MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[austinpop]

One of many things I admire about Chris @The Computer Audiophile is that he is not tribal. He tolerates and encourages diverse points of view on CA, and moderates with a very light touch.

 

WRT MQA, I firmly believe CA is not a tribe. If it were, I'd leave.

 

You don't have to be anti-MQA to be a member of CA. And just a reminder for the zealots - just because one isn't anti-MQA doesn't make one pro-MQA. There is room for nuance here on CA, despite the deplorable state of our political discourse in other spheres.

[tmtomh]

10 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

it is shill nest...most threads get deep sixed when the facts are pointed out...one thread seems to survive..about MQA CD..good number shill plants there. Oh Scoggins “article” thread too because he is protected there.

 

9 hours ago, hvbias said:

http://stereocentral.freeforums.net/

 

If you want to know the extent of what goes on at the SH forums. Warning it can be very vulgar (people can be quite bitter ?), I don't read it unless I posted in a thread that was nuked (ie the MQA thread) to see what happened.

 

hvbias, thanks for the stereocentral link! Ever since the original forums went down with a server flame-out last year, I'd been hoping they'd resurface. Looking forward to checking out the new version.

 

That said, the Hoffman forums and Hoffman himself have their issues as an online presence, but Scoggins is in no way protected there. He got his hat handed to him but good in the long MQA thread. Yes, the Gorts nuked the thread, temporarily, and they pruned some of the more vitriolic attacks and back-and forth. But they in no way, shape, or form, protected Scoggins as an industry figure, nor did they abet any shilling or pro-MQA PR. It's silly, paranoid - and most importantly, just unnecessary - to try to claim that they did.

[Account Closed]

2 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

 

WRT MQA, I firmly believe CA is not a tribe. If it were, I'd leave. 

 

You don't have to be anti-MQA to be a member of CA. And just a reminder for the zealots - just because one isn't anti-MQA doesn't make one pro-MQA. There is room for nuance here on CA, despite the deplorable state of our political discourse in other spheres.

I agree that CA is not yet tribal but it sure seems to be headed that way. The discourse here on MQA has become rude and sometimes even crude and very much tilted to the anti-MQA side. At least it seems that way to me. Personally I could care less about MQA one way or the other. I am old enough to have started with LPs and progressed to every tape format, then CDs, and now streaming. I have had every major lossless streaming service (and most of the others before lossless became available). I have done some beta testing for one. I am not some naive new to the hobby type. One thing that I think I can say with some certainty is that nothing said here about MQA will have any negative (or positive) effect on the future of MQA. Seriously, does anyone really think that what a relatively small number of posters on this or any other site say will sway the investors behind MQA? I doubt it. The real negative potential of all this is likely to be on those of us who make up this community.

[Derek Hughes]

2 hours ago, BigAlMc said:

 

From my perspective there is a difference between asking a few questions and systematically derailing a presentation.

 

I wasn't there but the MQA guys seem to think they entered a door labeled "MQA team debates Chris C". Chris on the other hand entered a door with "Chris C's  presentation".

 

You stated 20 years experience at Intel. I have never worked there but I don't imagine that derailing a presentation by arguing/heckling for the vast majority was encouraged or productive at Intel. I've worked in IT for years and a few constructive questions is one thing but presentation sabotage is quite another.

 

FWIW Derek I felt Chris made a slight misstep describing his presentation as neutral when it leaned slightly to anti-MQA.

 

That said I honestly believe he was genuine in trying to avoid an MQA Takedown or bigging up MQA. Hence let's look at MQA and their claims was (in my humble opinion) a genuine attempt to be fair.

 

The MQA executive team conspiring to shut the presentation down with corrections like "we haven't used that logo since 2016"  doesn't help. Its not DRM, trust us we haven't done it so far, likewise doesn't.

 

I'd genuinely appreciate knowing your background and stance here?

 

But that video played as the MQA team rudely derailing and sabotaging Chris's attempt to have a rational discussion about the pros and cons of MQA. Hence the defensive reaction.

 

I have an MQA download (from High Res Audio) that sounds amazing. I have some Tidal masters that are likewise. I have others that are meh at best.

 

I'd love for MQA to be an audiophile bonus. And I've kept an open mind to date. But that video plays as bullying and raises the question why do they feel compelled to do so.

 

Cheers,

Alan

OK, I hear you Alan. I was honestly trying to help, clearly I failed and have certainly paid for it here. I have the same opinions as you on MQA on Tidal so I guess there are a few out there. My background is primarily in IT although I retired in 2001 so mainly in mainframe and enterprise systems. I worked at Intel for over 20 years and anyone who worked there under Andy Grove will tell you that there were many heated meetings and seminars. There was a term used there called Constructive Confrontation, in fact, I taught the class. The main idea is to confront the problem or issue and not the person. That's what I was trying to do, confront the issue that Chris appeared, in MY OPINION to be biased in his presentation. The fact that I got frustrated is my problem although I do stand by my comments if not in the way they were delivered. Clearly folks here believe I was attacking Chris. I wasn't, I like and respect the guy, he has built an incredibly successful business and brand. 

[Jud]

- @The Computer Audiophile, I don't think the presentation went as badly as you think it did.  Yes, it was frequently interrupted, and you didn't have the discussion with your audience that you were planning to.  But it seems to me, having read the slides and watched the video, that what you wanted to get across did come through.  I watched this without paying attention to the sound and fury, but to the content, and here's what came through to me:

 

- No one has done anything to refute the point about added noise.  It doesn't take knowing someone's identity to check the frequency response of a piece of music.

 

- Most folks with a high end computer-based system in their homes have more than enough bandwidth not to need any more compression than FLAC, if that.  MQA's compression is solving a problem that no longer exists even now, let alone in the 5G near future.

 

- I am amazed anyone seriously wanted to make the argument that because MQA says there won't be any DRM, we should all just believe them and have done.  MQA also said they were lossless (oh, but that was way back in 2016, so in 2018 they're nothing but completely honest about future plans and will never change their minds about DRM or be bought out by someone who will change that policy, right?).

 

I have the added perspective of having spoken to you when you were excited about MQA.  So for me, the lesson of the presentation and the way you were treated is how a commercial enterprise can act to lose someone as a potential ally and customer.  To put it succinctly, if MQA had been as straight with you as the people cautioning you about it, I think your attitude today would be quite different.

 

 

[Derek Hughes]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I am surprised that a continuous video did not capture 90% of this.  What do you mean by that, Derek Hughes?

 

I also did not see the white cane...

Hardly any of the comments from the audience were caught on the mic. As an example, Lee Scoggins talked about DRM quite a bit, none of it comes thru on the video. I hear you on the white cane and as Chris said let's move on on that. 

[Derek Hughes]

3 hours ago, crenca said:

 

On the one hand, you have a very strong table-banging opinion, which happens to coincide with those who have $investment$ in MQA 

 

On the other hand, you admit you don't have the skills/knowledge to have an opinion one way or another.

 

I guess INTEL does not mean what it used to mean.  Don't worry, your a meme worthy representation of so much of what is wrong with Audiophiledom - lots of opinion, no actual knowledge.

 

Also, I saw where your table banging frightened your blind friend.  No wonder you are disgusted with yourself...

Thanks, you are certainly piling it on. 

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, Derek Hughes said:

Thanks, you are certainly piling it on. 

 

I think it's called Constructive Confrontation. ?

[Allan F]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

I think it's called Constructive Confrontation. ?

Very apt, and funny!

[Allan F]

16 minutes ago, bobflood said:

Seriously, does anyone really think that what a relatively small number of posters on this or any other site say will sway the investors behind MQA? I doubt it. The real negative potential of all this is likely to be on those of us who make up this community.

 

It is certainly unlikely to sway the investors behind MQA in any direct manner. But, if it negatively affects the adoption of MQA by potential consumers, it may have an effect on them nevertheless.

[tmtomh]

1 hour ago, look&listen said:

Easy to put blame on others.

Hard to look inside for maybe painful truths.

 

It's true. But I'm confident that with some time, effort, and reflection, you'll get there.

[Rt66indierock]

33 minutes ago, bobflood said:

I agree that CA is not yet tribal but it sure seems to be headed that way. The discourse here on MQA has become rude and sometimes even crude and very much tilted to the anti-MQA side. At least it seems that way to me. Personally I could care less about MQA one way or the other. I am old enough to have started with LPs and progressed to every tape format, then CDs, and now streaming. I have had every major lossless streaming service (and most of the others before lossless became available). I have done some beta testing for one. I am not some naive new to the hobby type. One thing that I think I can say with some certainty is that nothing said here about MQA will have any negative (or positive) effect on the future of MQA. Seriously, does anyone really think that what a relatively small number of posters on this or any other site say will sway the investors behind MQA? I doubt it. The real negative potential of all this is likely to be on those of us who make up this community.

 

It is having an impact based on my conversations with people employed by MQA Ltd.  Has it swayed the investors of MQA Ltd? They haven't put any money into the company since 2016. I'm interested in their new funding which is loans according to the 2017 financials but I'll watch and wait for information to be posted.

 

CA is bigger than you think and what John Atkinson calls the we oppose MQA fraternity is starting to approach the size of LAOCAS and there are more people who aren't members that oppose MQA.

 

 

[hvbias]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

 

 

hvbias, thanks for the stereocentral link! Ever since the original forums went down with a server flame-out last year, I'd been hoping they'd resurface. Looking forward to checking out the new version.

 

That said, the Hoffman forums and Hoffman himself have their issues as an online presence, but Scoggins is in no way protected there. He got his hat handed to him but good in the long MQA thread. Yes, the Gorts nuked the thread, temporarily, and they pruned some of the more vitriolic attacks and back-and forth. But they in no way, shape, or form, protected Scoggins as an industry figure, nor did they abet any shilling or pro-MQA PR. It's silly, paranoid - and most importantly, just unnecessary - to try to claim that they did.

 

The Rocky Mountain MQA thread has not resurfaced there, nor was it merged with the MQA CDs thread. I read all of that thread up until someone likened MQA to Instagram filters (I thought that was an apt and hilarious analogy) and there was nothing offensive posted up to that point, this thread has been way more harsh.

 

You should have quoted me in a separate post instead of including mine with the other, I don't know who Scoggins is and if he is or isn't protected there.

 

I think it should be obvious to anyone that has spent some time in the audio hardware section there (and why I no longer do outside of cursory glances at titles that catch my eye on the first page) that certain companies and insiders are afforded protection at a hindrance to the consumer.

[Lee Scoggins]

5 hours ago, Derek Hughes said:

To all

I've watched the video and all I can say is that unless you were there you got about 10% of the audience participation, ask Lee Scoggins and Rajiv. That's the fault of all of us, the moderator, me, the audience and the camera and mic folks.  Chris did his best in a very difficult situation and yes, with some hostile feedback from the audience including me (yes, I am the Brit in the blue T shirt) . For those of you mocking me, go ahead, for those of you mocking Edwin, the guy sitting next to me, you disgust me. It is obvious that he is blind, his white cane is in full view. By the way Brinkmanship I've added your clip to my profile, the grandkids love it.

 

At the end of the day the seminar was about the pros and cons of MQA, that's what Chris tried to present. In MY OPINION, that was not what his presentation was, it was biased against MQA, that is why he got the reaction that he did. Again in MY OPINION, he stated that it would be unbiased and it wasn't. I am in touch with Chris privately and I think we are good.

 

As to my position on MQA. I listen to MQA tracks on Tidal and  Red Book tracks on Tidal. I enjoy both and I love Tidal as a vehicle for me to listen to music I know and, to discover new music. Let  me give you an example, I wandered around RMAF with Shazam in hand. I got home and built a Tidal playlist of the Shazam tracks, it's great to listen to. Once Qobuz becomes available I'll sign up for it and then decide if I stay with one or go with both. I can not defend or support MQA technically, I don't have the necessary skills. At least one of you, maybe more, have said that they hope Tidal fails because of their support for MQA, I don't. Tidal and MQA will survive or fail based on customer demand and their finances. 

 

I have really enjoyed my time reading CA, I post very little but I have gotten a lot from it. I really enjoyed the bar time with Chris and other CA members at both Axpona and RMAF. Most of you are a good bunch and Chris has built a great brand and and is enjoying the success of his labors. I'm sure that it will continue. 

 

This is indeed true.  Admittedly the discussion got a bit contentious during the PPT presentation.  Perhaps some observations on what I saw as a member of the audience would be useful:

 

1. Chris' slide show was felt to be unfair by the MQA team.  Ken told me that they felt it ignored the emails and other materials they had sent over.

 

2.  I personally felt it was heavily slanted against MQA, such as the point on DRM.  So that is why I asked if there was even one instance of a file having DRM.  Chris was gracious and agreed with me on that point.  So I give Chris credit on that.

 

3.  Ken has an issue with Archimago being anonymous.  I am less bothered by this but I feel he has a good point.  Hiding behind a user ID is unnecessary and cowardly when good people are trying to have an honest debate.

 

4.  Mike Jbara is very impressive in person.  He provided very good answers to the business elements and forces at work.  I had never met Mike before but wound up having a discussion and he comes across are very experienced in the industry and genuinely trying to make a better music world. From my vantage point, Mike was answering the questions from a business strategy standpoint with some knowledge thrown in from his deep label experience.

 

5. The video completely misses the tone and interaction that the discussion ended on.  Almost all of the discussion was positive except for one strange but nice guy who went off into space talking about the metaphysical aspects of what we hear.  Mike and Ken were patient and actually talked for quite a while to anyone who had questions.  They even spent around 20 minutes talking to attendees for 15-20 minutes after the room has cleared.  Rt66 can attest to this.  

 

6.  I feel bad for Chris because I think his intentions were honorable and I did not enjoy seeing him get upset before he left..  He put together a decent slide show which captured most of the pros and cons.  I personally think it could have been far more objective (and presented at least some of the emails from Bob) but at least he tried and I especially liked the slides around the theme of it not being a life or death discussion.  But after the end of the discussion, Chris was clearly flustered as he left the room.  I don't see any evidence that the team from MQA had intended on that happening.  I know Ken definitely did not want that to happen.  Ken was pretty thoughtful in his points and I think they feel they put some time into educating Chris on some points and were clearly frustrated that some of that knowledge was conspicuously excluded from the PPT deck.  I wish Chris had stayed as the discussion was really positive and even-handed after the idiots doing the video stopped.  Chris, I respect what you have done here.  As Chris will tell you, I even tried to help him with the launch of Superphonica.

 

7.  Derek Hughes I had just met at RMAF.  I had seen him drinking with Chris at the bar Pint Brothers the night before but only got to introduce myself.  Since then, we have had some good discussion.  His pounding on the table was just for emphasis. It's not something I see a lot in the U.S. but I see it all the time in the UK so I think that's just a cultural thing.  At the end of the day, I think Derek is just a consumer who likes what he has heard with MQA.

 

8.  I'm not sure why Steve Hoffman is against MQA but he is a friend and I will ask.  I have had many mastering engineers tell me they are worried about the impact on their business though.

 

9.  I'm not "protected" at the Steve Hoffman forums.  I've been kicked off a couple of times for having opinions that go against the prevailing wisdom including one time I criticized an SACD series Steve was involved in.  But by and large I find Steve does excellent masterings and I keep buying his work.

 

By way of an update, we are getting close to selecting the final tracks of our recordings which will be sent to the MQA team to encode.  Spencer Chrislu will be doing this.  Then I will get the encoded file back and will be able to A/B them on both my DirectStream DAC and a Mytek Brooklyn+ on loan from Mehow.  I may also be able to secure a dCS product for a comparison.  So I will be in a pretty good position to share some subjective thoughts on my own recordings.  This has taken longer than anticipated because my recording partner had a stroke and has been recovering.  The good news is that he is doing much better.

[tmtomh]

@The Computer Audiophile, I'm sorry you had to deal with the tag-team bullying of the MQA execs and other industry folks who ganged up on you (I'm not lumping @Derek Hughes in with that group - a person can honestly participate in something like that without meaning to be uncivil, and I take Derek at his word on that).

 

Chris, for what it's worth, anyone in your position would feel badly in the immediate aftermath of that experience. In a normal, proper situation, even vigorous disagreement and high drama during Q&A are based on a foundation of civility and mutual respect - a baseline, implicit agreement among the parties that everyone involved is a legitimate player in the field and has at least some area of experience and authority from which they can speak.

 

Unfortunately in this case, those guys did not afford you that baseline level of civility and respect. They attacked your credibility and your right to even be a presenter, and they acted out this disrespect not only in the content of their attacks, but more fundamentally in the very pattern of their behavior, by interrupting and derailing instead of sitting through the presentation and then going after you. 

 

We're all adults and we can and should take our lumps. And audiophilia is not necessarily known for politeness. But in my view this went beyond that - you were basically abused, and it was a traumatic experience. Very low on the trauma scale in the scheme of things of course - but even being in a totally minor fender-bender with no injuries can still leave one a bit shaken and questioning what they could have done differently even if they were not at fault.

 

So I hope the bad feeling already is starting to pass and that you're feeling more centered again - and I hope you are not being too hard on yourself. You might indeed have room for tweaking or improvement in your presentation or approach, but that is not why they attacked you like they did - nothing in your presentation justified or actually provoked their action. They and they alone are responsible for that.

[wgscott]

5 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

His pounding on the table was just for emphasis. It's not something I see a lot in the U.S. but I see it all the time in the UK so I think that's just a cultural thing.  

 

I don't have the expertise to address your other points, but this one is absolute undiluted load of codswallop.

[tmtomh]

19 minutes ago, hvbias said:

 

The Rocky Mountain MQA thread has not resurfaced there, nor was it merged with the MQA CDs thread. I read all of that thread up until someone likened MQA to Instagram filters (I thought that was an apt and hilarious analogy) and there was nothing offensive posted up to that point, this thread has been way more harsh.

 

You should have quoted me in a separate post instead of including mine with the other, I don't know who Scoggins is and if he is or isn't protected there.

 

I think it should be obvious to anyone that has spent some time in the audio hardware section there (and why I no longer do outside of cursory glances at titles that catch my eye on the first page) that certain companies and insiders are afforded protection at a hindrance to the consumer.

 

@hvbias, thanks for your reply. I quoted you and Brinkman together so I wouldn't be posting two separate comments in a row myself. But I see your point - sorry about that, won't happen again (and I wojuldn't want to be quoted in the same boat as Brinkman either ? ). 

 

I'm on the Hoffman forums a lot, but I don't spend much time in the hardware section, and I do know that Hoffman does a lot of shilling there, getting "loaned" lots of super-expensive equipment that he then posts glowing, and completely unscientific, raves about. My main point in quoting you was to say Thanks for the Stereocentral link. 

[Lee Scoggins]

Just now, tmtomh said:

@The Computer Audiophile, I'm sorry you had to deal with the tag-team bullying of the MQA execs and other industry folks who ganged up on you (I'm not lumping @Derek Hughes in with that group - a person can honestly participate in something like that without meaning to be uncivil, and I take Derek on his word at that).

 

Chris, for what it's worth, anyone in your position would feel badly in the immediate aftermath of that experience. In a normal, proper situation, even vigorous disagreement and high drama during Q&A are based on a foundation of civility and mutual respect - a baseline, implicit agreement among the parties that everyone involved is a legitimate player in the field and has at least some area of experience and authority from which they can speak.

 

Unfortunately in this case, those guys did not afford you that baseline level of civility and respect. They attacked your credibility and your right to even be a presenter, and they acted out this disrespect not only in the content of their attacks, but more fundamentally in the very pattern of their behavior, by interrupting and derailing instead of sitting through the presentation and then going after you. 

 

We're all adults and we can and should take our lumps. And audiophilia is not necessarily known for politeness. But in my view this went beyond that - you were basically abused, and it was a traumatic experience. Very low on the trauma scale in the scheme of things of course - but even being in a totally minor fender-bender with no injuries can still leave one a bit shaken and questioning what they could have done differently even if they were not at fault.

 

So I hope the bad feeling already is starting to pass and that you're feeling more centered again - and I hope you are not being too hard on yourself. You might indeed have room for tweaking or improvement in your presentation or approach, but that is not why they attaked you like they did - nothing in your presentation justified or actually provoked their action. They and they alone are responsible for that.

 

Sorry but that is not a correct characterization of the actual event.  Perhaps we could have had fewer interruptions but the discussion was served well by addressing the points as the slides were presented.  And the MQA guys and Derek and I were generally civil.

 

My biggest empathy for Chris is that I am sad he missed the discussion after he left.  It was full of good information from Mike and Ken.  And best of all, the ending tone was very positive.  

 

So Chris can feel really good about the fact that many in the audience left understanding both sides of the MQA question.  I just wish he had seen it for himself.

 

And Chris, sorry if I did anything that led to you to leave so early.

 

Chris is a good guy.  Mike is a good guy.  Ken is a good guy.  

 

My guess is that most of the more thoughtful members here would have more respect for what Stuart is trying to do if they sat down for a polite discussion with either Ken or Mike.

[Lee Scoggins]

3 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

I don't have the expertise to address your other points, but this one is absolute undiluted load of codswallop.

 

Really?  I have seen this many times in London.  Perhaps I am visiting the wrong bars. 

[Brinkman Ship]

3 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Sorry but that is not a correct characterization of the actual event.  Perhaps we could have had fewer interruptions but the discussion was served well by addressing the points as the slides were presented.  And the MQA guys and Derek and I were generally civil.

 

My biggest empathy for Chris is that I am sad he missed the discussion after he left.  It was full of good information from Mike and Ken.  And best of all, the ending tone was very positive.  

 

So Chris can feel really good about the fact that many in the audience left understanding both sides of the MQA question.  I just wish he had seen it for himself.

 

And Chris, sorry if I did anything that led to you to leave so early.

 

Chris is a good guy.  Mike is a good guy.  Ken is a good guy.  

 

My guess is that most of the more thoughtful members here would have more respect for what Stuart is trying to do if they sat down for a polite discussion with either Ken or Mike.

"Mike" and "Ken" are "good guys? What a load of utter tripe,. They are gangsters. Shocking that you even appear here shamelessly.

[opus101]

Now that you're back @Lee Scogginshow's the research going into the questions you were going to get back to us on?

[Brinkman Ship]

18 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

This is indeed true.  Admittedly the discussion got a bit contentious during the PPT presentation.  Perhaps some observations on what I saw as a member of the audience would be useful:

 

1. Chris' slide show was felt to be unfair by the MQA team.  Ken told me that they felt it ignored the emails and other materials they had sent over.

 

2.  I personally felt it was heavily slanted against MQA, such as the point on DRM.  So that is why I asked if there was even one instance of a file having DRM.  Chris was gracious and agreed with me on that point.  So I give Chris credit on that.

 

3.  Ken has an issue with Archimago being anonymous.  I am less bothered by this but I feel he has a good point.  Hiding behind a user ID is unnecessary and cowardly when good people are trying to have an honest debate.

 

4.  Mike Jbara is very impressive in person.  He provided very good answers to the business elements and forces at work.  I had never met Mike before but wound up having a discussion and he comes across are very experienced in the industry and genuinely trying to make a better music world. From my vantage point, Mike was answering the questions from a business strategy standpoint with some knowledge thrown in from his deep label experience.

 

5. The video completely misses the tone and interaction that the discussion ended on.  Almost all of the discussion was positive except for one strange but nice guy who went off into space talking about the metaphysical aspects of what we hear.  Mike and Ken were patient and actually talked for quite a while to anyone who had questions.  They even spent around 20 minutes talking to attendees for 15-20 minutes after the room has cleared.  Rt66 can attest to this.  

 

6.  I feel bad for Chris because I think his intentions were honorable and I did not enjoy seeing him get upset before he left..  He put together a decent slide show which captured most of the pros and cons.  I personally think it could have been far more objective (and presented at least some of the emails from Bob) but at least he tried and I especially liked the slides around the theme of it not being a life or death discussion.  But after the end of the discussion, Chris was clearly flustered as he left the room.  I don't see any evidence that the team from MQA had intended on that happening.  I know Ken definitely did not want that to happen.  Ken was pretty thoughtful in his points and I think they feel they put some time into educating Chris on some points and were clearly frustrated that some of that knowledge was conspicuously excluded from the PPT deck.  I wish Chris had stayed as the discussion was really positive and even-handed after the idiots doing the video stopped.  Chris, I respect what you have done here.  As Chris will tell you, I even tried to help him with the launch of Superphonica.

 

7.  Derek Hughes I had just met at RMAF.  I had seen him drinking with Chris at the bar Pint Brothers the night before but only got to introduce myself.  Since then, we have had some good discussion.  His pounding on the table was just for emphasis. It's not something I see a lot in the U.S. but I see it all the time in the UK so I think that's just a cultural thing.  At the end of the day, I think Derek is just a consumer who likes what he has heard with MQA.

 

8.  I'm not sure why Steve Hoffman is against MQA but he is a friend and I will ask.  I have had many mastering engineers tell me they are worried about the impact on their business though.

 

9.  I'm not "protected" at the Steve Hoffman forums.  I've been kicked off a couple of times for having opinions that go against the prevailing wisdom including one time I criticized an SACD series Steve was involved in.  But by and large I find Steve does excellent masterings and I keep buying his work.

 

By way of an update, we are getting close to selecting the final tracks of our recordings which will be sent to the MQA team to encode.  Spencer Chrislu will be doing this.  Then I will get the encoded file back and will be able to A/B them on both my DirectStream DAC and a Mytek Brooklyn+ on loan from Mehow.  I may also be able to secure a dCS product for a comparison.  So I will be in a pretty good position to share some subjective thoughts on my own recordings.  This has taken longer than anticipated because my recording partner had a stroke and has been recovering.  The good news is that he is doing much better.

It seems you are "Friends" with everybody..are real social butterfly on first name terms with just about everyone.

 

Your post above is the biggest load of fermenting vomit yet encountered here.

 

You are so divorced from reality it is shocking.

[jabbr]

10 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

3.  Ken has an issue with Archimago being anonymous.  I am less bothered by this but I feel he has a good point.  Hiding behind a user ID is unnecessary and cowardly when good people are trying to have an honest debate.

 

 

There is no excuse for the rudeness seen in the video. @The Computer Audiophile couldn't get through his presentation without being verbally assaulted.

 

People have good reasons for using nicknames rather than their own names including instances where people have contacted employers etc. ( @wgscott can attest ). @Archimago has a website and that is a real name on the internet. Get with 2018. He isn't anonymous. 

 

Chris stated many times, that @Archimago's online publication stands on its own, and it does.

 

The behavior of the rabid pack of MQA advocates was not a good look for the technology. I watched the presentation and that's my opinion. If all you can say is that he's a coward despite the bullying is pretty pathetic. That's my opinion. As a consumer I get to vote with my credit card and do.

[tmtomh]

21 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Sorry but that is not a correct characterization of the actual event.  

 

Based on the video, it's an absolutely correct characterization of the behavior that resulted in the event - Chris' presentation - summarily ending, and the "good discussion" taking place outside the context of the presentation for which that time slot was scheduled, and for which Chris was the duly selected presenter by the folks at RMAF.

 

The fact that you feel good about the discussion that took place after Chris was bullied out of the room, doesn't have one whit to do with the point I was making about the fundamental level of disrespect and refusal to grant baseline professional status to Chris, which was manifested in the derailing of this presentation. I have been in academia for 25 years: I have seen interjections from the floor at conference presentations; I have seen outrageous and super-polemical things said during Q&A. I am familiar with drama and fighting and all kinds of disagreement, both legitimate and not.  The choice these "good guys" made not to listen to the presentation and go after him then, speaks volumes.

 

@Lee Scoggins, if you were treated the way Chris was at that presentation, there's no way in the world you would have the take on it that you are proposing here.

[crenca]

DRM is as DRM does.  MQA is not only the "freemium" model of it, it is a good example.

 

Neither audiophile trade publication writers, nor MQA executives, nor Chris get to define what it is...