MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[Kyhl]

15 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

"police" is not the right word.  She IS the organizer, she sets the tone.  She could "police" this particular instance by saying:

 

"As show organizer the treatment of Chris is not acceptable.  While RMAF does not take a particular position on MQA, we do offer a setting and forum where all sides are presented, and where everyone is treated with respect.  Disruptive behavior for any reason by anyone is not what we are about here at RMAF.  I wish to apologize to Chris.  In the future, we will ask all participants, presenters, and audience members to conduct themselves in a respectful manner..." etc. etc.

 

She of course can not force anyone to do anything really, but she sets the tone...

 

That is too personal.  A simplified version without pointing fingers at a particular event while still letting the bullies know they are on notice.  They know what they did because it was planned to bring a show to the presentation.  They accomplished their goal.

 

Everyone should separate the product from the personalities.  I think that @John_Atkinson should use his position to condemn this behavior instead of blaming someone for lacking skills in presenting.  That was a bit cowardly.

 

[Kyhl]

On 10/20/2018 at 6:48 AM, John_Atkinson said:

 

Sorry, but no. The MQA versions were provided under the condition that I would not share them without permission. The originals you can purchase, of course. But as Chris Connaker appears to have the same files, perhaps he would be amenable to your request.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

Who is the rights holder limiting the sharing of the files?  Have you asked for permission to share the files?

[Kyhl]

20 hours ago, TeflonScoundrel said:

I've been following this thread for a while and decided to post my thoughts, for whatever they're worth.

 

I was initially excited about MQA when I first read about it.  Once Roon began supporting MQA I used Tidal to create a playlist of about 10 MQA songs & the matching 16/44.1 songs and a few weeks later compared them via my PS Audio DSJ using Wilson Sabrina speakers without knowing which file was which.  About half the time I couldn't hear a difference and had no preference.  With the exception of one track the rest of the time I preferred the 16.44.1 files.  The MQA files where I could hear a difference had rounded off or smoothed transients and a diffuse sound field.  

 

I then played the files for my audiophile brother without him knowing which song was which format and his results matched mine.  Based on that, all this talk of correcting issues with the original files, don't make any sense to me.  I don't think there are any problems to "correct" in normal CD quality or better files.

 

Based on my comparisons, I do think MQA is designed as a profit stream for MQA and the labels and doesn't benefit the consumer in any way.  After watching the behavior of the MQA team during the RMAF presentation, I cancelled my Tidal membership because I couldn't bring myself to support them as long as they support MQA.  I'm really looking forward to Qobuz becoming available in the United States.

Welcome. New here too.

Throw Stereophile in there as well.  I gave up my 15+ year long stereophile subscription a year ago because of their support of this bogus medium.  I suggest others do as well.

 

I won't touch Tidal.  Wouldn't it be funny if Qobuz matches or surpasses Tidals HiRes subscriber base within the first quarter of US operation.   I'm looking forward to see how that turns out.

[Kyhl]

10 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

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.

FWIW, my anonymous name here is the same name used at SH forums for the last 10 years.  Originally signed up there under a different name in 2002 however it was changed to this name 10 years ago.

 

It is also the same name used on a local fishing site, if anyone cares.

Also signed into a few other audio forums using the same anonymous name however I do not frequent other forums.

 

It is the same name used in Linked-In and Facebook because it is my first name.  It was also the name on my lapsed Stereophile subscription if JA wants to look.  It shouldn't be difficult to find me because there probably aren't many in the US with that spelling.

 

I am an anonymous nobody hiding behind my first name.

[Kyhl]

10 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I'm not saying the labels have no history in DRM interest.  I just think it's not a driving factor here.  I think it's about revenue and having more cash flow to pay off debt.  And probably also to drive the business more to the digital world.

You are too funny.  15 years ago I worked in the retail side of audio/video.  The company I worked for tried to drag the majors into the digital retail world.  The majors refused kicking and screaming.

 

Nearly two decades later you are trying to sell to us that the majors are trying to innovate to bring the customer into the digital world?  You have it backwards, as usual, because the consumer has been here all along.

[Kyhl]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

It's sort of a push/pull situation.  One key (pull) is for there to be consumers who want the full unfold quality.  The second key (push) is streaming services offering it.  Then it become ubiquitous and we see how many consumers want to get the higher quality tier.

 

Like I mentioned earlier: it has to offer value to everyone in the ecosystem for it to work: labels, streamers, consumers, and hardware makers.

 

As for cost to add MQA: that is not an issue as it's a small royalty far less than the additional tier revenue and then the some encoding done in the cloud.

I noticed that you left artists out of the benefactor list for this to be a success.