cdmackay wrote:
> I dunno. It sounds like you are saying: "there's a desire to sort things
> out, and create useful standards, and that's good. The result was MQA,
> which isn't good, but still, the intention was good". Is that what
> you're saying?
>
> I fear that the intention was nothing of t
drmatt wrote:
> Yes it sounds like MQA is already dying on its feet. No matter, perhaps
> the inertia or desire for a standard can be used to produce a better
> one...
>
> In the old days we'd have got the BBC to do it.. but that's been
> neutered and can't produce its own obituary.
I dunno. It
jfo wrote:
> ha haa reminder of days long ago! And then we have...
>
> The smell of the rain-washed florin!
> The lure of the lira!
> The glitter and the glory of the guinea!
> The romance of the ruble!
> The feel of the franc!
> The heel of the deutschmark!
> The cold antiseptic sting of
jfo wrote:
> ha haa reminder of days long ago! And then we have...
>
> The smell of the rain-washed florin!
> The lure of the lira!
> The glitter and the glory of the guinea!
> The romance of the ruble!
> The feel of the franc!
> The heel of the deutschmark!
> The cold antiseptic sting of
kidstypike wrote:
> And the reason is money, some of it in nice piles, others in lovely
> clanky bits of loose change. Some of it neatly counted into fat
> little hundreds, delicate fivers stuffed into bulging wallets,
> nice crisp clean checks, pert pieces of copper coina
Mnyb wrote:
> Its a classic marketting scheme . First you present the "problem" and
> then for some reason you have the solution :)
Exactly. In the case of MQA we see the misdeed being done at their web
site:
http://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/how-it-works
"Conventional audio formats discard parts
Mnyb wrote:
> Its a classic marketting scheme . First you present the "problem" and
> then for some reason you have the solution :)
And the reason is money, some of it in nice piles, others in lovely
clanky bits of loose change. Some of it neatly counted into fat
little hundreds,
Archimago wrote:
> drmatt: "Actually I'd rather see a "thx like" mastering standard ..."
>
> Yeah, I think something like this applied as a "standard" for which
> high-resolution recordings can be certified as such might be
> beneficial... Hard to imagine this happening though given how far down
So. If you'll stop assuming you know what I mean when you clearly don't
you'll read the bit about what I'd like to see (the thx-y bit) and less
about MQA. I don't give too shakes of a monkey's dong about MQA itself
to be honest, just would like to see the industry get behind /something/
or anythin
Its a classic marketting scheme . First you present the "problem" and
then for some reason you have the solution :)
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xM
Arny, thanks for the discussion on thresholds and the presentation. Good
stuff!
drmatt: "Actually I'd rather see a "thx like" mastering standard with
guideline volume levels and listening levels, than this specific MQA
thing as it seems like it's marginal in effectiveness. But any attempt
to intr
drmatt wrote:
>
>
> > arny as Dr. Matt cut it to ribbons wrote:
> >
> > Fat sausage mastering is so popular because there is a perception that
> > it helps sell recordings.
> > > >
>
> > arny as he wrote it wrote:
> >
> > Fat sausage mastering is so popular because there is a perception t
arnyk wrote:
> The claim has been made that MQA covers the reproduction system
> end-to-end, but that claim breaks down in reality.
I haven't seen it in action, just read a few online reports. It implies
that this is the goal.
> For example how can a Steely Dan recording recorded and mixed som
drmatt wrote:
> I don't think it can be a bad thing to qualify individual ADCs and DACs
> such as this process entails in an end-to-end manner.
Qualifying DACs can be a bad idea if it is part of a scheme that has no
reliably perceptible benefits and raises the cost of DACs. Well, its
bad to tho
ralphpnj wrote:
> The MQA process starts off by making an invalid assumption and then
> builds up from that falsehood. An analog audio signal (which is simply a
> type of electrical signal) is converted to a digital audio signal by an
> ADC (analog to digital converter) and then the resulting dig
drmatt wrote:
> I don't think it can be a bad thing to qualify individual ADCs and DACs
> such as this process entails in an end-to-end manner.
>
The claim has been made that MQA covers the reproduction system
end-to-end, but that claim breaks down in reality. We have before us
are claims tha
Julf wrote:
> "So you think science can explain everything?" :)
Does *Science* have to explain -everything- in order for any of the
explanations that it provides to be valid?
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com
drmatt wrote:
> I don't think it can be a bad thing to qualify individual ADCs and DACs
> such as this process entails in an end-to-end manner. This format may
> well be a faltering "step one" towards a very much required audio
> standard that will stop the "fat sausage" mastering of digital audi
Julf wrote:
> "So you think science can explain everything?" :)
In terms of audio and human hearing - yes!
These are well explored fields of science with no missing magical
components, even if some so-called audiophile snake oil dealers try to
make us believe.
-
I don't think it can be a bad thing to qualify individual ADCs and DACs
such as this process entails in an end-to-end manner. This format may
well be a faltering "step one" towards a very much required audio
standard that will stop the "fat sausage" mastering of digital audio and
improve quality f
20 matches
Mail list logo
