1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

MQA fracas at RMAF 2018

Discussion in 'audio' started by al2002, Oct 9, 2018.

  1. AndyU

    AndyU pfm Member

    Could you tell me which musicians embrace MQA? Say half a dozen names? Many MQA recordings feature musicians who have been dead for years. How could they possibly listen to or approve MQA?
     
    Emlin likes this.
  2. DimitryZ

    DimitryZ pfm Member

    It sounds like there is a lot of conjecture in your post. You surely think that you *know* the motivations these unsophisticated musical souls have...Certainly they cant possibly have enough agency to understand these complex issues...just because they were playing in the studio why on earth would they have an ability to judge SQ of their own MQA release...after all its our area of expertise. And most of them will just do what their music exec bosses tell them. Unlike us, who tell the truth to power.
     
  3. DimitryZ

    DimitryZ pfm Member

    Pretty much every or most hires releases on Qobuz are also available in MQA form on Tidal. Certainly jazz albums are. Seemingly not dead musicians.
     
  4. Emlin

    Emlin pfm Member

    When does your pay cheque arrive?
     
  5. Emlin

    Emlin pfm Member


    Have your postings been peer reviewed? Have any from MQA? I smell a troll. A paid one.
     
  6. DimitryZ

    DimitryZ pfm Member

    You got me...i make good money posting that i like MQA.

    Now that my cover is blown, what will i ever do for money?
     
  7. Yank

    Yank Bulbous Also Tapered

    You don't suppose they might have a vested interest...
     
  8. Emlin

    Emlin pfm Member

    Move on to your next trolling enterprise, I guess. Without detailing how your posts or those of MQA have been peer reviewed. Because they haven't been.
     
  9. DimitryZ

    DimitryZ pfm Member

    I guess.

    There is just no fooling you, is there? Sharp as a tack.
     
  10. DimitryZ

    DimitryZ pfm Member

    You dont suppose they actually have brains, knowledge and agency, do ya?
     
  11. Yank

    Yank Bulbous Also Tapered

    They wanna get paid. The key to MQA getting adopted as a standard will not be anything to do with sound quality, or even file size compression, it'll be down to cramming DRM down our throats. This isn't audio, or music, it's commerce and politics.
     
    Wolfmancatsup likes this.
  12. Werner

    Werner pfm Member

    You talk about conjecture. Can you back up your own claims? And anyway, it is not about how MQA may or may not sound. It is about the business model, the implied land-grab, the unsubstantiated claims, and the overall stupidity of it.

    Who or what are you to judge our knowledge and name it 'rudimentary'. Do you yourself have any deep understanding of this matter? Archi does, Mansr does, I do, others do. No peer review??? People have been working at this since end of 2014, continually exhanging ideas and results.

    Right ...
     
  13. firedog

    firedog pfm Member


    In the US they have zero liability for libel in an instance like this (different from UK law and much harder to prove). Chris understands the argument he was presenting quite well.

    The bottom line is that a well known audio blogger did a technical analysis of MQA and presented certain conclusions. Chris (who knows the actual identity of the writer, who can't use his real name b/c he will lose his - non-audio related - day job) sent the analysis to multiple industry experts who affirmed that the analysis was correct in all technical aspects.

    The MQA people and supporters have not once refuted any technical claim in the article - and they were given the opportunity before the article was published. They have simply continued to attack the messenger, b/c they don't know his identity. It's like saying I challenge you posting as factual that 2+2=4, because I don't know your identity. The facts don't change based on the identity of the presenter.
     
  14. firedog

    firedog pfm Member

    Acc'd to Chris over at CA, MQA supplied a rehash of old material that didn't address the relevant points and he felt no need to present it in addition to what he was already presenting.
     
  15. firedog

    firedog pfm Member

    What's your basis for this statement? The most common denominator of MQA files is that they AREN'T approved or authenticated by musicians who made the music. It's been publicly acknowledged that the most common form of "authenticating" the files is by record label bureaucrats, and not a musician, producer or mastering engineer of the original. The whole sign off thing is another fake marketing claim by MQA. "Masters" are being mass converted to MQA without any input from actual artists involved in the creation. Several actual "creators" have said they had nothing to do with the MQA version of their work.
     
  16. Mr_Sukebe

    Mr_Sukebe pfm Member

    Thanks for clarifying that the chaps were from MQA.
    Have to say, they were frankly a bit embarrassingly bad.

    After all, the discussion points that were walked through are the SAME points that have been debated for the last couple of years. Nothing was new in there.
    You'd have through that with a couple of years to prepare that the representatives would have been able to spool off what should by now be well researched and prepared answers that would be able to clarify/calm/resolve/or just put out how pointless the questions were.

    In short, not a great presentation by a CA, and a pretty dammingly bad one from MQA.
     
  17. firedog

    firedog pfm Member

    Again, Chris knows Archi's identity and has stated he isn't a member of the audio industry per se and has no commercial interest or conflict of interest. Just a talented and interested hobbyist. There is certainly a need to hide behind internet anonymity if you are a private person whose livelihood will be at risk if you blog using your real name. And again, Archi is using a pseudonym - his identity is known to several people, including Chris, who vouch for the above. He's not anonymous. There's a difference. The MQA people attack him b/c they can't refute his claims. Chris gave them an opportunity to publish a response article to Archi's on his forum and they declined. Wonder why that is?
     
  18. firedog

    firedog pfm Member

    Zero solid basis for this claim as regards either "musicians" as a group, or "audiophiles". If MQA was so well loved, Tidal would be gaining customers at the expense of Spotify (mp3) which hasn't happened at all. Check the subscription figures since the introduction of MQA at Tidal. Most musicians have nothing to do with the release of their titles in MQA. Do you have any clue how the record industry actually works?
     
  19. firedog

    firedog pfm Member

    In about 99% of cases the musicians have nothing to do with a re-release of their music. Labels generally own the rights and do what they want. The cases where they have to ask the musician are few and far between.
     
  20. adamdea

    adamdea pfm Member

    Still waiting for the back up for the claim that musicians love MQA....
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice