lucretius

I'd love to hear your impressions of this new realease.

I have one of these type of adapters (cheap one from Amazon) that I plug into my Macbook. It seems to work sometimes and not at other times. I use a USB C adapter from Audioquest with my Dragonfly. Works all the time -- with computer or phone.

Sometimes the adapter or dock are problematic. If you have access to another adapter or dock you can try that. Also try plugging the adapter or dock into a different USB port. (Not all USB ports are equal!)

Can I still get a key for HQplayer v3 on Mac for a reasonable fee (or can I trade my Windows key)? I don't want v4. Thank you.

Hi @Miska, I just bought a new Macbook Pro. I loaded HQPlayer 3.25.6. I am having a problem registering it. The key file "hqplayer3w-key.xml" is not working, although this file was originally intended for Windows. Do I need a specific key for macOS? And if so, how do I get this file? Thank you.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/paul-mccartney-is-dead-conspiracy-897189/

In a logical world, brand loyalty has a lot to do with how well a company delivers on it's basic, promises. Since mQa ltd. fails to deliver, I must conclude that mQA fans are irrational. Rabid fanboyism appears to be their defense mechanism. I am left to wonder how far this irrationality has spilled over into other areas.

The mQa version should be priced less than the MP3 version, which I assume is also "perceptually lossless" but doesn't require mQa licensed software or hardware for playback. That mQa tax hidden in the software and hardware should, at the very least, contribute towards reduced prices for mQa music.

Do you plan on storing or taking the speakers in during the winter months? It looks like foxes and coyotes are not a problem in your area.

No, thats just mQa playback. 😉

If we want to nurture amazing creative talents then we must have much shorter copyrights to enable music to be enjoyed and reworked by others. In Shakespeare's time, when there was no protection for copyright at all, writers stole passages and ideas from each other. Today's copyright laws would have suffocated much Elizabethan creativity. Artists who claim that income from records is their pension are deluded. The vast majority of income from records comes immediately after publication. Those who clean up after 50 years are corporations with back catalogues and a tiny number of very successful artists who don't need the money. Further, the Gowers report published in 2006, an independent review of UK intellectual property focusing on UK copyright law, referred to two independent surveys by economists. One said the correct term to maximize economic welfare was 21 years, almost the same as patents. The second said it should be only seven.

Me too. And since I'm not streaming it, there are no royalties involved.

Yes it is. Unfortunately the copyright term is longer in the US (70 years after the death of the author and in some cases 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation).

I just don't think that copyright protection should last far longer than patent protection. (How much 50 year old stuff are you streaming anyway?)

I'm all for copyright protection but I believe, with respect to music, the time takes for the copyright to expire and the music to enter the public domain is far too long. Something like 20 years after a work is released/published should be enough.