Now we know why Amir is pro-MQA

[mansr]

I wonder why MQA's reps have been so coy about that. Everyone in the Hundred Acre Wood knows that Owl is the greatest and wisest expert on everything, so mentions of him would surely be a more effective appeal to authority than blathering about Bob.

View attachment 19232

Could be this owl:

 

[Hugo9000]

Or perhaps a Parliament of Owls? Wow, that would be real authority there!

 

[Sal1950]

Hey, give Amir a break: At least he doesn't cut half the napkin off, and then fold the remaining part in half, ruining the bottom 1/16th of the remaining part in the process - and then charge you extra money to unfold that mess, and then tell you that what you're left with is even better than the original napkin was.

Yes, we do have to throw in consideration of the fact that he grew up in the Micro$oft think-tanks. Bringing in a pro-consumer position is considered bad business there. We'll keep him involved in some de-programing threads here and at some point I'm sure he'll begin to understand the bigger implications.

 

[krabapple]

No one needs MQA except those making money off of MQA.

 

[Jimster480]

MQA is horrible and pointless.

PCM all the way

 

[March Audio]

No one needs MQA except those making money off of MQA.

Indeed. The simple fact is that MQA will not allow a controlled listening test to demonstrate its efficacy. Enough information and investigation by 3rd parties has demonstrated it is of dubious merit. So clearly MQA know it will not stand up to proper scrutiny.

My own subjective analysis of it FWIW concluded the differences heard were caused by different mastering and playback conditions.

The only argument it has going for it is that it can reduce streaming bandwidth. This argument is only relevant for the streaming companies, its not important to the end user. The bandwidth compared to video is trivial and will continue to become more so as bandwidth increases and continues to fall in cost.

It's a solution without a problem but it certainly does generate a revenue stream for Bob et Al.

 

[mansr]

The simple fact is that MQA will not allow a controlled listening test to demonstrate its efficacy.

McGill University did a study and found no improvement.

The only argument it has going for it is that it can reduce streaming bandwidth.

That argument is a lie. Same quality FLAC is smaller.

 

[March Audio]

McGill University did a study and found no improvement.


That argument is a lie. Same quality FLAC is smaller.

I haven't heard about this. How did they test? Were they given access to an encoder?

Sure about the size?

 

[Jimster480]

McGill University did a study and found no improvement.


That argument is a lie. Same quality FLAC is smaller.

Please link the study if you have it. A quick search didn't find it in the first two pages.

FLAC would be smaller than MQA because it doesn't have the encoding / keys attached to it. Its just purely tones with basically no encapsulation.

 

[March Audio]

I have not seen that in many anti MQA folks. Most are emotionally against it first and foremost. But maybe you surprise me.

No one I have met has even heard of it. It is only known amongst audiophiles.

Well if an emotional reaction is what describes my view towards a non effective technology which MQA wants to make ubiqtuous so they can generate a revenue stream, and require me to buy new playback hardware to access its alleged advantages, then so be it.

 

[mansr]

I haven't heard about this. How did they test? Were they given access to an encoder?

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19396

Sure about the size?

Yes.

 

[March Audio]

Please link the study if you have it. A quick search didn't find it in the first two pages.

FLAC would be smaller than MQA because it doesn't have the encoding / keys attached to it. Its just purely tones with basically no encapsulation.

So why were Tidal interested if it didn't help, or were they just bullshit Ted about that aspect?

 

[March Audio]

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19396


Yes.

Cool thanks will read now.

 

[mansr]

So why were Tidal interested if it didn't help, or were they just bullshitted about that aspect?

Either they swallowed the bait, or they were given some other incentive. It's impossible to tell.

 

[andreasmaaan]

McGill University did a study and found no improvement.

Even worse. In a couple of the tests IIRC, the results indicated that listeners could reliably hear a difference. That can only mean one thing.

 

[Jimster480]

So why were Tidal interested if it didn't help, or were they just bullshit Ted about that aspect?

Bullshitting so they can get subscribers while also giving revenue to MQA.

 

[Wombat]

Please link the study if you have it. A quick search didn't find it in the first two pages.

FLAC would be smaller than MQA because it doesn't have the encoding / keys attached to it. Its just purely tones with basically no encapsulation.

Behind the AES paywall: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19396

 

[March Audio]

Behind the AES paywall: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19396

I'm a member. Will digest and summarise

 

[March Audio]

Bullshitting so they can get subscribers while also giving revenue to MQA.

I suppose yes claiming improved audio quality could attract some new members.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I'm a member. Will digest and summarise

Beat you to it