Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mcgillroy

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Cool - Druid V? Could you elaborate a bit on the jazz styles you listen to? Small ensemble, slow and minute or also faster, more energetic stuff?
  2. I remember when they stired up the market with the original Druid. Sub $2k and great sound. 15 years on the Druid is a $10k affair... A successful brand story indeed. As much as i liked these speakers with alt rock and darker pop they never worked for me with Jazz or more complex classical. Some reviewers said the Druid VI can do classical - anybody able to chime in on this? Thx!
  3. Not sure if this was discussed here already but a new patent application by Peter Craven and Bob Stuart was published late February: DIGITAL ENCAPSULATION OF AUDIO SIGNALS - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2019/0057709.html See also here: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/showpost.php?p=13859201&postcount=541
  4. I know I am late to the topic but did Avid kick MQA-representatives out of the board-room or something? Or why did Lee suddenly go after Pro-Tools?
  5. Who is it that these guys show up reliably a few weeks after the last one fizzled out?
  6. Oh wow - seems like MQA pissed off enough people that an editor by one of the bigger sites comes out and raises the middle-finger to them. Fun read indeed!
  7. Thx firedog - Stereophile is entering histrionic territory: "Qobuz is limited to 24/192 resolution." Limited to 24/192 - lol! How much more of their reputation do they want to burn on the throne of MQA?
  8. Remember when MQA and the MQA-press argued that bandwidth and storage requirements for high-rez-audio-streaming would be cost-prohibitive and hence MQAs lossy-compression would be an economic necessity? Well here is an interesting tidy-bit from a discussion about Netflix on the cost of video-streaming: "The cost of actually delivering the video was so tiny it didn't matter. To put it another way, you could watch for the entire month continuously and it would make no difference to the bottom line. The videos were fixed cost licenses, not per view, so it didn't matter who watched it or for how long. The actual cost of sending bits over the wire was trivial." Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18951875 We don't know if audio is licensed on a per-listend basis or fixed cost. But we do know that storing and streaming audio requires almost two orders of magnitude less storage and bandwidth than video: uncompressed 24/96 audio requires ca. 576 kb per second storage vs. ca. 30 mb/s for 4k video - a 60-fold difference. Streaming bandwidth requirements will depend on the video compression but Netflix recommends 25 mbit/s for 4k while Qobuz recommends 20 mbit/s "if you want to stream 24 bit/192 kHz files." https://www.qobuz.com/ie-en/info/hi-fi/bancs-d-essai/will-my-internet-bandwidth-be179216 Uncompressed 24/192 audio would actually need less than 10mb/s so they are leaving a very healthy margin here. So MQA could you please explain the economics of your codec again? Thx!
  9. Hmmm - I had some interesting results. Before I post them I’d like to ask if anybody has a better ABX software recommendation for the Mac than ABX Tester by Jogataki? Thank you!
  10. BS might has well been an established expert in digital audio but MQA is his own undoing of his reputation. He has put himself into the worldwide limelight of digital audio expertise and he is not looking good. In fact it looks like he exploited his expertise in digital audio to build a clever and well camouflaged DRM-system for online-music. As a side effect everyone now knows that BS might have been a digital audio expert but definitely never was a successful businessman. Rather the opposite, he is just a trust-fund-baby by proxy. Many companies managed to make profit in digital audio, Bob never did. This alone makes it questionable to trust him. Or do Accenture consultants disagree?! And btw @Lee Scoggins you still didn't answer above question on DRM. Shall I remind you every 24h for the time being...;)
  11. @Lee Scoggins I see you answered a host of other questions here in the past 24h. You choose to ignore this one. Would you please tell us if MQA is DRM or not?! Thank you.
  12. Trying to narrow down the definition of DRM to copy-protection is part of MQA's marketing spiel. And you are playing along. Such a definition does not adhere to the technological and legal definitions of DRM accepted in the industry, by IP-laywers and in academia. It's as intellectually dishonest as to relabel accepted technical terms like dispersion into "blur" or lossless into "lossless in the air." Marketing is marketing. But if you try to hide your intentions behind semantic operations of that magnitude you have something profound to hide. You are also underestimating your audience. So again Lee: is MQA DRM or not? Simple question, simple answer. Thank you.
  13. Can you "unfold" MQA without a licensed decoder? Can a vendor implement an MQA decoder without a license? Does the vendor have to be "certified" by MQA in order do implement their stack and does this certification include the generation of a cryptographic identifier of that vendor? Does the MQA-stack include checks for integrity of the software and the hardware environment it is deployed in? Does MQA encoding of files include embedding cryptographic means to authenticate the file via the decoder? Does MQA include means to not only encrypt the high-rez portion of the file but the complete file? If the answer is yes to one or more of of these questions Digital Rights Management is used. Care to disagree? If so please explain. It's simple Lee: every time MQA is used DRM is in use.
  • Create New...