MQA is Vaporware

[shtf]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

The first thing that came to mind when I read your post:

 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Legend in his own mind

 

 

 

Jeepers, kuma, could ya' narrow it down to which post?  Cuz I get that same feeling from all of his posts.

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

The first thing that came to mind when I read your post:

 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Legend in his own mind

 

 

 

Do you always have so much trouble responding to someone else without trying to belittle them? Or is that a tactic you picked up from some of the overblown egos here? Careful, if you prick them they explode... 

 

For the record, I don't consider myself a "Legend in my own time" nor do I appreciate being called that as way to demean me.  I am neither stupid nor modest enough to belittle myself to avoid embarrassment. I don't need to get in a credentials war to prove that to myself, or to anyone else either for that matter. I earned all my credentials, and while I am proud of them, there are always people with better credentials somewhere. 

 

I am always willing to hear facts or evidence that are compelling to another point of view. If I am wrong, I try hard to admit it and just move on. If I am not wrong, then all the denigrating comments in the world won't have much effect. 

 

I do have a very low tolerance for stupid, mean, or passive aggressive attacks designed to belittle or denigrate someone. Even, dare I say it, myself? I suppose if that makes me a Legend, then I will just have to live with it. 

 

MQA is not the threat that Steve or some of the others are making it. They are doing that for their own aggrandizement and amusement.

 

It is the threat that Mansr, Archimage, Jud, and other's have recognized and succinctly documented.  Nothing more, nothing less. The existence of a risk does not automatically denote a crisis, or even any necessary action. Nor does it justify bad behavior for amusement. From anyone on any side of the argument. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

 

[John Dyson]

3 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Unless you are always "on" - that is, always engaged in critical listening, then streaming has it's place. Critical listening is work, even if it is work one loves, it is still work. Casual listening on the other hand, is all about enjoyment. 

 

Streaming is for casual listening. Trying out stuff you want listen to, but don't know if you want to buy. After you listen to it, you may decide to buy it, or you decide not to buy it. You can even choose to just listen to it again. The choice is yours. And stuff that makes you run away with your ears starting to bleed?  That you know to stay away from pretty quickly, and at minimal cost.  

 

 

If listening to streaming material is like listening to the old time radio (moderate quality, casual), then why pay for it?  I'd just listen to free stuff.  Why pay for butchered material (like MQA?)  Why pay for something that just might go away?  For casual,  I'd listen to something free.  For something that I invest ANYTHING in, I want a copy that no-one can easily take from me.

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

6 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

 

Why?  Just ignore the MQA stuff.  There is little of it, still, on Qobuz and there's lots of great music in lossless formats.

If there is "so little" of it, and it adds so little value...then I would love to have someone explain Stereophile's obsession with it as a  "feature"; on digital products, and why they continue to lament if a DAC or streamer does not offer it...

 

Any thoughts???????

[Ralf11]

 I could discover music and performances via streaming, but only a reduced subset of what I want to try out - mostly recent items.

 

Instead, I use the xlnt collection of CDs at our city library, with a university library for backup (which has a very decent music school - tho not competitive with the music school/library at Indiana univ. like this place thinks they are...).

 

But that may not apply to others.

 

There is also bandcamp.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

3 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I acknowledge all that and, frankly, I listen mostly to my own collection for those reasons.  I prefer hi-resolution multichannel for which there is no streaming source (yet).

 

That said, I can discover music and performances via streaming and then make informed purchases for my library.  Streaming is only an adjunct but an important one.

I also uses streaming to make purchasing decisions....I still buy a lot of downloads..but I use FREE streaming sources, of which there are endless choices....

[Sonicularity]

33 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

If listening to streaming material is like listening to the old time radio (moderate quality, casual), then why pay for it?  I'd just listen to free stuff.  Why pay for butchered material (like MQA?)  Why pay for something that just might go away?  For casual,  I'd listen to something free.  For something that I invest ANYTHING in, I want a copy that no-one can easily take from me.

 

 

I stream everything and only purchase music if I want to hear something that is not available to stream.  If I look at just my last.fm scrobbles, the unique plays I have listened to over the last year alone greatly exceed what I would be willing to purchase over a decade to own all of this music.  I don't have magic ears, and like the evidence I see, even AAC 256 is quite good and few could distinguish this format over HiRes.  To consider lossless and HiRes streaming to be moderate quality is a bit of a reach.  Even MQA, which I am not a fan of at all, sounds identical to lossless and HiRes when the same master is actually used.  Did I miss some repeatable test showing this to be untrue?

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 I could discover music and performances via streaming, but only a reduced subset of what I want to try out - mostly recent items.

 

Instead, I use the xlnt collection of CDs at our city library, with a university library for backup (which has a very decent music school - tho not competitive with the music school/library at Indiana univ. like this place thinks they are...).

 

But that may not apply to others.

 

There is also bandcamp.

Let's hope that you then don't rip THEIR CDs to YOUR HDD !

[Paul R]

55 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

If listening to streaming material is like listening to the old time radio (moderate quality, casual), then why pay for it?  I'd just listen to free stuff.  Why pay for butchered material (like MQA?)  Why pay for something that just might go away?  For casual,  I'd listen to something free.  For something that I invest ANYTHING in, I want a copy that no-one can easily take from me.

 

 

I take it then you do not have Cable TV, Satellite Radio, or use Amazon, Apple, Netflix, or Hulu? Or you make a recording to keep a recording of every live concert you attend?

 

It's basically the same thing as Netflix, one  pays a little for access to a vast library of media choices. A far more extensive library than most people could ever collect, especially if one had to buy the CD, Download, Disc, DVD, LP, Tape or whatever before one could listen to it. Like in the bad old days when FM radio was the only choice. That was a time when 30-40 albums was considered a respectable collection. Having 100-120 albums made one a outlier for sure.    

 

On the other paw however, I do follow your philosophy enough to buy as much music as I can. Lately it has been more thrift store finds than new releases, but then, that's okay with me for now. Not all that much coming out in pop music I can fore, and classical music can only repeat the same music for so many centuries. I adore sound tracks for that reason, I think it is the place where the most classily classic music is created today. 

 

YMMV of course, just pointing out the logic behind a QUobuz or Apple Music subscription. 

 

Yours,

-Paul 

 

[Ralf11]

I do not have Cable TV, Satellite Radio, or use Amazon, Apple, Netflix, or Hulu streaming unless they are free.

 

I do use Youtube and there is  lot of interesting music on it.

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

If there is "so little" of it, and it adds so little value...then I would love to have someone explain Stereophile's obsession with it as a  "feature"; on digital products, and why they continue to lament if a DAC or streamer does not offer it...

 

Any thoughts???????

1.  Each of the writers and editors is free to express his opinions in print and I will not speak for them.  

2.  Over the years, I have disagreed with many statements made by my colleagues and, I suspect, they have returned the compliment.  

3.  I see more obsessiveness about MQA around here than at Stereophile.

[Allan F]

6 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

3.  I see more obsessiveness about MQA around here than at Stereophile.

 

True, Kal. But it's obsessiveness over Stereophile's obsessive love affair with MQA.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

12 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

1.  Each of the writers and editors is free to express his opinions in print and I will not speak for them.  

2.  Over the years, I have disagreed with many statements made by my colleagues and, I suspect, they have returned the compliment.  

3.  I see more obsessiveness about MQA around here than at Stereophile.

1-Clearly they are free to express their own opinions, but their impressions, opinions, and observations about MQA are amazingly similar  Almost like they got Fox News style talking points.

 

2-No doubt.

 

3-No one here markets MQA and positions it as an essential feature and "technology". And no one here called it the Birth Of A New World.  So a big fail for # 3 Kal.

 

In no way to i expect you to have the answers or to be responsible for the absurd MQA coverage by the magazine. It

seems you have made your position about MQA clear, and it is that it serves little or no purpose.  I would expect nothing less from a scientist, and from someone who clearly understands how digital audio works. 

 

Unfortunately the same thing CANNOT be said about your new editor. 

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

Do you always have so much trouble responding to someone else without trying to belittle them? Or is that a tactic you picked up from some of the overblown egos here? Careful, if you prick them they explode... 

 

Careful, you've just described yourself very well.

 

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

For the record, I don't consider myself a "Legend in my own time"

 

Neither does anyone else, but you misquoted the OP in your reply, he said legend in your own mind, which is a different thing altogether.

 

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

MQA is not the threat that Steve or some of the others are making it.

 

Again, we'd love to know what brand of crystal ball you are using to arrive at these dead-on accurate assessments.

 

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

They are doing that for their own aggrandizement and amusement.

 

Pot calling the kettle black.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 minute ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Careful, you've just described yourself very well.

 

 

Neither does anyone else, but you misquoted the OP in your reply, he said legend in your own mind, which is a different thing altogether.

 

 

Again, we'd love to know what brand of crystal ball you are using to arrive at these dead-on accurate assessments.

 

 

Pot calling the kettle black.

You sum up the Paul's posting history, style, and credibility on the subject of this thread quite nicely. 

[Kal Rubinson]

4 minutes ago, Allan F said:

True, Kal. But it's obsessiveness over Stereophile's obsessive love affair with MQA.

Not entirely.

[Allan F]

Just now, Kal Rubinson said:

Not entirely.

 

In truth, not even mostly.

[shtf]

18 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Not entirely.

 

But you did and continue to stand idly by while your colleagues and superior sought to potentailly compromise or even cripple an entire industry for some kinda' gain, right?

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, shtf said:

But you did and continue to stand idly by while your colleagues and superior sought to potentially compromise or even cripple an entire industry for some kinda' gain, right?

 

IMO, it is most unfair to attack Kal for the actions of others, over whom he has no control. He has already told you that he has disagreed with his colleagues on many occasions. What more do you expect him to do, beat up John Atkinson or shoot Bob Stuart?

[shtf]

55 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

IMO, it's ridiculous to blame Kal for the actions of others. He has already told you that he has disagreed with his colleagues on many occasions. What more do you expect him to do?

 

Seriously?  You cannot think of any other more reasonable options available to Kal that might have helped better minimize any potentially permanent damage to at least the high-end audio sector of the music industry?  Nor any options that could have better minimized the countless thousands or even millions of accumulative hours spent in the forums debating, dissecting, driving down rabbit holes, or otherwide spent defending the industry agaist a potential monopoly of a nonsensical inferior performing format pretending to be something it simply is not?  For  a format that may never had gotten out of the starting gate if it were not for the cows can now jump over the moon and pigs can now fly endorsements by these same superiors?  For a format that is simply impossible to come even remotely close to Kal's magazine performance claims?

 

All under the guise of performance levels equating to exactly what the engineers heard in the recording studio or perhaps the equivelant of "experiencing the birth of a new world" - whatever the hell that means?

 

Seriously.  You cannot think of any other options available to Kal?  Ok, so you're no history buff.  But do you at least know the definition of fraud?  How about complicity?

 

Off topic... wasn't Kal just recently promoted by this same magazine?  The same magazine some others might have fled from 4.5 years ago if not sooner had they witnessed what Kal witnessed?
 

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, shtf said:

Seriously?

 

Yes, seriously. You should find a lower soapbox. The one you are using is blinding your vision. You are holding Kal responsible for the the "evils" of MQA and its promotion by people over whom he had no control. Your suggestion of complicity on his part is, quite frankly silly, and shows a complete ignorance of the meaning of that term.

 

Even more sophomoric is your suggestion that he should fall on his sword and resign from the magazine in order to defend your beliefs. Get real!

 

Finally, just to make things clear because of your inability to separate issues, the above is in no way intended as support for MQA.

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I do not have Cable TV, Satellite Radio, or use Amazon, Apple, Netflix, or Hulu streaming unless they are free.

 

I do use Youtube and there is  lot of interesting music on it.

 

A great deal of which , I am given to understand, is pirated. I might point out that makes a good case for DRM, even if it resides within MQA.  Better to pay a little and have no moral grey area.

 

-Paul

 

[shtf]

12 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Yes, seriously. You should find a lower soapbox. The one you are using is blinding your vision. You are holding Kal responsible for the the "evils" of MQA and its promotion by people over whom he had no control. Your suggestion of complicity on his part is, quite frankly silly, and shows a complete ignorance of the meaning of that term.

 

 

My bad.  I heard Kal was recently promoted at Stereophile and hence, still worked for them.  You know Stereophile, the "high-end" audio magazine that perhaps induced more overall harm to high-end audio over the past 20 years than any other entity, including MQA?  

 

If as you imply he left Stereophile, then I certainly appreciate his integrity and good for him and good for us all.  Even though there's always a price to pay, it speaks volumes of the one taking a stand for righteousness' sake, right?

[Allan F]

17 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

My bad.  I heard Kal was recently promoted at Stereophile and hence, still worked for them.  You know Stereophile, the "high-end" audio magazine that perhaps induced more overall harm to high-end audio over the past 20 years than any other entity, including MQA?  

 

If as you imply he left Stereophile, then I certainly appreciate his integrity and good for him and good for us all.  Even though there's always a price to pay, it speaks volumes of the one taking a stand for righteousness' sake, right?

 

I never suggested that he had left Stereophile. My comments were directed at your inappropriate and misguided attack on him. Just because you work for the same company doesn't mean that you have control over what your colleagues do. Accordingly, "my bad" would still be a proper reply on your part. Over and out!

[firedog]

5 hours ago, Paul R said:

I take it then you do not have Cable TV, Satellite Radio, or use Amazon, Apple, Netflix, or Hulu? Or you make a recording to keep a recording of every live concert you attend?

 Not really, b/c I don't care about movies and TV enough to want my own copies and assured access. For music I especially like, I do.