I don’t use lossy leaky crap filters or phase destroying minimum phase filters at all… So that isn’t my reason.
I think my response is really because of all the marketing lies propagated by MQA and my disappointment at finding the emperor has no clothes. I tried hard to like MQA. I am sure most audiophiles would make the effort given the marketing claims by MQA and all their empty promises. I made effort and it was a waste of time. MQA is crap and I feel hoodwinked and swindled and that is principally why I take a stand against these liars.
This thread is titled “MQA Disappointing”. And I believe The Computeraudiophile presented at RMAF many of the concerns that most of us users have with MQA. The reaction from MQA executives was shocking and rather telling. The only way to fight such fraudsters is to warn everyone you can about their dishonest marketing and their poor quality product. As a service to other audiophiles it is important to spread the word. You have been warned!
It will be a cold day in hell when I support a proprietary lossy file format.
I haven’t read through this entire thread but have to say I find the pro MQA arguments alarming, especially on a (supposed) “hi-fi” forum, but it’s obvious that it takes all kinds of people to make the world go around.
Absolutely. That is exactly MQA attitude towards the consumer and customer for their product. Consumers and customers are a bunch of closed minds that are best ignored. So MQA concentrate on record labels and surcharges on equipment for an MQA license so they can milk the industry and consumer and just tell the consumer what is good for them and stick it to them. Concerns about DRM Trojan horse, about lossy compression and the audible distortion from MQA are all caused by “closed mindedness” on the part of the consumer. Ignore those “closed minded idiots” is really the principal pillar of MQA strategy. If you don’t get it then you must be stupid.
This MQA attitude was all abundantly evident from the way they approached the RMAF presentation by The Computeraudiophile.
I absolutely do not. Just re-read my statement above and you will see that this is how I believe MQA considers its customers. I think audiophiles devote good money and effort in pursuit of their hobby, and they deserve much better treatment than that.
Houston, we have a problem.
I live in a land where people have voted in a referendum, and despite evidence that they may be worse off with their choice, they stick with their original opinion; I know about intransigence.
For many years I have purchased downloads from Qobuz, and now have a subscription to their HiRes streaming service, mainly because of Chandos, Sony and Harmonia Mundi accessibility.
The MQA debate has got awfully stuck, but try as I might, I find I prefer MQA above the Qobuz equivalent…it’s more…immersive; not euphonic. I will not stop my Qobuz account as the catalogue complements Tidal, but I would choose MQA given the choice, as I did in purchasing the Kate Bush remasters.
Politics often interfere with the senses, and sadly MQA has become an issue of opinion, often laundered by those with more time online than equips a true audiophile.
There is much in the world that is worthy of protest…Roon have got the balance right; MQA is okay. End of.
But I would choose MQA given the choice, as I did in purchasing the Kate Bush remasters.
Politics often interfere with the senses, and sadly MQA has become an issue of opinion, often laundered by those with more time online than equips a true audiophile.
It’s so true and sadly MQA has become an issue of opinion!
I don’t care about what Bob Stuart says or write!
Or, that Bob Stuart and Meridian want to have MQA as a closed system! I don’t care about what, other products are it as well, it’s not a new invention made by Bob Stuart anyway “So is he the Devil”!
So it’s up to each individual person if they want to buying a MQA DAC! The same thing is about the Record, Labels, DAC, Company’s who make MQA Possible!
Don’t bring up that the Record Company, treating the Artists Bad because of MQA, they have always treated the Artists Bad so it’s nothing new under the sun
You who mean that’s not right, that they have to pay Bob Stuart and Meridian to get the Music and DAC’s In MQA!
I don’t think Bob Stuart had to “Hold A Gun” against there Heads, Or?
Doesn’t it include TIDAL and Roon? With out them wasn’t it possible for us to listening to MQA! Or does they get it Free?
Okay it’s not only Roon, but this is Roon Community! So the other don’t we have to talk about!
So let people make their own decision about MQA!
If it’s a person’s opinion that they like/love MQA and some other don’t do it, so are you not better than Bob Stuart if you try to convince that person, with boring photos of files and links to articles that MQA is Bad!
Think about that, all you who constantly have to write how bad MQA are, if you don’t like it it’s okay, I respect your opinion/decision, but please respect us who have the opinion/decision that we like it!
You should also have learned you by this point, that no matter what you are writing, or what evidence you bring forward to this “Witch Hunting” Of MQA Music So Will It Not Disappears.
Wrong.
It’s about opinion. Some people like listening to MQA. Others do not.
The fact is, is that some people like MQA, and others do not. And that’s as far as it goes.
I’m lucky. I use a network player that plays just about anything I put through it. Including MQA.
It’s great. I can alternate between ice-cream, and muesli all in one session. Now there’s a combination!
We’ve had some quite lengthy discussions about DRM; how development time on MQA sucks away resources that could be used elsewhere; why MQA answers a question nobody asked etc, etc.
So it’s actually a lot more nuanced and wide-ranging than one crowd liking MQA and another not.
If you have not already you should read Robert Harley’s (editor of TAS) “MQA: The view from 30,000 feet” article (written about 3 years ago now). He explains quite well why the labels are seeking something like MQA to “protect the crown jewels”, which is to say, it’s not about sound quality but DRM. He in the latter half of the article denies that MQA is DRM, but this is contradiction that does not withstand scrutiny. Like most folks on the ‘audiophile’ side of the industry, his understanding of things software/digital is quite limited…
about that, all you who constantly have to write how bad MQA are, if you don’t like it it’s okay, I respect your opinion/decision, but please respect us who have the opinion/decision that we like it!