MQA is Vaporware

[Fair Hedon]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Now that email would be very interesting to see. Not a smoking gun because nobody has been shot, but very interesting with respect to honesty and what most people feel is within/outside of the boundaries of good taste. 

Why would anyone be surprised? MQA launched with a laundry list of lies...

 

When trying to sell vaporware, no tactic is off the table.

[Lee Scoggins]

17 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It could have, but that makes zero business sense to me.

 

 

Plus, didn't Stuart formally leave Meridian?

[Fair Hedon]

3 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Plus, didn't Stuart formally leave Meridian?

No, he resigned from the board.

[Norton]

51 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

Find a post where I said there was foul play.

 

It is all about MOTIVES, and who gains from what.  I know for a FACT that MQA has recruited dealers to shill for MQA.

 

 

 

And what are your motives?  You joined on October 5th, you've made 40 posts so far, 37 of which are specifically to criticise MQA.  Why are you on this forum and what are you adding positively to the Computer Audiophile community?

[Fair Hedon]

2 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

And what are your motives?  You joined on October 5th, you've made 40 posts so far, 37 of which are overtly critical  of MQA.  Why are you on this forum and what are you adding positively to the Computer Audiophile community?

My positive addition is ridding the "Computer Audiophile" community of the cancer known as MQA.. fake format

marketed on numerous lies. Oh yeh, and it is lossy.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Fair Hedon said:

My positive addition is ridding the "Computer Audiophile" community of the cancer known as MQA.. fake format

marketed on numerous lies. Oh yeh, and it is lossy.

You’re hurting your own message with a post like that. 

[Fair Hedon]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

You’re hurting your own message with a post like that. 

that is your opinion. in my view, my message is clear as day, and to the point.

 

audiophiles blather on about being True To The Source.

 

and MQA spits right in the face of that premise.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Fair Hedon said:

that is your opinion. in my view, my message is clear as day, and to the point.

 

audiophiles blather on about being True To The Source.

 

and MQA spits right in the face of that premise.

 

If you truly wanted to see MQA fail, a different tact would get you much further. 

[Norton]

17 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

My positive addition is ridding the "Computer Audiophile" community of the cancer known as MQA.. fake format

marketed on numerous lies. Oh yeh, and it is lossy.

 

Looks like you've lost all perspective and sense of proportion, this  is domestic music replay we are talking about, not a world war...

[The Computer Audiophile]

By the way @Fair Hedon I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I just believe you could be more effective going at things a different way. 

[Fair Hedon]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

If you truly wanted to see MQA fail, a different tact would get you much further. 

sorry, disagree. with so many ignorant shills recruited for MQA,, and with members of the press

floating the most absurd, dishonest notions about MQA freely, being nice gets zilch.

 

that being said..I am all ears.

[Fair Hedon]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

By the way @Fair Hedon I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I just believe you could be more effective going at things a different way. 

I appreciate that, and your comment is fair.  No pun intended.

[synn]

Voting with the wallet is how I have always approached such topics. 

 

I boycotted Sony for years after the rootkit mess. I now have a living room full of Sony shit. I don’t have brand loyalty, I only support companies who aren’t out to shaft people. 

 

I do agree on the general premise that MQA is not a company that has the listeners’ best interest at heart. My wallet will vote accordingly.

[Norton]

26 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

audiophiles blather on about being True To The Source.

 

 

 

 

If that is how you regard audiophiles, to repeat myself, why are you posting on this audiophile forum?

[mansr]

Did @The Computer Audiophile get another call from Bob Stuart? He's suddenly pushing back quite hard against MQA critics using the usual guises of faux neutrality and "friendly" advice (to stop saying bad things about MQA).

[Fair Hedon]

Just now, Norton said:

 

If that is how you regard audiophiles, to repeat myself, why are you posting on this audiophile forum?

Hey, enjoy your "MQA Ready" DAC. It's your right.

[semente]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Fair points but I think FLAC is not a great analogy as it does not include a process for improving such as the apodizing filters.

 

Most DACs and music file players/processors have their own filters which can in many cases be selected to taste by the end user. Who needs pre-filtered media?

That sounds like a rather lame excuse to push DRM.

[Miska]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Fair points but I think FLAC is not a great analogy as it does not include a process for improving such as the apodizing filters.

 

It shouldn't! And there's no need. There is totally no need for content delivery vehicle to deal with such things. Same goes for dynamic range compression too. We can have those apodizing filters and dynamic range compression per-need basis at the player device side. Over time we can improve the apodizing process, just like has been going on with CD players. Content stays the same, tomorrow you just play it with improved processing and get improved playback result. Same goes for dynamic range compression, I may need it when I listen in my car, but I don't need it when I listen with headphones at home. My car system can apply the dynamic range compression.

 

I've had apodizing filters in my playback system for nearly 20 years now.

 

There's no need to irrevocably bake something like this into the content itself. Keep the content intact and leave playback gear take of those details.

 

Same goes for digital room correction, you are not going to be able to apply it generally at mastering stage, it needs to be processed separately for everybody's own room. Same goes for other DSP stuff too.

 

[semente]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

At an audio show, the financial stake is to sell gear.  Peter and Sunny are selling Wilson speakers and ARC/T+A gear.  They don't have a stake in selling MQA.  Peter is world famous in many circles for the quality of his recordings.  Wilson Alexx speakers are known for their resolution and overall quality.  Bob probably figured this would make for some good demo sound.  

 

Your post reminds me of a great scene:

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

26 minutes ago, mansr said:

Did @The Computer Audiophile get another call from Bob Stuart? He's suddenly pushing back quite hard against MQA critics using the usual guises of faux neutrality and "friendly" advice (to stop saying bad things about MQA).

Absolutely not. I'm not pushing back. I'm trying to pull out information. 

 

If someone says MQA was created to keep Meridian afloat, I want to explore that and get into the details. 

If someone says MQA sucks and you suck, I want to dig deeper to see what's behind that.

If someone says I want to see MQA gone and is being a bit abrasive about it, I want to know more about the facts and the real reasons, not more about what the person thinks of someone personally or his attacks. 

 

If we stick to facts, reasonable speculation, and a collegial tone we all win. 

 

Edit: In a way, being abrasive because people aren't listening to the message is like saying might is right. 

[beetlemania]

18 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

Hey, enjoy your "MQA Ready" DAC. It's your right.

 

An illumined MQA light is certainly the best cure for audiophile nervosa ever conceived

 

Meanwhile, I found that John Atkinson DID send his raw files plus impulse response to MQA 

Why on Earth would he do that?

[Miska]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

The older ones (Micro, Nano, iDAC2) use the built-in filters of the TI DSD1973 DAC chip. I don't know if the newer (black) models do things differently.

 

iDSD Micro Black Label is same as the non-BL in that respect. It has the same firmware and DAC, but improved analog section. Now especially DSD512 gives better performance than before.

 

I think the new Nano Black is quite a bit different in this respect from the other models. Probably uses same XMOS code from MQA as the Pro-Ject DAC does.

 

[Norton]

27 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

Hey, enjoy your "MQA Ready" DAC. It's your right.

 

Is that the best reply you can muster? 

 

So you join this forum pretty much exclusively to slag off MQA, clearly  hold audiophiles in contempt and don't appear to have anything positive to contribute to the field of computer audio.  If anything you are making me think maybe there's something in this MQA after all....

 

 

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

8 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

that is your opinion. in my view, my message is clear as day, and to the point.

 

audiophiles blather on about being True To The Source.

 

and MQA spits right in the face of that premise.

 

I basically agree with this, but I think it unpacks a little more.  Ultimately, the record companies, not the artists, are The Source (apologies to LRH ), so MQA is really saying "True To The Record Companies".  When viewed through this lens, MQA's story isn't quite so disingenuous.  "Master Quality" is what the record companies want you to hear, without regard for the artists' wishes.  As Spencer Chrislu from MQA has stated, "naked" high resolution PCM files are the record companies' crown jewels and should not be directly accessible by consumers.

[Fair Hedon]

1 minute ago, beetlemania said:

 

An illumined MQA light is certainly the best cure for audiophile nervosa ever conceived

 

Meanwhile, I found that John Atkinson DID send his raw files plus impulse response to MQA 

Why on Earth would he do that?

Are you saying he sent the stems, the multi-track files, and not the two channel mixes???