MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[Allan F]

18 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

"Please understand the pressure which customers are exerting on manufacturers: there are a lot of customers out there who will not purchase a new DAC if it does not support MQA"

 

...and who created this pressure? We KNOW who.

 

Sometimes NOT giving customers what they "want" is good business and serves the greater good.

 

Regardless of whether MQA is what it's creators claim or what its detractors assert, it is hard to imagine how losing sales because of lack of MQA compatibility can be good for a manufacturer's business.

[Allan F]

7 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

You just reassert that avoiding manufacturers who back regressive features in fear instead of focusing on making excellent products and progressive technologies are to be avoided.  I don't reward those who are lily livered and weak spined.

 

You are begging the question by starting with the assumption that any manufacturer that includes MQA compatibility does not focus on making excellent products that employ progressive technologies. A logical fallacy. I am sure that manufacturers trying to make a fair profit couldn't give a rat's ass about your opinion or whom you reward. BTW, I have absolutely no interest in buying or playing MQA altered music.

[Allan F]

15 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Tell that to Bryston, Schiit, Linn, Benchmark, Playback Designs, Audio Research, Sonore (who recently stopped supporting MQA if I an not mistaken) Exogal, and many more.

 

I would expect that those companies do not accept the claims of MQA and made a business decision that the cost of including MQA compatibility exceeded the potential financial loss of potential sales. A perfectly reasonable approach. However, individual manufacturers should be allowed to make such decisions based on their particular situations and view of the market and not be the subject of proselytizing boycotts for doing so.

[Allan F]

18 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

There is no way to spin it. My dollars, my choice who to spend it with, just as it is their choice who to take on as business partners.

 

There is nothing to spin. Of course you have the choice of which manufacturers you choose to support. It is your almost evangelical criticism of those who choose a different course that I find objectionable. But then, hyperbole has always been a hallmark of your posts.

[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.

[Allan F]

5 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Like I said above, the goal is really to get back to what the artist and producer wanted in the studio.

 

Nonsense! How can MQA possibly know what the artist and the producer wanted in the studio? The only evidence available of what they wanted is the original master recording. The fact that MQA alters the sound of the recording is evidence to the contrary. While people may prefer the sound of the MQA processed result, that doesn't make it what the artist and producer wanted.

[Allan F]

On 10/9/2018 at 4:54 PM, crenca said:

Ultimately the person responsible for the disrespectful treatment of Chris and the intentional disruption of his presentation is this person: Marjorie Baumert, show director

 

At the very least, she owes Chris an apology for the failure of the show to allow Chris to at least present...

 

Both ridiculous and unfair! Do you expect her to monitor and be responsible for the attendees of every seminar at RMAF, let alone every exhibit? Those responsible is obvious to anyone who watches the video.

[Allan F]

17 minutes ago, wgscott said:

If the tables were turned, would you want the conference organizers cutting off the microphones of MQA critics, Richard J Daily style (Chicago, 1968)?

 

Sorry for going off topic but, when a certain bloated blond bully who lives in a big white house goes off on one his rants, I often wish someone would cut off the microphones, Richard J. Daley style (Chicago, 1968).

[Allan F]

10 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

But they are not under her watch.  They are not employees of hers. They are conference participants... 

 

On a more practical matter, how in the world would she be expected to police every presentation?

 

More importantly, one doesn't need policing of presentations for attendees to know that rude, disruptive, unprofessional behaviour is unaccpetable.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, GeorgeFlush said:

 

A complete asshole is the one who insults others without a particular reason, not someone that is answering to trolls shitting on his work. There's a big difference between aggression and self defense.

 

Yes, there is a difference between aggression and self-defence. However, the concept of self-defence necessarily involves a reasonable response to the aggression. A response that exceeds those bounds negates the notion of self-defence and becomes aggression in itself.

[Allan F]

6 hours ago, rwdvis said:

 

I think Lucey acted the way he did out of frustration, understandably.  I’m sure he’s extremely busy and doesn’t have the kind of free time required to properly (and politely) address each and every criticism/troll.  Some trolls, on the other hand, seem to have an endless amount of free time, which always gives them the advantage.  Just something to think about the next time a similar situation comes up.

 

It has nothing to with free time. Lucey continually referred to the fact that he was a pro and knew better than the "nothings" who criticized the loudness of a number of his masterings. He certainly did not behave like a pro.

[Allan F]

5 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

..and it was utterly moronic to attack his work considering his strong anti MQA stance, which IS an expert opinion because he was given in studio demos.

 

Audiophiles have no discipline and are experts on everything. Note: This not directly meant for you, but is a general statement. 

 

It seems that the only standard you have in judging posters is whether or not they are pro or anti MQA, a rather narrow minded and self serving approach IMO. If Lucey was pro MQA, I have no doubt that you would attack him as mercilessly as you attack anyone else who expresses support for it.

[Allan F]

5 hours ago, Hifi Bob said:

That’s odd, since providing customers with what they want doesn’t require justification.

 

It does when people are criticizing you for providing your customers with the crap they want instead of producing better quality product for the the ultimate consumer.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

I wonder where he got the information that early provided samples to reviewers had cross-talk cancellation in them?  That would be a rigged comparison.

 

Not unlike the practice of using different playback volumes in comparative demos of snakeoil products. Given the claims and the facts, some might even be tempted to include MQA in that category.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

P.S. I asked about the hardware license fees and they are generally very low and depend on volume of product.

 

A completely meaningless statement that, without specifics, offers absolutely no information about what the fees actually are.

[Allan F]

14 minutes ago, jabbr said:

You are here as an individual. We aren't anonymous.

 

FWIW, the majority of posters are 'anonymous' by virtue of posting under pseudonyms. While you understandably might not like his reply, John's use of the term was merely reflecting a general fact.

[Allan F]

16 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Hardly a general fact here on the internet where identifiers are called URIs. URIs are the names on the internet. Your traditional name means nothing to me because we don't interact in person. There's actually a whole technology around this ... you need to understand how this all works to understand what I'm talking about, but trust me a URI is far more important on the web than your traditional given and surname.

 

Here, read this: http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/

 

I'll partially deanonymise myself by telling you that I've been called part of the "RDF Cabal" ???

 

I know perfectly well what URL's are and I also know, as do you, that a URL doesn't identify a person. It would appear that your use of the term 'anonymous' differs from the commonly accepted meaning.

 

I would speculate that you have been called a lot worse.

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

A URI certainly might identify a person. I used the term "URI" instead of "URL" for precisely this reason.

 

"Might" is the operative word. So "might" an IP address. But it might just as well not do so.

 

Quote

Your understanding of the term "anonymous" may indeed be different from those people who have designed and who use the Web.

More generally "anonymous" means "without name"

Your use of  "pseudonym" is appropriate,  in which case...

 

I use terms according to their generally accepted meaning rather than their esoteric usage. But thank you for you generous, albeit unnecessary, concession. I am quite certain that nobody else had any doubt about what I meant in my reply concerning @John_Atkinson's use of the term. OTOH, some people apparently can't resist being pedantic.

[Allan F]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

I know all this technical jargon can get confusing.

 

Sorry to hear that you are confused, but stay the course and you will probably get over it.

[Allan F]

On 10/22/2018 at 9:30 PM, Lee Scoggins said:

If you talk to label people, they realize that they need to pay the artist more and they feel they have to solve that problem.  They realize this is a huge problem that is not healthy for the industry.

 

Oh yes, the label people are really concerned about the huge problem of not paying artists enough! Because of its importance, they are urgently seeking the advice of Thomas Edison and Emile Berliner about how to solve it.

[Allan F]

14 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I really don't see this.  If DRM was a primary factor, they would want to see it in use but we have not a single documented case of DRM being used in an MQA file after even thousands of tracks being released in MQA.

 

Many of the labels carry heavy debt loads.  As a result they are focused on revenue growth.  MQA is a way to sell premium pricing in exchange for better quality sound.

 

Right. We've never seen the record labels show any interest in copy protection or anything like that...oh wait a minute!