Jump to content
Rt66indierock

MQA is Vaporware

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Wow, what a joke. Stream-ripping! Recording audio in real time is such a joke. Just like movie studios who go after people using camcorders in movie theaters. The people buying those movies wouldn't have paid anyway. The people stream-ripping aren't paying anyway. The people buying from the stream-rippers aren't paying full price anyway. 

 

Get over it people.

 

It is a joke to us but if one guy stream-rips a popular album and shares it illegally and 1,000,000 people (or more) around the world download it free, then I guess it's not a joke to labels, artists and the RIAA?

 

I guess that's where he's coming from?

 

As you know, I would prefer MQA would go away, but I still try to look at things objectively.

 

The CEO of RIAA wouldn't be talking about these concerns if these weren't also the concerns of the labels... I'm sure they've had lots of private chats. I assume he's just echo'ing the concerns of the major labels...

 

If they perceive it to be a concern, then it doesn't matter what we think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Point one - Chris DID NOT HAVE TO GIVE MQA their time. WHY? It was not a discussion panel. Every discussion panel that was setup for discussion of MQA was stopped due to the fact that NO MQA PERSON WOULD SHOW UP. This happened at AXPONA and RMAF, the previous year. 

 

Point Two - this was Chris' take on MQA, period. As n independent voice, Chris has every right to talk about MQA the way he sees fit.

 

Slide 6 is a setup of what the talk will be about.  THERE IS NO SLIGHT TO MQA. What id you expect. Your bias has already shown it's head, Lee, therefore everything else after that is biased nonsense.

 

As I said before, pleaser stop. MQA IS NOT GOOD FOR CONSUMERS OR AUDIOPHILES. You like it great, but it is not the latest thing since sliced bread. it is just another way to repackage and resell the same music over and over.

 

This is incorrect.  Chris purported to take an objective look but the points I lay out show bias on almost every slide.  He did at least owe the audience a counterpoint to each argument.

 

Also, MQA is not a repackage of prior work.  It is a new series of algorithms and practices that aim to transmit hirez music in a better way and in smaller file sizes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

...

The labels are public companies and need reasons in their back pockets for when they don't hit quarterly numbers. Stream-ripping is one of their Aces under the table for such occasion. 

 

This.  

 

The whole "piracy" angle (i.e. it's a real problem that is fixed with the market acceptance of DRM) has made no sense for at least a decade.  Why is it always mentioned by these executives?  It's reasonable sounding (even if untrue) cover for the investors...


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Labels carrying heavy debt loads always make the right decisions for consumers correct?

 

Strawman.  No claim made by me as to the friendliness of the labels to the consumer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The person purchasing the stream-ripped files from a Russian site was never going to pay for them from a legit source anyway. The person using a torrent client to get the stream-ripped files wasn't going to pay either. 

 

I disagree. This may apply moreso to the early Napster days perhaps, where it was apparently so easy for everyone to get stuff free?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the big growth in streaming MAY be due to those people saying 'can't be bothered anymore' with going to the illegal sites anymore. So they stopped getting stuff free and just took up paid streaming...

 

Also young kids getting stuff free eventually turn into working adults and MAY pay later at some point (also the same 'can't be bothered' factor with sourcing illegal stuff, when you're a busier adult).

 

I don't think it's easy to generalise so easy?

 

But anyway, if the labels perceive it to still be a concern (RIAA CEO's words above, not mine and I assume he's echo'ing their thoughts) then obviously they are still looking at ways  to further reduce illegal downloads. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Strawman.  No claim made by me as to the friendliness of the labels to the consumer.

 

It is not a strawman argument. I mean, the same can be said about the labels to the artists. The labels seem to care more about themselves than they do the artists.

 

Your dismissal is condescension pure and simple.


Current:  JRiver 24 on Win 10 PC (AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with 32 GB RAM) 

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Audio Research SP-16

Amplification - Pioneer M-22 or Kenwood L-07M Monoblocks

Speakers: Royd Abbots

Cables: homebrew braided speaker cables and DiMarzio Interconnects

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

But you continue to claim the friendliness of labels to their artists. Just replace consumer in my comment with artist and it's identical. 

 

You claim labels will pay more to artists because of MQA. Never going to happen.

 

That's the artist, not the consumer.  I think if they get a new revenue stream, they will share some of that with the artist.  I've talked to a few enlightened label execs and they realize the current streaming payout is untenable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Em2016 said:

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the big growth in streaming MAY be due to those people saying 'can't be bothered anymore' with going to the illegal sites anymore. So they stopped getting stuff free and just took up paid streaming...

Exactly. The only people still going through the hassle of sketchy download sites are those who aren't going to pay. 

 

Anyway, good side discussion :~)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sonicularity said:

It's like trying to have a discussion with a television commercial.

I just fell off my chair laughing. Comment of the month!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

That's the artist, not the consumer.  I think if they get a new revenue stream, they will share some of that with the artist.  I've talked to a few enlightened label execs and they realize the current streaming payout is untenable.

Comical Lee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Em2016 said:

 

I disagree. This may apply moreso to the early Napster days perhaps, where it was apparently so easy for everyone to get stuff free?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the big growth in streaming MAY be due to those people saying 'can't be bothered anymore' with going to the illegal sites anymore. So they stopped getting stuff free and just took up paid streaming...

 

Also young kids getting stuff free eventually turn into working adults and MAY pay later at some point (also the same 'can't be bothered' factor with sourcing illegal stuff, when you're a busier adult).

 

I don't think it's easy to generalise so easy?

 

But anyway, if the labels perceive it to still be a concern (RIAA CEO's words above, not mine and I assume he's echo'ing their thoughts) then obviously they are still looking at ways  to further reduce illegal downloads. 

 

 

 

If you want, there are always ways around any system. People, who I know stream, just want music. They don't want to have libraries of music. Many of them have already sold the physical copies of the music they owned. The RIAA tried to stop that also (the sale of used physical copies of music) and that went nowhere.

 


Current:  JRiver 24 on Win 10 PC (AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with 32 GB RAM) 

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Audio Research SP-16

Amplification - Pioneer M-22 or Kenwood L-07M Monoblocks

Speakers: Royd Abbots

Cables: homebrew braided speaker cables and DiMarzio Interconnects

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

The only people still going through the hassle of sketchy download sites are those who aren't going to pay. 

 

Again, that 15 year old illegally downloading may not be paying today... but in 5 years , when they start earning and can no longer be bothered with the effort to source stuff illegally for free, maybe they do end up paying...

 

Don't think you can generalise the way you have...

 

PS: I would prefer MQA go away....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

This is incorrect.  Chris purported to take an objective look but the points I lay out show bias on almost every slide.  He did at least owe the audience a counterpoint to each argument.

 

Also, MQA is not a repackage of prior work.  It is a new series of algorithms and practices that aim to transmit hirez music in a better way and in smaller file sizes.

 

It was an objective look. He was pretty laid back about the whole thing. If it wasn't an objective look, he would have presented, just like the MQA shills did, when they interrupted them. What you want is a subjective look.


Current:  JRiver 24 on Win 10 PC (AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with 32 GB RAM) 

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Audio Research SP-16

Amplification - Pioneer M-22 or Kenwood L-07M Monoblocks

Speakers: Royd Abbots

Cables: homebrew braided speaker cables and DiMarzio Interconnects

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW!

 

This thread may reach a million views just on the refutation of Lee's ridiculous diatribe!

This whole MQA thing is getting tiresome.  But the fact is,  MQA tried slipping in without the public knowing what it was really about.  Shining a bright light  on MQA is doing the music consumer a great service.  I do not want to be screwed by MQA.  And that is what will happen to the music consumer if MQA gains wide acceptance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...