Tidal chucking MQA?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#241
Well apparently they did not get them all. (yet)

1721869760267.png


1721869802358.png



I can only do the first unfold in this system, and have to resample to 96kHz / 24-bit which is the sample rate of my processor and crossover. I will check again tomorrow.
 
#243
I am still able to stream MQA material from Tidal right now. Not my main system, but my tube based office desk top system, Mission 760 speakers, small sub, 5W SE amp and EML20B based line stage. Unfortunately to properly decode MQA I have to turn off the parametric EQ which I would say overall results in a reduction in sound quality irrespective of whether material is MQA or not. Since MQA is going away around here in the longer term this should not be an issue.

1722014323531.jpeg


Since this system is not digital there are no conversions except in the DAC. (Main system is digital until the D/A converters driving the amps with A/D for analog sources)

(Note: The signal path is lossless, the file being played is not)
1722014753161.png
 
#245
NATDBERG said:
they don't actually need any evidence of it
Click to expand...
Just for the record, MQA’s team persistently refuses to provide access to genuine data or permit independent third-party analysis. One must ponder the rationale behind such reticence. 🤔

Personally, I find it more plausible to remain convinced that unicorns do not exist (yes, a conspiracy theory, indeed) rather than donning rose-colored glasses and perpetually awaiting the arrival of Santa Claus. 🎅🤡 Wake up Peter Pan!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clausen, jan.didden and ItsAllInMyHead
#246
Ive not worked out why one can't quote a post written recently .. ? Anyway .

How about they don't have the data being asked for - "data" is very vague, what data are you refering to? - and how about they were keeping commercial secrets close to their chest, lest MQA go the way of MP3 and the ability to monetise, lost?

Or how about they're older guys used to intelligent discussion in learned circles and have an intense distaste for social media arguments?

Who knows, but you're suggesting that any pondering can only think up suspicious narrative .. well, that says much the person doing the pondering.

Thinking that way is just confirmation bias. . regardless of MQA, I'm very shocked that quite intelligent folks on foruma like these just have no ability to step outside of their own thinking bubble. It's like a scientist who so believes they have proven some theory they just cannot see their logical mistakes in analysis.
 
#249
NATDBERG said:
Being unconvinced implies that you are still open to being convinced if such info came along.
Click to expand...
Obviously.

The moment you stop being open to further knowledge, learning and challenges, especially challenges by yourself to your current option and conclusions you have entered the world of dogma, the great unthinking land.

BTW
Have you any solid evidence that MQA is in any way in the interests or a benefit to music consumers? If so sharing that evidence would add value to the forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clausen, MtlJazz, TNT and 1 other person
#250
Does anyone have access to the barn owl article? If so, does it show that barn owls benefit from short filter impulse responses, even when the filter cut-off frequency is above their sine wave hearing range?

Is anyone aware of any serious listening tests related to the effect of apodizing filters, with or without EEG?
 
#253
MtlJazz said:
It seems you often dismiss differing viewpoints, especially when they are based on evidence and data that don’t align with your perspective. Your stance appears heavily biased in favor of MQA, to the point of overlooking critical analyses.

Instead of attacking those who present a different point of view, why not contribute meaningful information to advance the discussion? Constructive debate is beneficial for everyone involved.
I respect differing opinions, but it’s important to ground our discussions in facts and evidence. Not some supposition about trade secrets and what not.
Click to expand...

The issue here is you are not following the thread properly, either hat or you are projecting what you THINK i have said.

I have been SPECIFICALLY talking about the accusations of it being a scam and that deliberate lies are being told.

There is no evidence for that. It is all speculation.

A lack of clarity on certain topics does not mean that therefore there is a scam at work.

Information vacuums normally go two ways:

- those who are reactionary and believe their own emotions and imaginations over objective reality, FILL IN that vacuum with narratives that confirm their own biases

- those who are better at reasoning and are self aware enough to catch themselves jumping to conclusions, reserve judgement.

It is as simple as that. That doesn't mean those reserving judgement do not guess or speculate .. but they do not claim that their speculation is truth.

I don't have a point of view .. but I reserve judgement precisely due to the lack of information. And I don't have any evidence to show that those who claim there are worthwhile sonic differences are mistaken. None of us have data on that either way .. none of us.

It is not about difference of opinion, it's difference of thinking style.

I don't see how it coats the consumer anything though .. so why should we have cared? MQA was provided by the streaming service I used and the price wasn't any different for it. MQA was available on a secondhand DAP I used as a DAC .. and I sold it for slightly more than I purchased it for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom