advertisement


MQA

Status
Not open for further replies.
DimitryZ said:
I will state again, with absolute certainty, that I am in unique position to be able to listen to the same music in LPCM and MQA back to back, because I pay for Qobuz, Tidal and Amazon HD. I also have 4 MQA compatible DACs that are permanently connected to my streaming tablet through an USB hub and I can switch from DAC to DAC in seconds.
Click to expand...

Comparisons would lead to meaningless conclusions unless you know the provenance of the recordings being compared. And none of the streaming sources seem to be willing to provide this information. Unless you know the two streams you're comparing are the same mastering, the comparison is moot.

DimitryZ said:
My system was specifically designed to study differences between streaming services on a very high resolution system.
Click to expand...

Mine was specifically designed for listening to music.
 
Last edited:
Yank said:
Comparisons would lead to meaningless conclusions unless you know the provenance of the recordings being compared. And none of the streaming sources seem to be willing to do this. Unless you know the two streams you're comparing are the same mastering, the comparison is moot.
Click to expand...
Considering what some of the so called hi-resolution recording labels have gotten up to (allegedly, Linn Records included), it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if a good number of tracks have been upsampled from standard CD quality masters (or from actual CDs) at some point.
 
Heckyman said:
That's because MQA make claims like this (from their website):
MQA is the breakthrough audio technology that enables music fans to stream the original master recording into their home, car or on their mobile.

And when audiophiles politely question said claims, MQA personnel get very arsy and evasive.

Click to expand...
This was very interesting. The talk presenter was trying his best to be the least critical he could be of MQA and I guess the more he had investigated MQA the more worried he had become. He was brave in challenging the MQA claims in front of the CEO of MQA.

So for me, the presenter having come accross as right on all points and conjectures he made, his final slide was probably right too and very very interesting:

Audiophiles gave MQA credibility in it's infancy but it will be the big boys that decide whether is dominates the music industry or fades away.

This is reassuring to me as there are at least half dozen seriously large companies involved and they have very very talented people and most of those people believe in a sort of 'best for humanity' ethos and will be competing with each other on being virtuous and not coming accross as completely controlling capitalists. They will resist DRM. I may be niave here but I do think these companies worry about public perception very seriously these days as a few loud complaints can get easily amplified.

The good guys in the large industry players will question MQA and quickly decide it needs to be pushed to one side and not become mainstream...as it's too totalitarian.

Playing with MQA for the industry is like playing with fire.... Too risky.

In my view that's a good thing. Questions have been raised. The Aspostasy is out there and MQA can't...yeah...can't... counter it... They have no argument to field.
 
Yank said:
Comparisons would lead to meaningless conclusions unless you know the provenance of the recordings being compared. And none of the streaming sources seem to be willing to do this. Unless you know the two streams you're comparing are the same mastering, the comparison is moot.



Mine was specifically designed for listening to music.
Click to expand...
I have replied to this before.

Your system may have been designed for music, but you steadfastly refuse to listen, just talk endlessly.
 
nostromo said:
This was very interesting. The talk presenter was trying his best to be the least critical he could be of MQA and I guess the more he had investigated MQA the more worried he had become. He was brave in challenging the MQA claims in front of the CEO of MQA.

So for me, the presenter having come accross as right on all points and conjectures he made, his final slide was probably right too and very very interesting:

Audiophiles gave MQA credibility in it's infancy but it will be the big boys that decide whether is dominates the music industry or fades away.

This is reassuring to me as there are at least half dozen seriously large companies involved and they have very very talented people and most of those people believe in a sort of 'best for humanity' ethos and will be competing with each other on being virtuous and not coming accross as completely controlling capitalists. They will resist DRM. I may be niave here but I do think these companies worry about public perception very seriously these days as a few loud complaints can get easily amplified.

The good guys in the large industry players will question MQA and quickly decide it needs to be pushed to one side and not become mainstream...as it's too totalitarian.

Playing with MQA for the industry is like playing with fire.... Too risky.

In my view that's a good thing. Questions have been raised. The Aspostasy is out there and MQA can't...yeah...can't... counter it... They have no argument to field.
Click to expand...
I am sorry but 5 years from inception of MQA, the apostasy is to actually listen to MQA. Your side has long since become the boring and square mainstream, as evidenced in the balance of this thread.

Just another self-reinforcing echo chamber.
 
Dear Dimitry,

I have to admire your tenacity if nothing else. You would make a great grave digger. But for your own sake, may I proffer a little advice:

"When you have dug yourself a big enough hole stop digging."

You have told us half a dozen times that you have the perfect system for showing the differences between streaming platforms and systems. We get it. You are fascinated by the replay aspect. Somewhere along the line you may even have listened to a whole musical track without switching between streaming services and systems. You have never stated this, so its is only a wild and possibly completely inaccurate assumption on my part.

Yet withal, and your consistent telling us you prefer MQA, you have yet to tell us why. I for one would be fascinated to read why you so admire MQA. Genuinely. I enjoy reading what others think. No sarcasm, this is exactly why I read far more than I post on the PFM ...

But you don't ... you just blithely get chippy with people when they don't roll over and say,

"Nice! Well done Dimitry. We agree with you."

I shall certainly not block you on PFM. The entertainment value you provide is too good. Like an an unintended comedian. Spontaneous hilarity is the very best kind!

Best wishes from George
 
DimitryZ said:
I am sorry but 5 years from inception of MQA, the apostasy is to actually listen to MQA. Your side has long since become the boring and square mainstream, as evidenced in the balance of this thread.

Just another self-reinforcing echo chamber.
Click to expand...

I'm really curious to evaluate MQA by listening to it as you suggest. But I'm guessing the difference is subtle and would require extensive listening and so the only way to do it would be to have two streaming services and compatible DACs. As you have assembled. This is a fairly high bar... Maybe I will get an MQA dac and try it sometime in the future. Even if I liked it I wouldn't want MQA to become defacto.
 
George J said:
Dear Dimitry,

I have to admire your tenacity if nothing else. You would make a great grave digger. But for your own sake, may I proffer a little advice:

"When you have dug yourself into a big enough hole stop digging."

You have told us half a dozen times that you have the perfect system for showing the differences between streaming platforms and systems. We get it. You are fascinated by the replay aspect. Somewhere along the line you may even have listened to a whole musical track without switching between streaming services and systems. You have never stated this, so its is only a wild and possibly complete inaccurate assumption on my part.

Yet withal, and your consistent telling us you prefer MQA, you have yet to tell us why. I for one would be fascinated to read why you so admire MQA. Genuinely. I enjoy reading what others think. No sarcasm, this is exactly why I read far more than I post on the PFM ...

But you don't ... you just blithely get chippy with people when they don't roll over and say,

"Nice! Well done Dimitry. We agree with you."

I shall certainly not block you on PFM. The entertainment value you provide is too good. Like an an unintended comedian. Spontaneous hilarity is the very best kind!

Best wishes from George
Click to expand...
See George, I really don't understand you.

You don't stream, this affects you in like, zero ways, and yet here you are, writing long and increasingly annoyed posts, becoming ruder and ruder with each one, in an angry old man kind of way.

Grave digger ? Really?

Proffering advice? Did I ask for any?

I may have listened to a "whole track?" I actually always listen to whole albums.

Consistent telling that I prefer MQA? No, I consistently stated that I like MQA SOMETIMES and LPCM OTHER TIMES.

I have put together my thoughts on MQA most completely in post number 940.

I have described sonic difference between MQA and LPCM to the best of my abilities in post 595. It's actually difficult because these differences are outside the type of audiophile sonic variations that we have developed a common language for.

Unfortunately, your side overall and you personally, either are too lazy to actually read or too certain of being right to move beyond redicule.

Again, I can only offer experiential knowledge, arrived at after many years of careful listening. If you can't move beyond certainty and redicule, it is entirely your loss.
 
DimitryZ said:
just talk endlessly.
Click to expand...

tenor.gif
 
nostromo said:
I'm really curious to evaluate MQA by listening to it as you suggest. But I'm guessing the difference is subtle and would require extensive listening and so the only way to do it would be to have two streaming services and compatible DACs. As you have assembled. This is a fairly high bar... Maybe I will get an MQA dac and try it sometime in the future. Even if I liked it I wouldn't want MQA to become defacto.
Click to expand...
Sure, I would always want to have LPCM. As a free format, it can't actually be eliminated.
 
DimitryZ said:
Your system may have been designed for music, but you steadfastly refuse to listen, just talk endlessly.
Click to expand...

Says the man who has to have the last word...

(which of us has entered more words in this thread?)

This is utter nonsense. I am not going to buy hardware and subscribe to one or more services that I don't want or need, just to satisfy a challenge in an internet conversation. Listening to the service or not is of no relevance to my objection to their predatory business model.

Are you suggesting that anyone who listens to it is gonna love it so much that they'll welcome MQA's incursions into their CD and LP collections as well?
 
Yank said:
Says the man who has to have the last word...

(which of us has entered more words in this thread?)

This is utter nonsense. I am not going to buy hardware and subscribe to one or more services that I don't want or need, just to satisfy a challenge in an internet conversation. Listening to the service or not is of no relevance to my objection to their predatory business model.

Are you suggesting that anyone who listens to it is gonna love it so much that they'll welcome MQA's incursions into their CD and LP collections as well?
Click to expand...
Again, I am arguing with a dozen snarky people, so of course I will have to use more words.

Again, for like a millionth time, I prefer MQA sometimes and LPCM sometimes.

Are you folks hard of hearing or hard of comprehension?
 
You’re not conversing, you’re dismissing, disrespecting and proselytising, it’s rather unsettling to watch you in action, a bit like a fundamentalist preacher who absolutely believes his word is the only word and that any deviation is deviant.

As has been mentioned upthread (a long, long way upthread), my only objection, given that it sounded ok to me, was the ambition to insert MQA into every level of recording and distribution. Also mentioned, more recently, upthread by George, who is an absolute gentleman btw, is that you are doing more, by your interminable sermonising, to put people off than a hundred Golden Ones with their pesky graphs. I tend to agree with George now.
 
The only way out of this cyclical nightmare of a thread, is a thread closure methinks.

What’s left to discuss that hasn’t already been thrashed out? It’s clear some here have vested interests which are not being revealed, others who simply like being contrarian, and/or just like the sound of their own online ‘voices’. Some who just have little to do except wind the other ‘side’ up. Others who embody all these traits... Seems to be par for the course these days in so many forums and on the increase...

Sad innit?
 
Rob998 said:
You’re not conversing, you’re dismissing, disrespecting and proselytising, it’s rather unsettling to watch you in action, a bit like a fundamentalist preacher who absolutely believes his word is the only word and that any deviation is deviant.

As has been mentioned upthread (a long, long way upthread), my only objection, given that it sounded ok to me, was the ambition to insert MQA into every level of recording and distribution. Also mentioned, more recently, upthread by George, who is an absolute gentleman btw, is that you are doing more, by your interminable sermonising, to put people off than a hundred Golden Ones with their pesky graphs.
Click to expand...
Absolutely incorrect.

I have offered direct observations, arrived at after years of listening.

There is zero sermonizing from me, only the truth as I hear it.

If this is a wrong approach to a conversation I your opinion, then we will have to disagree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top