Fitzcaraldo215
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,440
- Likes
- 634
I think I have answered that. If they did it themselves or commissioned it, it would be seen as tainting the results. For all I know, they or their licensees have already done this, and I would be surprised if they had not already have done it. But, the firestorm of resistance it would receive upon publication might not make business or PR sense. It must be as independent as possible.MQA have easy access to funds if they wanted to arrange state of the art quality listening tests by objective third parties. They even have financial backing to make whatever end-to-end equipment, say in a series of 500 copies (to get some scale and distribution) if they wanted to.
So why don’t MQA make this investment if they believe in the technology’s superiority. As we know, Johann Rupert is trigger happy if he sees financial opportunities that water out his tobacco money.
This is kindergarten level logic as opposed to sophistry, i.e. discussing what if scenarios that are not going to happen.
Tobacco money or Rupert are distracting red herrings that contribute nothing to the debate. I don't like tobacco money either. But, IMHO, it weakens any arguments you might have against the technology itself by playing that card, unless you believe in simple guilt by association. Who is to know whether Rupert is an active or a passive investor, unless you have been in the board room? Yet, you assume he is "in control".