MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

[svart-hvitt]

Quoting Keynes? Incredible. Economics masquerades as science. No specific predictability due to manipulated inputs and unreal outcome expectations.

Please, stop ridiculing, dismissing arguments without countering the argument. Keynes was a great thinker, admired also by people who didn’t agree with him in practical policy.

My point quoting Keynes was to argue that @amirm seems to be a slave of current thinking on the market workings without supporting his claims with evidence.

Even researchers and scientists are prone to biases, taking a certain logic for granted, without reflecting over the possibility that this logic may be flawed.

 

[Wombat]

Where did I say «IP piracy is OK»?

I quoted a report which found piracy to have nuanced effects, a report that the EU wanted to withhold from public eye.

Stop making straw men and start discussing the subject matter, please.

Your post was opposed to IP property owners taking action to stop the theft. So you agree that they are entitled to do that? What is your point in few words?

 

[Wombat]

Your post was opposed to IP property owners taking action to stop the theft. So you agree that they are entitled to do that? What is your point in few words?

Quoting Keynes is just another of your philosophical bents.

 

[Cosmik]

Another nail in MQA's coffin?
http://archimago.blogspot.fr/2018/04/musings-on-drm-mqa-supposed-techno.html

Good article, but I don't think it will have any effect on MQA's success or otherwise.

Like Archimago, I am not against DRM per se. I would be against it if:

1. It was (effectively) mandatory and had significant inconvenience factor - like you find you can't play files in your car when outside a 4G data area.
2. It was audible in the form of watermarks or because it enforces use of a specific, flawed, lossy data compression scheme.
3. It meant that digital audio as a 'thing' was entirely owned by corporations i.e. if I wanted to make a recording of my band and distribute it to my friends or more widely, I had to (directly or indirectly) get the permission of, and pay, someone to allow me to do it.
4. If I wanted to build my own unrestricted digital recorder and player (maybe I want to record bats or dolphins or something specialised like that), it would be illegal without jumping through a lot of hoops - bear in mind that that is what some in the US were proposing in 2005!

 

[Wombat]

Please, stop ridiculing, dismissing arguments without countering the argument. Keynes was a great thinker, admired also by people who didn’t agree with him in practical policy.

My point quoting Keynes was to argue that @amirm seems to be a slave of current thinking on the market workings without supporting his claims with evidence.

Even researchers and scientists are prone to biases, taking a certain logic for granted, without reflecting over the possibility that this logic may be flawed.

I don't have to counter weak, baseless or misguided arguments. Another post with 'what ifs'. You can do better in your presentation and support of your points. This is not a philosophy site. You still don't get it.

 

[FrantzM]

One can always dream and believe in the fairness of the market. Opinions, desires, needs can be manipulated: Advertising... Yet it appears that at times the market reacts in ways to sustain its wants and ways. e.g advertising din't manage to convince people that the new coke was superior to the old ...
It is too early but audiophilia is such a tiny market niche that its outlooks do not appear to be a bright future...

 

[svart-hvitt]

Quoting Keynes is just another of your philosophical bents.

Doctor of philosophy is the highest academic degree.

So I take it as an honour to be accused of «philosophical bent» on a site dedicated to science.

 

[Wombat]

Doctor of philosophy is the highest academic degree.

So I take it as an honour to be accused of «philosophical bent» on a site dedicated to science.

I have always believed that individuals should only quote their honorific when engaging in their speciality.

What is your entitled honorific in Electrical, Electronic, Auditory or audio in general? In particular , what is the full title of your honorific?

 

[oivavoi]

Oh come on. Stop this tiresome pissing contest. Just focus on each other's arguments for Keynes' sake!

 

[Wombat]

Oh come on. Stop this tiresome pissing contest. Just focus on each other's arguments for Keynes' sake!

See post #185.

I think a PhD can speak for himself, don't you?

P.S. Not acquiescing to another's views does not constitute a pissing-match. Unhelpful intervention. My focus has been well focused on a lack of focus re audio science.

 

[oivavoi]

See post #185.

I think a PhD can speak for himself, don't you?

P.S. Not acquiescing to another's views does not constitute a pissing-match. Unhelpful intervention. My focus has been well focused on a lack of focus.

AFAIK, @svart-hvitt has never claimed to have a PhD. But you're again starting to focus on the person making the argument instead of the argument itself, cfr post 188.

 

[Wombat]

AFAIK, @svart-hvitt has never claimed to have a PhD. But you're again starting to focus on the person making the argument instead of the argument itself, cfr post 188.

See post #187. Inferred. thus my reply in post #188.

Anyway, he can speak for himself and I am happy to hear his reply.

 

[Thomas savage]

@Wombat and @svart-hvitt please stop bickering, this thread is for discussion surrounding MQA and the various issues related to its theoretical and practical implementation.

To that end I see nothing wrong with @svart-hvitt original post ( #176)@Wombat please stop trying to police the forum. It’s not up to you to define what we are and what content is appropriate and what’s not.

You both need to get back to the subject at hand.

Thank you.

 

[Wombat]

@Wombat and @svart-hvitt please stop bickering, this thread is for discussion surrounding MQA and the various issues related to its theoretical and practical implementation.

To that end I see nothing wrong with @svart-hvitt original post. @Wombat please stop trying to police the forum. It’s not up to you to define what we are and what content is appropriate and what’s not.

Sorry, I seem to take the forum masthead literally.

 

[oivavoi]

My focus has been well focused on a lack of focus re audio science.

My suggestion, if this bothers you: make a formal complaint to @amirm . After all, it was he who started discussing market forces, and how the market will operate re:mqa. That's firmly outside of audio science proper, I would say. Personally, I think it's good to be able to discuss such matters on an audio forum, as they have a huge influence on me as a consumer of music and audio products. But if you don't like it, it might be a good idea to complain about this to those who are actually in charge.

 

[Wombat]

Disengaging.

 

[Thomas savage]

Sorry, I seem to take the forum masthead literally.

Apology accepted , Here’s something you can take literally..,
https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...-update-new-and-old-members-please-read.2596/

 

[Thomas savage]

My suggestion, if this bothers you: make a formal complaint to @amirm . After all, it was he who started discussing market forces, and how the market will operate re:mqa. That's firmly outside of audio science proper, I would say. Personally, I think it's good to be able to discuss such matters on an audio forum, as they have a huge influence on me as a consumer of music and audio products. But if you don't like it, it might be a good idea to complain about this to those who are actually in charge.

Fair enough , now let’s get back to the topic at hand .. economics and greedy ( but just how greedy?) buggers

Or MQA ......

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Believing in the sacralized workings of the market is a bit naive, isn’t it? Wouldn’t a better description of the market process (in many practical cases) be that of certain interests wielding their power?

As economists might say, "Sometimes, Yes. Sometimes, No. It all depends on the nature of a particular market, its structure in terms of numbers of suppliers, its competitiveness in terms of consumer choices and substution of alternatives, as well as laws that may regulate anti-competitive practices."

As far as MQA is concerned, the notion that it will achieve uncontested market dominance and become a tool in the hands of a few suppliers able to impose their will freely and sweepingly on weak, passive, choiceless consumers by the 10's, 100's or 1,000's of millions globally remains merely hypothetical and speculative. That notion does not square at all with my own view of the markets for music and audio. I know of no audio format or codec that was ever simply imposed monopolistically top down by suppliers without regard to consumer acceptance vs. alternatives, which have always existed and still do.

 

[amirm]

@amirm , you wrote:

«If it becomes ubiquitous, it means the consumer has spoken and wants it. In that case, that is it and we better not complain».

Why is it that you conclude that a product which is everywhere is because «the consumer has spoken and wants it»?
Can you support that claim with evidence, science? What sort of science supports that claim?

Let's examine an example. Apple launched their music service with downloadable tracks that were copy protected. This was in sharp contrast to CD that was not. It was huge success. Why? Because Apple forced music labels to unbundle the CD. You could now buy a track for 99 cents. And with one click no less. And unlike the CD, you could have it in your hands in seconds.

Apple fairplay "DRM" was accepted with welcome arms as a result of above. The consumer spoke and that was that as the saying goes.

Take Blu-ray. DVD copy protection was broken wide but Blu-ray had much more powerful copy protection. Yet the consumer appetite for high-resolution video won them over and they accepted the much more secure format. Consumer spoke again. And the consequences were whatever they were.

By the same token, if MQA wins despite any restrictions it may bring, that is that. It will be because consumers want to stream high-res audio in MQA format. Protesting against such an outcome will do nothing. The people paying will always win over people who are sitting on the sidelines throwing rocks.

Take MP3. It reduced quality from CD. But again, consumer spoke because they wanted the convenience of on-the-road music enjoyment and happily gave up the fidelity difference. Again, consumer spoke.

Look at Google chrome. No one thought a new browser had a chance against Internet Explorer. But google thought different: they made a very fast and light-weight browser. They added features like automatic background update. And in short few years, became the #1 browser in the market. Quite remarkable. So much so that Microsoft had disbanded the IE team for the most part thinking "the battle of browsers was over and they had won forever." Again, consumer spoke. To the chagrin of web developers that they had to make sure their web sites looked good in both IE and Chrome.

Take safety in cars. Initially in US this was a government mandate. But automakers who cried and cried due to higher costs realized that safety sold. Today they pile on more safety features than one can count. Because the consumer has spoken and is willing to pay more to get a safer car.

The business dynamics are not hard science like audio. But it is important to consider the super valid factors here. Ignoring them gives you the many failures of others trying these things.