MQA is Vaporware

[John_Atkinson]

13 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Any chance you can provide us a track of yours pre and post MQA processing? I figure that because you own the rights this shouldn’t be like pulling teeth. 

 

I don't own the rights. I was a hired gun for the recording projects.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

35 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

I don't own the rights. I was a hired gun for the recording projects.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Bummer. How bout a little fair use snippet?

[Jud]

12 hours ago, crenca said:

What's the business case? 

 

Bezos didn't become one of the world's wealthiest people by being stupid about business, so it doesn't pay to be too quickly dismissive. As discussed over at the Amazon HD thread, my guess is that Amazon sees an opportunity to charge the kid or thirty-something who’s got a nice pair of headphones just a couple bucks more per month for a premium service. With Amazon's numbers, a couple bucks a month per customer can add up pretty quickly.

 

This pretty well puts a fork in Tidal’s premium/MQA tier. Wonder whether we’ll see as much MQA huckstering at future audio shows as I did at the recent RMAF, or whether it’ll now be ”Works with Amazon HD!”

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

I don't own the rights. I was a hired gun for the recording projects.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Yet, as a hired gun, you felt perfectly free to send the master files to Bob Stuart. 

 

You know very well you can post snippets under fair use with no ramifications, But you refuse to do so.

 

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Bummer. How bout a little fair use snippet?

this is can be easily done if he had any desire to do so.  but he does not.

[John_Atkinson]

2 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Yet, as a hired gun, you felt perfectly free to send the master files to Bob Stuart. 

 

 

Yes, as this was for my private use.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[John_Atkinson]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

How bout a little fair use snippet?

 

People can find my analyses of these recordings at www.stereophile.com.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, John_Atkinson said:

 

People can find my analyses of these recordings at www.stereophile.com.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Care to let an independent third party analyze them?

[John Dyson]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Care to let an independent third party analyze them?

This is one of the very few times that I would have to back the party with whom I disagree on the  MQA matter.  I assume that he has to keep certain materials private, even though it might be technically legal to disclose snippets, he should follow any other promises as a more  severe constraint.

 

I have been between a rock and a hard place on that kind of matter -- and it is very difficult to resolve.  Perhaps I am projecting my own situation(s) and feelings, but once someone gives a promise -- it can be more constraining than the law.

 

This comment is coming from someone (myself) it tends to be too free and loose with material from time to time -- but as soon as there is a specific promise, then the situation can become frustrating and unpleasant for both those who are denied access and those who have conditional access.

 

It is very likely as soon as such material is disclosed, then future access to very propiretary material will not be granted again.

 

For publically released material as long as iit isn't being liberally broadcast -- I tend to be a bit 'loose' with my sharing.  If it is a specific promise or technically a kind of 'classified' material, I am rock-solid and non-compromising.   I suspect hat JA's situation is similar.  I don't even store 'proprietary' materials in the same place as my normal commercially released stuff.

 

Basically -- even though someone might/might not be exceedingly generous -- sometimes there are external constraints that keep sharing from happening.  The DHNRDS DA decoder is also that kind of thing, even though I wrote it and fully own it.  I made an agreement that my project partner and myself would work together.  More than likely, if I didn't get a lot of help doing the DHNRDS, I'd probably just give it away for free use.

 

It can be tricky to try to be honorable.

 

John

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

This is one of the very few times that I would have to back the party with whom I disagree on the  MQA matter.  I assume that he has to keep certain materials private, even though it might be technically legal to disclose snippets, he should follow any other promises as a more  severe constraint.

 

I have been between a rock and a hard place on that kind of matter -- and it is very difficult to resolve.  Perhaps I am projecting my own situation(s) and feelings, but once someone gives a promise -- it can be more constraining than the law.

 

This comment is coming from someone (myself) it tends to be too free and loose with material from time to time -- but as soon as there is a specific promise, then the situation can become frustrating and unpleasant for both those who are denied access and those who have conditional access.

 

It is very likely as soon as such material is disclosed, then future access to very propiretary material will not be granted again.

 

For publically released material as long as iit isn't being liberally broadcast -- I tend to be a bit 'loose' with my sharing.  If it is a specific promise or technically a kind of 'classified' material, I am rock-solid and non-compromising.   I suspect hat JA's situation is similar.  I don't even store 'proprietary' materials in the same place as my normal commercially released stuff.

 

Basically -- even though someone might/might not be exceedingly generous -- sometimes there are external constraints that keep sharing from happening.  The DHNRDS DA decoder is also that kind of thing, even though I wrote it and fully own it.  I made an agreement that my project partner and myself would work together.  More than likely, if I didn't get a lot of help doing the DHNRDS, I'd probably just give it away for free use.

 

It can be tricky to try to be honorable.

 

John

 

You're presupposing there is some agreement to keep this private. 

 

It's a publicly available recording that has been processed. We aren't talking about releasing the MQA code. 

 

If there is an agreement, I have no issue. I just don't see why there would be for a technology that is the birth of a new world and so obvious one's wife can hear it from the neighbor's bedroom. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

30 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Yes, as this was for my private use.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Of course, but why not share so others can also behold the wonder of new birthed worlds, and have our socks knocked off as yours were?

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

29 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Care to let an independent third party analyze them?

Surely...you jest?😃

[Hugo9000]

Is this some new and special form of copyright?

 

Can I send a recording that I don't own the copyright on to someone to process for me, as long as I promise it's only for my personal use?  How would I know that that other party won't keep a copy and distribute it?

 

More bullshit.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Of course, but why not share so others can also behold the wonder of new birthed worlds, and have our socks knocked off as yours were?

 

This is laughable. A technology so impressive has never been so cloaked in secrecy and hidden from those willing to get onboard. 

 

If MQA had the goods, they'd be on billboards shouting it to the masses. "Hey look at this before and after!"

 

Anyone remember all the SD vs HD demonstrations in every store that sold televisions or movies back in the day?  Imagine if this would've been hidden and only those in the club were invited to see the difference. Doesn't make any sense does it. 

[John Dyson]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You're presupposing there is some agreement to keep this private. 

 

It's a publicly available recording that has been processed. We aren't talking about releasing the MQA code. 

 

If there is an agreement, I have no issue. I just don't see why there would be for a technology that is the breath of a new world and so obvious one's wife can hear it from the neighbor's bedroom. 

He did state that his access was for his private use.  I have master tape copies whose material is released for distribution, but my HDD/Memory Sticks will be ground up before I release anything directly from them.  Trying to be honorable (agreeing that I might be making assumptions) can suck badly.   Demoing directly from a true master tape might give my own results more credibility, but I simply cannot do it.  Even though I vehemently disagree with his (anyone's) support for MQA, I can respect (if true) that the overriding promise will prevail.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

This is laughable. A technology so impressive has never been so cloaked in secrecy and hidden from those willing to get onboard. 

 

If MQA had the goods, they'd be on billboards shouting it to the masses. "Hey look at this before and after?"

 

Anyone remember all the SD vs HD demonstrations in every store that sold televisions or movies back in the day?  Imagine of this would've been hidden and only those in the club were invited to see the difference. Doesn't make any sense does it. 

Oh -- I do believe that properly cleared demonstrations should be done, especially with such unbelievable claims about MQA.  Sometimes people get themselves into 'bad' positions that they cannot solve (that is, about the issues of personal honor.)

 

On the other hand, I cannot imagine that very much about MQA shows any respect to the listening public.   Support for MQA only shows respect to those who hope to siphon money from that listening public.

 

Everything about MQA and what it represents seems to suck (in my opinon.)

 

John

[Patrick Cleasby]

22 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Could be but it’s like big box vs boutique. 

 

 

 

 

No way. Try getting Amazon to listen to your requests for changes or exclusive mode etc.  ain’t gonna happen. Qobuz is not only responsive they participate here. 

 

If Qobuz get those 24 bit Zappas online I'm theirs for life...

[Hugo9000]

6 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Oh -- I do believe that properly cleared demonstrations should be done, especially with such unbelievable claims about MQA.  Sometimes people get themselves into 'bad' positions that they cannot solve (that is, about the issues of personal honor.)

 

On the other hand, I cannot imagine that very much about MQA shows any respect to the listening public.   Support for MQA only shows respect to those who hope to siphon money from that listening public.

 

Everything about MQA and what it represents seems to suck (in my opinon.)

 

John

They have no personal honor if they get themselves into 'bad' positions that they cannot refuse to solve.  They either knowingly lied, in which case they have no honor, or they made a mistake and then refuse to be honest and come clean about it afterward, which means they have no honor.

[John_Atkinson]

9 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I do believe that properly cleared demonstrations should be done, especially with such unbelievable claims about MQA. 

 

As was noted many many postings earlier in this thread, Wilson Audio's Peter McGrath has performed comparisons of the MQA versions of some of his files and the original PCM versions at dealer events and audio shows.

 

Regarding my unwllingness to share the MQA versions of some of my own recordings, as I explained, these versions were made for my private use only.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile 

[mansr]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

Yes, as this was for my private use.

Raving about the birth of a new world in print and online is now "private use"?

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

Regarding my unwllingness to share the MQA versions of some of my own recordings, as I explained, these versions were made for my private use only.

Between which parties is this private use agreement?

 

 

[mansr]

38 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If there is an agreement, I have no issue. I just don't see why there would be for a technology that is the birth of a new world and so obvious one's wife can hear it from the neighbor's bedroom.

Is the neighbour also is in said bedroom?

[Hugo9000]

Here is a lesson:  If you sign a non-disclosure agreement, it's best to remain silent, then you don't back yourself into corners where you could be forced to lie and obfuscate in ridiculous contortionist fashion, thus destroying any shred of credibility you may have had.  Or you risk the penalty that can be imposed on you for violating that NDA if you try to come clean.

 

I now have more respect for that gentleman at that other "Cat Fancy"-type magazine, who doesn't go around the internet trying to justify something unjustifiable, but at least avoids any problems with any NDAs he might have signed.  He can also keep a straight face when his staff says that criticism from mere web forum users is beneath his notice, as he wastes no time interacting with them.  Win-win for him!

[mansr]

33 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

Is this some new and special form of copyright?

 

Can I send a recording that I don't own the copyright on to someone to process for me, as long as I promise it's only for my personal use?  How would I know that that other party won't keep a copy and distribute it?

 

More bullshit.

What someone else might do without your (prior) knowledge shouldn't be your problem. You can legally lend someone a book without them first signing a promise not to make a copy for themselves.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

I believe Mr. Atkinson is afraid of a liability issue...after all, both he and Robert Harley had their jaws bounce off the floor due to the glorious sound of MQA and I am sure he does not want to be responsible for any broken teeth. 😎