Samuel T Cogley Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 I do not agree with Spencer for two reasons a) I did not watch the video interview, and b) I have a mind of my own. I'm giving you a hard time because you're disingenuous. Your trolling skills are rather weak, sir. You still haven't answered. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 They may be real and substantive to *you*. That does not mean that translates to everyone. But what does it say about a person's alleged objectivity when they dismiss such concerns out of hand? You're sparring, not answering. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Do you ever bother to understand the words you type? "Troll"? In the IT vernacular, what you call "giving a hard time" is called "trolling". Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Fair enough. Shall I assume you are being funded by the Anti-MQA Consortium? ;-) Please don't try trolling until you figure out how to do it. Lots of examples on Twitter every minute. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 I didn't realize we were speaking in the "IT" vernacular. I left IT years ago so you'll forgive my rust. Did you forget the name of this forum? Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Did you forget we're talking about listening to music? (rhetorical question) We're not in the comments section of your web site. This amateurish trolling is tiresome. It's clear you are here to assert MQA's will and voice in this forum. I'm done. Good luck with your MQA advocacy. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 also, can you guys stop referring to Mr. L... as an "elite" reviewer?? That's on me, sorry. I got a whiff of pomposity when he arrived. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 MQA may or may not offer better SQ. Let's assume it does and that the SQ is better than a given current std. by a certain increment (for a certain bit rate). The next question would then be, whether there is a form of DRM encapsulated by MQA or linked (i.e. separable) -- the easier prong to deal with is that the DRM is not separable from the increment in improved SQ. That then resolves into whether the increment in improved SQ is worth the onus of DRM. And BTW, only the ignorant will claim there is no onus to DRM. They can enjoy their music and video on the failed formats provided by the DMCA. I have been thinking along these lines as well. First, there is the issue of the use of cryptographic functions in MQA. I would assert that the mere presence of these functions is not evidence of DRM. Could it be used in the future for real, "hard" DRM? Probably. I have been using the term DRM to characterize the Spencer Christlu's comment about "crown jewels". Setting the term DRM aside for a moment, it's clear that MQA is using FUD with the major record labels ("MQA protects your crown jewels from piracy") because it wasn't able to get traction otherwise. The labels have no real commitment to high quality mastering, save for a handful of titles and/or artists that always get remastered every time a new consumer format becomes available. Witness all the dynamically compressed material in the Warner MQA dump. We have no idea what kind of psychological fear tactics (if any) MQA is using to motivate other labels to use their process. MQA has a great audiophile story that a certain predictable segment of the gear buying public (a segment that is getting smaller, not larger) is enamored of. But I see this as just a trojan horse for two reasons: 1) I'm not convinced the process makes an 88.2kHz or higher sample rate file sound objectively better. I readily concede this is controversial and others might disagree. 2) That segment that is rabidly pro-vendor will blindly accept the hype and drive some (but probably small) demand for MQA encoded material. That increase in demand will, at least temporarily, reassure those record company executives who where nervous about spending remastering money. I can easily envision the market driven audiophile press embracing MQA with something like, "real audiophiles choose MQA" when it reaches a certain tipping point. Who knows? Today's MQA holdouts could be the next Michael "CDs suck" Fremer of tomorrow :-) Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 I didn't comment on Michael, but on you. Maybe I will get to that later, if I still want to spend the energy. BTW: he certainly was right about one thing. You are annoying to discuss with. I think your apparent adoration of Mr. Lavorgna might be coloring your objectivity a little. He was pretty annoying as well. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Here's the direct link: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain. Michael Lavorgna's response is in post #505. ??? Just clicked that link, highest post # is 21. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Audio reviewers cannot engage in conversation with the consumers because if they are discredited they'll be of no use to the manufacturers.That means no more toys and no more paycheck. I am surprised that people who take audio seriously still read them... Even the measurements page in stereophile is full of excuses for ill-performing equipment. I know that there's also a lot of misinformation in forums, and very polarised opinions, but as far as I know those that I participate in are hardly ever manipulated by the manufacturers. I won't name the forum I'm thinking of, but there's no shortage of stealth marketing by forum posters getting free or highly discounted stuff (especially cables!) from manufacturers. No doubt some would think that's a great situation if you can swing it. Personally, it always strikes me as "ewww". Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Of course, that's not actually a problem. Netflix couldn't exist if it were. Not really the same issue. There's not an equivalent constituency for "high fidelity video". I'm still liking the theory that the original concept for the Pono Player was the original MQA rollout plan. There's even a legacy blue light on the top of the Pono. Hopefully, some time in the future, someone will spill the beans about what went south between Neil Young and Meridian. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 It's a matter of bandwidth. HD video needs far more than high-res audio. Uncompressed 96/24 is less than 5 Mbps. That's not even half the bitrate Netflix streams at. My point is that almost zero Netflix customers care about the bitrate of what they're watching, unlike audiophiles. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 And my point is that audiophile bitrates are already streamed by Netflix. If anyone wanted to stream hi-res audio, they could. Yes. Even to mobile devices. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Simple, increase Bob Stuarts bank account. Considering the end-to-end licensing, I would add to this, "by orders of magnitude". Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 LOL! "2017 Audiostream Media Kit" indeed!! The "coincidence" is almost too much to bear...There is an "Audio God" and there is the proof!!...LOL!!! Below the Meridian Explorer prominently displayed in the "media kit" is something like a mission statement: AUDIOSTREAM.COM exists to educate the consumer on the benefits and advantages of computer-based audio and entertainment. That sure sounds like the opposite of consumer advocacy to me. And then, this: MALE: 94.7%8.1% 18-24 / 14.1% 25-34 / 21.0% 35-44 / 23.9% 45-54 AVG. AGE: 42.4 AVG. HHI: $76,269 ANY COLLEGE: 79% This media "network" exists purely for advertisers. I don't see how that can be disputed. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 I would caution everyone to be wary of his motives. He's not here to provide any information. He's here to troll and spread pro-MQA propaganda, and nothing else. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 OK I give up -these ARE funny but still pointless-where would we be without sarcastic nonsense?? I will will still read these only because I like the guys who write them but they do get tiresome after a while! Which is precisely what Mr. Lavorgna is trying to accomplish. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 He answered the very few straight questions that were asked to him yesterday in a very correct manner. You and I apparently have different definitions of the word "answer". And, with due respect, your pro-Lavorgna bias is blindingly apparent. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Something more on-topic: please tell us about your first experiences with playing MQA streams on your Meridian DAC? I'm really curious! [emoji4] Sure. After he's gone. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Rt66indrock, Perhaps you have already clarified it (point me to the post) but I am no clear as to your view of what the Utimco encryption means. In our opening post you say that Utimico believes DRM is DRM (naturally, they are in the business of providing technical implementations of DRM), but I get the sense you are hedging - that MQA is not DRM even though the Utimoco encryption is embedded in it. What is your view? To go one step further: Does the mere presence of cryptographic functions guarantee the presence of DRM? Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Something more on-topic: please tell us about your first experiences with playing MQA streams on your Meridian DAC? I'm really curious! [emoji4] Sure. After he's gone. Why..? Because he's trolling and I don't want to give him the opportunity to bury my MQA feedback under an avalanche of narcissistic chest beating. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 I'll recap what I consider valid points re. MQA that were brought up today: 1. Pandora and Rhapsody will be streaming hi-res content this year and they will not be using MQA. 2. Since this is the case and Pandora and Rhapsody have agreements with the record labels to do so, 3. This means that non-MQA hi-res streaming will be available. 4. There are other non-MQA hi-res streaming offings in the works, e.g. Pono/OraStream 5. Warner is on record saying they will continue to provide non-MQA hi-res downloads If we add all of this up, I think it's safe to say that consumers will continue to have non-MQA hi-res content for the foreseeable future. I view this as good news, but it comes as no surprise. To me. Pure unadulterated pro-MQA propaganda. Bravo sir, you've earned your pay for the week! Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 I'm not trying to be being argumentative, but these are not opinions about MQA. I am stating some facts that illustrate consumers will continue to have a choice. It seems to me that some amount of the concern here is that MQA will be the *only* choice. I am saying, based on what I know to be true, this is not the case. You are here at the behest of MQA to attempt to quell unrest and tamp down valid concerns about what MQA means to the future of music for consumers. You are literally doing your day job here. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 No. And your point is? ...that I believe some think the answer to that question is yes. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now