My new article series on MQA.

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by LeeS, Jan 9, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LeeS

    LeeS Music Fan Thread Starter

    Location:
    Atlanta
    Mass consumers stream more than a Russian hooker. :D
     
  2. LeeS

    LeeS Music Fan Thread Starter

    Location:
    Atlanta
    I am referring to the deal that labels would negotiate with the streaming services for the right to access the MQA content.

    It's like any other business negotiation. If you are MQA and/or the labels, maybe you create an attractive deal to get the ball rolling further...
     
  3. LeeS

    LeeS Music Fan Thread Starter

    Location:
    Atlanta
    Also, you have to look at the price-volume curve. A streaming service could be like Tidal and charge $20 for MQA access and $10 for standard. However, Amazon doesn't have to do that. They could charge a buck more. They could bundle as a benefit of Amazon Prime. You trade volume for higher prices. Old school thinking is charge higher prices. Newer thinking is charge less to get more adoption.
     
  4. ServingTheMusic

    ServingTheMusic Forum Resident

    Location:
    SoCal
    Why don’t you put together a comprehensive plan for “Bob”?:wave::laughup:
     
    RhodesSupremacy likes this.
  5. Metralla

    Metralla Joined Jan 13, 2002

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    What is the reason?
     
  6. Metralla

    Metralla Joined Jan 13, 2002

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Sorry - my mistake. I actually knew that and was just rating streaming services.
     
    rbbert likes this.
  7. rischa

    rischa Forum Resident

    Location:
    Mt. Horeb, WI
    I'm still not following. Why would labels negotiate to license their MQA files to streaming services for the same price as their traditional files? I could possibly see an agreement where MQA is offered at a special, lower introductory price in an attempt to foster interest, but eventually prices would need to go up. There are costs involved with MQA beyond regular digital, correct? And ultimately those would be paid for by the end user.
     
  8. Kyhl

    Kyhl On break

    Location:
    Savage
    So that's the latest tactic, try to smear the reputations of forum members? You have stepped to a new low Lee.

    These member have probably listened to MQA as much as you. Maybe even more. Some have even spend their own money on it. Have you?
    Based on your uninformed writing about MQA they have researched what MQA is more than you have. One has tried to reverse engineer what MQA filters do.

    It's pretty clear to me what MQA is and it has also become pretty clear to me what the audio press has evolved into, industry marketing dressed up as journalists. There is no journalism there.

    I'm going to vote with my wallet. MQA, pass.
    My Stereophile subscription runs out in a couple months. Done. They even ignored their own findings about MQA DACs crippling hi-rez playback. Hypocrites. Which is a pity because I like Kal.
    PTA, You've shown your colors. Never another click.
     
    Jim N., Darksolstice, LarryP and 7 others like this.
  9. ServingTheMusic

    ServingTheMusic Forum Resident

    Location:
    SoCal
    uh...he is just making it up as he goes along...don’t try to follow...
     
  10. ServingTheMusic

    ServingTheMusic Forum Resident

    Location:
    SoCal
    Ding ding ding! We have a winner....:cheers:
     
    Darksolstice likes this.
  11. Lorraine

    Lorraine Forum Resident

    Location:
    Stamford CT
    WE could soon add HDMusicStreaming?? WE?? I think most of us here already knew you were bucking for the head cheerleader position of Team MQA, but I think your finger slipped when typing the above and now you've truly revealed a lack of any journalistic impartiality.
     
    Dave and ds58 like this.
  12. Agitater

    Agitater Forum Resident

    Location:
    Toronto
    Every single one of my MQA sessions has been a listening session using original source CD or digital file releases or TIDAL HiFi streams vs. the corresponding MQA versions. Widely available files and CDs, some not so easy to get, some very popular and easily obtained, vs. their MQA versions. I’ve repeatedly stated this, yet the reality distortion field which seems to surround MQA at the audiophile media level seems to have blocked that out of your considerations.

    Again, all of my MQA assessments have been done with an array of friends and acquaintances during music listening sessions. I cannot account for your statements to the contrary. You seem to be pulling contrary information out of thin air. You really shouldn’t do that

    Well running a blog (@Archimago) and running an investigative research company (@Agitater) certainly doesn’t disqualify either of us from asserting technical skills sets applied to the analysis of MQA, the results of listening experience with MQA, or the results group listening sessions with MQA. Why would anybody have a problem with any of that? Just because our technical and personal listening and group listening results disagree with the promotional marketing and the technically challenged public eructions of Bob Stuart, Peter Craven, et al, is not a reason to deride @Archimago or me. One thing should not lead to the other, and I’m not sure why you’re using personal derision in your responses. There’s just no need for it.

    You’re making this up. Not once in this thread or in any others on the subject of MQA has anyone technically questioned MQA beyond asserting (after technical investigation) that MQA does not appear to be what Stuart et al are claiming it is. That’s a question that Stuart has avoided like the Plague.

    As for cables, stop - please stop - trying to change the subject; this is your MQA thread, after all. No one is trying the change your mind about audiophile cables and the related and audibly and technical unsupportable nonsense promoted by Synergistic and Shunyata and Furutech and many of the others.

    That stated, I’ll happily organize and setup public listening sessions using a couple of high quality systems wired with complete sets of cables provided for free by the manufacturers (all cables to be returned in good order and excellent condition afterward). But I get to choose which cables are switched in and out, none of the listeners will ever get to see or otherwise know what cables are in use in any listening session, and only an independent duo or trio of research assistants will be allowed to accurately tally the resulting listening data. I’ll put all the audiophiles cables up against high quality, very low priced competitors. Now what do you want to bet that not even one of the cable makers will ever submit so much as a single interconnect for any such listening sessions. James Randi made the offer, repeatedly. Others have made the offer. I’ve made the offer. None of the high-end cable makers will ever submit their products to such scrutiny. But if one or more of them does so, I’ll be happy to organize, setup and do exactly what I described above. Betcha real money that it’ll never happen though, because the cable makers don’t want anything to disturb the lucrative reality distortion field they’ve successfully set up. Learn the game you’re in, @LeeS, but don’t actually fall prey to it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
  13. fatwad666

    fatwad666 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Fat City, USA
    There’s a disconnect where this guy consistently denies the validity of science in favor of his subjectively-derived imaginations. Yet he simultaneously trusts these "geniuses" to create all this "innovative technology” for him. Wouldn't these people need to use science to design and test this stuff? Why would science stop being valid once the consumer is being sold and using these items? It’s a conveniently deluded point of view if you’ve spent money chasing down a marketing pitch.
     
    Claude Benshaul and Kyhl like this.
  14. tootull

    tootull Looking through a glass onion

    Location:
    Canada
    You're one of the best posters to happen to this forum ever. Posting from Toronto makes it all the more special to me.

    :cheers:
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
    Agitater likes this.
  15. Metralla

    Metralla Joined Jan 13, 2002

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Let's move off the cable thing.
     
    Dave, Agitater and Billy Budapest like this.
  16. Agitater

    Agitater Forum Resident

    Location:
    Toronto
    This is an MQA thread - your MQA thread - so I think the debate about what constitutes innovation is way too far off track. I disagree with your assessment, anyway.

    Suddenly you’re concerned about setups and test conditions? I can repeat what I’ve written about Synergistic in this thread and about Shunyata and some other makers in other threads, but this is an MQA thread. I’ve also posted repeatedly that if a friend of mind (or anyone on SHF or wherever) decides to spend serious money on so-called audiophile cables then mazel tov, cent’anni and good luck, and most important, enjoy the heck out of them. I can assure you that in any listening session or test condition involving listeners who don’t know what cable is plugged in at any given moment - who only know that the person conducting the listening sessions has stated that a change has occured - the chance of any listener correctly choosing what cable is in use is no better than a coin flip. Remove any knowledge of which cable is being used at any given time, and suddenly all the bias-driven positivity that one cable is roomier or fatter or airier or bassier or treblier or whateverier disappears instantly. It’s remarkable.

    Okay . . . But the audience was present specifically to be impressed by MQA-processed files. That’s called a setup. People were told what to hear or primed to appreciate one thing more than the other. The problem with all such demos is that their results don’t hold up in a contrasting listening session in which nobody knows what’s playing or whether MQA is at work or not. Then - and those are just the sorts of listening sessions I’ve put together with friends - MQA falls apart.

    You really need to check my profile to understand what gear I own and use. It’s an equipment list that changes regularly throughout each year because audio is a hobby and music listening is a passion. To keep my ear attuned to the best possible quality and the most discerning listening, I also listen to a lot of live music at jazz clubs and to classical music performances in some truly great concert halls in Toronto and in various cities around the world in my travels. I’m not sure what more I can do to refine my ear. My piano playing days are long past, but they were as important as my chorale years in the development of my listening skills and my understanding of music of all kinds. That’s my basic CV, and it’s the best I can offer. Nor can I offier more than the well-matched component setups I use in a variety of systems set up in my home at any given time. I’m confident I’ve got the hardware side well covered too.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
    Jim N., Dave, LarryP and 9 others like this.
  17. russk

    russk Forum Resident

    Location:
    Syracuse NY
    Weren't you upset about ad hominem attacks and a lack of civility a bit ago in this thread? I thought the inexperienced non-believers we're the jerks? Oh but wait when someone disagrees with your purely subjective assessment that is all that's left isn't there? No objective research or science to point to that will support your position. Anyways that's me. Inexperienced. Haven't been playing with this stuff for 25 years or restoring my own amps and crossovers or even building the occasional kit for fun. No idea how this stuff works. It must be like gravity, completely magical. o_O

    Anyways. Back to MQA. I just got my Roon and Tidal subscriptions done and will hopefully be up and running this week. Tidal has an impressive library. I hope they are able to stick around for awhile. Hopefully partnering with the people behind MQA will allow them to turn a profit.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
  18. Claude Benshaul

    Claude Benshaul Forum Resident

    Since it's getting very hard to understand what MQA is perhaps I'll repeat a previous analysis and attack the issue from another angle: What MQA isn't

    1. It's not lossless.
    2. It doesn't save money
    3. It doesn't save bandwith
    4. It doesn't correct bad recordings or mastering
    In my opinion, MQA is like the story of the shoe seller and the thief absconding with a pair of new shoes and some change after paying with a fake bill. The story involve many transactions to confuse the question of what the shop owner really lost and it's a classic in teaching methods for clearer thinking.

    None of the so called features of MQA translates into end user benefits, while the only one who will profit are those selling licenses or MQA encoded media. This is the basic definition of a scam.
     
    Dave, Darksolstice, LarryP and 7 others like this.
  19. Metralla

    Metralla Joined Jan 13, 2002

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    It is not free
    It is not an open standard
    It is not required
     
  20. Bubbamike

    Bubbamike Forum Resident

    Who profits?
    Bob Stuart and MQA.
    The Record Labels who get to put the lock back on the pr0duct.
    The Industry. All of a sudden everyone has to replace their equipment. New DACS for all! Plus all that stuff that doesn't work with MQA. I wonder how Peter Lyngdorff's equipment works with it?
    The Magazines both print and on the web. They get something to write about and get the readers hyped on and then they get to sell oodles of ads for all the new equipment.
    The Streaming Companies. They get a buzz. and maybe some new subscribers.

    Who doesn't profit?
    The Consumer who has to buy new equipment and because music will only be available in MQA, they have to buy the catalog all over again so they get the MQA version. Or what's even better the pay per month streaming package becomes pay per play. Bingo.

    And there you go.
     
    j7n, Edgard Varese, Dave and 3 others like this.
  21. berklon

    berklon Forum Resident

    Man, this really is a blast from the past... Lee was a huge proponent of SACD and kept trying to promote it on the Music sub-forum at the Home Theater Forum years back.
    He got into very similar arguments back then too... it was Lee against the world. He predicted that SACD was going to start spreading to the mass market... and we were about to start seeing SACD capable players in cars (at a time when cars were moving towards MP3 enabled players).

    I still remember the his flawed logic in pushing SACD. He would claim that even a modest/low-end inexpensive system would be able to hear the advantages of SACD, and when someone would say that they couldn't really hear the difference on their decent system, he would then state their system wasn't good enough to take advantage of it. He covered both angles with his answers.

    It appears nothing has changed. :laugh:
     
  22. firedog

    firedog Forum Resident

    So what? I realize Bob Stuart is knowledgeable and an innovator. That doesn't mean every idea he brings to market is a good one; nor does it belie the fact that his company Meridian consistently loses money and is financially propped up by his rich in-laws (read publicly available documents that show this). MQA may or may not be a good idea, but it is indisputable that BS has a serious financial need for it to succeed. So he isn't exactly an "objective" source of info for this topic - he's a marketer, and everything he says about MQA needs to be seen through that filter.

    ANALYSIS
    by Archimago and others has already shown that filters being used in MQA reconstruction are nothing remarkable and in many respects are what could be referred to as inferior "leaky" (let aliasing artifacts through).

    MQA is also a closed system which certainly tries to prevent knowledge and analysis of what it is and what it does. That's their right, but then they need to accept that their will be criticism and their word isn't accepted on faith (except by you, I guess).

    Beyond that, your consistent appeals to authority are laughable. Both sides of the argument can bring authority figures to bolst their position - so it's a wash and those appeals mean nothing. Try analysis and facts instead of appeals to authority and you might convince a few people.

    We are not "supposed to believe" anyone. That's your real problem. You "believe" things, but you don't actually know what you are writing about. It's opinion without anything behind it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2018
    sublemon, ribonucleic, scottM and 3 others like this.
  23. firedog

    firedog Forum Resident

    Yes, they are either going to charge a premium for it to make money off it, or when it is established as a dominant format, they will remove non-MQA files from streaming (and possibly from other media also). Then they can make lots of money off of it.
     
  24. rbbert

    rbbert Forum Resident

    Location:
    Reno, NV, USA
    The majority of negative posts surrounding you in this topic have to do with your opinions, not you as a person. You seem to have trouble separating the two. And in fact, while you consider your opinions "honest", others may not. There is no doubt, however, that your opinions posted here are not "informed"; as has been pointed out repeatedly, interviewing principals involved with MQA and the record labels does not equal true research
     
  25. russk

    russk Forum Resident

    Location:
    Syracuse NY
    That is an awesome dog. What breed is he?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine