Jump to content

ron spencer

  • Posts

    104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    country-ZZ

Retained

  • Member Title
    Freshman Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. What is so bizarre about this is that it seems the original campaign person, Gavin Fish, has simply left LHLabs without any repercusions from Indieogog? Is that how crowd funding can be?? I have seen posted over at IGG itself that he is still listed as the so-called campaign owner. If this is true, and he has just left, then crowd funding in the case of Indiegogo is a total mess. How an this be?
  2. Vaccines and autism, cable break-in, and MQA....what more could anyone want to discuss? Hmmm...maybe room treatments?
  3. Interesting....your outcome of not being able to download and only have streaming available is interesting. Perhaps you should do a poll: "Would you be willing to give up having any physical possession of media/files if MQA is implemented?" If the resounding answer is no and people want to "own things" then there is no reason for those same people to want MQA in the world where it replaces the "ownership of things" I for one, love my files....
  4. This is a great post..if MQA becomes the standard for hi-res and only certain files are available in certain formats, then that would be bad for music. But if Merdian provided an SDK (yah right) then it wouldn't matter. EVERYONE should be concerned about the possibility of the restriction of supply. Why? Well, if it can be done with hires, then it could be done with 44.1/16 as well. Not cool.
  5. Well, you didn't respond to the most salient point: "A priori one can never know, but since the folks at Meridian won't realease an SDK for people to use to unfold their purchases, I for one don't trust it. Why should I?" But I do get your point about Porsche...their cars suck
  6. What would people think if 44.1/16 was perverted by MQA to somehow be MP3 quality on copy and a "special" DAC needed to "unfold" the poorer quality "MP3 sound" into the "full" 44.1/16 sound? If there is restriction of the source files based on some fancy DAC or other private licensing deal, then, for all intents and purposes, it is DRM. If I buy files I want to use my files unencumbered, MQA is not that, it just isn't. While some may think it is "cool" for streaming, great, go for it. But for those who like files and music servers, the chance that one's files can be debilitated is a reason not to support this...it is just wacky. Again, what's the point? I see no merit, either from bandwidth savings, sound quality or in a pragmatic sense. If all files/masters/versions of files will be made available at the same time, then great, but I won't trust the industry blindly.
  7. To be honest, MQA doesn't really mean anything, except to a hugely small () segment of the listening population. Most people today seem quite happy with their crummy bluetooth speakers and horrible phone speakers. Very few people "listen" to music anymore...most just play it, dance around and that is it. So MQA can go for all its worth, just so long as it does not lock down music. I say it again, if new remasters of music are put only into MQA and cannot be "unfolded" back out to be able to be played anywhere/anytime, then you are a fool for supporting it; you will only get burned later (and yes the industry WILL burn you). If it just becomes another method of delivery that does not impede/lock down the flow of music to any and all people, then go ahead. But if it ends up becoming a lock down for "higher end" remasters, then that is an issue. Sure it won't have "destroyed Western Civilization", but it will have destroyed access to music, which nobody should support. A priori one can never know, but since the folks at Meridian won't realease an SDK for people to use to unfold their purchases, I for one don't trust it. Why should I?
  8. And he doesn't? Well, he'll eat up your supply of "non-folded" music. NEVER, EVER, turn your back on a tiger :-)
  9. I really like this quote by Jud...as he says "MQA streaming" I say it again, if this is all MQA is for, then fine. But if fancy new remixes/remasters are ONLY available as MQA, then this restricts the supply of music, which should not be tolerated by anyone. It does remain to be seen if such DRM is to be used, but as others have pointed out here, little, if anything, is gained by using MQA over FLAC. If MQA hides/folds sound that needs special devices to listen to and only MQA is available, then music will be heading into another dark zone. One can stay "relaxed" and have a "wait and see attitude", but your music may dry up in the interim.
  10. I thought FLAC meant Fun Loving Audio Connoisseurs while MQA means Money Quickly Accepted
  11. Robert Harley of TAS should moderate the proposed Cable subforum. We all know that one should spend $50,000 on Shunyata power supplies and cables to get the best sound. Anything less and you are not really "listening". Never mind the fact that you will need room treatments as well. I think I'll delete all my music now and drink my CD optimizer spray...what's the point?
  12. critical??? don't think so: from: MQA So flac it up and you get even more bandwidth savings without PROPRIETARY "schemes of unfolding"
  13. Why bother with specialized encoding "schemes" that are closed source when FLAC gives you everything you NEED...Of course, FLAC does not have any "cool" aid to sell you ;-)
  14. If said titles were restricted to DSD only, then yes. That is controlling outputs...but as you know since then DSD can be home brewed and changed into whatever you like, so now the answer is no. If MQA locks this up forever, then it is DRM. If MQA goes open source then no it is not DRM. DSD can now be placed into wavpack no problem. So innovation and consumer choice has evolved. MQA is looking like a closed solution that could restrict usage and consumer choice. If it does, then it is DRM.
  15. Indeed...My wifi happily streams 192/24, even with the wife streaming netflix
×
×
  • Create New...