Jump to content

james45974

Members
  • Content Count

    484
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About james45974

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I believe that what we are seeing regarding MQA from John A, Jim A, and evidently from Robert H are the last sounds from old guard dinosaurs on the inevitable march to extinction. They want to go out with a scream rather than a whimper. Back when print was all we had you controlled the narrative. These days once you publish an article it is open season for critics all over the internet, and you don't like it, you've lost control. To echo a few posters, you don't like the MQA analysis by certain people so you go after them, not their analysis. Shows real integrity on your part!
  2. Nothing has ever been proven but the term historically related to the recording industry "Payola" frequently comes into my head!
  3. And Stereophile is "Lily White"! 😒
  4. his site seemed to be trying to drive traffic by fairly transparent click bait article titles, seemed a little desperate.
  5. I don't see the lynch mob here, just guys who aren't content being lead around blind by MQA fluffery and who are passionate about it. Maybe Resistance would be a better name than lynch mob. To my knowledge there has still been no verifiable comparison of every day recordings of the same verified master with and without MQA by MQA, don't you wonder why? If its so great you think they would be all-hands-on-deck showing that instead of avoiding comparisons. Finally, I am of the opinion that the only entity who should be doing any authentication is the original musical artist, not the producer, mixer, engineer, bean counter, cafeteria lady, or Universal librarian. To that end I would not trust any "MQA" of deceased artists.
  6. “MQA is a consumer-centric technology company, driven by a commitment to deliver the master recording all the way through to the music fan, wherever and however they choose to listen.." MQA stating this does not make it so, their actions speak much louder than words about how anti-consumer they are.
  7. I think I get the general gist of the paper but can someone translate the results for post radiation for a non-scientific mind such as my own! Thanks! ☺️
  8. Yes, the fire aftermath has unwittingly made a mockery of MQA hasn't it!
  9. Where is the new editor?? Isn't it part of an editors job to correct things like this?
  10. Thanks John, I guess I'm not really sure of the value of MQA authentication then. I'm sorry if this is getting very basic, I thought I understood the general idea of MQA, but what does "Authentication" actually mean? Isn't there some sort of "authentication" going on with any master and subsequent vinyl pressing, CD, or streaming file already?
  11. I don't have an MQA capable DAC and frankly MQA doesn't interest me but I have a question. When you play MQA through Tidal for instance is there any kind of tag that shows who "authenticated" the files? I would think that to be somewhat of a "purist" that only tracks authenticated by the original ARTIST are truly authenticated. Anything else is somewhat of a bastardized version of "authentication". Who cares if the the engineer or producer or custodian "authenticated" the track.
  12. interesting editorial at Enjoy The Music .com http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0219/Lossless_Streaming_Music_Welcome_To_20_Years_Ago.htm
  13. This whole MQA thing has been become very uninteresting. There is nothing but marketing puffery inflating minor steps as major advancements!
  14. I am not aware of the ins and outs of NDA's, would the MQA NDA be any different in general to what might be signed for a manufacturer to incorporate Dolby Atmos in their product line for instance? Seems like there is a lot of hiding behind the NDA.
×
×
  • Create New...