Jump to content

KeenObserver

Members
  • Content Count

    548
  • 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. I have the laser disc version of Arturo Toscanini's 1948 broadcast of Bethoven's 9th symphany. Not sure what the source would have been as it contains video and audio. The sound is decent for a 1948 recording. The point for me is watching Toscanini.
  2. Stuart and Jbara tried to penetrate the music consumer.
  3. MQA seems to be the Creature That Wouldn't Die. I don't blame Jbara and Stuart for milking the MQA money tree for all they can. But does the money behind MQA Ltd really see a cash cow in the future? Do they really think that they are going to ram MQA down the throats of the music consumer?
  4. Honest to God, I have never seen anyone like Bob Stuart, who can go on for so long, and say nothing! Watch a Professor Irwin Corey skit and tell me that is not Bob Stuart.
  5. People should keep in mind that open standards like FLAC will always be out there. MQA could go the way of HDCD and simply cease to exist. Does anyone produce HDCD decoders anymore?
  6. " Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war". A quote from Shakespeare. Before battle the Roman Legions would release the war dogs to attack their enemy. This recent activity of writers passive-aggressively attacking the "civility" of those who expose the truth about MQA has me concerned that a new round of BS is starting. I will be glad when MQA is finally dead and no longer poses a threat to the music consumer.
  7. Again, the MQA business model is to control the distribution and playback of music. And collect royalties on each link of the chain. And, again, I understand your situation. The soldier follows the general. Why else would you be continually posting on this thread?
  8. No one is forced to buy those items. The MQA business model would make MQA the controller of music distribution and every music consumer would have to pay for that "privilege". There is a difference between choosing what product to buy and being forced to pay for a scheme that one does not want. I realize that you are in a tough position, working for TAS. But this is really a stretch.
  9. Apparently, someones ox was gored.
  10. It is interesting how times have changed. There was a time when the major studios, in conjunction with their magazine mouthpieces, would have simply implemented MQA, the music consumer be damned. They would not have even used lubricant. But this is the age of the internet. People openly questioned the BS that MQA was spewing, much to the consternation of MQA and its magazine mouthpieces. People would not simply bend over and take MQA. The truth came out about MQA. That is the paradigm shift.
  11. That is comforting. Hopefully everyone that owns MQA enabled equipment can feel as comfortable.
  12. That is why I bought the Benchmark DAC3. I know it is not infected with MQA. I know it is not crippling my music.
  13. My concern is all the MQA enabled decoders out there that cripple non MQA music. We know from reverse engineering and disclosures from the manufacturers that some MQA decoders need to be reset in order to play non MQA music. We don't know about others because of the NDA's. I would be concerned if I owned a MQA enabled decoder and MQA was no longer available. Is the decoder crippling my music?
  14. Again, lawyers have used questionable patent rights to file frivolous lawsuits. Throw crap against the wall and see what sticks. On many occasions small settlements are made to make the nuisance go away.
×
×
  • Create New...