http://www.trading-tools.com/convert2metastock-converts-ascii-files-metastock-format an extra step I concede.
As noted above with respect to MLDownloader I'm not sure that trading-tools is alive and well even though it appears that they will take your order. However, programs like HSQuote do what AmiQuote does plus convert automatically to Metastock. I have not tried it but it should not be too difficult to write a conversion program in AmiBroker to do the conversion and store the data in the proper folder on the disk. Although requested several times in the past, TJ does not want to make the simple conversion addition to AmiQuote. So, for roughly the same price one can get a program that does the job.
Not at the right computer now but off the top of my head Yahoo, Google, Oanda, Medved, etc. I've only used Yahoo and Google for the past many years. There is also a "source" in the Plus version that can be modified for any website but don't have Plus so have not used it.
They just reversed the values in Close and Adjusted Close fields, clueless as to why, probably incompetence. Only the Close field is adjusted, rest doesn't seem to be adjusted for anything (even the Adjusted Close).
Hi, For anybody using Telemet for historical stock quote data, is there a way to access their data via a Microsoft Query (e.g. Dataà From Other Sourcesà From Microsoft Query) and if so does anybody able to provider the information on driver type and how to connect to the database? I am currently doing a trial run with them and if I can get this to work considering signing up for a membership. Some other useful features included in their service that may make it worth it.
Well, you are right in that they replaced the Close with AdjClose, but the new AdjClose is not the same as the old Close. The quotes seems to be (or could be) adjusted for splits and dividends now, but only for a certain period going back in time. The Close is not adjusted: [...] Date Open High Low Close AdjClose Volume 07/01/77 25,03294 25,14273 24,48397 6,82375 24,92315 143200 06/01/77 25,08784 25,36232 24,86825 6,853809 25,03294 168700 05/01/77 25,25253 25,6368 24,92315 6,868836 25,08784 191000 04/01/77 25,58191 25,6917 25,19763 6,913929 25,25253 143200 03/01/77 25,52701 25,80149 25,52701 7,004109 25,58191 169800 [...] If nothing else, the quotes look pretty much self-consistent now. For example the Open and Close are almost always within the high/low boundaries for most symbols. But different sources give completely different numbers overall. For example, this is a recent sample of XRX from Quandl, allegedly adjusted: XRX,09/06/2017,27.66,28.1,27.54,27.7,1332878 XRX,12/06/2017,27.7,28.54,27.7,28.18,1608300 XRX,13/06/2017,28.22,28.38,27.94,27.98,958192 XRX,14/06/2017,27.98,28.08,27.38,27.66,1520918 XRX,15/06/2017,27.37,28.08,27.12,27.73,3439830 XRX,16/06/2017,27.82,28.78,27.78,28.44,7196084 XRX,19/06/2017,28.66,28.93,28.48,28.73,3161082 XRX,20/06/2017,28.67,28.82,28.25,28.27,2442766 XRX,21/06/2017,28.23,28.27,27.71,27.82,2152005 XRX,22/06/2017,27.89,27.97,27.7,27.91,2208391 XRX,23/06/2017,27.94,28.42,27.85,28.38,4035911 XRX,26/06/2017,28.46,29.24,28.46,29.13,5372156 XRX,27/06/2017,29.13,29.34,28.88,28.92,3972327 XRX,28/06/2017,29.01,29.46,28.96,29.29,3300774 XRX,29/06/2017,29.32,29.36,28.88,29.12,3783566 XRX,30/06/2017,29.27,29.34,28.72,28.73,2818863 XRX,03/07/2017,28.78,29.23,28.68,28.85,1511483 XRX,05/07/2017,28.9,29,28.34,28.45,2939727 XRX,06/07/2017,28.24,28.46,28.05,28.35,3067750 XRX,07/07/2017,28.41,28.91,28.41,28.78,3142489 XRX,10/07/2017,28.8,28.97,28.7,28.88,2339977 They are already quite different from Yahoo even in recent days. So which one is right? I suspect that if you were to compare 10 different sources you would get as many different results.
I believe the only column adjusted here is the Close, so it's actually everything else that's unadjusted. But they've changed, fixed, bugfixed and fixed again so many times that I'm not sure the data is trustworthy going back that far. On a positive note, their feedback section people reply very fast and fix things fast as well which is commendable.
The bumps at the splits are clearly visible in the Close, even in recent days, so it appears to be unadjusted as of now. Maybe you are looking at data a few days ago, before the last bugfix. That is not to say things couldn't change or worsen at any time, or that Yahoo is working well, far from it. But then I wonder how trustworthy is data from other sources, if everyone gives different numbers. For me, I would be happy to see that Yahoo data are "good enough" for the systems I use.