Error upon error.
Avoid.
1 Like
Empty assertion. Substantiate it.
AJ
1 Like
Sorry. Would take a treatise and I’m not willing to get into it. This is the source of considerable mythology floating around about MQA, But assertion far from empty.
So, your post is akin to claims of rampant voting fraud. You are willing to make the assertion but unwilling or unable to corroborate it. Poor show. Because others have made the effort to write well documented “treatises” that you simply purport to be in “error.”
AJ
4 Likes
Nothing to do with rampant voter fraud. The problems in it would better be addressed in a serious paper, and this is the wrong place.
Publish it wherever you please. But one obstacle may be that “robbi_burdeck” has no recorded body of work outside of this forum, which is deemed to be “the wrong place.”
AJ
1 Like
I guess I don’t understand something about this discussion. Can you tell me what an “authentic” or “authenticated” file actually is?
It means the closet to the original that exists. Not an nth generation copy, not messed about with.
Not even close to true in reality.
AJ
I think that’s the part I don’t understand. Webster’s definition of authenticate is “to prove or serve to prove to be real, true, or genuine” whereas you seem to be using the term to describe the “best” version.
It is a common trick to obfuscate the unsustainability of claims. First a redefintion of ‘lossless’ and now ‘authentic’. Welcome to the world of alternative facts.
1 Like
How do you know?
The best version is all there is. There is a less best version if you like, but that’s hardly authentic. So the best available has to be authentic.
If a master is lost or destroyed, what can you do? It isn’t there… so you use the best. If it does exist… great, you use that. How much simpler can I explain the term authentic.
I’m sorry Chris, but I’m with Inigo Montoya on this one - you keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
I can see the use of MQA technology as a means of demonstrating provenance (as @danny has pointed out ), but that point is not outweighed by the downsides that I perceive in the technology for me personally. It’s one of the reasons that I moved from Tidal to Qobuz services a while back.
1 Like
There we agree to differ, I am experiencing the best sonic value I have ever experienced in recorded music with MQA. The files used by definition are authentic and authenticated. A task no one else has ever tried to achieve.
1 Like
Do they list anywhere in the credits what master they are using? Would be nice to know it’s the original vs a lesser copy due to masters lost in fire or whatever reason. And also don’t see why MQA is even needed for this part. The labels could just put that this is from their original master in their hires release. Think even Apple was trying to claim their music was better because they told labels to use best masters.
I like the idea trying to use best master but how do you know what the end result is? They’re still at the mercy of the record labels.
Also, is really 16 bit files the best Warner had for all these releases? Thought studio always used higher quality but could be wrong.
You miss the point completely. So much of the music is not and never was high res. MQA removes the distortion that high res try’s to remove. This is done a lot more efficiently with MQA and makes better sound quality available to all, not just those with Hi Res Hi Fi. Even if they don’t have a decoder. MQA decoders are becoming ubiquitous and desirable especially amongst the young and as such the shift to quality is beginning.
New recordings in MQA do not even require high res as can be experienced by anyone who cares to listen.
I understand what you’re trying to convey but “authentic” really isn’t the right term.
If you understand me, that’s enough…
So, MQA “removes”, but hi-res only “try’s [sic] to remove”? There’s some secret trick to it that the makers of hi-res downloads don’t know about?