MQA is Vaporware

[Samuel T Cogley]

To date, the only response that MQA has offered to valid technical criticism is "ignore the rude, angry trolls".

 

That by itself should be informative to those still on the fence about MQA.

[Norton]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

What's the issue? I I can no longer stream something I want, I'll buy it

 

You’re presuming that in a future scenario where streaming  becomes the default supply medium, you’ll still have the opportunity to buy music.

 

It’s  the same argument others use against the DRM potential of MQA.  I’m suggesting that, in both impact and likelihood, considerations of your  right to the music and how that might be managed in streaming per se far outweigh those of MQA in isolation, which is in practice just one  streaming technology.

[ARQuint]

17 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Why kindness, when we Chris saw nothing but contempt? Civility is a 2-way street. There was supposed to be an AXPONA MQA discussion panel with Dr. Mark Waldrep being on the panel. Guess what, NO MQA PERSON WOULD SHOW UP. So, the panel discussion never happened. This is the issue. If they want to discuss, discuss. Let's discuss the positives and negatives, not hide behind veil, like the MQA proponents have been.

 

As far as anonymity is concerned and journalism, most of the important 20th century news stories were started because of anonymous sources. Does that mean the information is invalid? NO IT DOES NOT. Archimago has been straight forward with his reporting on MQA and what he has discovered. As a matter of fact, he even gave out all the information so anyone with the proper equipment can repeat what he has done and actually welcomed that. Why it is a big deal to you who Archimago is? He has stated he does not work in this industry  and does it because he loves audio. You want people to take what MQA says at face value but you do not what to take what Archimago has done at face value? Sorry, it is a 2-way street.

 

I think this is another case of, obfuscation by the MQA proponents while giving no information as to why we need it? We do not and this has been proven time and time again.

 

I'm not an "MQA proponent". I'm aware of the AXPONA (? 2018) MQA decision to bow out and was disappointed at a missed opportunity to educate and inform. I'm not saying that Chris could have done it any other way at RMAF.

 

Also please understand that I have no problem at all with Archimago's anonymity—he's an honest and thoughtful observer. His anonymity is not like, say, Brinkman Ship's, which was fundamentally dishonest and—to my mind—helped to undermine real conversation.

 

Andrew

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Norton said:

 

You’re presuming that in a future scenario where streaming  becomes the default supply medium, you’ll still have the opportunity to buy music.

 

It’s  the same argument others use against the DRM potential of MQA.  I’m suggesting that, in both impact and likelihood, considerations of your  right to the music and how that might be managed in streaming per se far outweigh those of MQA in isolation, which is in practice just one  streaming technology.

I presume the artist wants to make money from his/her songs. If I can't stream it and can't buy it, where will that happen?

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

I'm not an "MQA proponent".

You're even funnier than Lee Scoggins.

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I presume the artist wants to make money from his/her songs. If I can't stream it and can't buy it, where will that happen?

They might have an exclusive deal with one of the services you don't subscribe to, or they might be available, just not in your country.

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Also please understand that I have no problem at all with Archimago's anonymity—he's an honest and thoughtful observer. His anonymity is not like, say, Brinkman Ship's, which was fundamentally dishonest and—to my mind—helped to undermine real conversation.

 

I'm not at all sold on this thesis.  MQA is  a corporation with as much marketing muscle as they can afford behind it.  MQA set up a closed Facebook group where audio forum posting was coordinated and some assumed anonymous identities to do MQA's bidding in the forums.  I know of no equivalent clandestine activity on the part of MQA critics.

 

I'm struggling to understand how @Brinkman Ship 's posts were such a reprehensible sin while what MQA did with Facebook and audio forums was just accepted as the way the internet works.

[mansr]

Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

I know of no equivalent clandestine activity on the part of MQA critics.

Clandestine means you wouldn't know about it.

[ARQuint]

16 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

To date, the only response that MQA has offered to valid technical criticism is "ignore the rude, angry trolls".

 

That by itself should be informative to those still on the fence about MQA.

 

Hi Samuel

 

Lee S (who maintains that he's not in the employ of MQA, but is obviously an advocate) wrote a lengthy critique of Chris's slides a few pages back. I don't expect you to agree with his points, of course. But why doesn't this represent the sort of substantive argument for the technology that you and others say is never offered? You can continue to take down his arguments one by one, understanding that he's likely to maintain his convictions. And—this is my pie-in-the-sky utopian vision—let the undecided consider the cases made by both proponents and naysayers and decide for themselves, without the distraction of derision and character-bashing.

 

Andrew

[mansr]

Just now, ARQuint said:

Lee S (who maintains that he's not in the employ of MQA, but is obviously an advocate) wrote a lengthy critique of Chris's slides a few pages back. I don't expect you to agree with his points, of course. But why doesn't this represent the sort of substantive argument for the technology that you and others say is never offered?

Maybe because it's not truthful.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, ARQuint said:

Lee S (who maintains that he's not in the employ of MQA, but is obviously an advocate) wrote a lengthy critique of Chris's slides a few pages back. I don't expect you to agree with his points, of course. But why doesn't this represent the sort of substantive argument for the technology that you and others say is never offered?

 

Andrew, with due respect, Scoggins simply copied/pasted MQA marketing information instead of engaging in any substantive debate.

 

And that's always what he does.

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Lee S (who maintains that he's not in the employ of MQA, but is obviously an advocate) wrote a lengthy critique of Chris's slides a few pages back. I don't expect you to agree with his points, of course. But why doesn't this represent the sort of substantive argument for the technology that you and others say is never offered?

Those are alternative facts. MQA has never addressed the counter evidence and no expert to date has backed up what MQA says. 

[Norton]

46 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I presume the artist wants to make money from his/her songs. If I can't stream it and can't buy it, where will that happen?

 

I didn’t think that artist revenue was necessarily the driving force of streaming services.  Perhaps a legal/territorial dispute shuts out an artist or they are deemed too obscure,  unpopular or too dead to be worth streaming anymore. Or they are still streamed but no longer  in the format you want, or with audible watermarks or with restrictions on what DSP you can apply etc etc.

 

Actually I have no problems with streaming at present (with caveats), I’m just pointing out that being concerned about the specific potential for DRM in MQA, if you are all in with streaming, is a bit  like walking naked into the lions’ cage smeared in meat paste and worrying it might turn a bit chilly later on.

[ARQuint]

14 minutes ago, mansr said:

You're even funnier than Lee Scoggins.

 

No, I'll stick up for myself on this point.

 

Most of my listening—and I do a lot, providing 8-10 record reviews for the magazine's music section each issue—is to computer files, of which around 4000 album's worth are high-resolution (24-bit PCM or DSD). I stream Tidal and primephonic, and will have Qobuz up and running within a couple of days. I don't have an MQA-capable component; my only experience with the technology was the few months that I spent with an Aurender A10. I felt MQA encoded/decoded music sounded good—but no better than what's available to me now. Paul R's right—this hobby isn't doomed and the most aggressive combatants, I feel, can lighten up a bit.

[KeenObserver]

"Paul R's right—this hobby isn't doomed and the most aggressive combatants, I feel, can lighten up a bit. "

 

Does that mean that Lee Scoggins is going away?

[Jud]

19 hours ago, FredericV said:

I come to the same conclusion as with the owner of the secret group who was banned a long time ago, and was discovered to use fake accounts here at CA and lie about it:

(1) - either our current non-banned "fanboy" has an affiliation with MQA (or some form of participation in the company), and therefore it makes sense that he writes ( or proxies ) such lengthy reply -  he benefits in some way

(2) - but the fb claims this is NOT the case, and therefore it makes no sense at all to do all this effort unless you have some kind of manic obsession, and by consequence you probably tick a DSM checkbox

It does not make any sense that a regular member would do the damage control for MQA and try to reduce the fallout after the RMAF fiasco. Unless (1) is true.

So yes, somebody just decides to start defending against the negativity .... like this case:

 

Let's not forget both managed the secret FB group. I rest my case.

 

I disagree. I've seen Lee do this with two other topics unrelated to MQA. I think it is simply a particularly dogged refusal to acknowledge that he might be, or might ever have been, wrong.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

I disagree. I've seen Lee do this with two other topics unrelated to MQA. I think it is simply a particularly dogged refusal to acknowledge that he might be, or might ever have been, wrong.

You forgot "might ever be."

[Samuel T Cogley]

5 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

this hobby isn't doomed and the most aggressive combatants, I feel, can lighten up a bit.

 

I believe that disingenuousness is just as rude as personal attacks.  Incivility begets incivility.

[ARQuint]

14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Those are alternative facts. MQA has never addressed the counter evidence and no expert to date has backed up what MQA says. 

 

Then you should continue to debunk them. But as you said at the outset of your presentation, this isn't about killing puppies. It also, obviously, doesn't rise to the level of Holocaust denial or even climate change denial or anti-vaccination BS, so there's no moral imperative to shut down those who disagree with attacks on their morality, ethics, brainpower, or their suitability to live in society—in our case, the community of audiophiles. The MQA contingent came to the seminar as if you had accused them of killing puppies. I feel that AS— your brand—should not let tone overwhelm substance.

 

This is beginning to sound like righteous indignation on my part. So I'll stop for now. I can hear the cheering all the way from Philadelphia!

 

Andrew

 

 

[KeenObserver]

2 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

Then you should continue to debunk them. But as you said at the outset of your presentation, this isn't about killing puppies. It also, obviously, doesn't rise to the level of Holocaust denial or even climate change denial or anti-vaccination BS, so there's no moral imperative to shut down those who disagree with attacks on their morality, ethics, brainpower, or their suitability to live in society—in our case, the community of audiophiles. The MQA contingent came to the seminar as if you had accused them of killing puppies. I feel that AS— your brand—should not let tone overwhelm substance.

 

This is beginning to sound like righteous indignation on my part. So I'll stop for now. I can hear the cheering all the way from Philadelphia!

 

Andrew

 

 

 

WOW!  Just WOW!

[KeenObserver]

Nobody is accusing MQA of killing puppies!

 

People are accusing MQA of deceptively foisting a scheme that will screw the music consumer!

[ARQuint]

34 minutes ago, mansr said:

Maybe because it's not truthful.

 

Now we're getting down to my issue. The one everybody hates. The C-word.

 

Why is Lee, in your view "not truthful" rather than simply "wrong"?

One characterization makes him out to be actively dissembling while other, perhaps, represents another opinion. You must know that there are plenty of audiophiles out there who have positive views about MQA. You haven't concluded that they're all liars as well, have you?

 

Andrew Quint

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Why is Lee, in your view "not truthful" rather than simply "wrong"?

Would "wilfully ignorant" make you happier?

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

You must know that there are plenty of audiophiles out there who have positive views about MQA. You haven't concluded that they're all liars as well, have you?

No, some of them are victims. Some are victims of Lee.

[Rt66indierock]

2 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

Now we're getting down to my issue. The one everybody hates. The C-word.

 

Why is Lee, in your view "not truthful" rather than simply "wrong"?

One characterization makes him out to be actively dissembling while other, perhaps, represents another opinion. You must know that there are plenty of audiophiles out there who have positive views about MQA. You haven't concluded that they're all liars as well, have you?

 

Andrew Quint

 

Andy if there are plenty of audiophiles who have positive views about MQA then my work is not done but I'm pretty happy they are a small minority.