Mqa yet again at S-phile

[esldude]

 

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

 

So much insulting, wrong, self serving to MQA and more I don't even know where to start. Implied insults to members here. A utopian solution for keeping the crown jewels and give them away. And this closed controlled system is not about DRM. Jim Austin should be ashamed. If he were being paid as a shill he would be considered incompetent.

 

One thing is clear MQA intends to wrest control of music from people like CA members. And it's all good.

[MetalNuts]

It appears as expected.  All I can see is JA is telling what he was told or heard, some from BS and laid down an escape route which to me mean "I was told and I relay the information, don't blame me on the misrepresentation or wrong information!"

[new_media]

Article summary: MQA IS DRM and their real customers are the major labels. Audiophiles should bend over and take it for the "health" of the industry.

 

[One and a half]

So now instead of being offered MQA because of its technical superiority attractiveness is falling flat on it arse, we're being bullied into MQA and DRM to boot, cause that's  the best system we can up with. What a sad society to be dictated to by buffoons.

 

[Fokus]

Seriously, this is not a bad article.

 

Austin started asking important questions. Is that not what we wanted?

 

[MetalNuts]

Here is a quote from the article

 

"To fully grasp the extent of the problem, audiophiles need to look at the big picture. First, a healthy music industry is important. As Spencer Chrislu, MQA's director of content services, told me in an interview in 2016, "It's important . . . to protect the interests of studios. If a studio does their archive at 24-bit/192kHz and then uses that same file as something to sell on a hi-rez site, that is basically giving away the crown jewels upon which their entire business is based." The metaphor seems mostly apt, although crown jewels have the profound advantage of being physical objects; they can't be given away and still owned. Plus, jewels are harder to alter than a music file.

 

Another big-picture item: Audiophiles need to recognize that we're a small minority among music consumers. When have our interests and opinions influenced any high-level decision in the music industry?"

 

My understanding of what the article said is that the utmost importance is a healthy music industry and the audiophiles being minority of music consumers should submit their interest to the majority.  Without MQA (DRM), the music industry cannot control the give away of the crown jewel to the majority. 

 

[MetalNuts]

It is funny that if MQA is even better than the Masters as it claimed, who needs high rez file from the music studio and there is no more crown jewel they retain and protect.  The crown jewels have become MQA's.  Then why they believe that they are better off with MQA if MQA has no DRM.

[adamdea]

2 hours ago, Fokus said:

Seriously, this is not a bad article.

 

Austin started asking important questions. Is that not what we wanted?

 

Yes I agree.

I am inclined to the view that the penny has dropped at Stereophile that it might need to address the interests of consumers as well as manufacturers and that the range of consumer opinion is somewhat broader than has been represented in recent years. 

[adamdea]

That said I am rather disappointed that JA is able to say that the original master is the crown jewels and that the MQA sounds better without any apparent unease at how both of those statements could be true. I mean c'mon. If they are wanted to hold something back it can only be because  they are planning on selling it again and think there is either something "better" which can be sold. 

No new product no industry?  

[Mr Wensleydale]

So, the article implies that listening via a computer and listening via a “serious” home audio system are mutually exclusive.  What nonsense!

[esldude]

What about saying many computer audiophiles have unreasonably large music libraries much of it I'll gotten.  Implying these people created a problem that requires MQA to solve and save the music industry.

[mcgillroy]

MQA plz make music scarce again.

 

Yours truly, the music-industry.

[oneway23]

These fat middle managers at the labels need their cocaine lunches back, folks!

 

I'm pirating ten albums just this morning alone, in sheer defiance of this article.

[FredericV]

Quote

With MQA, record companies can supply consumers with versions of recorded music that sound at least as good as the best-quality master recordings in their archives—MQA claims that they sound better—without sharing actual digital masters.

This is BS. The minimum phase filters which MQA is using with one cycle of postringing alter the sound: soundstage, depth, width are all affected. This is not the master. Not the quality. Not authenticated.

 

Quote

Even MQA's notion of "analog to analog"—microphone feed to DAC output—can seem old-fashioned in assuming that music starts its life as analog in an increasingly digital world.
 

 

 

More BS, there is no analog to analog:

[psjug]

5 hours ago, Fokus said:

Seriously, this is not a bad article.

 

Austin started asking important questions. Is that not what we wanted?

 

I only skimmed it but I think I agree.  Seems even-handed enough, much better than the previous ones.  Even though I can't relate to his longing to go back in time.  We can still play vinyl if we feel nostalgic.

[Spacehound]

6 minutes ago, FredericV said:

This is BS. The minimum phase filters which MQA is using with one cycle of postringing alter the sound: soundstage, depth, width are all affected. This is not the master. Not the quality. Not authenticated.

 

 

More BS, there is no analog to analog:

Stereophile  simply don't reply to anything 'technical' about  MQA.

[Spacehound]

7 minutes ago, psjug said:

I only skimmed it but I think I agree.  Seems even-handed enough, much better than the previous ones.  Even though I can't relate to his longing to go back in time.  We can still play vinyl if we feel nostalgic.

Even handed? The customers, who pay for everything,  don't get a mention except how wonderful we will all  find it to be.

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, Spacehound said:

Stereophile  simply don't reply to anything 'technical' about  MQA.

 

They only reply when it supports their preconceived notion that MQA is the next best thing to sliced bread.

 

After reading this forum and others, I have concluded, in my limited fashion, that MQA is only good for Stuart and the labels. It seems they do not care for the artists that make the music.

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, psjug said:

I only skimmed it but I think I agree.  Seems even-handed enough, much better than the previous ones.

Backhanded or underhanded would be better words to describe it.

[Spacehound]

36 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

They only reply when it supports their preconceived notion that MQA is the next best thing to sliced bread.

 

After reading this forum and others, I have concluded, in my limited fashion, that MQA is only good for Stuart and the labels. It seems they do not care for the artists that make the music.

Quite

[Spacehound]

37 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

They only reply when it supports their preconceived notion that MQA is the next best thing to sliced bread.

 

After reading this forum and others, I have concluded, in my limited fashion, that MQA is only good for Stuart and the labels. It seems they do not care for the artists that make the music.

Nobody cares about thr artists, and 90% of them don't deserve to be cared about. The only ones I 'know' play in local pubs, enjoy it, as do the customers, and they get paid a little, travel expenses, and beer

 

That is what music is about, other than orchestras, whose members sink or swim on the success  of the company who employs them, same as we do.

As for 'famous' musicians today they are near 100% manufactured by the labels, like sausages. Those that aren't deserve, and receive, the large sums they get. as they entertain lots of people who pay to see them.

[Indydan]

6 hours ago, MetalNuts said:

Here is a quote from the article

 

"To fully grasp the extent of the problem, audiophiles need to look at the big picture. First, a healthy music industry is important. As Spencer Chrislu, MQA's director of content services, told me in an interview in 2016, "It's important . . . to protect the interests of studios. If a studio does their archive at 24-bit/192kHz and then uses that same file as something to sell on a hi-rez site, that is basically giving away the crown jewels upon which their entire business is based." The metaphor seems mostly apt, although crown jewels have the profound advantage of being physical objects; they can't be given away and still owned. Plus, jewels are harder to alter than a music file.

 

 

 

Unbelievable! Austin (quoting Spencer Chrislu from MQA inc.) admits MQA exists to help the studios. They keep their hi res 24-192 masters, and only sell consumers watered down crap versions.

 

Imagine if movie studios filmed movies and TV series in 4K, then only offered for sale or rent, 480i standard definition transfers upconverted to HD or 4K. Consumers would be livid! 

 

If movie studios can sell or rent their movies and TV series in full quality, music studios can sell their products in full quality as well. This is sleezy corporate protectionism from the studios and Bob Stuart. 

 

The day the music died part 2, starring Bob Stuart. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

Note how the tone of the marketing by MQA surrogates (Stereophile in this case) has shifted.  Gone are the grandiose descriptors of this technological breakthrough and exquisite sound quality.  Now, it's more like, "we have to take whatever the record labels give us and like it":

 

Quote

And yet—MQA is a locked-up, proprietary technology in a world that, influenced by information technology, has come to expect open sources and standards. And that locked-up technology is aimed, apparently, at restoring an old-fashioned, label-dominated musical economy—which is surely why the three major record companies are all now stockholders.

 

That's downright dour compared to Stereophile's gushing keystrokes to date. 

[Spacehound]

23 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

Unbelievable! Austin (quoting Spencer Chrislu from MQA inc.) admits MQA exists to help the studios. They keep their hi res 24-192 masters, and only sell consumers watered down crap versions.

 

Imagine if movie studios filmed movies and TV series in 4K, then only offered for sale or rent, 480i standard definition transfers upconverted to HD or 4K. Consumers would be livid! 

 

If movie studios can sell or rent their movies and TV series in full quality, music studios can sell their products in full quality as well. This is sleezy corporate protectionism from the studios and Bob Stuart. 

 

The day the music died part 2, starring Bob Stuart. 

Can I put the "If movie studios..."  part in the Stereophile comments?

[mansr]

27 minutes ago, Indydan said:

If movie studios can sell or rent their movies and TV series in full quality, music studios can sell their products in full quality as well.

Good luck finding video content without multiple layers of DRM.