this. For example your computer would tell you there was a disk error, and the copy attempt would fail so you know it did not work.

Furthermore, this checking for errors happens along the entire chain, often layered on top of each other. For example if you wanted to copy a file on your personal computer's hard disk to a friend's computer across the country, there will be checks when the file is read from your hard disk disk, when the data is packaged for transmission, when it is sent over your local network, when it is sent over the Internet, when it is sent over your friend's network, when the data is unpackaged, and when the file is saved to your friend's computer's hard disk.

Reliable data transfer is how we control the Mars rovers, medical devices, cars, etc.
 
NekoAudio said:
To set your mind at ease, reliable data transfer protocols incorporate error detection and retransmission. This ensures a perfect copy is made over the Internet, on your personal computer, or for whatever else. The only times this will fail is if the original data is corrupted or something is broken, perhaps due to a physical failure, in which case you should be informed of this. For example your computer would tell you there was a disk error, and the copy attempt would fail so you know it did not work.

Furthermore, this checking for errors happens along the entire chain, often layered on top of each other. For example if you wanted to copy a file on your personal computer's hard disk to a friend's computer across the country, there will be checks when the file is read from your hard disk disk, when the data is packaged for transmission, when it is sent over your local network, when it is sent over the Internet, when it is sent over your friend's network, when the data is unpackaged, and when the file is saved to your friend's computer's hard disk.

Reliable data transfer is how we control the Mars rovers, medical devices, cars, etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks for elaborating
Indeed this seems to be straightforward
 
NekoAudio said:
Reliable data transfer is how we control the Mars rovers, medical devices, cars, etc.
Click to expand...

Dear NekoAudio, please apologize the boldness of my assertion, but it is my belief, that as an audio dealer you re-sell products made by others for a margin, but you do actually not control Mars rovers.

And this is my very point: please let the people who control Mars rovers, control the Mars rovers. And please do not pretend, that you even remotely understand the basics of how a Mars rover is controlled.

But of course, I might be mistaken and you are moonshining at Lockheed Martin, while selling audio products.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
skbe said:
Why Lumin support MQA decoders and renderers if it is a fraud ?
Click to expand...

Lumin supports MQA because you need MQA decoding to get the most out of Tidal Masters. Without MQA decoding you're not getting all the musical information in the Tidal Masters.

We also have users who have MQA CD rips. Again you need MQA decoding to get the most out of MQA CD.

My position is that we give users a proper platform to compare MQA against something else. (Not all MQA DAC manufacturers can say this because some of them run non-MQA PCM music through MQA filter.) If you happen to like at least a few MQA music, I'm glad we spent the money and resources to benefit some users. If you don't like it after listening to it on a Lumin, I feel that we also served a purpose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top