Jump to content

KeenObserver

  • Content Count

    1174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by KeenObserver

  1. The ruling party in China dictates what the masses has access to and how they access it. That would fit in with the MQA business plan and the studios wishes. The music consumer needs to conform to the parties wishes. It's all detailed in the parties media arm, TAS and Stereophile.
  2. And, yet, MQA is still trying to implement their misbegotten scheme. And, yet, you still comment on this. Who is bickering like children?
  3. You're a better man than I. I started to watch but then thought that it would be time that I never get back. Perhaps I'll make myself watch it if you think there was anything worthwhile. BS generally starts out with accepted precepts in audio engineering and then descends into the "hand waving". He speaks profusely but says nothing. It's all BS talk. He's been doing this since the inception of MQA. It always seems to descend into a "Bob Stuart knows better than every one on earth". It's the MQA religion.
  4. Dig out the hip boots! Does anyone still put credence in what he says?
  5. When the whole gets too deep, you should stop shoveling.
  6. Using abundant verbiage to minimize the ill effects of a process to justify the unproven and disproven benefits is beyond the pale.
  7. It is pretty clear that JA and Stereophile are not looking out for the consumer's best interests.
  8. And the cycle of MQA BS starts all over again. MQA has spent seven years making grandiose claims that have been shown to be BS. In seven years MQA has proven nothing! They just recycle the MQA BS.
  9. Music consumers are free to utilize hi-rez music. They are free to use whatever filter they wish. They are free to use DSP. They don't have to pay additional money for a proprietary scheme. Can anyone offer a good reason why the music consumer would want MQA?
  10. I agree. MQA should never be implemented.
  11. I don't have a dog in this fight as far as having personally put money into it. But! I do take offense to using my tax money to pay PPP loans to this con artist. Did he really have three people working on this swindling scheme?
  12. I suspect that the NDA's were there not to protect intellectual property but to conceal the lack of intellectual property and the shady business practices. Concealing the fact that DAC's would corrupt non MQA music would be shady in my book.
  13. MQA cannot bear close scrutiny. You have to accept it as an act of faith. It is a mortal sin to look behind the curtain.
  14. A simple question. Has MQA Ltd collected licensing fees from anyone or has it been just "seeding" so far?
  15. John Atkinson is the Technical Editor of Stereophile. Bob Harley was the "digital expert" when he was with Stereophile. Before giving MQA their ringing endorsement, did they do their due diligence and research MQA? Did they have a clear understanding of all aspects of MQA? If so, did they think it would benefit MQA? Did they think it would benefit the studios? And, most importantly, did they think it would benefit the music consumer? Atkinson and Harley had been in the business long enough to realize that MQA was a licensing scheme whose costs would ultimately be borne by the music consum
  16. That leaves us at this point in time, where some people have adopted MQA, and many others question the need for another scheme. Hopefully, MQA will die off and become another bad memory. Hopefully, people will look back and say: "We dodged a bullet with that one".
  17. One has to realize that there are a number of bloggers out there who have no idea what they are blogging about. They simply repeat the talking points they are given from manufacturers and distributors. They then pass themselves off as "experts". They are simply useful "influencers".
  18. The availability cascade that Rt66indierock talks about was not a spontaneous event.
  19. MQA was planning for a quick adoption of their product, before anyone realized what it actually was. Unfortunately for MQA, there were knowledgeable and ethical manufacturers who understood what MQA entailed. And, there were people that started to analyze MQA and exposed the truth.
  20. Looking at the original rollout of MQA. it looks like it was intended to be an overwhelming media blitz designed to create an instant and overwhelming demand for the product. Unfortunately for MQA, people looked behind the curtain. For this media blitz to happen, it would appear that there was coordination amongst all the parties involved. The benefit to MQA is obvious. The benefit to the studios is clear. What was the benefit to the pundits that swooned over MQA? Were promises made to them? Was it a sense of power, that THEY had the power to dictate the future of
  21. And the new thing is symphony halls will have an MQA sound isolation system installed in front of the orchestra. The music will be processed through a real time MQA encoding system and then played to the hall. This will ensure that the music is played as the composer intended.
  22. Watch an old Professor Irwin Corey performance and then watch a BS performance.
  23. MQA is a pig. It is a misbegotten scheme to add a layer of cost to the music production and reproduction process. Nothing anybody can say will turn MQA into a silk purse. And, yet, people are still trying to sell the silk purse.
×
×
  • Create New...