Jump to content

LHC

Full Member
  • Content Count

    4,181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,180 Superstar

2 Followers

About LHC

Profile Fields

  • Location
    SA
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Totally agree that truth matters. However fighting over whether MQA is "lossless" or not isn't worth the trouble because it is interpretative. The facts of the matter appears to be: It is bad marketing for MQA to hype their product as "lossless"; there is no need for them to do that and should stop it. People wrongly placed too much weight on being "lossless", that is a mistake. The focus should be on whether the MQA filtering and processing produce better sounding recordings. Where consumers should hold MQA and Tidal accountable is their authentication process, i.e. the en
  2. For the good folks here I wish to remind you that we lost the 'loudness war'; Neil Young lost; all music consumers lost. When MQA first emerged a few years ago, naive people like myself viewed it as a possible way to win the loudness war: that we could convince the large music studios that there is commercial value in high quality mastered music recording delivered by the future streaming platforms. That was the original vision and hope. Note that hi-res PCM, DSD, DVD-Audio, blu-ray audio, are pretty much failure in the large commercial sense. The fact that Spotify is
  3. I agree with that POV. Although I do sympathise with the need for freedom of choice for consumers.
  4. Isn't that the dictionary definition of a 'conspiracy theory'? You talked about a possible future outcome that currently have no known evidence of being realised. I didn't discount your possibility. You mention a technology roadmap, ok, so what are the warning signals or red flags that we should be on the look out for before it becomes inevitable?
  5. That is the point I was getting at by posting that Tidal interview. The representative said it is unique and exclusive to Tidal mastering that the artists (or someone involved within the creative process) approves the version released. This is something objective, verifiable and accountable. I may be mistaken but I think this is how it should work. The studio/artists makes a recording and let us call it M. M undergoes processing, MQA processing or what not, and the resulting version is X. The artists (or their representative) check X and give their decision/approval that X is what
  6. It is a good article. However I would argue that it will take everyone to pull their own weight in order to make progress. govt to set policies and offer incentives consumers to be willing to pay a reasonable premium (and accept any limitations) manufacturers to be willing to accept a lower profit return from exporting EV to Australia (against their business sense)
  7. This is a Tidal spokes person talking about their recording/mastering process. Of particular interest is between the 2:30 to 3:15 min where he talks about explicit artist decisions in the authentication process. I think this is something that objectively people can hold them to account. The bits about 'highest quality' recording is just marketing speak.
  8. Are you insinuating that a blue light that serves no useful purpose amounts to a criminal case of "Fraud"? I would think the bar is set higher than that.
  9. That is the dystopia scenario - as you said a long way off and zero evidence that it will come to pass. A possibility of this does not amount to be "Fraud" (I know you are not suggesting that). I don't think we should talk about things that have zero evidence; there are plenty of other things to discuss about MQA that are evidence based.
  10. How did Amir (the model objectivist) became a big MQA supporter? Cognitive dissonance is doing my head in.
  11. We do not yet know whether the OP video has damaged the MQA brand to the extent that forces them to take legal proceedings. It is too early to read anything into a lack of legal action. MQA has officially responded to the video, so they have not dismissed it out of hand. IF the technical issues from the video are valid, then it is up to the companies that licensed MQA to demand remedial actions from MQA. Those who paid MQA are their primary stakeholders. Those who paid Tidal can take actions with their subscription; they can do that even if the issues in the video are incorrect.
  12. So to be clear, is this basis for a "Fraud" claim by our community. It is important to make this clear and not cause people's head to spin. I have said before 'misleading' is subjective. Many marketing can be misleading, and MQA marketing is no different. Those misleading practises should be called out and clean up. I am all for accuracy and holding people accountable for misinformation. However, "Fraud" is a serious reportable criminal offence. Basically fraud is a crime and if spotted we have a duty to report it. So is that gripe the basis for lodging a report, as a m
  13. 'Misleading' is subjective, and that in itself is another problem in these type of discussion. Some people may be 'misled', but others are not because they interpreted things differently.
  14. MQA did provide a written response to GoldenSound - it was discussed in their OP video starting from the 28:58 min mark.
×
×
  • Create New...