MQA is Vaporware

[Michael Lavorgna]

It wasn't clear what you were referring to.

I was referring to this:

 

"I weigh everything you say against what you've said in the past, and how accurate or truthful it has proven to be."

[Michael Lavorgna]

Pants on fire.

 

You are clever. I'll give you that. Snippy, even ;-)

 

But here's proof you're wrong:

[Ralf11]

well, this thread seems to have a lot of pastabilities

[crenca]

None of the above problems you describe are to do with either encryption or DRM. If you have an old music player that doesn't work with Apple Lossless ALAC for instance, and try to play and ALAC track it won't work. But that problem is nothing to do with DRM. Certain devices can play certain formats, and that isn't to do with 'DRM'. Maybe I can't play DSD on my DAC because I doesn't have the firmware to decode the various hard to understand DSD over USB formats, but that doesn't make this problem a 'DRM problem' either.

 

Richard, thank your for posting this because it illustrates a crucial and often misunderstood aspect of DRM - that it is not any technical aspect of it that is decisive, but rather the legal aspect that is important. Let us take the point further. for example, since a record player can not play a DSD file, then it must be because DRM. Or because a player piano can not play a wax disk, it must be because of DRM. Or because my car won't move with square wheels, then it must because DRM. Clearly, by focusing on the technical aspect we very quickly are led into obvious absurdities.

 

Of course, certain technical things only work with devices that were designed for them. However, there would be nothing legally to stop you from modifying a certain device to play a certain software file. For example, you could modify (perhaps through a firmware update) your player to play ALAC, and there would be no licensing restrictions for doing so (putting aside Apple/Alac rights for argument sake), or you could modify a PCM DAC to accept DSD and the original manufacturer has no legal rights or hold on you, and neither the PCM or DSD format will restrict you either.

 

However, try modifying your "legacy" DAC (through reverse engineering the proprietary MQA algorithm) so that you can hear MQA in all its native glory and you are in a world of DRM, IP/software patent violations, etc. The design of MQA takes this into account from the beginning - it is designed to deliver one thing to a certain kind of licensed user and another to another kind of licensed user, and to provide legal recourse to the licensee. This is what makes MQA DRM, all day everyday. The reduction of DRM to mere technical limitation of copy protection reduces DRM to absurdity pretty quickly as you illustrate...

[crenca]

The point is, HDMI was designed with DRM capability. The DRM has the ability to reduce the resolution of the video if the receiving device isn't "authenticated". Doesn't that sound very much like MQA? Now note that DRM wasn't applied to HDMI at first but now that HDMI is the default format, HDCP is increasingly becoming enabled.

 

It can hardly be overstated to those who want to focus on "proof" of what MQA and the industry is after - video is their template to the DRMing of our musical digital lives...

[Michael Lavorgna]

I encourage Mr. Lavorgna to participate in this thread: Audiophile Ethernet

 

But realistically there isn't going to be a well thought out counterpoint coming on any of this (MQA, Ethernet, or otherwise) from him so the fears of this thread really going off on a tangent due to participation by him are slim to none IMO. My observation is he as an inability to actually hold an above board conversation.

 

 

Dear Mr. plissken,

 

I've spent the better part of the day here answering questions. May I be excused without being accused of bailing on an "above board conversation"?

[Samuel T Cogley]

Yup. Every once in a blue moon I like to check in with the people that believe I'm the anti-Christ.

 

My favorites are the guys who are still stewing over a 4+ year-old review of Ethernet cables.

 

As I said to plissken in a Private Message, which I've come to learn = Public Message here:

 

Ask yourself something -- you are still concerned with and thinking about a 4+ year-old review of Ethernet cables. How meaningful is your life?

 

For the record, I also apologized for his feeling threatened. I've been binge watching "Breaking Bad" and that "bitch" slipped out. Yo.

 

So, we're here for your personal ego gratification? At least make it worth our while:

 

Please try to reconcile the MQA marketing claim that MQA is a "win" for audiophiles with the complete silence from both MQA and Warner about the sheer quantity of dynamically compromised material in the recent Warner MQA dump. Can you do that without bobbing and weaving, without obfuscation or ad hominem?

[crenca]

Absolutely (you paranoid dweeb ;-)

.

 

The hair trigger personal insults again...

[Michael Lavorgna]

The hair trigger personal insults again...

 

You need to grow a sense of humor.

 

If it would help, I'd be happy to insult you too. Humorously, of course.

 

;-)

[crenca]

It's not about "humor" for you. I understand your defensiveness (we have questioned your work on a fundamental level) but the trolling is just to take away from discussion of anything substantive...

[Michael Lavorgna]

It's not about "humor" for you. I understand your defensiveness (we have questioned your work on a fundamental level) but the trolling is just to take away from discussion of anything substantive...

You need to get a grip, crenca.

 

Read through this thread, as painful as that may be, and tell me who was called a coward, a hack, who was accused of being a shill for MQA, etc, etc.

 

I'll give you a hint: me.

 

If you think, for one second, that I'm going to swallow all that crap without regurgitating some back onto *you*, think again.

 

It's been real. Annoying and pointless.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Absolutely (you paranoid dweeb ;-)

 

I do not take "marketing claims" at face value because they are marketing claims. My experience with MQA, which is now based on Tidal/MQA, is that MQA does not make music sound worse.

 

Of course shitty recordings are shitty recordings, there you'll get no argument from me. However, it is my experience that even shitty recordings can be more compelling than well-recorded music I have no interest in.

 

So, did I think MQA would cure the Loudness Wars? No. Did you?

 

Am I happy that I can stream hi-res through Tidal HiFi at no additional cost? Yup.

 

There's that ad hominem I was talking about.

 

I've read everything (I think) you're written about MQA on Audiostream. Most of it is gushing, no-holds-barred evangelism (some would call it shameless shilling). So I totally get that I shouldn't expect anything even remotely objective or even handed in your responses about MQA.

 

MQA claims to be partnering with the major labels to improve the sound we hear. But isn't MQA being completely disingenuous by being a willing (perhaps even enthusiastic) partner in further disseminating dynamically compromised material?

 

The labels (at least Warner) seem to be listening when MQA says:

 

If a studio does their archive at 24-bit/192kHz and then uses that same file as something to sell on a hi-rez site, that is basically giving away the crown jewels upon which their entire business is based.

 

Setting aside Mr. Christlu's apparent lack of understanding of HDTracks pricing model, why are the labels (and investors?) listening to this and not our constant complaints about how awful dynamically compromised material sounds? It's antithetical to "high fidelity", yet the record companies still believe "loud sells". Don't you have some duty to carry the torch for high fidelity? Otherwise, how are you not being disingenuous or craven yourself?

[Michael Lavorgna]

There's that ad hominem I was talking about.

 

I've read everything (I think) you're written about MQA on Audiostream. Most of it is gushing, no-holds-barred evangelism (some would call it shameless shilling). So I totally get that I shouldn't expect anything even remotely objective or even handed in your responses about MQA.

 

MQA claims to be partnering with the major labels to improve the sound we hear. But isn't MQA being completely disingenuous by being a willing (perhaps even enthusiastic) partner in further disseminating dynamically compromised material?

 

The labels (at least Warner) seem to be listening when MQA says:

 

 

 

Setting aside Mr. Christlu's apparent lack of understanding of HDTracks pricing model, why are the labels (and investors?) listening to this and not our constant complaints about how awful dynamically compromised material sounds? It's antithetical to "high fidelity", yet the record companies still believe "loud sells". Don't you have some duty to carry the torch for high fidelity? Otherwise, how are you not being disingenuous or craven yourself?

 

That ad hominem was a joke. I'm sorry you didn't get it.

 

You are conflating two disparate points.

 

I am of the opinion that dynamic compression can only be adressed if people/consumers care about the quality of the music they listen to. If hi-res streaming becomes more mainstream, which appears to be the direction its heading, then people *may* begin to care about the quality of the music they listen to.

 

*If* this happens, the music industry will get the message that shitty sounding music will no longer sell.

 

Short of all that, the idea that preaching about dynamic compression strikes me as a bad idea.

[crenca]

You need to get a grip, crenca.

 

Read through this thread, as painful as that may be, and tell me who was called a coward, a hack, who was accused of being a shill for MQA, etc, etc.

 

I'll give you a hint: me.

 

If you think, for one second, that I'm going to swallow all that crap without regurgitating some back onto *you*, think again.

 

It's been real. Annoying and pointless.

 

That's the problem - instead of listening (maturely) to the reasons as to why and ignoring the emotional embellishment, you dismiss the both the concerns and persons. Sure, a little tit for tat is going on, but surely you expected that - you have been dismissing and banning these folks for years. You are, you ARE a "shill" for MQA - own it. You think it is a good thing. Fine, support MQA as best as you can and address the concerns as best you can instead of dismissing them. I don't think it has been pointless - you let me know about real 16/44 or higher alternatives to Tidal that are not DRM that are coming and that is a good thing. Don't regurgitate anything - be bigger than that or move on. Trolling is just getting back, eye for an eye nonsense...

[Abtr]

No problem. It's refreshing to see something interesting and relevant. This is the first time I've visited this thread. Just wondering what people post. It looked like all that was here was repetitive personal insults and opinions about what's right or wrong.

I see. It tends to be kind of interesting though. Anyway, Tidal's new MQA content appears to have triggered these fresh discussions about MQA. I think it's relevant to evaluate the actual quality of said content..

[Samuel T Cogley]

That ad hominem was a joke. I'm sorry you didn't get it.

 

You are conflating two disparate points.

 

I am of the opinion that dynamic compression can only be adressed if people/consumers care about the quality of the music they listen to. If hi-res streaming becomes more mainstream, which appears to be the direction its heading, then people *may* begin to care about the quality of the music they listen to.

 

*If* this happens, the music industry will get the message that shitty sounding music will no longer sell.

 

Short of all that, the idea that preaching about dynamic compression strikes me as a bad idea.

 

Oh, the "just kidding" excuse. Who's immature now?

 

And to your last sentence, I think you mean, "bad for my career".

[Samuel T Cogley]

If I am a shill for MQA you are a pedophile.

 

Make sense, amigo?

 

You arrogantly believe your station entitles you to this kind of escalation. That much is crystal clear.

[Michael Lavorgna]

You arrogantly believe your station entitles you to this kind of escalation. That much is crystal clear.

 

 

My "station"?

 

Are you a character in Downton Abbey?

[Samuel T Cogley]

I am of the opinion that dynamic compression can only be adressed if people/consumers care about the quality of the music they listen to. If hi-res streaming becomes more mainstream, which appears to be the direction its heading, then people *may* begin to care about the quality of the music they listen to

 

This essentially means, "let's make MQA enormously successful and hope for the best". Every response is an ad for MQA.

[Michael Lavorgna]

This essentially means, "let's make MQA enormously successful and hope for the best". Every response is an ad for MQA.

 

In your mind, perhaps. You have to come to grips with the fact that the world exists elsewhere.

 

I take it, I can be excused.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I should have known better, and I humbly apologize. I'm done.

[crenca]

I should have known better, and I humbly apologize. I'm done.

 

It's best - just use the ignore and move on...

[Vincent1234]

Apparently.. What's your problem?

It's a joke. And a good one too, I think.. Cool down.. [emoji4]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[bobbmd]

HEY Ralf11- isn't that a restaurant in syracuse's armory square? all home made pasta

[Vincent1234]

This essentially means, "let's make MQA enormously successful and hope for the best". Every response is an ad for MQA.

Sorry Sam, but you're truly making a fool of yourself..

 

Just tell us about your first MQA SQ experiences please. Makes more sense me thinks..

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app