MQA and the Sponsor Wars

[The Computer Audiophile]

30 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

My bad, didn't know it was pirated, please take down that link immediately. thanks Chris 

 

 

Ignorant or liar?

 

I must say, if you thought the MQA version of Beyonce's album was available for free download or even an unfolded 24/96 download that didn't require an MQA decoder, you have much to learn. Or, you just tried covering your tracks by pretending not to know it was a pirate site. 

[Fair Hedon]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Ignorant or liar?

 

I must say, if you thought the MQA version of Beyonce's album was available for free download or even an unfolded 24/96 download that didn't require an MQA decoder, you have much to learn. Or, you just tried covering your tracks by pretending not to know it was a pirate site. 

..Give 'em enough rope....

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, Fyper said:

Sorry to come back to that so late in the discussion.

And yes it's been said many times but still.

There is a misunderstanding there. The target for MQA is not the people, but the Majors. If they have the majors they will have everything upstream (studios, artists) and downstream (streaming companies, hardware manufacturers). This is where they will make their money and control the market.

What their comm. and their agents may tell the people is just to get us prepared to what may come, and accept it, better: embrace it. That kind of approach has been used countless times.

Again, it has nothing to do with how it sounds, or whether we like it or not. It is rather simple: in the future, if there remains alternatives to proprietary MQA on the market for streaming and downloading DRM free uncompressed music, both in Red book and in High Res (including DSD), then everyone will make their choices and I wish success to MQA.

I hope I’m wrong but that may not be how the MQA boys and the majors see it…

 

How soon people forget Intel’s Itanium CPU. Intel and HP wanted it and Microsoft stepped in and said no and the world went the way Microsoft wanted for 64 bit computing. Same with music formats. The parent company of the largest major label Vivendi SA (Universal) is anywhere from 19 to 30 times smaller than Amazon, Alphabet (Google) and Apple. The labels don’t have the power to dictate a format to these customers. And in the privately held Warner Music Group’s financials they say even Wal-Mart has market power over them.

As for streaming formats the price point is $10 a month. There is heavy resistance to even $15 a month for CD quality streaming. So I wish anybody luck in finding enough CD quality or higher subscribers to pay the bills.

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

No one knows the answer yet. Can anyone tell the difference between a spalding golf ball and a teitlist if they weren't labeled? If you were blind folded and you put on a pair of new gym shoes could you tell what brand they were? 
People buy Nikes because why? They can jump higher? Look at the INSANE marketing they do. 

Does the general public pay more for a Nike than a knockoff? A teitlist vs a no name? Can they REALLY tell the performance difference? Duh, the public will often pay more for brand differences than actual performance differences.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble on golf balls but I can always tell the difference in a Titleist Pro V1 and a Titleist Pro V1x. They sound different, feel different, their flight is different and they spin differently just to keep things simple. 

[Indydan]

1 hour ago, witchdoctor said:

Shadders we get your point, no one cares about SQ and no one will buy MQA, you don't have to keep posting the same claim. Thanks

 

[Fair Hedon]

40 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Ignorant or liar?

 

I must say, if you thought the MQA version of Beyonce's album was available for free download or even an unfolded 24/96 download that didn't require an MQA decoder, you have much to learn. Or, you just tried covering your tracks by pretending not to know it was a pirate site. 

..Can't the answer be both? Probably one of the most disingenuous and disruptive posters I have ever seen on any forum.

[Rt66indierock]

On 10/31/2017 at 10:15 AM, GUTB said:

Is the entire audiophile press also a part of the fake news shill astroturf campaign?

 

Well this a response to me from Steven Stone (Audiophile Review, The Absolute Sound) three months ago in his Listening to MQA at the Airshow Mastering article.

 

"Do you write for the Wall Street Journal? Your comments indicate an anti-MQA bias, which is not a good position for a journalist..."

 

Or look at it this way. I know of only two journalist's who have come out against MQA and there are how many audio journalists?

 

Draw you own conclusions.

[witchdoctor]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Sorry to burst your bubble on golf balls but I can always tell the difference in a Titleist Pro V1 and a Titleist Pro V1x. They sound different, feel different, their flight is different and they spin differently just to keep things simple. 

Fair enough   

I think you paid for quality and got quality. 

[Shadders]

56 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Well this a response to me from Steven Stone (Audiophile Review, The Absolute Sound) three months ago in his Listening to MQA at the Airshow Mastering article.

 

"Do you write for the Wall Street Journal? Your comments indicate an anti-MQA bias, which is not a good position for a journalist..."

 

Or look at it this way. I know of only two journalist's who have come out against MQA and there are how many audio journalists?

 

Draw you own conclusions.

Hi,

Is he indicating that Wall St is against MQA or is backing MQA ?.

If it is backing MQA, then this sounds like a threat that powerful people will do something to you unless the anti MQA statements stop.

Regards,

Shadders.

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

Or look at it this way. I know of only two journalist's who have come out against MQA and there are how many audio journalists?

 

I think "audio journalist" is an oxymoron.

[Ralf11]

Let me tell you how you market any product. Rule number one is you TARGET people who can be made to WANT the solution you are offering.

 

Vance Packard, The Hidden Persuaders 

[Rt66indierock]

3 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Is he indicating that Wall St is against MQA or is backing MQA ?.

If it is backing MQA, then this sounds like a threat that powerful people will do something to you unless the anti MQA statements stop.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

He is backing MQA and others at The Absolute Sound have been trying to find common ground between us. Steven and I have met and he forgot I'm not a journalist. The Wall Street Journal has nothing to do with MQA pro or con.

 

The problem for the people who support MQA is  I'm not in the audio industry. 

[mav52]

4 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

The phone you linked to is the + version that does VR.

They launched the phone at an AUDIO show, the IFA in Berlin. Read the press release:

 

https://www.xda-developers.com/lg-v30-specs-snapdragon-835-released/

 

4 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

The phone you linked to is the + version that does VR.

They launched the phone at an AUDIO show, the IFA in Berlin. Read the press release:

 

https://www.xda-developers.com/lg-v30-specs-snapdragon-835-released/

You need to read.  The 30 and 30+ both do MQA.  And for both phones on the manufacturer LG marketing info only shows MQA in the specs.  So like I noted MQA is not the driving factor behind the release of these cell phones.  So if LG is a "sponsor" for MQA they didn't highlight the feature in their main marketing.  xDA is not LG

[mav52]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Sorry to burst your bubble on golf balls but I can always tell the difference in a Titleist Pro V1 and a Titleist Pro V1x. They sound different, feel different, their flight is different and they spin differently just to keep things simple. 

You're not the only one and the reasons for difference is spot on 

[christopher3393]

On 10/24/2017 at 4:06 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is your one warning for being a jerk. Next time you're banned.

 

On 10/29/2017 at 10:37 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

@witchdoctor No more posts in this thread. Your doing your best to derail any MQA discussions that don't mind with your agenda. One more time and you're banned. 

 

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Amazing. This Witchdoctor just posted a link to a pirate site so people could illegally download an MQA version of Beyonce's album. Not sure who that helps, other than everyone who wants to see you banned from CA. I'm not banning you for this offense just yet, as that would be like getting Al Capone on tax evasion. I'lll keep giving you rope and in due time you'll get yourself banned.

 

Hi, Chris. Of course, it's your decision, but isn't this enough to warrant a conclusion to this episode?

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

 

 

Hi, Chris. Of course, it's your decision, but isn't this enough to warrant a conclusion to this episode?

Damn. I lost track of this nonsense. I'm finalizing part 1 of my Schiit reference system review, and have had my head elsewhere. 

 

bye bye @witchdoctor

[rando]

Quote

Hey ! Witch Doctor ! Give us the magic word
All right, you go ooo ooo ooo ahah ting tang
Walla walla, bang bang !
All right !

 

 

tee hee

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Now that the "noise" has gone I wonder if anyone not already exhausted on the topic, could clarify a few things (I understand if no-one can be bothered):

 

MQA introduces an artifact in some part of the audio frequency, or at least ultrasonics, correct?

 

Why are audio reviewers/ journalists reportedly getting behind it ? is it being claimed  that they are biased about what they hear or in some way in bed with MQA eg for advertising dollars?

 

Are the majors only in it to control piracy (digital rights etc....until hackers crack it) or will they somehow also $profit in other ways? In the first instance, it will cost the majors and manufacturers some sort of licensing fee, no?

 

The average performer won't give a rats about any small performance differences (better or worse), so what's in it for them or more to the point how has it been pitched to joe average, or doesn't it matter?

 

What is the likelihood  for market penetrance, that MQA will likely supplant other file formats, analogous to cd replacing vinyl?

 

If new music is released in MQA will it be at least playable on non MQA gear (obviously not)?

[kumakuma]

9 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Now that the "noise" has gone I wonder if anyone not already exhausted on the topic, could clarify a few things (I understand if no-one can be bothered):

 

MQA introduces an artifact in some part of the audio frequency, or at least ultrasonics, correct?

 

Why are audio reviewers/ journalists reportedly getting behind it ? is it being claimed  that they are biased about what they hear or in some way in bed with MQA eg for advertising dollars?

 

Are the majors only in it to control piracy (digital rights etc....until hackers crack it) or will they somehow also $profit in other ways? In the first instance, it will cost the majors and manufacturers some sort of licensing fee, no?

 

The average performer won't give a rats about any small performance differences (better or worse), so what's in it for them or more to the point how has it been pitched to joe average, or doesn't it matter?

 

What is the likelihood  for market penetrance, that MQA will likely supplant other file formats, analogous to cd replacing vinyl?

 

If new music is released in MQA will it be at least playable on non MQA gear?

 

 

 

And the baton is passed to the next troll...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

 

And the baton is passed to the next troll...

 

Totally incorrect @Kumakuma, I have only had time to sample a small snippet of the MQA threads and want to clarify impressions obtained from that limited sampling. How is that trolling?

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Totally incorrect @Kumakuma, I have only had time to sample a small snippet of the MQA threads and want to clarify impressions obtained from that limited sampling. How is that trolling?

 

I stand by my opinion. The fact that most of the questions you pose can only be answered subjectively indicates to me that the purpose of your post was simply to stir up the shit. 

[mansr]

14 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

MQA introduces an artifact in some part of the audio frequency, or at least ultrasonics, correct?

See here:

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I stand by my opinion. The fact that most of the questions you pose can only be answered subjectively indicates to me that the purpose of your post was simply to stir up the shit. 

Subjectivity does not equate to trolling. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

I stand by my opinion. The fact that most of the questions you pose can only be answered subjectively indicates to me that the purpose of your post was simply to stir up the shit. 

 

Wow, talk about cynical. Wow again, subjective opinions now equate with trolling in your mind. I do get that these are touchy subjects which is why I stated people may be exhausted by them. As I said I haven't been involved in the multiple MQA looooong threads. I apologized in advance about that, asking for contributions if anyone could be bothered. Well, thanks for yours, not!

[Samuel T Cogley]

30 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Now that the "noise" has gone I wonder if anyone not already exhausted on the topic, could clarify a few things (I understand if no-one can be bothered):

 

MQA introduces an artifact in some part of the audio frequency, or at least ultrasonics, correct?

 

Others can answer this better than I.

 

Quote

Why are audio reviewers/ journalists reportedly getting behind it ? is it being claimed  that they are biased about what they hear or in some way in bed with MQA eg for advertising dollars?

 

I think that high end audio is in decline and MQA is seen as a way to breathe life into a dying hobby.  Most of the "influencers" or reporters don't balance the "sounds great" part with "MQA gets paid at every step in the process", hence, there is perceived bias.

 

Quote

Are the majors only in it to control piracy (digital rights etc....until hackers crack it) or will they somehow also $profit in other ways? In the first instance, it will cost the majors and manufacturers some sort of licensing fee, no?

 

That's certainly how MQA is marketing it to the majors: "naked" hirez PCM is your crown jewels and you need to protect them.

 

Quote

 

The average performer won't give a rats about any small performance differences (better or worse), so what's in it for them or more to the point how has it been pitched to joe average, or doesn't it matter?

 

What is the likelihood  for market penetrance, that MQA will likely supplant other file formats, analogous to cd replacing vinyl?

 

 

I agree that "the average performer" doesn't care about MQA.  Regarding MQA supplanting other formats, let's hope not.

 

Quote

If new music is released in MQA will it be at least playable on non MQA gear (obviously not)?

 

 

Yes.  In a degraded mode, but yes, it will play.  For now, anyway.  In the future?  Maybe not.