• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

bigguyca

Active Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2019
Messages
228
Likes
316
Molecule

Yes, we can all be pedants if we want.

If you don't understand that there is huge difference between an atom and molecule then you should consult a basic chemistry book. Have you noted the word, "Science" in the title of this site?

Trying to deflect a correction of what is a significant error with an offhand remark is childish. Can't you just write molecule and thanks? If you can't stand the heat...
 

watchnerd

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
8,576
Likes
5,078
Location
Seattle Area, USA
If you don't understand that there is huge difference between an atom and molecule then you should consult a basic chemistry book. Have you noted the word, "Science" in the title of this site?

Trying to deflect a correction of what is a significant error with an offhand remark is childish. Can't you just write molecule and thanks? If you can't stand the heat...
Wow, somebody is really hoping to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Pun intended.

Yes, I understand the difference between a molecule and an atom.

That's why I used the term "molecule" the second time.

And there was no deflection in my use of the term pedant. It was pretty straight forward.
 

RayDunzl

Major Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
10,111
Likes
8,647
Location
Riverview FL
Please give an example of an atom of oxide.
I thought O2 might be "oxygen oxide" but it isn't.

The "rule" is at least one atom of oxygen combined with some other element.

Rats.
 
Last edited:

Cahudson42

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 21, 2019
Messages
681
Likes
745
Possibly a simplistic view, but when we are still dealing with 1%>5%>10% transducer distortion, to be fixated on MQA and it's 0.000000005 % whatever possible ' improvements seems a complete waste of time, money, engineering, and whatever other resources.

A solution in search of a problem if there ever was one. Old f---s opinion:)
 

BDWoody

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
2,731
Likes
5,343
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
to be fixated on MQA and it's 0.000000005 % whatever possible ' improvements
That's the thing... There isn't even a possible improvement. It isn't about that last order of magnitude of sinad measurements..MQA is a detrimental process.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2020
Messages
48
Likes
5
So much for that... :)
Yeah, what else to do, so many people resist change and a healthy debate . Some are dismissive without any substance in their responses. I am NOT prescribing things for any particular person. I was talking about the progress in the industry and hopefully a change in mainstream consumer tastes and preferences and by that corollary changing the standard of what is hires by the audiophile community. We can’t be stuckups to a 40 year CD tech.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom