Simple MQA poll.

[miguelito]

Unfortunately conflating all aspects of this is not possible with just one answer.

 

A qualifier on my "For" vote: If the end result is overall better sound quality to a large swath of content then I think this is a positive. However, if the resulting impact is ultimately DRM, then I am not and, as history has shown, it will get purged out.

 

I have recently familiarized myself with the disarray that Meridian, the hardware company, is in with respect to MQA. You would think that of all firms, Meridian would have ironed this out and have MQA deployed on all products seamlessly... Far from it, it is a fecking mess and a very cryptic one at that. 

[miguelito]

Just now, miguelito said:

A qualifier on my "For" vote: If the end result is overall better sound quality to a large swath of content then I think this is a positive. However, if the resulting impact is ultimately DRM, then I am not and, as history has shown, it will get purged out.

Also let me just add that my verdict so far after listening to a substantial amount of MQA releases is a mixed bag. Some good, many the same as high res, many worse than the latest redbook (eg INXS's Kick).

 

I can fully decode MQA, btw... 

 

So my "for" vote for improved sound quality is still to pan out! 

[mansr]

Just now, miguelito said:

A qualifier on my "For" vote: If the end result is overall better sound quality to a large swath of content then I think this is a positive. However, if the resulting impact is ultimately DRM, then I am not and, as history has shown, it will get purged out.

MQA is already DRM, and should the format take off, you can be certain they'll start cranking up the restrictions. If they are able to do some processing to reduce ADC artefacts, this could be applied without any of the lossy "folding" and DRM.

 

Your "for" vote thus seems to be based on an unfounded hope that quality will improve while ignoring the already present DRM. Imagine if people voted like that in national elections. Oh wait...

[beetlemania]

33 minutes ago, miguelito said:

Also let me just add that my verdict so far after listening to a substantial amount of MQA releases is a mixed bag. Some good, many the same as high res, many worse than the latest redbook (eg INXS's Kick).

 

I can fully decode MQA, btw... 

 

Dear John Atkinson,

 

I hope you read this! Note that this is among the more positive reports for MQA from users in the field who didn't send their their personal files with impulse response to Bob Stuart.

[Fyper]

2 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

I voted neutral....I will never use MQA, but i am not against it's advancement for anyone who cares...

 

I would "think" the only reason for anyone "against" it would be manufacturers where they don't care to support it, and that it may cost their bottom line.  Why else would anyone really be against it, if it doesn't affect them?

 

I am not against mqa anymore than i am against the manufacturing of cottage cheese....i will never eat it, but i could care less.

 

Thinking about it, I actually am against it, because it draws too much attention from this board (grin).

Fair enough

Maybe the poll question should have been: 

"Are you for or against or neutral on MQA becoming the industry's standard?"

That's how I read it and why I voted against.

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, Fyper said:

Fair enough

Maybe the poll question should have been: 

"Are you for or against or neutral on MQA becoming the industry's standard?"

That's how I read it and why I voted against.

 

I would likely still vote neutral....

 

i would guess the industry standard is mp3, flac, wav, or aiff today??...I mostly listen to dsd, and i would never pay for a subscription service.

 

I would guess that MQA is at least as good as mp3 which is probably the most popular (not best, but most popular)?

 

I haven't been active in the MQA threads, as it really means nothing to me, but perhaps there are reasons I should be against it.

 

 

 

 

[Spacehound]

2 hours ago, miguelito said:

Also let me just add that my verdict so far after listening to a substantial amount of MQA releases is a mixed bag. Some good, many the same as high res, many worse than the latest redbook (eg INXS's Kick).

 

I can fully decode MQA, btw... 

 

So my "for" vote for improved sound quality is still to pan out! 

Me too. Using the same DAC as you. But I'm too tight-fisted to buy the external clock.

[NOMBEDES]

Bump!

[masch]

On ‎2018‎-‎02‎-‎12 at 8:41 AM, Spacehound said:

I could say something with the same number of letters in both words but I wont.

deleted

[realhifi]

9 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

Bump!

Thanks. I don’t think it’s quite ran it’s course yet either. 

[NOMBEDES]

148 members have voted.  That may indeed be normal traffic for  "General Forum".  Who knows?

I imagine there are visitors who only scan the more narrow topic foura such as "networking" etc.   

 

The General Forum may be to wild for some.

[crenca]

I simply clicked on the vote tally, but I would have been an "against" of course.  What I find interesting is that the neutral voter is often explaining his vote, saying something to the effect of 

 

"I am against the DRM, black box, "end to end" danger, but as long as it is only a niche product then I am merely neutral"

 

So those who disagree with what MQA is as a technical/legal/market product, is actually >80%.

 

I wonder if realhifi and the other regula "subjectivist" audiophiles expected that?

[mav52]

On 2/11/2018 at 12:12 PM, Spacehound said:

I'm perfectly calm. But people often draw nonsensical  conclusions. If  you draw any, yours will be too. If that doesn't bother you, fine.

often draw nonsensical  conclusions. , Like what ?

[realhifi]

3 hours ago, crenca said:

I simply clicked on the vote tally, but I would have been an "against" of course.  What I find interesting is that the neutral voter is often explaining his vote, saying something to the effect of 

 

"I am against the DRM, black box, "end to end" danger, but as long as it is only a niche product then I am merely neutral"

 

So those who disagree with what MQA is as a technical/legal/market product, is actually >80%.

 

I wonder if realhifi and the other regula "subjectivist" audiophiles expected that?

Didn’t know I was a “subjectivist” audiophile. In fact I can’t remember what I would have said that would lead you to that conclusion.  The poll is actually a little different than I expected on this site. 

[crenca]

10 minutes ago, realhifi said:

Didn’t know I was a “subjectivist” audiophile. In fact I can’t remember what I would have said that would lead you to that conclusion.  The poll is actually a little different than I expected on this site. 

 

 

I don't see you as an objectivist or even leaning that way.  What did you expect  from the poll (just curious)?

[realhifi]

Bump...

[realhifi]

On 2/16/2018 at 5:09 PM, crenca said:

 

 

I don't see you as an objectivist or even leaning that way.  What did you expect  from the poll (just curious)?

Just curious what you’re basing that on?

I had no expectations on the poll. It was just to see what the sentiment about MQA was.  

[Norton]

On 16 February 2018 at 6:38 PM, crenca said:

I wonder if realhifi and the other regula "subjectivist" audiophiles expected that?

 

Yes, the number voting and way the votes are cast is pretty  much what  I would have expected from forum activity on the subject to date.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, realhifi said:

Just curious what you’re basing that on? 

 

I would reach the same conclusion based on this:

 

1 hour ago, realhifi said:

If Mr. Archimago is passing as an expert on MQA then certainly his credentials, actual name, etc. should be known. 

 

This is an obviously un-objectivist statement. Objective reporting, as in the type practiced by Archimago, does not require reputation or background checks — it’s designed not to rely on opinions or emotions of others. It stands on its own, without resorting to personalities. That’s what objective means. Since you apparently don’t know this, you are not an objectivist.

[loop7]

Initially, I was super excited about MQA but I still keep going back to the mastering question: do the MQA titles sound good because of the mastering, because of MQA encoding or both?  It's not even on my radar lately.

[crenca]

4 hours ago, realhifi said:

Just curious what you’re basing that on?

 

 

Well, just  to use the latest example over on the "mqa yet again" thread you and  @Norton are more interested in the subject of Archimago than the object of mqa and his measurements of it.  Actually, it is not that you are "more interested", it is rather how you see the world and everything in it.  In a very real sense, you are aristocratic - the truth of something is based on the reputation and status of who said it (though you of course reserve judgement as to who gets what reputation).  For an objectivist, it is not who said what but what he said, objectivists are meritocratic.

 

[Norton]

52 minutes ago, crenca said:

For an objectivist, it is not who said what but what he said, objectivists are meritocratic

 

It's not about "aristocracy".  It's  about transparency, accountability and the courage of your convictions.  If you prepare  an article  for publication, you should be equally prepared to put your name to it.  That's what every university I've worked at would expect. Maybe you dismiss all universities as lacking objectivity?

[Spacehound]

5 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

It's not about "aristocracy".  It's  about transparency, accountability and the courage of your convictions.  If you prepare  an article  for publication, you should be equally prepared to put your name to it.  That's what every university I've worked at would expect. Maybe you dismiss all universities as lacking objectivity?

It's raining in my part of the New Forest. Come and have a look. Anon.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, Norton said:

It's not about "aristocracy".  It's  about transparency, accountability and the courage of your convictions.  If you prepare  an article  for publication, you should be equally prepared to put your name to it.  That's what every university I've worked at would expect. Maybe you dismiss all universities as lacking objectivity?

Peer review of science papers is often anonymous.

[crenca]

13 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

It's not about "aristocracy".  It's  about transparency, accountability and the courage of your convictions.  If you prepare  an article  for publication, you should be equally prepared to put your name to it.  That's what every university I've worked at would expect. Maybe you dismiss all universities as lacking objectivity?

 

2 out of 3 on your list (i.e. "accountability" and "courage") are personal, subjective realities.  Your an aristocrat and you don't even know it. Transparency is more neutral, but it is a common experience that there is usually one (or more) personalities (i.e. subjects) who are trying to impose their selves over against the objective truth and thus anonymity is often a tool to help the truth get "around" these imposing subjects - ask anyone who lives in a dictatorship and uses anonymizing tools (such as the internet) to spread the truth and speak truth to power.

 

Yes, the modern Academy is very often sorely lacking in objectivity..