One wonders if:
(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!
Cheers
Tom
Google Search
|
Meridian Systems
|
Meridian Streaming
|
Restaurant
|
WiKi
|
Duncan's Meridian Info
|
Board Rules
|
Restaurant Rules
