MQA is Vaporware

[Thuaveta]

1 minute ago, John_Atkinson said:

Perhaps English is not your first language?

 

Well certainly, technology isn't yours.

[Thuaveta]

5 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

Hence my use of the word "troll" (which I beginning to believe applies to you also - see below).

 

And to quote a more patient mind than mine:

 

3 hours 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. 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. 

 

[christopher3393]

3 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

 

Well certainly, technology isn't yours.

 

Nor is it anyone's. 🦄

[Thuaveta]

2 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Nor is it anyone's. 🦄

 

May I suggest spending a bit of time with (real) 7 year olds ? 😋

 

More seriously though, and back on topic, maybe that instead of engaging in pub psychology, @John_Atkinson could instead heed Chris' suggestion, and use his superior command of the English language to write a kind request to allow for the use of a snippet of that recording that he appears to purport holds evidence of the birth of a new world, especially given all the embarrassment he could spare his luminary friend of 20 years by providing such evidence... think of the kind of person one must be to refuse something that simple to such a dear friend...

[jma2]

Now I am confused...

 

Does this mean that only big labels (Warner, etc) and artists under heavy NDAs (= never release the originals from which the MQA-version is derived) can get their masters the MQA treatement?

 

A random artist cannot go to MQA with original material, have it MQAd for a price, and hand out both versions to whomever the artist wants?  Would the NDA stipulate that the artist can either distribute "only" the MQAd version or distribute "only" the original version?

 

When I write it down like this, on the one hand it looks like a joke, while on the other hand it is the superlative of a drama (native speakers help me out here). Or maybe I'm just stupid, which would also be  joke 😉

 

Jan

 

[tmtomh]

Folks, @John_Atkinson is not going to supply the requested content. He either:

1. Cannot do so legally;
2. Can do so legally but will not because he feels it's ethically shaky/wrong to do so;
3. Can do so legally but will not because he doesn't want to anger Stuart/MQA;
4. Can do so legally but is not especially interested in enabling folks he doesn't trust to run the comparisons.
5. Can do so legally and might even be inclined to do so, but isn't going to do it for the members here, many of whom he appears to hold in rather low esteem (and in fairness, the sentiment seems to be mutual in many cases judging from the exchanges here).

I don't know which is the truth. All I feel confident about is that he will strenuously deny that it's option 3, refuse to be 100% clear about whether or not option 1 is true, and continue to not release the requested content.

[mansr]

9 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

More seriously though, and back on topic, maybe that instead of engaging in pub psychology, @John_Atkinson could instead heed Chris' suggestion, and use his superior command of the English language to write a kind request to allow for the use of a snippet of that recording that he appears to purport holds evidence of the birth of a new world

Surely he a can secure permission to release a short sample, say a continent's worth.

[lucretius]

6 hours ago, Hugo9000 said:

You can't "lend" someone digital files.

 

Sending files once to one person is distribution.

 

My local library does it all the time.  😊

[crenca]

The trade publication machine - Stereophile, John Atkinson, TAS, and most of everybody else -  is never going to poop where they eat. 

 

They did their jobs already by promoting MQA, and they are doing their jobs now by blaming consumers for "negativity" and not doing anything to undo their original work.

 

All you guys act like John Atkinson is interested in the truth of MQA... 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

For the record this is what John Atkinson wrote about his files processed with MQA:

 

"The first of two recordings of mine I used for my comparisons and for which Bob Stuart had prepared MQA versions, this arrangement by Eriks Esenvalds opens and closes with solo soprano, set against a choral vocalise. I've always been happy with the sound of the original 24/88.2 WAV file, but with the MQA version, Genna McAllister's angelic vocal line stands a little more forward from the choral halo, which itself sounds a little farther back than I'm used to. Overall, there was simply less ambiguity in the spatial relationships between the singers and the surrounding acoustic with the MQA version."

 

"The scoring of this choral work by contemporary composer Eric Whitacre is complex and occasionally dense. But with the MQA version, the inner voices were better differentiated. And as with "Amazing Grace," the relationships of each of the singers to each other and the surrounding space seemed better defined. The reverberation tails in the warmly supportive acoustic of St. Stephen's Catholic Church, in Portland, Oregon, faded cleanly into the room tone in both cases, but at one place in the recording the MQA version just sounded more real: About two seconds before the singers start, there is a very quiet noise toward the back of the choir. It sounds somewhat like a generic tick on the original WAV file, more like a sound made by a human being in a real space in the MQA version."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-mqa

[Hugo9000]

The second paragraph reads like satire to me.  Perhaps he's been trolling everyone, and no one realizes it.  I can't decide if that would be very gratifying or very disappointing to have brilliant satire go completely unrecognized.

 

I hope he won't object to the use of two entire paragraphs in that quote, but at least a link was provided.  lol

[The Computer Audiophile]

51 minutes ago, crenca said:

The trade publication machine - Stereophile, John Atkinson, TAS, and most of everybody else -  is never going to poop where they eat. 

 

They did their jobs already by promoting MQA, and they are doing their jobs now by blaming consumers for "negativity" and not doing anything to undo their original work.

 

All you guys act like John Atkinson is interested in the truth of MQA... 

The coverup is always worse than the crime. 

[esldude]

16 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

For the record this is what John Atkinson wrote about his files processed with MQA:

 

"The first of two recordings of mine I used for my comparisons and for which Bob Stuart had prepared MQA versions, this arrangement by Eriks Esenvalds opens and closes with solo soprano, set against a choral vocalise. I've always been happy with the sound of the original 24/88.2 WAV file, but with the MQA version, Genna McAllister's angelic vocal line stands a little more forward from the choral halo, which itself sounds a little farther back than I'm used to. Overall, there was simply less ambiguity in the spatial relationships between the singers and the surrounding acoustic with the MQA version."

 

"The scoring of this choral work by contemporary composer Eric Whitacre is complex and occasionally dense. But with the MQA version, the inner voices were better differentiated. And as with "Amazing Grace," the relationships of each of the singers to each other and the surrounding space seemed better defined. The reverberation tails in the warmly supportive acoustic of St. Stephen's Catholic Church, in Portland, Oregon, faded cleanly into the room tone in both cases, but at one place in the recording the MQA version just sounded more real: About two seconds before the singers start, there is a very quiet noise toward the back of the choir. It sounds somewhat like a generic tick on the original WAV file, more like a sound made by a human being in a real space in the MQA version."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-mqa

I wonder what the 'tick' was?  Was it real?  Was it a recording artifact?  If it wasn't human, then sounding more human is not more accurate?

 

And since it so cleanly in JA's description sounds so much more real, surely he can get away with supplying us with 2-5 seconds of that recording to compare.  It isn't music, it isn't the musicians, it is just random sound live.  Maybe he can tell us the ethical reasons he can't let us have copies of this.  Or is is part of some NDA which means legal reasons.  So he has three options to reply. 

 

Ethical

Legal

Ignore (my guess)

Or supply the few seconds of ambiance.  

[Jud]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

My local library does it all the time.  😊

 

There's DRM that prevents you from keeping it longer than permitted.

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, esldude said:

I wonder what the 'tick' was?  Was it real?  Was it a recording artifact?  If it wasn't human, then sounding more human is not more accurate?

 

And since it so cleanly in JA's description sounds so much more real, surely he can get away with supplying us with 2-5 seconds of that recording to compare.  It isn't music, it isn't the musicians, it is just random sound live.  Maybe he can tell us the ethical reasons he can't let us have copies of this.  Or is is part of some NDA which means legal reasons.  So he has three options to reply. 

 

Ethical

Legal

Ignore (my guess)

Or supply the few seconds of ambiance.  

 

I feel like @John_Atkinson would rather show his tax returns than the MQA files. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

I think MQA "debarred:" the air molecules in the recording space, hence the more "there" that was there.😅

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

There's DRM that prevents you from keeping it longer than permitted.

 

There's no DRM on the CD's.

[esldude]

21 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

There's no DRM on the CD's.

Jud's an attorney and I'm not. 

 

You aren't legally able as far as I know allowed to copy a CD and turn it back into the library.   You aren't supposed to copy a CD and then sell the physical CD.  I'm sure both of those happen.  

[Jud]

44 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

There's no DRM on the CD's.

Physical CDs aren’t files in copyright law. (Whether that makes any sense or not.)

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

There's DRM that prevents you from keeping it longer than permitted.

 

There's also DRM removal tools.  But as long as the files are DRM'd when distributed, it's legal? 

[Jud]

10 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

There's also DRM removal tools.  But as long as the files are DRM'd when distributed, it's legal? 

 

It's legal as long as you comply with the terms of the license, whatever those are.

[firedog]

6 hours ago, Hugo9000 said:

The second paragraph reads like satire to me.  Perhaps he's been trolling everyone, and no one realizes it.  I can't decide if that would be very gratifying or very disappointing to have brilliant satire go completely unrecognized.

 

I hope he won't object to the use of two entire paragraphs in that quote, but at least a link was provided.  lol

Fair use, I think. 

The second paragraph sounds like a classic result of expectation bias. 

[FredericV]

Soundstage"s Doug Schneider has some amusing comments by the well known MQA shill, under his FLAC post of   September 17 at 4:02 PM . It seems there's only one guy left on the internet pathetically defending MQA:

https://www.facebook.com/douglas.schneider.378

Just scroll down to the big FLAC picture, and read the comments ....

Why would a consumer keep defending the format, mainly using corporate arguments, such as one file fits all uses , the bandwidth argument (both have already been debunked), the provenance argument, and the guarantee the file is not illegal and/or modified?

He is using all arguments someone would use to sell it to the labels.

It just does not compute ...
 

[shtf]

7 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

For the record this is what John Atkinson wrote about his files processed with MQA:

 

"The first of two recordings of mine I used for my comparisons and for which Bob Stuart had prepared MQA versions, this arrangement by Eriks Esenvalds opens and closes with solo soprano, set against a choral vocalise. I've always been happy with the sound of the original 24/88.2 WAV file, but with the MQA version, Genna McAllister's angelic vocal line stands a little more forward from the choral halo, which itself sounds a little farther back than I'm used to. Overall, there was simply less ambiguity in the spatial relationships between the singers and the surrounding acoustic with the MQA version."

 

"The scoring of this choral work by contemporary composer Eric Whitacre is complex and occasionally dense. But with the MQA version, the inner voices were better differentiated. And as with "Amazing Grace," the relationships of each of the singers to each other and the surrounding space seemed better defined. The reverberation tails in the warmly supportive acoustic of St. Stephen's Catholic Church, in Portland, Oregon, faded cleanly into the room tone in both cases, but at one place in the recording the MQA version just sounded more real: About two seconds before the singers start, there is a very quiet noise toward the back of the choir. It sounds somewhat like a generic tick on the original WAV file, more like a sound made by a human being in a real space in the MQA version."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-mqa

 

I find it disrespectful if not downright rude when somebody cuts'n pastes another's writings and intentionally selectively omits parts of the quoted text to further one's own narrative.  So I'd like to correct Mr. Slapowitz' error by reintroducing Mr. Atkinson's concluding remarks in its entirety.

 

"....     About two seconds before the singers start, there is a very quiet noise toward the back of the choir. It sounds somewhat like a generic tick on the original WAV file, more like a sound made by a human being in a real space in the MQA version."  It was hearing the transformation of this tick that I envisioned the universe spreading its legs anchored firmly in the stirrups and as I looked into the canal recessed between those long beautiful legs I realized I was experiencing the birth of a new world.

[mansr]

3 hours ago, shtf said:

I find it disrespectful if not downright rude when somebody cuts'n pastes another's writings and intentionally selectively omits parts of the quoted text to further one's own narrative.  So I'd like to correct Mr. Slapowitz' error by reintroducing Mr. Atkinson's concluding remarks in its entirety.

 

"....     About two seconds before the singers start, there is a very quiet noise toward the back of the choir. It sounds somewhat like a generic tick on the original WAV file, more like a sound made by a human being in a real space in the MQA version."  It was hearing the transformation of this tick that I envisioned the universe spreading its legs anchored firmly in the stirrups and as I looked into the canal recessed between those long beautiful legs I realized I was experiencing the birth of a new world.