Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Bill - I have a feeling there's no reasoning with you. Suggesting that you didn't call someone ignorant even though you said he put his ignorance on display, is like Bill Clinton (I know probably your favorite guy, based on your signature line) saying it depends on what the meaning of the word is is. 

 

Communicating via the internet is difficult. Expecting someone to glean that "people's willingness to put their ignorance on display" actually means that the person isn't ignorant, is a bit of a stretch. It seems much more like a move to score points in an imaginary game of internet debate club. 

 

I'm lost with respect to what you mean about my response to yours vs @ARQuint's post. 

 

Hmmm...I would hope that there is reasoning with me; wouldn't want to think I am unreasonable.  I didn't mean it the way you have received it- ignorance of a topic or of a company's prior products has nothing to do with being "ignorant" (not the word I used) in general (I suspect you are thinking of "stupid").  There are countless things in the world of which I am ignorant.  Nonetheless I apologize to Brinkman Ship if that was the way it was received.

 

The appellations in my signature were assigned to me by other members, almost none of which (I won't say all) apply (and none of which were reported, complained about, or censured).

 

I'll go back to lurking.

 

Bill

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

The appellations in my signature were assigned to me by other members, almost none of which (I won't say all) apply (and none of which were reported, complained about, or censured).

 

 

I have a camo NRA bag I am not using...perhaps I will put it on Superphonica as some sort of sonic treatment.  Keep your eyes peeled Bill! x-D

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Hmmm...I would hope that there is reasoning with me; wouldn't want to think I am unreasonable.  I didn't mean it the way you have received it- ignorance of a topic or of a company's prior products has nothing to do with being "ignorant" (not the word I used) in general (I suspect you are thinking of "stupid").  There are countless things in the world of which I am ignorant.  Nonetheless I apologize to Brinkman Ship if that was the way it was received.

 

The appellations in my signature were assigned to me by other members, almost none of which (I won't say all) apply (and none of which were reported, complained about, or censured).

 

I'll go back to lurking.

 

Bill

Great Bill. You sound very reasonable. Thanks for the reply. I hope you continue to contribute to the community. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It's a slippery slope with the word ignorant. 

 

Screen Shot 2018-05-16 at 3.53.47 PM.png

 

I am old enough (49 soon O.o) to remember when ignorant was more benign - it was defined as "lacking in knowledge".  This is what my 1980 edition of the Oxford American Dictionary says it means.  Now, just 38 years later it more "commonly" means the above.  If you wanted to use it as an insult, you had to use "ignoramus" 

 

I will try to keep up with you kids :)

 

What does LOL mean, again? 

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

I am old enough (49 soon O.o) to remember when ignorant was more benign - it was defined as "lacking in knowledge".  This is what my 1980 edition of the Oxford American Dictionary says it means.  Now, just 38 years later it more "commonly" means the above.  If you wanted to use it as an insult, you had to use "ignoramus" 

 

I will try to keep up with you kids :)

 

What does LOL mean, again? 

Ha!

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

i am on the edge of my seat still waiting for that big partnership announcement with a content provider...

There's got to be something really big in the works, maybe even a done deal that just hasn't been announced.

 

If not, there are an awful lot of hardware and software vendors who are going to look really stupid for investing a lot of R&D resources in MQA implementation.

 

How else do you explain MQA's success in attracting partners despite all the well founded criticism?  It mystifies me.  I find it hard to believe the dCS story citing overwhelming demand for MQA from their customers and dealers. 

Pareto Audio AMD 7700 Server --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs

 

i7-6700K/Windows 10  --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, rickca said:

There's got to be something really big in the works, maybe even a done deal that just hasn't been announced.

 

If not, there are an awful lot of hardware and software vendors who are going to look really stupid for investing a lot of R&D resources in MQA implementation.

 

How else do you explain MQA's success in attracting partners despite all the well founded criticism?  It mystifies me.  I find it hard to believe the dCS story that they had overwhelming demand for MQA from their customers and dealers. 

Easy. Put a hefty upfront price tag on licensing, then offer steep discounts (all the way to zero cost) for "early" adopters. Stress that the discount can go away at any time. This will encourage vendors to jump on board just in case it becomes a must-have and they'll have to fork out the full price later. In fact, I have heard this is exactly what MQA has been doing.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rickca said:

There's got to be something really big in the works, maybe even a done deal that just hasn't been announced.

 

If not, there are an awful lot of hardware and software vendors who are going to look really stupid for investing a lot of R&D resources in MQA implementation.

 

How else do you explain MQA's success in attracting partners despite all the well founded criticism?  It mystifies me.  I find it hard to believe the dCS story citing overwhelming demand for MQA from their customers and dealers. 

 

I am no saying there is not a forth-coming announcement, I was just under the impression Munich would be the venue.

 

Are you kidding? This won't be the first time or the last time that manufacturers make decisions on "features" based on fear.

 

DSD decoding would be a worthless feature if not for THIRD PARTy hacks which allowed for SACD ripping.

Link to comment
Just now, mansr said:

Easy. Put a hefty upfront price tag on licensing, then offer steep discounts (all the way to zero cost) for "early" adopters. Stress that the discount can go away at any time. This will encourage vendors to jump on board just in case it becomes a must-have and they'll have to fork out the full price later. In fact, I have heard this is exactly what MQA has been doing.

Bingo.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I am old enough (49 soon O.o) to remember when ignorant was more benign - it was defined as "lacking in knowledge".  This is what my 1980 edition of the Oxford American Dictionary says it means.  Now, just 38 years later it more "commonly" means the above.  If you wanted to use it as an insult, you had to use "ignoramus" 

 

I will try to keep up with you kids :)

 

What does LOL mean, again? 

Exactly!  I turn 50 this year.  Disappoints me to see that the more pejorative definition is now listed first!

 

There are plenty of other words that suit the bill if you want to say "stupid."

 

Oy. 

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, mansr said:

In fact, I have heard this is exactly what MQA has been doing.

It's clear from the lack of revenue that this is the MQA business development strategy.  They probably offer free technical consulting as well.  MQA is also providing plenty of free marketing.

Pareto Audio AMD 7700 Server --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs

 

i7-6700K/Windows 10  --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rickca said:

It's clear from the lack of revenue that this is the MQA business development strategy.  They probably offer free technical consulting as well.  MQA is also providing plenty of free marketing.

So, when it comes down to the nitty gritty, will anyone really pay for MQA?  It seems to be a "throw away tech, put the logo on the casework" thing for some manufacturers, and I would imagine the consuming public will balk at paying a higher streaming bill.  When you get everyone used to low or no cost it is hard to turn the tide.

Jim

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, james45974 said:

When you get everyone used to low or no cost it is hard to turn the tide.

Not if you turn on DRM and withdraw all other distribution formats.

Pareto Audio AMD 7700 Server --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs

 

i7-6700K/Windows 10  --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

 

I struggle to see what in that post is deserving of censure. Someone provides an opinion / hypothesis and calls is his suspicion, yet you believe it should be censured? I believe the old guard press has much different rules than we do here at CA. This community prefers to error on the side of letting people voice opinions and lay out their suspicions, leaving everyone to judge for themselves if s/he buys it or thinks it's BS. 

 

When the initial MQA discussion started here on CA and some of the experts here raised their hands saying something doesn't look right, many people wanted the discussion censured. I received a few phone calls from Bob S. about the discussions and I know he would've loved to see a heavy hand used in moderation. That's not how we, or the internet work now days. 

 

 

 

 

Bob Stuart trying to get this thread deep sixed leads me to ask out loud some questions, not of you, but in general.

 

-Why has he not used legal action if he feels there is damaging information here that he can prove is incorrect?

 

-Why has not chosen to respond?

 

-Why has he put zero effort into trying to disprove some of the measurements and conclusions that have put MQA

in an unflattering light with hard data?

 

Partly, because it would be opening the biggest can of worms this century, and secondly, he seems to have an army apostles like Atkinson, Quint, Austin, etc who come here to cast doubt, deflect, and double down.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, rickca said:

Not if you turn on DRM and withdraw all other distribution formats.

then that will confirm some peoples worst fears!  I don't see a winning side for MQA either way:  They give away things for free or very low cost or they alienate customers by locking things down.  MQA will go down the toilet either way. :)

Jim

Link to comment

To carry on with my previous thought, is DRM effectively off the table?  There are plenty of protestations from the MQA side that there is no DRM with MQA.  If in fact things are locked down at some point there will be plenty of writers, magazines, manufacturers, and inventors with a lot of egg on their face!  They will be called dumb at least or liars at worst!  How could they recover from the embarrassment?

Jim

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Bob Stuart trying to get this thread deep sixed leads me to ask out loud some questions, not of you, but in general.

 

-Why has he not used legal action if he feels there is damaging information here that he can prove is incorrect?

 

-Why has not chosen to respond?

 

-Why has he put zero effort into trying to disprove some of the measurements and conclusions that have put MQA

in an unflattering light with hard data?

 

Partly, because it would be opening the biggest can of worms this century, and secondly, he seems to have an army apostles like Atkinson, Quint, Austin, etc who come here to cast doubt, deflect, and double down.

Spot on, and don't forget the troll-shills like Peter Veth.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Retirement. 

Seems to work in politics and business.

Pareto Audio AMD 7700 Server --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs

 

i7-6700K/Windows 10  --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mansr said:

Easy. Put a hefty upfront price tag on licensing, then offer steep discounts (all the way to zero cost) for "early" adopters. Stress that the discount can go away at any time. This will encourage vendors to jump on board just in case it becomes a must-have and they'll have to fork out the full price later. In fact, I have heard this is exactly what MQA has been doing.

 

Yea, but I wonder also if @rickcais not on to something.  Roon at least claim that they put a real effort in man hours through their whole MQA implementation from negotiations through to the coding to the end.  They also have a majority of users who clamored for it.  Some of them are MQA shills, but they had a majority of "regular" users who voted for it and continually requested it. Thus, the MQA PR machine is has had some real success despite pushback.  

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...