[Lexxie]

No, I think your boxy square categories of "lossy" vs "lossless" are simply not refined. There are multiple different KINDS and DEGREES of lossy and some matter a lot and others (such as lossy in inaudible frequencies) simply don't deserve the degree of Procrustean sanctimonious judgmental snobbery that 320kbps MP3 deserves. When that same snobbery comes from someone who extols Spotify, it reaches an irony that overflows like a tsunami of hypocrisy. Or am I the only one who sees something off about a 320kbps MP3 user getting all self-righteous about lossyness in a HiRes format with 24x more non-lost musical information than his own?

"MQA is a solution looking for a problem". It's not my intent to get all partisan and defend a format that's getting replaced by FLAC anyway. But honestly you sound like a parrot. All the problems in the chain from recording to delivery to reproduction are covered in great academic length and a fairly good explanation of how that degrades sound quality is available for those who research it.

We literally had "The Loudness Wars" corrupt music reproduction quality for over 25 years and you think that's not a problem? It's damn near a culture crisis. Defeating decades of MP3-ization and compression with the first of its kind HiRes streaming service broke the dykes in the music industry's dam that kept our good quality music from us. It launched a renaissance of competition in the likes of Qobuz, Amazon, Apple, Deezer, and so on. And there you are saying it's a solution without a problem because the problem it solved and the markets it created, are now in the process of being solved, so therefore the solution has no problem.

Where are all the hating ranting angrily about Spotify? It's MUCH WORSE THAN MQA format, but people are like "Oh well, I find it good for discovery and it's not so bad." In spite of it being responsible for polluting the ears of a whole generation and making them numb to HiFi. Spotify gets a pass and here we are yammering hate about the far superior MQA, which in ways has liberated hi fidelity music for a new generation. Maybe we all go back to FLAC now, maybe not. But the victory was achieved and MQA gets the war medals, and definitely a purple heart too.

What gives?

Getting up to 24/192 in the same bandwidth as a 16/44 stream may not be a problem to you, but there are many people who have data limits both for speed and maximum usage. Not to mention that occasional slow day every month or so where the data is not as fast as normal.

Maybe YOUR iPhone has 2TB of storage on it but many of us have 256 or 512GB, mmkay?

As for all the mumbo jumbo about filters and creating transparency by knowing the original recording equipment's encoding peculiarities vs. your particular DAC's decoding peculiarities and neutralizing those for better sonic magic, I'm not sure anyone here is smart enough or aware enough to know everything going on there, especially since it's proprietary. So then it comes down to the ears which definitely do tell you that in a lot of recordings there's noticeably better sound stage. Well, I don't know about all of it but I find the format pleasant to listen to and competitive in sound quality to the much more data-heavy 24/192 stuff.

99% of people I know, including those in my own house, are using bluetooth for sub-HiRes streaming, and it sounds like the south end of a northbound dirty animal. Yeah I guess there are serious limitations to crunching data via bluetooth. If Bluesound wants to use some MQAir patents and such to get 24/192 or similar quality over bluetooth, why does that upset you so much? Simply don't use it. No need to get all sanctimonious about other people who might WANT better quality via their device pairings.

9 out of 10 "MQA haters" don't even have TIDAL or a properly resolving system. It's like a bunch of peasants with pitchforks who are angry about someone or some thing that never even hurt them because some other self-appointed expert who couldn't design a DAC to save his life, told them that real innovators and digital-to-analog gurus don't know what they're doing.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

No, I think your boxy square categories of "lossy" vs "lossless" are simply not refined. There are multiple different KINDS and DEGREES of lossy and some matter a lot and others (such as lossy in inaudible frequencies) simply don't deserve the degree of Procrustean sanctimonious judgmental snobbery that 320kbps MP3 deserves. When that same snobbery comes from someone who extols Spotify, it reaches an irony that overflows like a tsunami of hypocrisy. Or am I the only one who sees something off about a 320kbps MP3 user getting all self-righteous about lossyness in a HiRes format with 24x more non-lost musical information than his own?

"MQA is a solution looking for a problem". It's not my intent to get all partisan and defend a format that's getting replaced by FLAC anyway. But honestly you sound like a parrot. All the problems in the chain from recording to delivery to reproduction are covered in great academic length and a fairly good explanation of how that degrades sound quality is available for those who research it.

Does the solution consist of MQA charging for every step of it and then pretending to do something about it?

We literally had "The Loudness Wars" corrupt music reproduction quality for over 25 years and you think that's not a problem? It's damn near a culture crisis. Defeating decades of MP3-ization and compression with the first of its kind HiRes streaming service broke the dykes in the music industry's dam that kept our good quality music from us. It launched a renaissance of competition in the likes of Qobuz, Amazon, Apple, Deezer, and so on. And there you are saying it's a solution without a problem because the problem it solved and the markets it created, are now in the process of being solved, so therefore the solution has no problem.

Are you aware of the difference between DATA compression and DYNAMICS compression? Are you also aware of the fact that
1. Lossy data compression does not compromise dynamics and, indeed, done correctly cannot be demonstrated to compromise... anything at all?
2. MQA cannot claim any innovation to combating dynamics compression, other than putting out less compressed masters--which literally anyone can do IF the market motivation is there?

Where are all the hating ranting angrily about Spotify? It's MUCH WORSE THAN MQA format, but people are like "Oh well, I find it good for discovery and it's not so bad." In spite of it being responsible for polluting the ears of a whole generation and making them numb to HiFi. Spotify gets a pass and here we are yammering hate about the far superior MQA, which in ways has liberated hi fidelity music for a new generation. Maybe we all go back to FLAC now, maybe not. But the victory was achieved and MQA gets the war medals, and definitely a purple heart too.

Judging from the above, apparently not.

Getting up to 24/192 in the same bandwidth as a 16/44 stream may not be a problem to you, but there are many people who have data limits both for speed and maximum usage. Not to mention that occasional slow day every month or so where the data is not as fast as normal.

It most certainly does not matter to me because my reference home system simply does not play anything above a 48kHz format (well, it does, but resampled to 48kHz.). All of its tuning and customizations for the best of hi fidelity depends on the very non-existence of Hi-Res, compressed or otherwise*. The customers of the companies I work for can certainly demand Hi-Res and we can certainly deliver that if they want. But I prefer NON hi-res for sonic reasons.

*Reason being, among other things, IMD of ultrasonic frequencies back into the audible range as distortion (which are an infinite times more audible than the ultrasonic frequencies themselves), and limited CPU power available for, among other things, 7-ch convolution room correction and a variant of the DRX10K dynamics plugin https://www.head-fi.org/threads/introducing-the-all-new-hiby-drx10k.968627/ (now here's a real innovation for dynamics recovery!)

As for all the mumbo jumbo about filters and creating transparency by knowing the original recording equipment's encoding peculiarities vs. your particular DAC's decoding peculiarities and neutralizing those for better sonic magic, I'm not sure anyone here is smart enough or aware enough to know everything going on there, especially since it's proprietary. So then it comes down to the ears which definitely do tell you that in a lot of recordings there's noticeably better sound stage. Well, I don't know about all of it but I find the format pleasant to listen to and competitive in sound quality to the much more data-heavy 24/192 stuff.

Are you listening through headphones by any chance? If so, I strongly advise you to try out BRIR headphone virtualization before pronouncing any one recording format as superior over any other. Because for me not having a BRIR in the playback chain is like leaving the room lights off in comparison.

99% of people I know, including those in my own house, are using bluetooth for sub-HiRes streaming, and it sounds like the south end of a northbound dirty animal. Yeah I guess there are serious limitations to crunching data via bluetooth. If Bluesound wants to use some MQAir patents and such to get 24/192 or similar quality over bluetooth, why does that upset you so much? Simply don't use it. No need to get all sanctimonious about other people who might WANT better quality via their device pairings.

I use Spotify premium for 99% of my streaming and I invite you to come to my house and listen to what it is capable of through a good system.

 

[Currawong]

A lot of modern music re-processed through the MQA system has compression, lower dynamic range and increased loudness. It's not surprising that it sounds better to some people. However, if you listen to a lot of classic jazz, the batch processing of it into MQA results in a loss of detail and bloated bass. Noise reduction that seems to have been applied to classical music ruins the sense of space too.

Given how nearly every technical aspect of MQA has been proven to be either false or misleading, sometimes to the point of doing the opposite of what they claimed, obviously they were left to simply modifying the music to make it sound louder and more appealing to people who were easy to enough to convince that it was some magic process that improves SQ.

 

[Lexxie]

Don't hate what you don't fully know. Don't demand other people have the formats they want taken from them. Don't be hypocritical in judging something's flaws when the flaws of your own system are worse. Don't celebrate death, pain, or failure, with gleeful sadism, nor give into baser primitive instincts like mob violence.

"Are you aware of the difference between DATA compression and DYNAMICS compression? Are you also aware of the fact that"
The context of "loudness wars" assumes you know that this pertains to dynamic compression. You are assumed if commenting here to know the difference and to know the compression in itself is value-neutral. It is the kind of lossyness and the degree of lossyness that are what matters, when it comes to data compression; and indeed lossless or "effectively and nearly lossless" compression are possible.

"2. MQA cannot claim any innovation to combating dynamics compression, other than putting out less compressed masters--which literally anyone can do IF the market motivation is there?"
Sorry but you're wrong. It was the sword that cut the knot in that battle. Now that they brought awareness to the problem and it's fading fast, you take for granted the victories it achieved for YOU, and aren't even grateful. At the time, an artist in a session would sign off on how the mastering came out and sounded to them, and THEN it would get remastered and recompressed into oodles of different dynamically compressed formats for distribution. The idea of AUTHENTICATING that what you hear is the MASTER, allowed the consumer to know if they were getting a GMO (genetically modified offering.) Anyone claiming that's evil reminds me of those Monsanto ads they successfully ran to prevent laws requiring GMO labeling for food. Did you ever think that evil people might WANT to pepper your mind with misinformation to cause the defeat of truthful labeling initiatives? Probably not, and probably that's why they defeated the GMO food labeling initiatives also. By letting the consumer CHOOSE, if and when they WANTED, to actually hear the master and not the compressed version remastered by Bubba, the first of two Demons that allowed the loudness war to continue, was damaged and weakened. This is not the place to discuss the second demon that has also been damaged and defeated, leading us to a new dawn and era of non-compressed recordings on our horizon. And the hated MQA played a key part of this new enlightened world you now take for granted.

Judging from the above, apparently not.
Apparently not what? You mask your question then put words in my mouth and mind to make it seem I'm apparently not something. Strawman trick doesn't work here. The context of this comment is my observation that MQA is a far less lossy format than Spotify uses, and that there is a hypocritical irony in Spotify people getting "holier than thou" over lossless/lossy, when attacking MQA. If you wcant to give a scientific refutation of Spotify being less lossy than MQA, go for it. If you want to re-educate me on the meaning of hypocrisy or what "pot calling the kettle black" really means, then go ahead there also. But "apparently not" with zero explanation or discussion, doesn't qualify as productive discussion.

"Does the solution consist of MQA charging for every step of it and then pretending to do something about it?"
People get paid for their jobs. Artists for performing. Producers for producing. Recording engineers for doing their stuff. Distributors for distributing. And quality authenticators for authenticating. So people getting all self-righteous over someone being paid for a quality service doesn't move the needle.

Dumb people tend to conflate things. For example, when speaking about a technology, they'll hate it and call it bad because, what, a marketer or someone made an exaggerated claim? Are computers in general bad because someone did a cyber crime? Should we outlaw your favorite pizza after we found someone falsely marketing pizza? Did people in business roles make mistakes in marketing and execution of MQA when doing their uphill fight against the demons supporting a status quo world of giving people lossy MP3 from non-original and dynamically compressed remasters? Yeah. Doesn't mean we should celebrate their death instead of take a quiet assessment of their victories, defeats, and what are the new battles ahead in the ongoing fight to prevent the industry from using lies and misinformation to compress us back into the darkness.

"It most certainly does not matter to me because my reference home system simply does not play anything above a 48kHz format"
That's fine. The whole discussion wasn't about you. It was about people who take their own reference and preference and want to force it on others, take formats away from others, bash others for using a different format, and celebrate when their amateur hate-memes succeeded at defeating other people's preferred formats and systems.
So please tell me that just because YOU don't want more than 48kHz, that you want to take away other people's freedom to go 96k and celebrate with sadistic glee when the internet memes and pseudo-misinformation successfully kills it off. Remember the Monsanto analogy and the precaution to always question mob rule. Whenever you are hating something that's trying to be better and give more freedom of quality choices, ask yourself how sure you are and where your information came from and who are the people who benefit from getting you to join the chorus. Because in a billion dollar industry, you're naive to think someone doesn't benefit from success and failure and won't try to sway how people think, somewhat selfishly, to achieve their own monetary goals which are prioritized OVER any goals of higher quality and freedom of choice.

So the discussion is not about what matters to you. This was about people CELEBRATING the demise of MQA and HAPPY their campaign resulted in the destruction of a format that many enjoyed for its benefits it brought to THEIR music-lifestyle.

Are you listening through headphones by any chance? If so, I strongly advise you to try out BRIR headphone virtualization before pronouncing any one recording format as superior over any other. Because for me not having a BRIR in the playback chain is like leaving the room lights off in comparison.
I'm not against BRIR or anyone else's attempt to bring new technologies to improved recordings. I might not like all of them, but this discussion was about fighting mob mentality that takes glee in destroying and defeating and taking away other people's freedom to try those things out and use them. I am interested in binaural recording and other types of recording that will better emulate realistic soundwave timings across 2 or more channels, and thank you for bringing the subject up to promote it.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Don't hate what you don't fully know. Don't demand other people have the formats they want taken from them. Don't be hypocritical in judging something's flaws when the flaws of your own system are worse. Don't celebrate death, pain, or failure, with gleeful sadism, nor give into baser primitive instincts like mob violence.

"Are you aware of the difference between DATA compression and DYNAMICS compression? Are you also aware of the fact that"
The context of "loudness wars" assumes you know that this pertains to dynamic compression. You are assumed if commenting here to know the difference and to know the compression in itself is value-neutral. It is the kind of lossyness and the degree of lossyness that are what matters, when it comes to data compression; and indeed lossless or "effectively and nearly lossless" compression are possible.

"2. MQA cannot claim any innovation to combating dynamics compression, other than putting out less compressed masters--which literally anyone can do IF the market motivation is there?"
Sorry but you're wrong. It was the sword that cut the knot in that battle. Now that they brought awareness to the problem and it's fading fast, you take for granted the victories it achieved for YOU, and aren't even grateful. At the time, an artist in a session would sign off on how the mastering came out and sounded to them, and THEN it would get remastered and recompressed into oodles of different dynamically compressed formats for distribution. The idea of AUTHENTICATING that what you hear is the MASTER, allowed the consumer to know if they were getting a GMO (genetically modified offering.) Anyone claiming that's evil reminds me of those Monsanto ads they successfully ran to prevent laws requiring GMO labeling for food. Did you ever think that evil people might WANT to pepper your mind with misinformation to cause the defeat of truthful labeling initiatives? Probably not, and probably that's why they defeated the GMO food labeling initiatives also. By letting the consumer CHOOSE, if and when they WANTED, to actually hear the master and not the compressed version remastered by Bubba, the first of two Demons that allowed the loudness war to continue, was damaged and weakened. This is not the place to discuss the second demon that has also been damaged and defeated, leading us to a new dawn and era of non-compressed recordings on our horizon. And the hated MQA played a key part of this new enlightened world you now take for granted.

Judging from the above, apparently not.
Apparently not what? You mask your question then put words in my mouth and mind to make it seem I'm apparently not something. Strawman trick doesn't work here. The context of this comment is my observation that MQA is a far less lossy format than Spotify uses, and that there is a hypocritical irony in Spotify people getting "holier than thou" over lossless/lossy, when attacking MQA. If you wcant to give a scientific refutation of Spotify being less lossy than MQA, go for it. If you want to re-educate me on the meaning of hypocrisy or what "pot calling the kettle black" really means, then go ahead there also. But "apparently not" with zero explanation or discussion, doesn't qualify as productive discussion.

"Does the solution consist of MQA charging for every step of it and then pretending to do something about it?"
People get paid for their jobs. Artists for performing. Producers for producing. Recording engineers for doing their stuff. Distributors for distributing. And quality authenticators for authenticating. So people getting all self-righteous over someone being paid for a quality service doesn't move the needle.

Dumb people tend to conflate things. For example, when speaking about a technology, they'll hate it and call it bad because, what, a marketer or someone made an exaggerated claim? Are computers in general bad because someone did a cyber crime? Should we outlaw your favorite pizza after we found someone falsely marketing pizza? Did people in business roles make mistakes in marketing and execution of MQA when doing their uphill fight against the demons supporting a status quo world of giving people lossy MP3 from non-original and dynamically compressed remasters? Yeah. Doesn't mean we should celebrate their death instead of take a quiet assessment of their victories, defeats, and what are the new battles ahead in the ongoing fight to prevent the industry from using lies and misinformation to compress us back into the darkness.

"It most certainly does not matter to me because my reference home system simply does not play anything above a 48kHz format"
That's fine. The whole discussion wasn't about you. It was about people who take their own reference and preference and want to force it on others, take formats away from others, bash others for using a different format, and celebrate when their amateur hate-memes succeeded at defeating other people's preferred formats and systems.
So please tell me that just because YOU don't want more than 48kHz, that you want to take away other people's freedom to go 96k and celebrate with sadistic glee when the internet memes and pseudo-misinformation successfully kills it off. Remember the Monsanto analogy and the precaution to always question mob rule. Whenever you are hating something that's trying to be better and give more freedom of quality choices, ask yourself how sure you are and where your information came from and who are the people who benefit from getting you to join the chorus. Because in a billion dollar industry, you're naive to think someone doesn't benefit from success and failure and won't try to sway how people think, somewhat selfishly, to achieve their own monetary goals which are prioritized OVER any goals of higher quality and freedom of choice.

So the discussion is not about what matters to you. This was about people CELEBRATING the demise of MQA and HAPPY their campaign resulted in the destruction of a format that many enjoyed for its benefits it brought to THEIR music-lifestyle.

Are you listening through headphones by any chance? If so, I strongly advise you to try out BRIR headphone virtualization before pronouncing any one recording format as superior over any other. Because for me not having a BRIR in the playback chain is like leaving the room lights off in comparison.
I'm not against BRIR or anyone else's attempt to bring new technologies to improved recordings. I might not like all of them, but this discussion was about fighting mob mentality that takes glee in destroying and defeating and taking away other people's freedom to try those things out and use them. I am interested in binaural recording and other types of recording that will better emulate realistic soundwave timings across 2 or more channels, and thank you for bringing the subject up to promote it.

Did you at any point take into account my Sponsor tag and the fact that our company puts out MQA compatibile products before assuming my level of ignorance?

Do you have any idea how much of a pain in our side MQA was while it was relevant? How much it pained me to keep my mouth shut for the sake of the bottom line even while they charged us for it?

Do you have any awareness of the fact that it was the widespread adoption of Replaygain that finally won the loudness wars, not anything done by MQA?

Did you even read what Currawong wrote?

 

[Lexxie]

A lot of modern music re-processed through the MQA system has compression, lower dynamic range and increased loudness.

Correct, if it was originally compressed during the mastery. This includes the 25+ year period of the "loudness wars". What matters here is that the pillars that supported the loudness wars were weakened by the new MQA paradigm. Downstream compressions of the original master are ideally completely blocked by the MQA process (when properly followed competently and honestly, at least.) The point here being is that what the original mastering that the artist took place in and presumably signed off on, is what you get, not further stages of compression that come after as it's redistributed across other media.

It's not surprising that it sounds better to some people.

Compression sounds better? Maybe in rare cases but you probably mean the AB loudness phenomenon. Mostly, the loudness wars were slimy snaky sheister tricks. Using the fact that in AB testing we tend to favor what's louder. So when you hear two songs on radio, or satellite radio, streaming, or wherever else, the louder song sticks out as "better" to you (in a fake way), causing you to divert your money toward it IN SPITE OF THE FACT that the great majority of people would actually enjoy non-compressed music with the volume simply adjusted a little louder.
While MQA didn't single-handedly defeat the loudness wars, you'll notice exactly when it came out, the beginning of the end of the compressionistas. That's because it liberated consumer CHOICE for going for masters, as a sizeable number of consumers were AWARE of what was going on and WANTED to get non-GMO music. By removing the monopolistic power of the compressionista delivery system with another choice, and seeing its marketing start to work and be talked about and be competitively copied by others, a major blow was struck on the loudness compressionistas that, together with other things, eventually is leading to their downfall. Yay.

Given how nearly every technical aspect of MQA has been proven to be either false or misleading, sometimes to the point of doing the opposite of what they claimed, obviously they were left to simply modifying the music to make it sound louder and more appealing to people who were easy to enough to convince that it was some magic process that improves SQ.

Well that's where we disagree. Every time I look for this "proof" that MQA is bad, it goes back to conflation about other things that aren't MQA and are more related to marketing and execution. The "MQA is bad because they just do a loudness trick" is a good example. Whenever you take an app out of exclusive mode you'll notice if you use windows, that it likes to 1) do some "loudness normalization" to cut volume a little, probably so some lawyer will win the next lawsuit about ear damage or something, 2) boost bass, 3) cut treble(?) (hard to tell for sure since loudness normalization + bass boost can make it relatively seem so.)

Anyway I have respect for you and no quarrel. People just assume I'm a mindless pro-MQA-ista on the opposite side of their mindless hate. Just because I didn't join their hate. The whole point was that MQA did solve problems, for some people, including those who liked the idea of streaming high quality uncompressed music and see market forces put more focus on HiRes and original masters. And so it's kind of an ugly plebe who celebrates its death and spits on its grave, without a moment of silence to take it all in, in all its warts, uglies, and victories to which all lovers of Hifi are indebted.

 

[bfreedma]

At this point, if someone can't see that MQA was nothing more than a money grab that offered unadvertised DRM while failing to perform as technically promised, I don't think any level of rational discussion is going to change minds. Bandwidth reduction could have been handled with any number of existing solutions, so please, let's not hear that use case as a reason for MQA.

Some people are too "pot committed" after years of propping up MQA's platform despite growing evidence that MQA was not what it claimed to deal with the facts as we now know them.

I'll miss MQA as much as I miss Sony's infamous root kit from the early 2000s...

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Correct, if it was originally compressed during the mastery.

No, he's saying that MQA remastered it to be louder and more dynamically compressed than the original master. Your MQA master worship (no pun intended) notwithstanding.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

<see below>

 

[gimmeheadroom]

9 out of 10 "MQA haters" don't even have TIDAL or a properly resolving system. It's like a bunch of peasants with pitchforks who are angry about someone or some thing that never even hurt them because some other self-appointed expert who couldn't design a DAC to save his life, told them that real innovators and digital-to-analog gurus don't know what they're doing.

Exactly. And why this is tolerated only in the MQA threads and not any other thread remains a long-term mystery.

 

[bfreedma]

I noticed the only threads full of bashing are the MQA threads. People who want to bash MQA should just...go...away. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

I don't like it. I didn't buy it.

MQA promised much and delivered little (and some things no one asked for or wanted). If people stopped with the incorrect technical claims, there would be no need to participate for many.

 

[Lexxie]

Did you at any point take into account my Sponsor tag and the fact that our company puts out MQA compatibile products before assuming my level of ignorance?

Yes, but I did not assume your level of ignorance. It seems rather you are assuming that I assumed a level of ignorance.

Do you have any idea how much of a pain in our side MQA was while it was relevant? How much it pained me to keep my mouth shut for the sake of the bottom line even while they charged us for it?
No because I'm not you and you didn't share this story.

Do you have any awareness of the fact that it was the widespread adoption of Replaygain that finally won the loudness wars, not anything done by MQA?
I did mention the second warrior in the defeat of loudness wars but the post was too long to go into that one. Note that Replaygain was out for decades while the loudness wars kept getting WORSE, not better. But it was biding its time and when MQA fought on its side, the two together were enough to start the avalanche that will eventually bury the compressionistas. You are correct in crediting loudness normalization with slightly more credit than MQA. You could say that it's the fuel but MQA was the spark. Neither fuel nor a spark cause a fire, it takes both.

Did you even read what Currawong wrote?
Yes, and I was replying to it in order, giving priority to you sense your post came before him.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Exactly. And why this is tolerated only in the MQA threads and not any other thread remains a long-term mystery.

I mean, my going was good when I simply put up my hand for "ignorant MQA basher" as defined by Lexxie, maybe I should have kept it that way. Ok, over and out.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

I mean, my going was good when I simply put up my hand for "ignorant MQA basher" as defined by Lexxie, maybe I should have kept it that way. Ok, over and out.

Well, my statement was a general one. I have appreciated and benefited from your posts and my comment was not directed at you.

I just find it really atrocious that people who don't subscribe to Tidal come and trash all the MQA threads and fling accusations at the people who enjoy MQA. And that the mods completely ignore this while in other threads any kind of bashing or insult results in bans or deleted posts.

 

[Lexxie]

I don't like it. I didn't buy it.

MQA promised much and delivered little (and some things no one asked for or wanted). If people stopped with the incorrect technical claims, there would be no need to participate for many.

"I read somewhere it's an incorrect technical claim so now I don't like it" is a little bit different from "I carefully set up a signal chain based on research from others who are enjoying MQA, for what best reproduces it, and even then I did not like it."

While I don't know which is true in your case, your post makes me assume the former?