Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

why would an engineer - or even a barista working their way thru a science or engineering degree - WASTE their time on idiotic claims that violate well understood principles of physics???

 

 

I mean, DAMN !!

 

Even retired Telstra Principal Telecommunications Technical Officers probably have better things to do with their time than investigating the audio equivalent of trying to fly by flapping your arms...

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

A typical smart arse reply by someone who always jumps to the defence of E.Es even though he isn't one himself.

 

 

I'm confused. 

 

How is agreeing with smart folks saying things that made sense a bad thing?

 

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

I too am not sure that Lee actually understands the technobabble.

 

Does anyone understand MQA's technobabble?

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 You are the one who needs to get real. There are a small Core group of members  who deny the suitability of numerous different manufacturers/ C.A. Advertisers  products, including USB cables, USB Widgets, Linear PSUs, improved System Clocks, OS process reducing tools,  etc. etc. to improve the Signal Integrity and hence the sound quality of Computer Audio.

 

 

I'm sure Chris sleeps better at night knowing that you're on the job making sure that these radical objectivists don't scare away his advertisers.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...
20 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Lee, I highly recommend you ask anyone outside the MQA ltd office what they thought about the MQA representatives' behavior. Based on your above comment, I willing to bet it will shock you.

 

Also, I presented facts. Just because the facts aren't on the side of MQA doesn't mean I delivered a biased presentation. I'm still searching for where I was "called out" on anything. Rudely interrupted, yes, but far from called out. 

 

Please tell me what I was called out on and what was biased in my slides. I'll wait right here. 

 

9 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Stay classy.

 

Can we expect your response to Chris today?

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

My conclusion is that Chris did not give MQA a chance to present their side of each point in the argument and, more importantly, did not present the MQA counterpoints we have been discussing all year or even include some of the relevant studies that were sent to him and other journalists.

 

My memory may be failing me here but wasn't MQA presented with an opportunity to review these slides before Chris's presentation? 

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 I am not sure that DRM has anything at all to do with whether something is covered under the DMCA or not...

 

I believe he was referring to the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment

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...