Jump to content
Computer Audiophile


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About crenca

  • Rank
    Junior Objectivist

Recent Profile Visitors

5,396 profile views
  1. The axiom "past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior" generally holds.
  2. The moderator did explain himself here: https://community.roonlabs.com/t/moderation-phrases-that-draw-an-emotional-response/40083 I asked him outright if Roon is trying to sidestep the debate about MQA. Of course they are, real debate and disagreement is uncomfortable, and possibly bad for business. Their problem is that their product naturally puts them right in the middle of it. They will want to make it about me (the first reply already does) but lets see if they will allow MQA it's fair hearing... I am also a lifetime subscriber and can hardly say enough good (and very little bad) about Roon. However, they appear to be sheltering a few pro-MQA folks from the hard questions...
  3. Did you see the moderator just closed the Roon thread? Is the moderator overstepping his bounds or is Roon afraid of an honest discussion about MQA?
  4. MQA is Vaporware

    I guess you mean the (apparant) Roon integration?
  5. Would you (or anyone else) say that besides the above, there could be a real reason for it being an encoding process only? It seems to me that is only possible if it is truly something new in signal processing. Everything that is realistically could be can also be done in software tools at playback time...
  6. It was @Doug Schneider(going from memory) who quoted Bob S as saying "we are not going to sell software tools". In other words, Bob S wants to sell an "end to end" DRM format. So there is your answer. edit: I should add that just as Bob S compromised on MQA around hardware only unfolding, business realities might just force a compromise on this as well. On the other hand, if there is not really anything to it (other than already known art), separating the compression from the phase correction would do them no $good$. This just might be the genius in JI's (and @John_Atkinson??) strategery of a demand for a separation - force MQA's hand to call their bluff that "deblurring" is a couple of low cards...
  7. I don't know, it is audiophiledom where something (even if it is just in your head) is always something! Obviously not for me, but whatever it is doing will be justified in the minds of some as long as they hear a "vague explanation" as Archimago describes Bob S speak. My point is that JA (or anyone else) can convince themselves by putting together a coherent, "rational" explanation from MQA charts, papers, etc. and then tell themselves and the world it does work.
  8. On the other hand, they are doing something - we all have heard it (i.e. the volume increase, the digitus or "instrument separation" depending on your take, etc.). So perhaps it "works" to some extent even in a non-idealized situation of 95% of modern recordings: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/38700-article-mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions/?page=24&tab=comments#comment-795567 at least, to some extent. What that "something" is on the encoding side is the question.
  9. If MQA is not talking about phase delay introduced in what I take to be their idealized situational application: Analogue input > ADC {here phase delay/distortion added} > MQA encoding {here phase delay/distortion removed} > MQA dac {here they are all over the place as to rather MQA dac makes a "deblurring" difference} What else could they be talking about? Has Bob Stuart discovered something "new" in signal processing? Not that JA will add anything fundamental - how can he as he admits he has neither special access or the time/ability to reverse engineer. The most he can do is to come up with an argument that puts a bit of coherency to MQA marketing materials, but so what? He won't know if it is true any more than we will. What am I missing?
  10. Doug, As important as that thread is, this thread: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/ca-academy/A-Comprehensive-Q-A-With-MQA-s-Bob-Stuart/ Was posted in April 2016, and I recall we were asked to submit our questions well in advance - I am thinking fall of 2015 (could be incorrect). As you say, IT, EE, and folks with digital experience/know how smelled a rat from the very beginning. Despite CD and digital being around more than 30 years now, "Audiophiledom" in general, and these trade publications in particular are not up to speed on what digital really is (e.g. those who argue that cables can effect one part of a digital signal such that this or that USB cable "really nails the midrange"). MQA has shown us that Stereophile/TAS/and most other trade publications (including most webzines) don't really understand software, digital, DRM, etc. even just a little bit. I give full credit to Bob Stuart for understanding this situation and taking advantage of it.
  11. What can you contribute then? If you can not examine MQA (through access that Bob S provides - to encoder, etc.) and will not examine it ( by reverse engineering it), then what exactly are you "examining"? MQA marketing materials?
  12. How could they? Is JA and Stereophile really going to reverse engineer software such as MQA?!? Have they ever done anything like that before, or do they have the requisite skills/experience? The answer is a firm no as far as I can tell. OR Is JA implying that Bob Stuart and MQA are going to cooperate and allow him to peer into the code, or work with an encoder and run some test signals through it - all from behind an NDA but at the same time actually publish the results? Possible, but unlikely.
  13. I don't know, does being good at Audiophile Voodoo Jiu Jitsu count for something?