Jump to content

KeenObserver

Members
  • Content Count

    512
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About KeenObserver

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Measurements and standards are critical. Otherwise it becomes a matter of which ad writer or reviewer writes the best prose.
  2. It is perhaps going afar of the original topic, but I wanted to address something that was brought up. I believe there is a point of diminishing returns and have my own point of value. When I'm looking for new components I will research it to sometimes extreme levels. There are certain people whose tastes I respect that I will accept their subjective values. I will search for all the objective tests. Once I make a purchase and set up my components, I tend to stay with that for an extended time. I like to listen to music and not be constantly judging my equipment. As such, one of my criteria for buying equipment is the quality of the components. I want a lasting piece of equipment. i bought a revox cd player because of revox's reputation for building a quality component. Same with my Coda fet-1 pre-amp and my Benchmark Dac-3. They are constructed with quality components that have a reputation for lasting.
  3. Can't we all just get along? Can't we all just let the market decide? Can't we all just take our attention away from MQA? Can't we all just not pay attention to what's behind the curtain? Can't we all just believe what MQA implies and not look further? Can't we all just believe what the publishers of trade mags tell us? Can't we all just stop looking for the truth and have faith in those that tell us that MQA is a new paradigm? Can't we all just bow down and worship MQA? Can't we all just let our attention be drawn away from what MQA is attempting to do? Can't we all just not pay attention to that man that's sneaking up behind us with a knife? The business plan of MQA is to be the business that controls music distribution and playback. As such it would affect EVERY music consumer and would cost EVERY music consumer! It behooves the music consumer to closely examine MQA.
  4. With all the initial hype, I believe that MQA was trying to implement their scheme before it could be closely examined. There were people that could clearly see what was happening and took offense. This lead to abrasive confrontations.
  5. I think, in the beginning, everyone was taken by the possibilities and claims of MQA. There was a big flash and there was talk everywhere about MQA. ( Marketing in the internet age? ) Then there were highly controlled demos. BS gave talks that hit every talking point but really said nothing. And, he put up one of the most absurd charts I have ever seen. People started to realize there was a smell to MQA. When people started to look behind the curtain MQA pulled another curtain. MQA doubled down on the claims and talking points. Over and over and over. People started to look deeply into MQA and were finding out the truth about MQA. There has been much back and forth on MQA. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. It has brought out the truth about MQA. I don't think MQA offers any benefits to me. And, if implemented, would cost me at every step of the process. At this point nothing will change my mind. MQA has been less than forthcoming about MQA right from the beginning. I will never have anything that implements MQA.
  6. So nice to be back from vacation.🙄
  7. Ah! Courtesy of Wikipedia. Bell Labs gave a demo at Carnegie Hall in 1940 Using three large speakers. The source was three movie soundtracks on one film strip.
  8. This has piqued my curiosity. I haven't read on this in some time, but my recollection is that Bell Labs favored a left, center, right array. Which makes me wonder what the source was. Multi-channel magnetic recording I believe evolved in Germany in the 40's.
  9. LOL! How's the vacation going?
  10. I believe Bell Labs was doing research into multichannel in the 30's. If I remember correctly Bell Labs had come up with the idea that an array of three speakers sounded best. If they were doing research on it, I would assume that they had made recordings. How extensive these recordings would be, I don't know.
  11. If MQA Ltd has received further funding, then this resurgence would make sense to me.
  12. There seems to be a recent resurgence of people that want to point out that MQA critics are an unwashed bunch of uncivil heathens. These people are anointed from on high and know better than us. We should just accept their pronouncements. After all, MQA is a new paradigm more magnificent than the discoveries of Copernicus! I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Is there any way of finding out if MQA Ltd has received the funding that it said it was expecting by the end of November in order to stay solvent? I would like to know if MQA Ltd still poses a threat to the music consumer.
  13. May everyone enjoy their music in the New Year!
  14. I don't know what you consider the community. In the final analysis, MQA presents no benefits to the music consumer. The music consumer will pay for each step of the MQA "ecosystem" that is implemented. And, for thousands of years there has been scam artists willing to victimize those looking for something better. The community should be able to point out the scam artists. It is to their benefit.
×
×
  • Create New...