Jump to content
Rt66indierock

MQA is Vaporware

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Em2016 said:

 

Lots of action today. Here's an example where the artists don't want their music streamed but labels and most streaming services are going ahead anyway....

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/de-la-soul-catalog-streaming-services-tidal-801064/

Let me get this straight.  The group that gave away free downloads of their albums is against streaming their albums?  D'oh Kay.

Does Lee manage De La Soul? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Em2016 said:

 

In the news today, with Spotify's launch in India:

 

https://www.recode.net/2019/2/28/18244964/spotify-warner-music-india-lawsuit-streaming-cardi-b-ed-sheeran

 

It covers geo restrictions, artists (not just particular albums) not being available and piracy.

 

It even covers how future contracts disputes between streaming services and labels could result in large chunks of your streamed collection (not just tracks and albums but artist collections) disappearing overnight while disputes are ongoing... yikes.
 

 

 

The MQA solution has finally found its problem to address. Oh wait, just kidding. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Norton said:

 

In the UK we have an expression “Can’t see the wood* for the trees”.  Always amazes me that some of the people  who get het up about the potential of DRM in MQA seem to be enthusiastic,  unquestioning users of streaming services, where the issue is not so much the management of rights,  but whether the user has any rights to anything specific in the first place.  

 

AFAIK  no streaming service guarantees its paid-up users continued, let alone perpetual, access to any specific album or track; which (along with SQ) is why I’d only ever use a streaming service to supplement, rather than replace, my own library.

 

*forest.

 

I love streaming services and I don't care that there's no guarantee. I only pay monthly. If music I like isn't there I stop paying. What's the issue? I I can no longer stream something I want, I'll buy it. I see no need to pay twice (streaming and purchase) when there's no need. 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

The MQA solution has finally found its problem to address. Oh wait, just kidding. 

 

 

 

What really stuck out to me is that the media companies are following in the footsteps of big pharmaceutical companies. The billion people in India pay significantly less than we do to stream the same music, and once again, we are subsidizing the rest of the world. 

 

That is a DRM application that MQA could address, I suppose. Had not thought of that aspect in quite that way, even though I know you were joking. 

 

 

 


Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kyhl said:

This has all been refuted over and over.  Honest question, did you go to The Onion School of Journalism? 

 

I am still trying to understand why you keep spreading false information after it has been pointed out to you over and over that it is false.  This is so wrong and you know it is wrong that it isn't worth discussing again.  Instead it is time to question your motives.

 

Every response from Scoggins is to use that opportunity to parrot MQA marketing fluff.  That's why he's here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Thing is, you don't have the foggiest idea what this even means (in truth it's technobabble).  Guys have sold (or given you) thimbles full of "nanotechnology" and you really believe you have thimbles with "nanotechnology" in them.  The only "innovation" in all this is...I don't know, something to do with a confidence game...

 

The thimbles are actually small horns that house a chemical that resonates and creates air flow that gets amplified.  There is no nanotechnology in a Synergistic Research HFT.  But it is effective and I have tried it in four different listening rooms, two of my own (old house and new house) and they are quite effective.  HFTs were recently used to fix some room problems in the Wilson Audio room at the Florida Audio Expo.

 

But what would you know, you have never even tried the HFTs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

This isn't as "off-topic" as some think. The behavior of the MQA people at CC's RMAF seminar was unacceptable—they certainly would have had their chance to have their say if they'd just let Chris finish his presentation. (I'm pretty sure that Chris had built time for discussion into his session, plus it was the last seminar of the day and a dialogue could have continued indefinitely.) But, as I've suggested before, they came "loaded for bear" because, I think, they conflated Chris's approach to MQA with that of the most rudely extreme, take-no-prisoner participants on this forum. It was a disappointment to me, as I would have liked to witness a true back-and-forth debate. Probably, a superior format would have been a panel of (well-informed) pro- and anti-MQA partisans, with Chris as the moderator who could have held the panelists' feet to the fire and assured that questions really got answered - both the "who is Archimago, why is he anonymous and what are his possible motivations?" and the "tell me why MQA isn't DRM?" varieties.

 

So I think Paul R's point is well taken. More kindness, respect, civility—whatever you want to call it—would have allowed for a more meaningful MQA discussion at RMAF, and elsewhere in our small universe.

 

Andrew Quint

The Absolute Sound

 

Andy the pro MQA people won't accept a panel discussion we tried in 2017. Since the MQA Ltd approach is to attack the messenger a smart strategy would be send up an anonymous source that writes well and have many other anonymous sources behind them. Then at some point send out sources that aren't anonymous. The technical message will of course be the same.  The result is MQA Ltd  representative looks foolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

I agree with you! In a calmer, less emotionally-fraught atmosphere—without shouted remarks from the floor and, as a result, Chris getting knocked off a line of argument he was trying to establish—that point (regarding Archimago) could have been made.

 

Thanks for the response, but it's still not apparent why you brought up something that you now seem to be saying is irrelevant.

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...