MQA is Vaporware

[Samuel T Cogley]

Here's another helpful tip for you - if you continue to act like an ass, I will most certainly ignore you. Capiche? You see, I don't mind having a conversation but I do mind bullshit.

 

I see how you run your comments section. This is not that.

[Samuel T Cogley]

That is a misrepresentation. Look it up, chief.

 

Ok, go on. This is a "ban worthy" offense?

[Samuel T Cogley]

Here's a question for you - how many people have I banned from AudioStream?

 

Ahhh, I never said "banned" in this context. What's the print version of a Freudian Slip?

[Samuel T Cogley]

Bzzzz. Wrong answer. It's been nice playing "Pointless Posturing" with you.

 

And your appearance of being reasonable still doesn't get us any closer to you rebutting that MQA post you deleted, right?

[Samuel T Cogley]

I've already explained my reasoning in another response here. If you have a relevant question about that response, ask it. If you think I'm going to play defense to your offensiveness, think again.

 

I stand by my original prediction of a lack of any substantive back and forth. And the fragile ego observation as well.

 

I get it. You're just trying to make a living, right?

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just as I thought, Nothing of substance.

 

You have a reputation. Why is a discussion of that "Nothing of substance"?

[Samuel T Cogley]

You have a reputation. Why is a discussion of that "Nothing of substance"?

 

Because I'm not in high school.

 

That usually works in your comments section. I see it often. I look forward to your rebuttal of the valid MQA critique that you censored.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I do not have time...

 

Who didn't see that coming?

[Samuel T Cogley]

nevermind. wish this could stay on topic.

 

Since the topic of this thread is a discussion/debate on whether MQA is "vaporware", the actions of de facto marketing agents is actually on topic.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Point taken. Not sure I agree entirely. I think your posts can come off as pretty confrontational and aggressive at times , as well as several others who posted here. All good contributors, but it was clear to me this was driven by some animus and there seems to be the desire to give Michael a beat down. He's perfectly able to stand up for himself, but I just didn't think this was going to go anywhere because of all involved, not just Michael.

 

I may be wrong.

 

I'm not sure I completely disagree with your view here. This "desire" you observe is simply a reaction to the heavy handedness that elite audio reviewers enjoy in their protected spaces. IMHO, Mr. Lavorgna has not earned the respect that he believes he deserves. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't dispute some level of animus, but I wholeheartedly believe it is deserved. YMMV of course.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I will post a video interview with Juergen Reiss of MBL and John Atkinson next week that took place at CES. I'd recommend watching it since we talk about some related issues. I think you'll find it educational.

 

FYI - you are a very unpleasant person to communicate with. Or should I say to try to communicate with. If you cannot leave behind your personal insults and chest beating, I'm going to ignore you. And no, it's not because you ran 17k feet of cable, it's because you think you know more than you know. And you're arrogant about it.

 

As an IT professional myself with over 30 years experience, I would be more interested in a discussion on measured Bit Error Rate of "audiophile" grade Ethernet cables. What the cables "sound" like is subjective and meaningless.

[Samuel T Cogley]

We have completely veered away from the original topic now, much to Mr. Lavorgna's (and MQA's) delight, no doubt.

 

I'm guilty as well of taking the Ethernet bait. Let's try to get back to MQA.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Why don't you tell me about DRM as it relates to Tidal and MQA today. What are the real-world concerns that need to be addressed and why should a consumer be concerned.

 

What happens when HDTracks starts phasing out PCM downloads of the Warner catalog? What's to stop this from happening?

[Samuel T Cogley]

Indeed it's just that: engineering. NOT high-end audio SQ.

 

Wow! So you're saying these things are antithetical to each other?

[Samuel T Cogley]

That's a great question. After the MQA/Warner news became public, I called Warner and spoke to someone who went on record as "a company spokesperson". Here's their response that addresses this concern:

 

"WMG will continue to provide their distribution partners, like HDtracks, high-res PCM music."

 

...until they don't. This is not a commitment. It's marketing speak.

 

Do you believe hi-rez PCM files are the record companies' "crown jewels" and should be "protected" with tech like MQA?

[Samuel T Cogley]

oops, took the bait again! :-(

[Samuel T Cogley]

You are missing the point. Let me ask - what is your background and knowledge pertaining to noise in mixed signal systems?

 

Let's get back to MQA!

[Samuel T Cogley]

Hmm. That's an interesting perspective and one I do not share.

 

Are you suggesting I should ignore the only source of valid information and instead listen to ... who? Your imagination?

 

 

Answer this question: Do you believe hi-rez PCM files are the record companies' "crown jewels" and should be "protected" with tech like MQA?

[Samuel T Cogley]

If you want to continue with your pretense of knowing everything one need know about this topic, I'd suggest changing topic would be a good idea ;-)

 

Narcissistic much?

[Samuel T Cogley]

Of course the answer depends on what format the music was originally captured in. So analog and digital 'masters' are the source from which all else flows.

 

I'll ask the same question I asked crenca - how is DRM an issue with Tidal/MQA?

 

Are you aware this is an official position of MQA?

[Samuel T Cogley]

What is an official position of MQA?

 

Now you're being coy. Surely you read the interview of Spencer Christlu regarding MQA.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I am not being coy. I do not understand your question. Is their an emoji for "coy"? ;-)

 

Come on Michael, you're really being coy now. Do you agree with Mr Christlu that hi-rez PCM files are the record companies' "crown jewels" and need to be "protected" with tech like MQA?

[Samuel T Cogley]

this is not correct - as robert harley admits it is about all this - the market, the "business case" around open market and formats vs. Closed formats. calling all this "conjecture" and "paranoid fantasies" is simply avoidance on your part - these are all current and future realities and are very important from a consumer standpoint as well as "the industry" (both those on $board$ with mqa and those who are not). It also allows you to hide - you can promote/hype mqa as "a product among products" and claim your standing on solid ground and others are "fantasizing". Nope, the mqa as "yet another sq product" is the fantasy. Mqa is today, which means all of jim's concerns are today....

 

this!

[Samuel T Cogley]

Do you know what "coy" means? I did not understand your question. Get over yourself already.

 

Do I believe that record labels should be able to limit piracy? Yes.

 

What does this have to do with anything?

 

Do you agree with Mr. Christlu? Yes or no?

 

 

This has everything to do with MQA marketing itself to record companies as DRM.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I've answered you. If you find you don't get the answer you want, try asking another question.

 

You have refused to answer and called that an answer. That is an answer. It's quite clear which side your bread is buttered on.