MQA Discussion

Mike said:
At 10:22 things get really interesting. Jim (still-one), I hope you watch it. Good to see the guys from MQA participate.
Click to expand...

Mike
Thanks for linking. I just watched the video. Chris seemed pretty uncomfortable with the MQA people in the audience.
 
still-one said:
Mike
Thanks for linking. I just watched the video. Chris seemed pretty uncomfortable with the MQA people in the audience.
Click to expand...

From what I read over on CA, Chris invited them. I think the uncomfortable projection is that MQA folks never really answered his questions, just a lot of marketing speak. I say a win-win for MQA
 
Randy Myers said:
MQA is great for streaming, however, currently I am not interested for a couple reasons. I prefer owning my music not streaming, but more importantly it does not compete with better DSD; 256 and more so 512 are fantastic. I put my T+A against MQA; DSD512/48, wow!
Click to expand...

I may be falling into this camp although I need to do a lot more listening to be certain. My music preferences lean towards classical and so far, for that genre, DSD downloads seem to sound better than MQA. I want MQA to sound better because its immensely less expensive.
 
Ugly presentation. The topic is controversial. While Chris appears to have invited the MQA reps, he was not in a position to defend his comments. Also, some of the attendees were disrespectful. Ultimately, nothing good came out of this presentation.
 
Ritmo said:
Ugly presentation. The topic is controversial. While Chris appears to have invited the MQA reps, he was not in a position to defend his comments. Also, some of the attendees were disrespectful. Ultimately, nothing good came out of this presentation.
Click to expand...

Well, I found it interesting. Lessons learned? Many, including: don’t be quoting an anonymous source on an Internet forum as the gospel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mike said:
Well, I found it interesting. Lessons learned? Many, including: don’t be quoting an anonymous source on an Internet forum as the gospel.


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

Completely agree Mike. The presentation was not prepared with references and, therefore, some of his key points were not defensible. This was never going to be a good session.
 
I thought the MQA guys were bullish. So what if a source is not provided if the research can be duplicated. That's basic science, duplication. MQA people admitted to changing their story, and they did it such a long time ago 2016. And Chris seemed to have a lot of proof MQA is changing the file to something other than the master. And, there is the fear of a wolf in sheep's clothing (DRM). I am fully confident people lie. All the time. To your face. If Amazon, Apple, Google etc took over MQA, it would only be to exercise that DRM. They could care less about the sound. Just imagine if Amazon took over Roon and MQA, and MQA had exclusive rights to artist. You might have to pay 10 cents a song to stream them, every time. And none of that money would be going to the artist. That concept circles back around to the idea of owning your own media.
 
Kingrex said:
I thought the MQA guys were bullish. So what if a source is not provided if the research can be duplicated. That's basic science, duplication. MQA people admitted to changing their story, and they did it such a long time ago 2016. And Chris seemed to have a lot of proof MQA is changing the file to something other than the master. And, there is the fear of a wolf in sheep's clothing (DRM). I am fully confident people lie. All the time. To your face. If Amazon, Apple, Google etc took over MQA, it would only be to exercise that DRM. They could care less about the sound. Just imagine if Amazon took over Roon and MQA, and MQA had exclusive rights to artist. You might have to pay 10 cents a song to stream them, every time. And none of that money would be going to the artist. That concept circles back around to the idea of owning your own media.
Click to expand...

You do realize you can own MQA files (and a few CD's). Within a short period probably as many available as there are SACD titles.
 
And that is exactly my point. There is a big payout waiting for any mega corporation who takes over the MQA library and possibly Roon/Spotify etc. They got you on both ends.

still-one said:
You do realize you can own MQA files (and a few CD's). Within a short period probably as many available as there are SACD titles.
Click to expand...
 
The MQA guys were very disrespectful. As for the Archimago findings, there was not even one attempt to refute the findings. Not one. They just wanted his name. If they couldn’t refute the findings, why want his name? For what purpose. Given the rancor in the room, I can see why one would not want their real name out there.
 
JWhip said:
The MQA guys were very disrespectful. As for the Archimago findings, there was not even one attempt to refute the findings. Not one. They just wanted his name. If they couldn’t refute the findings, why want his name? For what purpose. Given the rancor in the room, I can see why one would not want their real name out there.
Click to expand...

MQA is a scam. Archimago and others have uncovered that very nicely:

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

Among others, MQA introduces more timing errors than it purports to solve:

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/02/musingsmeasurements-on-blurring-and-why.html

I'm very disappointed that dCS and Berkeley, brands that I used to respect, have embraced MQA just because of the demand of audiophiles who did not bother to steep themselves in the technical knowledge that shows it's a scam.

In addition, I have become recently very disappointed by learning that MSB has also embraced MQA:

http://www.msbtechnology.com/mqa-has-arrived/

This diminishes my interest in that brand as well. I might still audition an MSB sometime, now more reluctantly, but they have not helped themselves from my perspective at all.

Schiit fortunately did not fall for this schiit.
 
Al M. said:
MQA is a scam. Archimago and others have uncovered that very nicely:

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

Among others, MQA introduces more timing errors than it purports to solve:

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/02/musingsmeasurements-on-blurring-and-why.html

I'm very disappointed that dCS and Berkeley, brands that I used to respect, have embraced MQA just because of the demand of audiophiles who did not bother to steep themselves in the technical knowledge that shows it's a scam.

In addition, I have become recently very disappointed by learning that MSB has also embraced MQA:

http://www.msbtechnology.com/mqa-has-arrived/

This diminishes my interest in that brand as well. I might still audition an MSB sometime, now more reluctantly, but they have not helped themselves from my perspective at all.

Schiit fortunately did not fall for this schiit.
Click to expand...

Those of us who have spent a lot of time enjoying the improved SQ of MQA couldn't care less about Schiit or any of the others who are pouting on the sidelines. As long as the end result is better 16/44.1 and in most cases at least equal to higher res versions, how MQA gets that result is of no concern to me. There is plenty of content and I haven't paid one cent more to have access to it. A winner all the way around.
 
Mike said:
Well, I found it interesting. Lessons learned? Many, including: don’t be quoting an anonymous source on an Internet forum as the gospel.


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

Archimago is hardly anonymous



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
AJ Soundfield said:
They can't refute his facts, his data, so they attack him, his "credentials" etc.
Click to expand...

Say what? They didn't attack his credentials. They asked what his credentials were and who he was. They also asked for the files used and have "apparently" received no feedback.
 
still-one said:
Say what? They didn't attack his credentials. They asked what his credentials were and who he was.
Click to expand...
For educated intelligent folks, thats known as an appeal to authority. His "credentials" are irrelevant to the graph/argument presented.

still-one said:
They also asked for the files used and have "apparently" received no feedback.
Click to expand...
BS. That is an identified MQA file they can easily access.
As are these files Bob Stuart created and sent ; https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/ebriefs/?ID=685
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top