I have, at an AXPONA demo. I was practically tossed out of the room when I told Peter I thought the non-MQA version was better to my ears. King’s new clothes, as far as I was concerned.
Whither MQA
- Thread starter Bloomie
- Start date
This is not an intelligent reply. All three of these folks are superbly talented folks with excellent critical listening skills. They found value in the sound quality of MQA. Just because it may have failed (we don't know this yet) as a business does not mean it doesn't add value sonically.
I use both services. Sometimes the best mastering is on Qobuz, sometimes it is on Tidal. Sometimes one of my gold CDs sounds better.
Lee, the fact that you feel the need to suggest that this is not an intelligent reply is exactly the problem.
You all got scammed.
And yes, I did say that I still consider in general Robert Harley to be a good reviewer. I think that should satisfy you, Lee. It also happens to be the truth, BTW (the truth that this is my genuine opinion, that is).
And the fact that you and others may enjoy the sound of MQA is different from the well-documented fact that MQA was a technical fraud. If interested, you can look up threads at WBF on MQA with links, or simply google MQA.
Elliot G.
Dealer - Bending Wave
Im definetly a QOBUZ guy and to be honest only use tidal if I can't play it on Qobuz
Nobody got "scammed". John and Robert gave an honest assessment of the sound benefits of the new format.
MQA is not a technical fraud either. Stuart and Craven are among the highest decorated audio innovators out there. The beneficial impact of the apodizing filter is real.
Lee, in debating circles, what you described in regards to Messrs Stuart and Craven is an appeal to authority fallacy. it is not really a good argument. You love MQA. Others don’t. The fact that you have to repeatedly chime in anytime anyone disagrees with fellow members of the audio press doesn’t help your argument.
Elliot G.
Dealer - Bending Wave
Joe,
This tactic, appeal to authority, is one used heavily on WBF and I am sure in every audio circle. Ones financial success or ones success in another profession does not equate to success in everything and every profession. The world has succombed to celebrities endorsing stuff they know nothing about or in many cases products or services they don't use.
Simply stated ones sucess as a Doctor ( for example) does not mean that you are an audio expert or visa versa if one is an audio expert that they can do succesful brain surgery ( even if you stayed in a holiday inn express the night before)
This tactic, appeal to authority, is one used heavily on WBF and I am sure in every audio circle. Ones financial success or ones success in another profession does not equate to success in everything and every profession. The world has succombed to celebrities endorsing stuff they know nothing about or in many cases products or services they don't use.
Simply stated ones sucess as a Doctor ( for example) does not mean that you are an audio expert or visa versa if one is an audio expert that they can do succesful brain surgery ( even if you stayed in a holiday inn express the night before)
Ha! And the corollary...Do you know ANYONE who goes to a doctor who says "my doctor sucks?" I do not. It's always, "my doctor is the best"! Sort of makes sense, right? If he/she were a terrible doctor, no patient would continue to go to that doctor. Well, it doesn't seem a stretch to think that's often the case in audio as well. "If I use that piece of gear, it must be great (or I wouldn't use it!?)". Not everyone actually puts in the work to compare gear in their own system in order to make the proper assessment. Sometimes, proclamations are more easily used as proxies for comparative listening.
Elliot G.
Dealer - Bending Wave
True but they don't make a doctors appointment to go into their urologist and get a reccomendation for a new phone cable. I don't personally get many calls from my clients on how to cure ED. I am not sure why I do sell a lot of stiff cables. (rim shot)
I'd personally be happy to see MQA release the IP on some of their filtering technology like the B-spines etc. I did not prefer MQA because it sounded generally of lower audio quality, but I think the filtering stuff did deliver on the claims and produced a more fluid or analog-like sound. One can hear the effect of the processing on regular PCM with 2Ls Mozart Violin Concertos MQA Remix. That type of technology should be available in ADCs and DACs running regular PCM, not hoarded in a lossy streaming patent.
No it hasn’t. It just means there is a reorganization going on. It might fail but it may also be that the company is being dressed for sale.
Check my context as it was a response to Moronix who claimed there was technical fraud. Peter Craven and Bob Stuart deserve the benefit of the doubt given their accomplishments and Moronix should have to present hard evidence that fraud was committed. That’s a serious allegation.
I chime in to defend the audio press here because I can share insights that present the other side of the argument.
He fell so far he was recently awarded one of the most prestigious awards in the United Kingdom.
MQA Labs - MQA Labs
We love music at MQA Labs. Our solutions are used across the entire music chain – by creators, broadcasters, streaming services and hardware manufacturers. Studio plugins for improved impulse response and noise shaping. 7-DAY FREE TRIAL Learn More Analogue-to-digital conversion…
www.mqa.co.uk
I haven't seen established clearly that MQA technology is fraudulent, but if they call anything "Master Quality" after it has undergone audible processing post-master, then that is obviously fraudulent. The reality is that MQA is absolutely not a perfect reproduction of the digital master.
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |