MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[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...

[kumakuma]

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

 

 

So if Chris wrote an article about MQA for your publication you'd consider publishing it?

[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?

[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.

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I do believe the translation of the word "wank" has been misinterpreted when it was exported to the USA, or other.

 

One can have a "wank", which is a rather pleasurable experience. What is the difference between an egg and a "wank" ?. You can beat an egg.

 

One can call another person a "wanker" which is derisory, but in a nice way. Similar to calling someone a "dipstick", it is meant to infer stupidity, or silly behaviour.

 

The term you may wish to use is "fannying around", where this means dilly dallying, or even "prevaricating", with disruptive intent possibly.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

wank·er

ˈwaNGkər/

noun

vulgar slang•British

noun: wanker; plural noun: wankers

1. a person who masturbates (used as a term of abuse).

[wgscott]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

So if Chris wrote an article about MQA for your publication you'd consider publishing it?

 

That sounds like an outstanding idea.  I especially like the idea of Mans as a co-author.  I just want the objective facts about what MQA does and does not do.

[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

[wgscott]

3 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Both ridiculous and unfair! Do you expect her to monitor and be responsible for the attendees of every seminar, let alone every exhibit?

 

More importantly, do you want a situation where conference organizer staff police the content of the presentations and discussions?

 

 

 

[wgscott]

6 minutes ago, crenca said:

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

 

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)?

[Don Blas De Lezo]

3 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

That sounds like an outstanding idea.  I especially like the idea of Mans as a co-author.  I just want the objective facts about what MQA does and does not do.

And John Atkinson in his laboratory filled with machines that go "beep"  looking into Archimago's technical findings too please 

[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).

[Richard Dale]

47 minutes ago, sls said:

It helps being non-technical.

 

You don't need to know any engineering that:

1) CD was better than vinyl

 

In 1992 or so? I think not.

[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.  

[trappy]

24 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

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...

 

Con spirare = together breathing ( the implication being people in a huddle breathing each other’s breath.)  Spirit = breath.

 

On the present usage I hold no opinion, although I am genuinely puzzled by Mr Atkinson’s enthusiasm.

[lucretius]

11 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

In my own studio experience, there is usually only 1 ADC per track and more commonly the same ADC per album.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but your experience is limited to recordings of small orchestras and string quartets in the Atlanta area.

[Sonic77]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

Amazing how in your whole post you don't mention the consumer/music listener as a shareholder. That says a lot about where you are coming from and why you are such an MQA proponent. The listeners don't matter....only the label, producer, artist and MQA. 

The labels, producers and artists need to look before they leap, there is no consumer demand for MQA.

[wgscott]

13 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Like any organizer, dept. head, CEO, politician she has to take responsibility for the actions of others under her watch. 

 

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?

[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.

[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...

 

[sls]

33 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

In 1992 or so? I think not.

 

The market seemed to think so. 

By the time CD came about vinyl was already getting beaten by tape. CDs were very expensive in 1983, almost doubt vinyl sometimes, once the price came down they took off. 

LPs were pretty much history by 1993. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2013/04/11/vinyl-records-are-more-popular-now-than-they-were-in-the-late-90s/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6e484f5b290c

 

16/44 CD engineering was superb from the very start. Trevor Gilbert's Bach 48 and Paul Simon's Graceland come to mind. Had a lot to do with it being driven by classical music, Karajan was hired to promote the technology when it was announced in 1979 and he sold more albums than anyone.

[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.

 

[Richard Dale]

1 minute ago, sls said:

 

The market seemed to think so. 

By the time CD came about vinyl was already getting beaten by tape. CDs were very expensive in 1983, almost doubt vinyl sometimes, once the price came down they took off. 

LPs were pretty much history by 1993. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2013/04/11/vinyl-records-are-more-popular-now-than-they-were-in-the-late-90s/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6e484f5b290c

One of the reasons I don't trust record companies about introducing new audio formats, is the way they forced CDs onto the market in 1992 when CDs were more expensive than LPs and sounded worse than LPs.

 

Certainly in the long term the record companies were proved 100% right in that they made a lot of money out of the switch. Compared to a decent quality vinyl setup in 1992, i found CD players were pretty mediocre and pretty much unlistenable. That is not the case in 2018 of course, but I feel that LPs were killed off when CDs were a very immature format in sound terms, although they had a great advantage of being more convenient than LPs for sure.

[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...

[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.

[wgscott]

53 minutes ago, crenca said:

"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. 

 

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 else is required?  It isn't so clear from one youtube video where the sound quality is quite poor.