MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

It doesn't sound better

But Bob says... He wouldn't lie to us, would he?

[mansr]

Any activity on their Facebook group?

[mansr]

11 minutes ago, Derek Hughes said:

why he got the reaction that he did

It was because you and your MQA buddies were hell-bent on ruining the presentation lest a nugget of truth get out. Had I been in charge, the lot of you would have been escorted from the room.

 

What is your affiliation with MQA anyway?

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, Derek Hughes said:

None.

Sure, and I have bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Shadders said:

The reason you are aware of the white stick is because you know it is there. For someone who is not really paying attention, it is very easily missed. People on this site are not that nasty.

Even if they were, it would not excuse Derek's rude behaviour, not least since it occurred before the allegedly insensitive comments were made.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Derek Hughes said:

I wasn't defending MQA, I was pointing out that Chris's presentation was biased.

Did you really have to do that in such a rude manner? The usual protocol is to leave questions until the end.

[mansr]

11 minutes ago, hvbias said:

Their demands that Archimago be identified otherwise his evidence is not valid was a complete joke as Chris repeatedly stated the data is reproducible and that no one had come forward to refute it. This went in one ear and out the other with those two.

They also ignored all the work done by me and other named individuals.

[mansr]

23 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

As little as I think of Scoggins, he was at least not rude. He lives in a fantasy land, and is a name dropping charlatan..but he was not rude.

He participated in the disruption effort. That was rude.

[mansr]

12 minutes ago, rickca said:

Whoever raised this issue said he wanted to know Archimago's identity because he might be developing something to compete with MQA.  In other words, he wants to discover an ulterior motive for Archimago's analysis.  This is laughable.  Who wants to compete with something pointless like MQA?

So what if he is working on a competing product? Address the claims or shut up.

[mansr]

39 minutes ago, BigAlMc said:

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.

I know a fair few people at Intel. Such behaviour would not be tolerated by any of them.

[mansr]

21 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

Archimago can speak for himself but there is someone starting to work on product that would be considered competition. I talked with them pretty extensively at RMAF.

Oh no, not another one.

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, crenca said:

I could have missed it but I have seen no "nastiness" towards her.  Yes she should step up in her role of director and give Chris the apology he deserves, and consumers the assurance that industry insiders will not be allowed to shout them down again.

What happened (probably) wasn't her fault, so in that sense she is not responsible. However, it happened at her event. As such, she should still apologise and make it clear that such behaviour is unacceptable. She should also instruct staff at future events to be vigilant and assist presenters who find themselves under attack.

 

It is of course possible that she is unaware of the events. Someone, preferably someone who was there, could send her a polite email with a link to the video.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

He "failed to control the narrative."  WTF kind of linguistic gobbledegook is that?  It's like Randospeak for "let's blame the victim."

He wasn't even wearing a miniskirt.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Shadders said:

If you examine the requirement that each manufacturer has to divulge their design etc., the implementation is quite restricted, so copying the decoded data is difficult.

On the contrary. Intercepting the decoded output from software like the Tidal app or Audirvana is trivial using off the shelf tools.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, rickca said:

I agree this is the only answer that makes sense.  All the other technobabble about the merits of MQA is just misdirection.

The labels have always wanted DRM. MQA offers a compelling solution in that it comes neatly encased in a Trojan horse without which consumers would reject it outright. That's really all there is to it.

[mansr]

12 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Not every one can do this,

Not everyone has to. It's enough that one person copies an album and posts it on the torrent sites.

 

12 minutes ago, Shadders said:

and if you have a DAC with MQA designed in - MQA are ensuring it is difficult to offer MQA decoded digital output.

That's still trivial for anyone with basic electronics skills. It only takes one.

[mansr]

7 hours ago, jabbr said:

Can you imagine two Webs launched in 1993 — one is the web as we know it based on the open HTML/HTTP protocols, TCP/IP etc and the other a closed proprietary protocol which required use of a special Sony screen but guaranteed that the type would be sharper? The second would be more dystopian than Handmaid’s Tale. 

Does anyone remember the (original) Microsoft Network (MSN)?

[mansr]

9 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Their customer is the label, producer, and artist.

8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Derek is a customer who likes MQA

So which label or production company does Derek work for?

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Fokus said:

You forgot 'artist'.

Are you suggesting that the table-banging was his attempt at performing a Steve Reich piece?

[mansr]

31 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...

If behaviour like that occurred at the conferences I frequent, there would be much sterner words forthcoming from the organisers. The perpetrators might even be kicked out of the event.

[mansr]

14 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

However, the author would not be able to hide behind an anonymous handle or a pseudonym.

Unless that pseudonym is Sam Tellig.

[mansr]

25 minutes ago, adamdea said:

incidentally can anyone (@Mansr?) tell me whether they have been able to reproduce archimago's findings with the hole in the spectrum for the bruno mars track?

It is trivially done with just about any MQA track. Here's a graph I posted on this site about a year ago:

 

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Sorry if I’m being thick but is that the same  phenomenon as the Bruno Mars track which looks as though someone has taken a bite out (around 22kHz?)

Yes, it's the same spectrum mirroring due to poor anti-imaging filters. In both cases, everything to the right of the notch is pure distortion.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

For example, "Your Velodyne review just lost the magazine $50,000 worth of advertising"

"Oh dear, I'd best be more careful with future reviews."

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Thanks both- am I right in thinking that in the case of the Beyoncé and Bruno Mars tracks they are just 44.1 recordings which are lazy upsampled by MQA to 24/96?

That is correct.