MQA is Vaporware

[Hugo9000]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

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.

You can't "lend" someone digital files.

 

Sending files once to one person is distribution.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

You can't "lend" someone digital files.

 

Sending files once to one person is distribution.

The law is never quite that clear-cut. By your reasoning, cloud storage would be illegal.

[Hugo9000]

40 minutes ago, mansr said:

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.

 

38 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

You can't "lend" someone digital files.

 

Sending files once to one person is distribution.

 

34 minutes ago, mansr said:

The law is never quite that clear-cut. By your reasoning, cloud storage would be illegal.

lol

 

No, that may be your interpretation of my reasoning.  It certainly doesn't follow logically from a specific statement about "lending" digital files and sending them to one person. 

 

By your reasoning, as noted in your previous reply about lending a book to someone, does all copyright and distribution follow the model of lending a physical book?  That was your example, which has nothing to do with digital file sharing/distribution, which has been adjudicated many times in the United States, thanks in part to all those lawsuits by the RIAA and the MPAA against everyday people.

 

My statement was about sending a file to another person (Bob Stuart in that case, or whoever was supposed to do the "white glove" "hands-on" "personal treatment" "as the artist intended" MQA encoding of the files).  Not sending a digital file someplace to be stored for my own use, which is what cloud storage is supposed to be (although in practice, people might share a cloud account and share the files in that way, regardless of any agreement or legal issues).

 

 

Edited to add:  In the case of JA and those specific files, it's certainly possible that the actual rights holder granted permission for the files to be shared with BS for the purpose of MQA processing so that JA could evaluate the effects and report on it, but without permission to share the resulting files with anyone else.  Or whatever agreement allowed him to retain the masters in the first place may have granted him the authority to have outside processing performed with the condition that he not disseminate the files in any other way.  Mr. Atkinson is generally quite careful and specific in his wording, but perhaps he was trying to be brief in his trolling of this forum, so he may have left out such details haha! 

[John_Atkinson]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

 

There was absolutely nothing, Chris, to prevent you 4 or 5 years ago from asking Bob Stuart to encode some of your own recordings or those made by engineers with whom you were friendly. Now, of course, I doubt Stuart would be amenable to any such request from you. Which is why, I suppose, you are trolling me 🙂

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[esldude]

14 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

There was absolutely nothing, Chris, to prevent you 4 or 5 years ago from asking Bob Stuart to encode some of your own recordings or those made by engineers with whom you were friendly. Now, of course, I doubt Stuart would be amenable to any such request from you. Which is why, I suppose, you are trolling me 🙂

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Mark Waldrep tried that and still hasn't gotten anything back from BS .

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

There was absolutely nothing, Chris, to prevent you 4 or 5 years ago from asking Bob Stuart to encode some of your own recordings or those made by engineers with whom you were friendly. Now, of course, I doubt Stuart would be amenable to any such request from you. Which is why, I suppose, you are trolling me 🙂

Are you saying they would have done this for Chris while refusing Mark Waldrep? Why?

[Allan F]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

Mark Waldrep tried that and still hasn't gotten anything back from BS .

 

"BS" is more than appropriate.

[The Computer Audiophile]

49 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

There was absolutely nothing, Chris, to prevent you 4 or 5 years ago from asking Bob Stuart to encode some of your own recordings or those made by engineers with whom you were friendly. Now, of course, I doubt Stuart would be amenable to any such request from you. Which is why, I suppose, you are trolling me 🙂

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Yes, I'm sure that is the case. Back when I accepted Bob's invitations for dinner and phone calls, he treated me like he treats you and the rest of the old guard who are eating out of his hand. 

 

I'm not trolling you by asking reasonable questions. I have no idea why you're trying your best to not provide anyone a reasonable snippet of your content. You know as well as I do that the rights holder of your content couldn't care less if you provide a snippet of a track. In fact, they'd probably want it for publicity. A quick email is all that's needed to clear it. 

 

However, if your agreement is with Bob, we all know it will never happen because there is nothing to hide, thus hiding nothing by keeping it secret. It's an illusion of something to hide. 

[Rt66indierock]

9 hours ago, FredericV said:

Walk to any speaker's tweeter and listen for noise. When you replace the amp with an amp having a lower noise floor, this audible noise should be lower. For some ultra high gain horn speakers, this may be a decision criterium, as the high gain makes this noise cary further away.

But even with the amp where you have tweeter noise when being very close, once you walk away, that noise is gone. On the listener's sweet spot, that noise is also gone.

So in an actual system, can you hear the difference between amp with -100, -110 and -130dB noise floor?

 

I wrote about this awhile back. One night in my office I had Benchmark electronics and Joseph Audio Pulsars.  I can certainly hear a difference with the Pulsars and my modified AR-4x speakers at volumes slightly louder than I normally listen to when comparing the Benchmark amp to my quietest office amp an old NAD 3020. A small difference on a couple of really good CD rips.

 

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I wrote about this awhile back. One night in my office I had Benchmark electronics and Joseph Audio Pulsars.  I can certainly hear a difference with the Pulsars and my modified AR-4x speakers at volumes slightly louder than I normally listen to when comparing the Benchmark amp to my quietest office amp an old NAD 3020. A small difference on a couple of really good CD rips.

 

That is likely down to the large power difference in the amps.

[John Dyson]

59 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

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 learned my lesson recently about referring directly to any content that I have under either formal or informal NDA.   It is an easy mistake to make, but it does sometimes restrict useful information also.

 

As to motives about voluntarily avoiding the release of information that can be ethically released -- that is just as bad as violating a promise.   When I make a claim, and I really do realize that I made a mistake, I will generally be pretty good about rescinding the mistaken claim.  Sometimes, the claim is accurate, but the backing information cannot be released - not a good thing, but bad stuffhappens.

 

This whole thing about IP has frustrated me since the years that I started doing OS code on the FreeBSD project (I worked at AT&T Bell Labs -- the originator of Unix, with full access to all of the Unix source code at the time -- but also wrote big parts of the FreeBSD kernel.)   I had to be very careful to maintain my integrity and avoid legal problems -- but I did so successfully.

 

It is possible to be honorable, keep your job and keep your friends happy.  Sometimes it can be a little tricky.  My philosophy at Bell Labs was to inform mgmt about FreeBSD, and I got permission & clearance (with the caveat that I not cause intellectual property problems.)  Later on, AT&T sued Berkeley (the originator of the base source code of FreeBSD), and forced FreeBSD to remove all infringing software (I didn't cause infringement -- it was done long before I joined the effort).   My subsequent project on FreeBSD was to rewrite the portions of the kernel that were originally infringing.   My situation was so very on the clear, that eventually I got an offer from AT&T Bell Labs research board to fund my hobby project on FreeBSD!!!   In essense, I worked for the enemy all along, and eventually got the enemy of the project to offer to join it!!!

 

Honesty and integrity are the best policy.  I do admit that I have taken some chances and have been lucky :-).

John

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

40 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

There was absolutely nothing, Chris, to prevent you 4 or 5 years ago from asking Bob Stuart to encode some of your own recordings or those made by engineers with whom you were friendly. Now, of course, I doubt Stuart would be amenable to any such request from you. Which is why, I suppose, you are trolling me 🙂

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

It is an established fact that MQA provided demos to numerous independent mastering engineers, and the lossy processing was soundly rejected save for one or two who sell them selves for a nickel as a matter of course.

 

Perhaps this stinging rejection is the reason they agreed only to process files from a handful of FOB (Friends Of Bob)?

[Rt66indierock]

13 minutes ago, esldude said:

That is likely down to the large power difference in the amps.

 

My volume levels are too low. Even the NAD is loafing at them.

[Ralf11]

51 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I have no idea why you're trying your best to not provide anyone a reasonable snippet of your content.

 

I have an idea why

[Hugo9000]

It's too late to edit a previous post to add this:

 

Copyright and "Fair Use" may not be (probably isn't? lol) the relevant issue in the case of these actual or hypothetical recordings.

 

If it's an unpublished master, that is materially different from whatever mixing was approved for publication by the rights holder, then presumably it would be governed by whatever contract was made at the time of recording and the terms under which he was permitted to retain the master tapes (if analog) or an exact copy of the master (if digital).  I'm talking here of "master" being the session tapes/mic feed/whatever, and not "master" in the sense of the highest resolution of the original approved final mix, although if even that final mix has never been published in that resolution, it would presumably be protected by the contract and not just by the copyright which allows fair use exceptions once a work is published. 

 

"Master" seems to be used in both senses, at least colloquially, of the unprocessed session tapes in however many tracks being the "master," and in the sense of the approved final mix being the "master."  (Of course, if the "crown jewels" are the unprocessed session tapes before any mixing/eq/other processing, then 24/192 releases of the approved final mix still wouldn't be giving away those "crown jewels," and the record companies still have endless new releases they can push in the future as long as they continue to protect the unprocessed original session materials haha!  So that "crown jewels" argument in favor of MQA is kind of beside the point in that way as well as being risible if MQA is in fact better than the master as some posit.  lol)  

 

Not to argue on behalf of JA haha (as if he or anyone else would care what I write lmao), but in the interest of fairness, the issues are probably his actual contract with the rights holder and whatever it allows, and possibly any NDA (if there is one) that might be attached to the MQA-processed versions of those files.  I do at least try to be precise and fair and not just long-winded.

 

And of course, none of this negates the possibility that certain people use these issues/discussions as distractions/obfuscation from whatever behind-the-scenes machinations are really at work here.  Beware the hand of the éminence grise.  haha

 

[John_Atkinson]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm not trolling you by asking reasonable questions.

 

I used the word "trolling" Chris because I have been asked this question before and I assume you knew what my answer would be.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[esldude]

13 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

I used the word "trolling" Chris because I have been asked this question before and I assume you knew what my answer would be.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

How about this then.  Get an artist or two or three if you can.  Do a recording that is relatively convenient and minimalist for you.  Get permissions up front of course.  And send the files to BS so you have a before and after you can let people use for comparison.  

 

Now before doing this I bet I know what the result will be. You'll get the Waldrep treatment.  Yet you'll be able to provide a simple recording (maybe only two mics), provide the exact AD gear you used.  You should be able to get the finest MQA conversion that is possible. 

 

If I had developed a truly great new format, the very first thing I would have done is get or create a high quality recording of at least a few songs, and provide unadulterated before and after or MQA vs not_MQA files.  And let everyone hear unambiguously how great they were.   Don't you think it is very strange this hasn't been done?

 

And no, letting Peter McGrath demo some before and after results a few places isn't equivalent to that. 

[John Dyson]

11 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

It's too late to edit a previous post to add this:

 

Copyright and "Fair Use" may not be (probably isn't? lol) the relevant issue in the case of these actual or hypothetical recordings.

 

If it's an unpublished master, that is materially different from whatever mixing was approved for publication by the rights holder, then presumably it would be governed by whatever contract was made at the time of recording and the terms under which he was permitted to retain the master tapes (if analog) or an exact copy of the master (if digital).  I'm talking here of "master" being the session tapes/mic feed/whatever, and not "master" in the sense of the highest resolution of the original approved final mix, although if even that final mix has never been published in that resolution, it would presumably be protected by the contract and not just by the copyright which allows fair use exceptions once a work is published. 

 

"Master" seems to be used in both senses, at least colloquially, of the unprocessed session tapes in however many tracks being the "master," and in the sense of the approved final mix being the "master."  (Of course, if the "crown jewels" are the unprocessed session tapes before any mixing/eq/other processing, then 24/192 releases of the approved final mix still wouldn't be giving away those "crown jewels," and the record companies still have endless new releases they can push in the future as long as they continue to protect the unprocessed original session materials haha!  So that "crown jewels" argument in favor of MQA is kind of beside the point in that way as well as being risible if MQA is in fact better than the master as some posit.  lol)  

 

Not to argue on behalf of JA haha (as if he or anyone else would care what I write lmao), but in the interest of fairness, the issues are probably his actual contract with the rights holder and whatever it allows, and possibly any NDA (if there is one) that might be attached to the MQA-processed versions of those files.  I do at least try to be precise and fair and not just long-winded.

 

And of course, none of this negates the possibility that certain people use these issues/discussions as distractions/obfuscation from whatever behind-the-scenes machinations are really at work here.  Beware the hand of the éminence grise.  haha

 

You hit the nail on the head, even though my position (attempted contribution to the discussion) was more based on intuition and working with unpublished propretary software in the past.  Simply answering your statement for acknowledgement -- a true master tape as an unpubished proprietary work is not the same kind of thing as a published work.  (Esp when there is a parallel agreement that limits use of the document/code/recording.)

 

JA attempting to be honorable, I just wish he saw/understood the flaws/disadvantages about MQA.  Heck, MQA isn't not a life and death argument, but it is kind of 'just wrong' -- you know what I mean?  The commercial on TV about taking a shower in a shower stall that is carpeted -- that is just wrong.  MQA is 'just wrong'.

 

Why contort the audio when it can be distributed cleanly at DSD or 192/24 (or whatever?)  I regularly get 120Mb/sec download speeds, many people have faster connections, and even a 10Mb/sec connection isn't too bad...  It doens't take very long to download an album at normal internet speeds nowadays.

 

John

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

37 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

I used the word "trolling" Chris because I have been asked this question before and I assume you knew what my answer would be.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Ah, I'd forgotten this was asked and answered. 

 

 

[labjr]

52 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

I used the word "trolling" Chris because I have been asked this question before and I assume you knew what my answer would be.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

Trolling?  It's not like he went to your forum.  And you could have chosen to assert your Fifth Amendment privilege.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[John_Atkinson]

25 minutes ago, labjr said:

Trolling?  It's not like he went to your forum.

 

As well as Chris's question posted on this forum, I was sent an email alert.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

 

[Thuaveta]

11 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

As well as Chris's question posted on this forum, I was sent an email alert.

 

 

Should one understand that the senior technical editor of Stereophile doesn't know that you can fix a simple annoyance like this when you go to the top right (username), then scroll down to "account setting", then click on "edit settings" (on the right of the overview) one can selectively pick what to follow, or not. Including alerts when someone mentions your name. And that, to top it all, he's bitching about it ?

[FredericV]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I wrote about this awhile back. One night in my office I had Benchmark electronics and Joseph Audio Pulsars.  I can certainly hear a difference with the Pulsars and my modified AR-4x speakers at volumes slightly louder than I normally listen to when comparing the Benchmark amp to my quietest office amp an old NAD 3020. A small difference on a couple of really good CD rips.

 

The local Benchmark distributor is not far from here, so I'm going to compare the AHB2 with my Vitus SS-025 soon. Technically the AHB2 has a much lower noise floor, but how it sounds, is a more subjective matter. From show reports, it certainly delivers, and you can use a pair and put them in bi-amp mode. My Amphion Krypton 3 like a lot of power.

With the SS-025, I have to put my ear into the horn of the Krypton 3 to hear some very silent noise. When I move my ear 15cm away from the horn, it's gone. So an amp with a lower noise floor is not going to be day and night difference based on the noise floor criterium, most likely other factors will lead to a certain sound.

[John_Atkinson]

24 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

Should one understand that the senior technical editor of Stereophile doesn't know that you can fix a simple annoyance like this...

 

It's not an annoyance. I was explaining how I learned of Chris's question, to which he has now acknowledged that he already knew the answer. Hence my use of the word "troll" (which I beginning to believe applies to you also - see below).

 

24 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

to top it all, he's bitching about it ?

 

I am not bitching, that is your projection. (Perhaps English is not your first language?)

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

[mansr]

1 minute ago, John_Atkinson said:

It's not an annoyance. I was explaining how I learned of Chris's question, to which he has now acknowledged that he already knew the answer. Hence my use of the word "troll" (which I beginning to believe applies to you also - see below).

Nobody here is trolling you. Take my word for it.