It’s “the new thing” to monetize at the moment. And thread jack over, back to MQA, Bob Stuart and the such. Sorry folks!
 

JP

Junior Member
Gimlet certainly had a lot of numbers on listeners (I had to sit through a loooooonggggg spiel from them which ultimately convinced us to not use them). In general I felt they were trying to convey a uniqueness that wasn't backed up by reality, except for their distribution network. Their scale was all they had to offer. I felt the costs involved were ridiculous.

Within their ecosystem? Did they have a mechanism to attribute for net new?
 

JohnVF

Administrator
Staff member
Within their ecosystem? Did they have a mechanism to attribute for net new?
I don't quite understand why they couldn't track streams and downloads. Not saying they can or can't but what is keeping them from knowing the number of streams or downloads? They may not know specific unique listeners or be able to track them uniquely but they'd know number of plays, no? I admittedly don't get much into the data end of things. Gimlet did have some pretty specific (and big) numbers but since everybody selling something uses pretty sketchy numbers and basically no online ad-tracking numbers are legit anymore, I just kind of ignore them and evaluate on other criteria.
 

JP

Junior Member
I don't quite understand why they couldn't track streams and downloads. Not saying they can or can't but what is keeping them from knowing the number of streams or downloads? They may not know specific unique listeners or be able to track them uniquely but they'd know number of plays, no? I admittedly don't get much into the data end of things. Gimlet did have some pretty specific (and big) numbers but since everybody selling something uses pretty sketchy numbers and basically no online ad-tracking numbers are legit anymore, I just kind of ignore them and evaluate on other criteria.

Again, last I (briefly) looked in to this was two years ago. The podcast platforms are closed, so they know what's going on but no one else does. Across web and mobile I can cookie and track you for retargeting, and track and attribute a conversion, but for podcasts I can't. I can build an audience and target it, but there was no visibility in to acquisition and conversion from the platforms. That they kept to themselves.
 

JohnVF

Administrator
Staff member
Again, last I (briefly) looked in to this was two years ago. The podcast platforms are closed, so they know what's going on but no one else does. Across web and mobile I can cookie and track you for retargeting, and track and attribute a conversion, but for podcasts I can't. I can build an audience and target it, but there was no visibility in to acquisition and conversion from the platforms. That they kept to themselves.
Ok that makes sense. Though it seemed by what they said that Gimlet was in on some of that proprietary info (but I don't know and honestly wasn't paying that much attention after I heard their absurd price).

I'm curious what will happen when Apple tries to blow up ad tracking soon. I have a feeling the buy-in will be higher than the 14-20% of consumers they're guessing will click on not wanting to be tracked.
 

Audionut

Next Round Is On Me
So I’m sharpening my pitchfork for our next thread, what’s it going to be? Power conditioners, cords, earth stones,...?
 

JohnVF

Administrator
Staff member
So I’m sharpening my pitchfork for our next thread, what’s it going to be? Power conditioners, cords, earth stones,...?
I have a Synergistic Research Powercell, but also feel its super hinky even though I own it. I could have fun on both sides of that one, because I also think it did improve the sound somehow, at least in one place I had with really crappy electricity.
 

JP

Junior Member
Ok that makes sense. Though it seemed by what they said that Gimlet was in on some of that proprietary info (but I don't know and honestly wasn't paying that much attention after I heard their absurd price).

I'm curious what will happen when Apple tries to blow up ad tracking soon. I have a feeling the buy-in will be higher than the 14-20% of consumers they're guessing will click on not wanting to be tracked.

Or what the play really is. Apple is the supposed guardian of user privacy but are more than happy to collect it themselves, and are ramping up as seen with Big Sur. It goes from guardian, to you can trust me, to no, no look over there.
 
It’s “the new thing” to monetize at the moment. And thread jack over, back to MQA, Bob Stuart and the such. Sorry folks
So I’m sharpening my pitchfork for our next thread, what’s it going to be? Power conditioners, cords, earth stones,...?
Magic Bricks.
 

MikeyFresh

Moderator
Staff member
So I’m sharpening my pitchfork for our next thread, what’s it going to be? Power conditioners, cords, earth stones,...?
Definitely the Machina Dynamica products.

With COVID canceling any in-person audio dealer visits, I think I'm gonna pop for the $60 Teleportation Tweak, it only takes 20 seconds, happens right over the phone, landline or cellular.

I wanted the Morphic Message Labels, but they are sold out, so I'll probably go ahead and add the Super Intelligent Chip to my order, you get 14 uses and then they die gracefully.
 

Audionut

Next Round Is On Me
Hah! Not in my forum.
The pitchfork was more tongue and cheek...But, if you are against discussions about debunking “audiophile“ items or exposing snake oil goods, please let me know.
I for one am grateful for this thread/subject being brought to light.
 

prime minister

Site Owner
Staff member
The pitchfork was more tongue and cheek...But, if you are against discussions about debunking “audiophile“ items or exposing snake oil goods, please let me know.
I for one am grateful for this thread/subject being brought to light.
Depends on the goal. If its a legitimate attempt to determine the quality and efficacy of a product, then that's fine. However, if it is just an effort to make fun of fellow audio lovers who have taken a different path, or mock products that no one has fairly tried, then this isn't the place for it. Lots of other forums around the interweb to practice some tribalism. Around here, that seems to me a violation of rule number 2.
 

MikeyFresh

Moderator
Staff member
I should probably add that I created this thread not with the intention of casting MQA as pure snake oil. To me snake oil is something entirely fake or without any efficacy whatsoever, though as @JohnVF pointed out, apparently the earliest known forms of actual snake oil are thought to have actually offered some benefit.

This thread was created to point people in the direction of a video that sums things up rather well, and in a format thats easier to digest than pages and pages of audio fora, especially when those pages are often laced with the type of bickering that no one here partakes in or cares to. Unfortunately MQA is such a polarizing topic that most audio fora offer just that on the subject, endless bickering.

But if not snake oil then what? It is my opinion and contention that MQA is deceptive or false marketing, and a scheme designed to extract licensing fees for something (upsampling with a minimum phase digital filter) that is not new and revolutionary, and that can currently be done for free, for example using SoX or HQPlayer.

The fact that TIDAL is along for that ride isn't great, but it's also not the larger threat that others such as Warner Music Group (if not all 3 major record labels) as MQA part owners represent in limiting the music buying customer's choice if successful in implementing their publicly stated goal of a "one deliverable" approach, that being 44.1/48kHz MQA files with the true hi-res going back in the vault.

Add in the spectre of DRM, which while not currently implemented is clearly in the MQA patent submission, and there is much not to like about MQA, even if any given persons do like the mastering, and/or other aspects of the perceived sound quality.

It's too bad the McGill University study is only available as a paid download unless an AES member, and cannot be republished without permission, so it's findings aren't easily seen by many. From what I've gathered, it's conclusions are that no preference for MQA existed among their test group in controlled blind listening, which is not to say I'm the champion of blind listening proof or it didn't happen, I am not, simply that it's another data point to consider but unfortunately not one that is widely known due to it's less than fully public nature.
 

JohnVF

Administrator
Staff member
I should probably add that I created this thread not with the intention of casting MQA as pure snake oil. To me snake oil is something entirely fake or without any efficacy whatsoever, though as @JohnVF pointed out, apparently the earliest known forms of actual snake oil are thought to have actually offered some benefit.

This thread was created to point people in the direction of a video that sums things up rather well, and in a format thats easier to digest than pages and pages of audio fora, especially when those pages are often laced with the type of bickering that no one here partakes in or cares to. Unfortunately MQA is such a polarizing topic that most audio fora offer just that on the subject, endless bickering.

But if not snake oil then what? It is my opinion and contention that MQA is deceptive or false marketing, and a scheme designed to extract licensing fees for something (upsampling with a minimum phase digital filter) that is not new and revolutionary, and that can currently be done for free, for example using SoX or HQPlayer.

The fact that TIDAL is along for that ride isn't great, but it's also not the larger threat that others such as Warner Music Group (if not all 3 major record labels) as MQA part owners represent in limiting the music buying customer's choice if successful in implementing their publicly stated goal of a "one deliverable" approach, that being 44.1/48kHz MQA files with the true hi-res going back in the vault.

Add in the spectre of DRM, which while not currently implemented is clearly in the MQA patent submission, and there is much not to like about MQA, even if any given persons do like the mastering, or other aspects of the perceived sound quality.

It's too bad the McGill University study is only available as a paid download unless an AES member, and cannot be republished without permission, so it's findings aren't easily seen by many. From what I've gathered, it's conclusions are that no preference for MQA existed among their test group in controlled blind listening, which is not to say I'm the champion of blind listening proof or it didn't happen, I am not, simply that it's another data point to consider but unfortunately not one that is widely known due to it's less than fully public nature.
Archimago did a blind test, with me spoiling the results by saying it was a wash. Which supports my theory that they aren't solving a sonic problem, they were trying to solve a monetization problem. I agree with the notion that the labels want the high-res studio files locked away, too.

 

JoeThePop

Known member
Archimago did a blind test, with me spoiling the results by saying it was a wash. Which supports my theory that they aren't solving a sonic problem, they were trying to solve a monetization problem. I agree with the notion that the labels want the high-res studio files locked away, too.

Spoiling the results? I am always wary of these type of internet tests because I'm guessing those who do it are already biased towards the author's conclusions. Not an example of a well controlled test protocol. So I take them as a sort of data point, just as I do with subjective evaluations.

That's not to say I don't appreciate his work. I do, and I appreciate what he adds to our hobby.
 
Last edited:
Top