Jump to content

jhaagenstad

  • Posts

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

Retained

  • Member Title
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hesitating to jump back into this and not really wanting to defend competitors... (deep breath...) here we go: From a purely technical basis it's "easily" possible to run two parallel paths in a DAC, one that processes through the MQA path and one that processes through a non-MQA path. At its simplest, you select which path gets sent out by using the "MQA decoded" signal (the one that operates the Blue Light) to operate the switch that takes one or the other. Some buffering, some delays, etc. We seriously considered doing something like that but due to the way we've implemented our computational DAC, it meant that we'd have had to increase the processing power by more than a factor of 2. (Add a second set of processing cores to handle the MQA conversion plus add the switching logic.) It really becomes a question of how much it impacts your cost / price structure to do it this way. By our calculus, any benefit potentially obtained from MQA was simply not worth, and didn't justify the price increase we'd have to inflict on our customers in order for us to deliver it. Other companies make different decisions for different reasons. YMMV I have absolutely no clue what iFi or dCS actually did to make this work and I refuse to poop on a competitor in a forum for making the design choices and market decisions they've made but I will defend that it is completely possible and plausible that they did what they say they did. We see no reason or evidence not to take them at their word. But of course, our stuff is WAY better and we're cuter, smarter and more fun to hang out with, so NA NA NA, BOO BOO! (Sorry, couldn't resist!)
  2. Maybe this makes @crenca and @Brinkman Shipfeel better: EXOGAL Abandons MQA Development June 22, 2018 For Immediate Release EXOGAL Audio announced today that they are ceasing development of MQA for inclusion in EXOGAL products. Said Jeff Haagenstad, CEO of EXOGAL: "We have been evaluating MQA technology and watching the wider MQA ecosystem since early 2016. After much research on the fundamental technology and more importantly on the market demand for MQA, we have reached the decision to cease the pursuit of adding MQA to our products for several reasons: 1) Our products by themselves exceed the performance of our products with the inclusion of MQA, 2) Regardless of the breathless hype by the audio press, actual consumer demand is just not there. 3) Regardless of the announced support from record labels, a suitable base of playable content is not widely available. 4) As for the technical details of our evaluation of the technology vis á vis our own technology, we prefer not to violate our NDA’s with MQA and Meridian. 5) Much like Wadia's technology before us, EXOGAL technology is already oriented in the time domain and does not suffer from the time-smearing effect which MQA is supposed to eliminate. Suffice it to say we were never able to achieve the advertised level of performance using the MQA technology and thus it does not meet our standards for inclusion in our products. Many experts outside of our company have articulately made the case against MQA and we see no reason to elaborate or comment on those findings." “We will continue to watch the market evolve but for now, we are out of the MQA game.” About EXOGAL EXOGAL was founded in 2013 by audio industry veterans who innovated for some of the biggest names in the industry. The founders – Jim Kinne, Larry Jacoby, Jan Larsen and Jeff Haagenstad – came together around a shared vision to create products that are – as our name implies – “out of this galaxy.” Our design philosophy is to create products that provide for an optimal listening experience in our customers’ everyday lives, not just in the labs under ideal test conditions. Keeping our sourcing and manufacturing close to our Minnesota headquarters shortens design­‐to­‐manufacturing times and allows us to get to market more quickly with bold new products. All EXOGAL audio products use open protocols and interfaces, which allow you to play your music no matter where you bought it or where the music stream originates. For more information, please contact [email protected]
  3. I'm more than happy to push reset. ...and sorry about the tin foil hat comment. Probably too far on my part. Manufacturers are approached every day about supporting some new antistatic coating, or audio CODEC, or circuits to strip the magnetics off the power lines, and 99.99999% of it is at best, alchemy. We're forced to look at all of it because if we miss something that's actually objectively an improvement then we've made a tactical mistake. For a consumer, there is their interests and the manufacturer's of gear. 2 dimensions. For a manufacturer, there is the existing market and consumers, existing standards which may or may not be obsolete but beloved, there are competitors introducing real advances and others introducing snake oil and calling it advances, and then there's research out of academia that may actually be valid, and finally the wacky "inventors" who approach us to incorporate their wacky ideas. That's at least 6 dimensions. We don't blame anybody for the situation and we certainly aren't complaining about it. It's just that we live in a different world where consumers are just one factor in our decision-making process. Companies like ours don't make claims we aren't prepared to back up. Other companies don't operate in the same way. Perhaps this is at the root of the problem: Why are consumers so inclined to accept crazy ideas, but not those that are backed with empirical proof? And while the press was certainly the Air Force and the Marines when it came to Bob's bringing MQA into the world, I don't actually blame them. Their business is to sell paper and ink (or page clicks). They need something new to talk about or they have nothing to talk about. (And it's not just audio. It's politics, diet fads, cars, alternative energy, etc.) I absolutely share your frustration with companies that help advance bull$41t fads and scams. We compete against them and they are hacks. And we have our own audio legend (Jim Kinne) but we keep him focused on implementing technologies that let us bring objectively higher performance levels at lower price points in smaller boxes to appeal to a new generation of listeners who may not now, but will soon learn to appreciate high def music. So I think at our core, we certainly are trying to develop products that achieve what you are "trolling" for. We'll never be 100% able to deliver because sometimes, the customer wants a pair of Beats headphones and whadaya gonna do?
  4. @crenca, you say you can't pursue both things? I have news for you: You MUST pursue both things. You're absolutely right, you don't need to buy into it. As for this thread, I follow it because for the most part it is interesting and useful market research. The fact that we follow an anti-MQA thread so closely might be a clue for you about how we feel about the subject. And you don't know me, you don't know our company, you don't know what our philosophy or politics are, you don't know anything about us but you think you have some sort of authority to sit in judgement of us and proclaim our guilt in some vast tin-foil hat conspiracy you cooked up in your mom's basement. And you aren't a market economy. You are simply one troll, hiding behind a screen name, crapping on the hard work and reputations of a bunch of people you don't know. And I got A BUNCH of phone calls at our office yesterday from people on this forum, apologizing to me for the stupid things you write. And while @Brinkman Ship may agree with your position, he at least knows how to be respectful. And we respect that.
  5. Well, this has been useful, interesting and instructive. Thanks. Out
  6. Well, first... we don't have a "cuckold relationship" with MQA, we're simply looking at the technology and the NDA is about technical details and doesn't constitute a contract to do business. And we're not hiding behind it - it simply limits what we can say about it. We aren't affiliated with Meridian or MQA in any way. Period. Full Stop. Don't link us us to their business practices or their agenda. I'm simply trying to offer a perspective on how decisions get made in a business. And businesses exist to make money and they make decisions that make them money. Theoretically. Going back to @Brinkman Ship's original post, he said that if we offered our product with MQA, we're off his list. We take that as data. We don't care how he arrived at that conclusion, we respect it and we're not trying to swing his vote (or anybody's) one way or the other. If he and a million of his friends took the same position, we'd obviously not do MQA. On the other hand, if he was a lonely voice in a sea of pro-MQA customers, we'd likely write him off. But right now he's data. (No disrespect intended!) Too harsh? Not for me. I'm a big boy. Snark at me all you want. I'm just trying to offer a perspective that a lot of people on this forum might not have.
  7. Just wanted to clarify a couple of things in my post, and since I have no idea how to comment directly to an individual post, i'm just lumping them together... And I'm using "Mr." as a means of showing respect, not snark because I don't know if I can "@" you like on Twitter: A) Mr "Brinkman Ship": I'm very aware of the differences between MQA and DSD. My point with those two examples was how they entered the consciousness of the market in completely different ways and it made the choice to adopt DSD much easier. Another VERY KEY difference is that the market for DSD was willing to pay more for the addition of DSD capability whereas Market Research shows us that the market for MQA is clearly not willing to pay more for it. That tells us customers are curious, not committed. I definitely don't consider MQA and DSD to be related, similar or anything like that! B) To Mr. "Firedog": I can't really address this because of the NDA so this is intended as a general response, not a direct response. Sometimes, when you license a technology it requires an all or nothing approach. It either always has to be in-stream or you can't use it at all. Other times there is more flexibility. But I wanted you to know that what you said is good input for us and we will keep that point in mind as we continue our research. C) Mr. "Beetlemania": There is definitely a market for MQA-free DACs. This thread it by no means the only one where people are vociferously expressing that opinion! Carry On! Jeff
  8. I'm going to parse my words kind of carefully because EXOGAL is under an NDA with MQA because we are considering it. When a company, not just ours but any, is faced with something that's positioned as a new technology, you are forced to evaluate it and see if it's real or if it's snake oil, and if it is something that fits your brand and meets the needs of your customers. Let's look at DSD for a second: when we first introduced the Comet, DSD was just beginning as a "thing" in the broader audiophile market - there were some very dedicated early adopters but for most people who listened just to CD's or had a library of High Def tracks, it wasn't a factor. Then DSD tracks became more widely available and more people demanded it and it became a necessary feature and thus we added it. In the case of DSD, demand (from a manufacturer perspective!) bubbled up from one corner of the customer base and became more widely popular. Adding it was an easy decision to make. In the case of MQA, demos were shown at trade shows and previews were given to press and "buzz" was generated. "The next big thing!" was proclaimed! Some customers listen to it and believe they hear the heavens opening, others believe it's trash. Personally I'm not gonna take a position either way because, you know: NDA. The point is, a lot of energy was generated and money was spent getting people, frankly, horny for the new technology. Doing it this way virtually guarantees that the customer base is going to be polarized. Some people are gullible, some people are skeptical. That's not a comment on MQA, it's a comment on human nature. For a manufacturer, if your basic technology is based on a chipset reference design, there is really no downside to embracing something new. You are probably not differentiated by your core technology but by something else. It could be filtering, power supplies, integration with a preamp and / or amp stage, the company could be founded by an industry legend, or any number of things. Adding the ability to play a new format helps keep you current and relevant. It adds to your brand. On the other hand, if you're a manufacturer like us, and you consider yourself to be a technology company, then you have to take a really hard look at "the next big thing". Our differentiation is doing the same old thing in completely new ways via advances in math, science and technology. For us, it really comes down to a very simple question: Does adding another company's technology to our technology ADD to our brand or does either DETRACT from our brand or ENHANCE a competitor's at our expense. This is a really difficult question to answer, largely due to the polarization in the customer base. Look at this very thread: True believers and hard core skeptics. One group saying "Add it and we'll never..." and the other group saying "skip it and we'll never...". (How'd you like to have my job?) So I don't know that I'm adding to the discussion or diverting it, but it opened with a gentleman putting forth a position of "Add it and I'll never...". And that's a position that I completely respect. In no way am I trying to shut him down or change his mind. I'm just trying to give you folks a seat in the corner of how decisions get made by manufacturers and what we go through when we look at new technologies, especially when they are invented by someone else. At the end of the day, you as listeners and customers have to decide what you value, and what price you're willing to pay for what you value, and if you're happy where you are or if you're willing to consider something else. In our case, everything we do requires convincing our customers that what we do is different and real and better. We try not to make hyperbolic claims, we don't really claim to be the "next big thing", we won't bash our competitors, and we won't call audiophiles stupid if they don't buy into what we do. If we decide to incorporate MQA, you can be confident that we saw it added real value. If we elect to skip it, you will know we didn't think it added any value. In both cases, you can decide if we're brilliant or if we're morons and make your decisions accordingly. That's probably more than my allotted $0.02.
  9. Hey, I totally get where you're coming from! As a manufacturer, I too get tired of the same esoteric music over and over. In our room we use Tidal and let people request tracks and sometimes it's like pulling teeth to get someone to name an artist or track that they like. It could be that we as an industry have programmed them not to ask and so they're afraid to for fear of breaking some sort of unwritten rule. We'd like to encourage people at trade shows to remember that THEY are the customers and THEY own the transactional relationship. If our gear sounds good with the music you listen to and you think it's a good value then we hope you'd consider buying it. If it doesn't sound good or isn't in your price range, then we get that. Also, your point is well taken that the stratospheric prices of some of the gear makes it way too far out of reach of the average buyer. One of our biggest gripes as a company that tries to manufacture gear that's affordable is that the press frequently won't spend any time with us. Many of them (this isn't directed at you, although I'm not sure if you were in any of the 5 places we had gear at AXPONA) can't wait to get to the "classic" manufacturers and see the expensive stuff and completely pass us and companies like us right by! We'd like potential customers to be much more active in asking (even demanding) to hear what THEY want to hear. We'd also like the Press to make an effort to look for that affordable gear. Our target customers, to whom we advertise directly and who are receptive to affordable equipment, do come to shows like this specifically because we target them. We see the looks on their faces when they see the price tags on some of the more expensive gear - they look like Duluth, MN homeowners looking at California Real Estate - pure sticker shock and utter disbelief that those prices could possibly be justified. I think all 3 legs of this stool (manufacturers, customers and press) bear some responsibility for it being shaky!
  10. Yeah... he wasn't very happy with me. We'd be fairly stupid to reveal how we do what we do. They didn't like that answer...
  11. FYI: when it came out, the 151 was a great product but over time there was enough price erosion that even though lots were sold nobody bought a Ferrari on the profits. And we definitely learned that price / performance were key variables in the business!!!
×
×
  • Create New...