MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The more I think about this the more I believe the biggest thing MQA is afraid of is the general public learning about the DRM aspects of MQA. If the general public hear’s DRM again wrt audio they will revolt and give the labels a flashback to the Napster days. When the mainstream press writes about DRM getting back into audio, I’m willing to bet the labels will flinch. 

 

In addition, which streaming service wants to be associated with DRM? 

 

Perhaps it’s time to take the gloves off, get real and write some brutally honest articles and contact my friends at the NY Times (who’ve interviewed me in the past). People are always looking for a good story. 

 

Anyone else interested in getting the word out?

 

 

 

A handful of us have been saying this from the beginning, that MQA begins and ends with DRM.

 

Robert Harley said this way back, and so did JA, though they speak out of both sides of their mouth because at the end of the day they support the DRM of audio because they are anti-consumer in ways they don't even understand.  

 

I am all for taking the gloves off, but between you, me, and the lightpost - I am not convinced you have it in you Chris.  You have been "in the middle" and seeking understanding, and dialogue when those things have been besides the point and almost the entire industry (certainly the marketing/publication review part of it) has been signaling to you, very loudly and in a myriad of different ways, that they are not interested understanding - only selling MQA.

 

That said I look forward to a front page "brutally honest" campaign against MQA, but even more importantly what lies behind MQA - an "industry" and "hobby" that is so full of voodoo they don't even know what is real and what is not, including (especially) audiophiles themselves!

[crenca]

2 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

For the record, I have no connection with MQA other than reporting on it. They are not my "folks." Please put your conspiracy theories back in your pocket.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

Your denial does not withstand scrutiny.  Your in over your head when it comes to the inside baseball, industry first and anti-consumer perspective.  One opinion piece where you acknowledge a single anti-consumer aspect of MQA when otherwise praising it does not count.  Look up the etymology of "con-spiracy", co-spirit or "with the spirit of".  Everything you do is in the spirit of putting industry needs and desires (in this case MQA) first, second, and third...

[crenca]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

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

 

This was strategy that just about everyone tried for a short time (AOL, etc.).  There is no understanding of the facts or implications in Adiophiledom around format lock-in for whatever reason, but there is in the wider consumer electronic space however...

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Shadorne said:

 

+1 I don’t understand how JA’s comment could be misconstrued as an attack on Chris and in favour of MQA. As usual JA was thoughtful and correct to point out that the attack on the kindly event organizer (no doubt a volunteer) was way out of line. I think JA was correct that if Chris had wanted to, he could have shut down the disruptions - contrary to JA I believe that Chris’ tactic (whether mindful or not) worked beautifully in exposing MQA insiders for everyone to see; what kind of people they are and how substantive technically MQA product/service is.

 

 

I missed this, where was she "attacked" or otherwise disrespected?

[crenca]

25 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Scroggins is right about one thing:  the consumer of this product is not the end-listener.  They are selling it to the music industry.  If the end-listener takes no notice or does not care, that is an ideal outcome. Then it can be used for DRM (or whatever they want to inject into the files) without the end-user complaining or even noticing, until it is too late and they have to pay a ransom to play their files.  (One of my kids wanted to hear an audiobook we bought a few years ago, and I couldn't get it to work because the subscription and the password are no longer in existence.)

 

 

This.

 

This sort of explication is how to communicate to the general musical consumer who does not "get" software, digital, DRM, etc.  The beginning and end of MQA is DRM

[crenca]

9 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

I don't think she was attacked, but even naming her muddies the waters.  The people responsible for the behavior of the MQA advocates are themselves.  

 

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

 

Like any organizer, dept. head, CEO, politician she has to take responsibility for the actions of others under her watch.  It's part of the job.  She could decide that presentations at her show are not presentations at all, but are instead open forums where confrontational, "democratic", adversarial tactics rule.  I doubt that is what anybody wants inside or outside the industry.  She can of course ignore Chris's poor treatment, and that is no doubt how this particular case will be handled unfortunately.

 

I actually would accept the consequences of my disruptive/disingenuous strategery "if the table were turned".

 

Chris was treated differently, and this is obvious to everyone.  The industry insiders such as John Atkinson don't mind because their viewpoint and purpose carried the day, or so they believe.  

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

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

 

If it was a question of bedbugs infesting the conference room, you would be correct.

 

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

 

"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...

 

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, Kyhl said:

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.

 

 

It's just an example and no doubt could use a bit of tweaking.  Still, I noticed that you want JA to say something 'personal'.  I don't disagree, and I believe she should as well otherwise her/RMAF's reaction comes across as a bit spineless...

[crenca]

12 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Does she even know what happened?  I assume she couldn't be present at all venues simultaneously.

Also, even though I agree the hecklers were rude and shot themselves in the foot (an ideal outcome, if you think about it), did it really cross a line where an apology from anyone is required?  It isn't so clear from one youtube video where the sound quality is quite poor.

 

 

No one (certainly not me) is blaming her for not being omnipotent.  She should be made aware of what happened (if she is not already), and then she should take responsibility to the very extant (nor more, no less) that her role affords.

 

Otherwise, consumers have to ask such questions as:  Are the sacred cows of this hobby/industry (such as MQA) given special place at RMAF?  Do the normal expectations of presenters, participants, and RMAF show goers become "optional" when MQA (or any other industry darling) executives are in the room?

 

I agree with @John_Atkinsonthat Chris could have done more, but we also know that trumping his own ability to "control a room" unrealistically.  It would take just a handful of us to show up at his presentation and disrupt it quite easily and there would be nothing he could do about it.  Does not matter if this was to our benefit or his, it could be done.  Is RMAF a venue where this is acceptable?

[crenca]

Just now, Hugo9000 said:

 

Quite a high horse to be on under the circumstances, I'd say.  From 1986 until 2014?  I suppose it's convenient he resigned, or you might still be sacrificing your high principles.

BAAAHHHHH!

 

JA is in a tough spot, he has to sell MQA, and that shit does not sell itself.  On the other hand, consumers have it easy - we have reality on our side.  We can lose an argument, many arguments.  We can be shouted down at a seminar, or many seminars.  The whole "industry" and trade publication apparatus can be for MQA, but its tough, really really tough, to sell a lie...

[crenca]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

Exactly right.  It has nothing to do with whether someone is a great person or not.

 

Instead, it is the basic condition for journalism.

 

JA is not a journalist, he is a subjectivist.  So sharing the bed of his advertisement director is not problem, because everyone knows who she is (it even helps, easy to find her, etc.)

 

A pseudonym is a big problem for him and the Old Guard, because they can't see him or her.  How can you know the truth unless you can judge the man (or women) who is speaking it?

 

The truth of the matter (any matter) is not based in reality, but the subject...

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

My wife was Audio magazine's top salesperson when we first met and strongly believed in the idea of the Chinese Wall. We never discussed specific advertising or editorial matters all the time until she retired in anything other than the past tense. For example, "Your Velodyne review just lost the magazine $50,000 worth of advertising"  -

see https://www.stereophile.com/content/velodyne-df-661-loudspeaker

- to which I responded "Cheap at twice the price!"

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

I hear ya.  My wife is a physician and she never discusses her patients with me (HIPAA and all that), no matter what kind of day she has had.  Instead she just keeps it all bottled up inside like a normal person...

[crenca]

1 minute ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

The INS thought so when I came to the US. Perhaps you'd better write them to let them know about the error. :-)

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

Nah, they are bureaucrats and the distinction would be lost on them...though to be honest, their world makes more sense than Audiophiledom  

[crenca]

15 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

My fundamental instruction to would-be writers: don't write what you don't know.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Please post that in your office in 18-inch type. We can call it "the writing on the wall."

 

Wow, as the kids say OMG!

 

Truly, your technical incompetence and and unwarranted enthusiasm for MQA reveals that you are a "do as I say and not as I do kind of guy"...

 

[crenca]

You and @firedogare on the same page - he was referring to useful sampled frequencies and you are referring to sample rate (so X2)...

 

3 hours ago, Fokus said:

 

Up to 48k payload, that is, 96k sample rate.

 

[crenca]

11 hours ago, Shadorne said:

 

Yes I agree. I wasn’t aware of Archimago until a couple of weeks ago. I came to different conclusions than Archimago independently. My biggest beef is that minimum phase filters are a big mistake in audio. They ruin important harmonic relationships. My second criticism is the same as my criticism of SACD and DSD - there ain’t anything wrong with 24/96KHz so why do we even need these fancy formats like MQA which bring absolutely no benefitfrom a technical perspective. That said I have read Archimago’s blog and I am highly impressed. Thorough. Thoughtful. Accurate. Insightful. Archimago masterfully debunks several Cargo Cult Science beliefs by examining evidence and asking the right questions. Hopefully I can meet Archimago one day. I quite understand he/she may have a day job and does not want to be identified. Whistleblowers are universally despised and have trouble finding work after being exposed. Corporate Managers only want “Team Players” on “their team” - I have yet  to meet a President or CEO or C suite Executive that gives a hoot for the truth - they only care about whether you are part of their “tribe” or not.

 

This post reminds me of how we know the truth, any truth, of MQA.  It's not through the publications and that men like Scoggins and Atkinson are a part of.  On the contrary, they have done their best to obfuscate and justify the MQA marketing speak - they have worked hard these last 3 years or so to deny the truth.

 

Two cheers to mansr, archi, Chris, and all those around here who have questioned MQA from the very beginning and brought out what it really is about...

[crenca]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

Chris

 

Way back in January....In my opinion, you need less patience when it comes to firmly clamping down on the kind of trolls that, ultimately, will undermine the usefulness of CA.

 

Andrew Quint

 

I notice that Mr. Quint, TAS writer, and @John_Atkinson (through an upvote), Stereophile Editor have opinions about how to run an internet forum. 

 

Too bad they don't have opinions about how to properly investigate software/formats, or about how a switch to DRM at the bottom of our musical digital ecosystems might affect consumers (or even what DRM really is), or  a basic understanding about how the culture at their own publications that led to their complete failure around MQA, what it is and what it means.

 

No, they would rather point their finger at Chris and say one man is responsible for his treatment by an anti-consumer MQA cadre at RMAF (it is afterall, as Mr. Quint says, understandable) and if only Chris would moderate the rabble better then such a thing never would have happened. 

 

Truly, sometimes I wonder what planet you guys are from...it must be the planet "Audiophiledom" where up is down, east is west...

 

 

[crenca]

On digital ecosystems, Scoggins is right I believe in that the hope behind MQA is that it becomes the musical digital ecosystem, replacing the current one.  He and his cohorts approve of it, even though they obviously don't really understand it.  They keep trying to convince us as well, and whatever their motivation is ($ directly or indirectly, insider back scratches, trying to save the ego in the face of their complete failure to understand and sell MQA) it does not matter.

 

TAS editor Robert Harley admitted this 2 1/2 years ago in "view from 10,000 feet" piece.  This piece tells you everything you need to know about these trade publications and where their loyalties are.  Even though Robert Harley admits that what the industry wants and needs from MQA is DRM, from the other side of his mouth he actually tries to convince the reader that MQA is not really DRM...  

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Well, this is an absolute crock.  I have taught the carbon cycle before, as well as numerous other concepts in this field,  and it is without dispute that current atm. CO2 levels are disastrous for human civilization, as well as being a primary driver of widespread species extinction.  Plant uptake is not going to save your ass.

 

The V8 in my SUV is bigger than your whole car.... ?

[crenca]

23 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

The article is actually View From 30,000 Feet. Here’s a quote from that article where Mr. Harley admits MQA is about DRM. 

 

“It must be noted here that MQA has no form of copy protection or digital-rights management (DRM) whatsoever. Contrary to what some Internet posters think, MQA is not an evil scheme to institute DRM.”

 

Thanks for the correction of the article title.  The sentence you quote is one of his efforts to deny MQA is DRM.  This contradicts his longer argument (over several paragraphs) that the reason for MQA is that labels need DRM  - a way to protect the "crown jewels" from the consumer.

 

So his argument is a contradiction...except that it is not, MQA begins and ends with DRM just as he says, he is just part of Audiophiledom where the bald contradiction is par for the course...

[crenca]

9 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

You and I have done this two or three times in the past. Maybe even four times. You make up something that you claim he said in that article and I come back with a quote or two of what he ACTUALLY said. After that we go our separate ways. With that in mind, see you when it comes up again. 

 

I don't recall these past occurances.  I do have to wonder about your comprehension of both what Rober Harley and I are saying.  Yes, he denies DRM.  His denial does not withstand scrutiny.  He does not understand what DRM is, or he is lying.  Either way he is playing the fool, or rather trying to play the consumer as the fool.

 

Here is a few sentences where he explains why the industry needs DRM and how MQA is that DRM:

 

"...That development was both a blessing and a curse. The blessing was that here was a cheap and easy way to deliver to consumers the best-available representation of a recording. The curse was that the record companies were delivering to consumers the best-available representation of a recording—a recording that could easily be copied, shared, and even pirated for profit. The record labels’ opening of their vaults by selling high-bit-rate downloads would be tantamount to throwing open the doors to an unguarded shopping mall. Once their catalogs were out in the world, the record companies would have nothing left to sell...In addition to delivering unprecedented sound quality, MQA offers record companies a compelling solution to delivering to consumers the best possible sound while still protecting their archives. When you play an MQA file through an MQA decoder, you hear the high-resolution studio master, yet you never actually possess the high-resolution studio master."

 

[crenca]

Bob Carver says this at the end of his essay on MQA:

 

"...MQA is a paradigm shift only in the sense that it allows Tidal to violate the listener’s privacy...."

 

What exactly is he referring in reference to end user privacy?

[crenca]

12 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

That is the part I feel to be the utmost ridiculous. "Nothing left to sell"... How about selling new recordings that nobody has heard yet before? I don't want to, and I'm not going to, buy same old stuff over and over again. Some recording companies have realized this, obviously some of the bigger labels have not. Now they seem to want to sell those old recordings literally one bit at a time.

 

 

The concern is not people like you and I who buy their 'jewels', but those who pirate it.  It's hard to overstate how pissed off the industry is at the post 90's decline in sales and how they blame almost all of it on "piracy".

 

If MQA begins and ends with DRM, then the anxiety inside the industry begins and ends with piracy (thus the need for DRM).

 

[crenca]

8 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

I would say the people who pirate music likely wouldn't buy the hires anyway. They wouldn't make a difference between RedBook which they already have. For traditional AAC/MP3/RedBook it is certainly much more problem. But once the pirates have the first AAC, MP3 or RedBook version, the hires doesn't give any additional advantage for them or loss for the record company.

 

I don't think HDtracks, highresaudio.com or nativedsd.com would be any better with heavily DRM'ed content. I would assume they would be worse. Hires is niche and that niche doesn't make much difference on the big record companies. I doubt it makes much sense to sell RedBook DRM-free and hires with DRM.

 

 

I know they dream about new music DRM, but it has been seen in the past already that it really doesn't work. That's why Apple/Amazon/etc don't DRM music anymore.

 

 

I don't disagree with anything you said, but yours is a calm and reasonable take.   It does not address the anxiety and desire for a DRM scheme that would work.  MQA's attraction is that it is DRM that would work as a "freemium" model that does not depend on copy protection.  The hope was that consumers would be "ok" with it.  

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

In reading Bob's "paper", I don't see a peer-reviewed-like description of his test method.  Lots of details are missing.

 

Whereas Bob Stuart's work is detailed in peer-reviewed publications.  Shouldn't Bob Carver be held to the same standard?

 

 

PLEASE folks, don't respond to this troll.  Obviously he is a hired gun.  On this thread it is clear the @The Computer Audiophilehas hired him to prick you and get clicks!  ?