I don't believe they are decoding MQA files, they don't say they are, they say they have developed their own upsampling method, their own deblurring method and it provides similar results to full MQA decoding, now whether it does or not is down to the individual to decide, whether they can call it MQA is very disputable and I personally doubt it, whether they have copied too slavishly MQA's methods again is open to debate, probably by overpaid lawyers!
Imitation is the greatest form of flattery but like a fake Rolex, it ain't a Rolex.
No 18 in the Hall of fame I have simple tastes; I am content to settle for the best: GIK monster bass panels, rear wall. QNAP TVS 471i3. Roon into DSP5200SE via 210/ 218 zone... Explorer 2. Bluesound Pulse 2, Mini & Flex. 596v1, 518, Foxsat HD, Sony BDP, Pioneer 5090, 2 Chromecast's for LRB videos. MS200 to F80 for a Roon zone
(i) the source file is interrogated to see if it contains an MQA stream
and/or:
(ii) the proprietary MQA-like deblurring, etc. method is applied selectively (i.e. only and always to MQA-encoded streams), universally (i.e. to both MQA and non-MQA streams), or on demand (i.e. under user control).
Regardless of one's opinion of the efficacy or otherwise of the MQA technique and the way it has been brought to market, surely this smacks of bad faith at least and outright copyright theft at worst? To see the efforts of a technology company researching a new and innovative way of doing something (at presumably considerable effort and expense) only to see it copied or even, dare I say, faked does not sit well with me. Am I really alone in these opinions?
In the spirit of Spinaltap, I would like to confirm that I am not involved in the corrupt theft of a global sport.
(i) the source file is interrogated to see if it contains an MQA stream
and/or:
(ii) the proprietary MQA-like deblurring, etc. method is applied selectively (i.e. only and always to MQA-encoded streams), universally (i.e. to both MQA and non-MQA streams), or on demand (i.e. under user control).
Regardless of one's opinion of the efficacy or otherwise of the MQA technique and the way it has been brought to market, surely this smacks of bad faith at least and outright copyright theft at worst? To see the efforts of a technology company researching a new and innovative way of doing something (at presumably considerable effort and expense) only to see it copied or even, dare I say, faked does not sit well with me. Am I really alone in these opinions?
It does smack of bad faith but there is something odd about the way that they failed to launch in the first place.
I also agree that there is no such thing as an MQA file, but this leads me to believe that the whole thing is down to semantics rather than counterfeiting a technology. From a selfish point of view this development suggests to me that MQA is more likely to succeed as a stream within a format. The more devices that can produce amazing results the better. I am way out of my area of expertise here but I would have thought that MQA should be giving their licence away to the hardware suppliers and making their money on the music.
Fake Rolex's can keep better time than the real thing!
I tend to agree. If they are looking at the ORIGINALSAMPLERATE meta tag and upsampling to the same rate to make it look like a decoded MQA file... well... then they deserve a whole heap more flak than MQA has taken to provide the original content at the genuine same original rate.
There are a heap of tools that can upsampled to any rate you like.
It amuses me that so much negative attention was given to the genuine Rolex yet the fake Rolex passes through with the polite nod from certain corners.
Google Search
|
Meridian Systems
|
Meridian Streaming
|
Restaurant
|
WiKi
|
Duncan's Meridian Info
|
Board Rules
|
Restaurant Rules
I have simple tastes; I am content to settle for the best:
How did you know!
