advertisement


MQA bad for Music?

John linn user? If you buy neff fridge you will defend neff products? That is just stupid.

Meridian is trying to introduce fees to free 'file standard' market. Now you do not pay for FLAC (FREE lossless audio codec) or DSD. Just for artist input. At the end MQA business model will hit our pockets... This is not so hard to understand.

no one has to buy it. I don't know why you are so anti. So far it hasn't cost me anything and I suspect beyond my normal standard monthly streaming cost is unlikely to do so.
 
One thought.
I'm assuming that the vast majority here are good, law abiding citizens and pay for their music, as against downloading it for free.

Clearly, a good number of person's don't, and in other countries, I wouldn't be surprised if that number is large. The implications are simple. We as actual buyers are subsidizing the people stealing the music.
Furthermore, if everyone actually PAID for the music, chances are that the owners would be willing to charge less per unit, as they'd still make a decent profit.

So please, remind me what's wrong with DRM, assuming it has no sonic impact?

I have no issues with DRM in the context of subscription streaming services.

One potential trap of DRM with digital downloads is that it will likely tie you to a particular playback platform. Once upon a time, if you bought a track in the iTunes store, you could only play it back in iTunes or on one of your five registered Apple iDevices. I have a MacBook, iMac, iPhone, iPad and two Apple TVs (six devices). The other frustrating thing here is that I could never play my iTunes music in the car. iTunes downloads are now DRM-free of course.
 
John linn user? If you buy neff fridge you will defend neff products? That is just stupid.

Meridian is trying to introduce fees to free 'file standard' market. Now you do not pay for FLAC (FREE lossless audio codec) or DSD. Just for artist input. At the end MQA business model will hit our pockets... This is not so hard to understand.

Of course you pay for flac , what are you talking about ?
 
Furthermore, if everyone actually PAID for the music, chances are that the owners would be willing to charge less per unit, as they'd still make a decent profit.

No, capitalism does not work this way. If there were greater demand for paid services, the prices would get higher.
 
Of course you pay for flac , what are you talking about ?

I think he's refering to the codec its self being free to use. As in I could home record and self release my own debut album and then also release it digitally and use the flac codec without having to pay anyone a penny for using the codec.

That wouldnt be the case with MQA. To do the above and use MQA instead of the flac codec I would have to pay for it.

Thus the flac codec is free to use.
 
No, capitalism does not work this way. If there were greater demand for paid services, the prices would get higher.



You're assuming that supply stays constant which makes no sense.

Just think about digital advertising's cost per click or cloud computing's pricing dynamics.
 
One thought.
I'm assuming that the vast majority here are good, law abiding citizens and pay for their music, as against downloading it for free.

Clearly, a good number of person's don't, and in other countries, I wouldn't be surprised if that number is large.

Can I summarize that as "We of course don't break the law, but I am sure people in other countries do"?

The implications are simple. We as actual buyers are subsidizing the people stealing the music.

You are assuming that if you could somehow prevent illegal downloading, the people now doing it would start paying for it, instead of simply not downloading any more.

So please, remind me what's wrong with DRM, assuming it has no sonic impact?

That is a pretty big assumption.
 
Julf, taking into account your responses in a variety of threads in the last couple of months, I'd prefer if you simply avoided responding in any way to my posts.
 
Julf, taking into account your responses in a variety of threads in the last couple of months, I'd prefer if you simply avoided responding in any way to my posts.

There is a better solution - just ignore my comments. If you post on a public forum, you have to accept that people will point out issues in what you write.
 
the big hitters are qubuz and tidal , hd tracks seems to have lost support. but more dacs require to have MQA installed. MQA has been too slow to win support .
 
I think he's refering to the codec its self being free to use. As in I could home record and self release my own debut album and then also release it digitally and use the flac codec without having to pay anyone a penny for using the codec.

That wouldnt be the case with MQA. To do the above and use MQA instead of the flac codec I would have to pay for it.

Thus the flac codec is free to use.

Thank you. Very well explained :)
 
Perhaps worth reminding ourselves here that a paper in JAES some time ago had both Pros and general listeners take part in comparisions between various formats, etc.

No surprise that experienced audio pros were better than the general population at being able to tell plain decent LPCM from mp3, etc.

But the interesting point is that various members of the general public who showed they could distinguish modest-rate mp3 from clean LPCM *preferred* the mp3. For them, it seems, the changes made by the lossy encoding are a part of the sound they want.

So preferring something may not always equate with it being more accurate as a representation of the source recording. Depends on the case and the listener.
This is a important point. In my case, I'm listening on decent equipment that has been set up carefully & have a reasonable amount of so-called Hi Res from 24/96 to DSD that's mostly but not exclusively classical. I've also been to a number of classical concerts so am well aware that even well-recorded acoustic music is only an approximation to being at a concert. There are two obvious differences: the unforced attack (dynamics) & the cleanliness that brass instruments have - a sharpness without being bright: strident even.
When people mention the quality of MP3 (or jpg photo files), it depends on the level of compression used (in the file format rather than amplitude compression).
A well-recorded AAC file can sound a hell of a lot better than a poorly recorded DSD one.
I feel the mastering is far more important than file format. How well I could distinguish between LPCM, DSD & lossy formats tested blind, I cannot say, my hearing just about reaches 15kHz so ain't as good as it was 50yrs ago!
 
I have no issues with DRM in the context of subscription streaming services.

One potential trap of DRM with digital downloads is that it will likely tie you to a particular playback platform. Once upon a time, if you bought a track in the iTunes store, you could only play it back in iTunes or on one of your five registered Apple iDevices. I have a MacBook, iMac, iPhone, iPad and two Apple TVs (six devices). The other frustrating thing here is that I could never play my iTunes music in the car. iTunes downloads are now DRM-free of course.

That rather depends on what is meant by DRM - IIRC the iTunes music I bought or rent have my Apple ID imbedded where the ones I've ripped from my CDs don't.
 
I'm assuming that the vast majority here are good, law abiding citizens and pay for their music, as against downloading it for free.

Where do you get these ideas? There is mountains of music online you can download for free in all sorts of resolutions. Your characterisation of people as paying and therefore acting legally and the rest is plain offensive and plain wrong.
 
So please, remind me what's wrong with DRM, assuming it has no sonic impact?
When I have paid for an album and then at some point I cannot access it anymore because either some authentication server has been shutdown, something has changed in Windows/Java/Flash or I have made a change to my playback device.

In either of these cases the DRM has effectively robbed me.
(I do pay for my music because I won't steal it)
 
When I have paid for an album and then at some point I cannot access it anymore because either some authentication server has been shutdown, something has changed in Windows/Java/Flash or I have made a change to my playback device.

In either of these cases the DRM has effectively robbed me.
(I do pay for my music because I won't steal it)

Just read about different forms of DRM, apparently there's a number. Can you please confirm which is planned to be used with MQA and how it will work. I'm curious about that.

Additionally, I rather got the impression that MQA was aimed at streaming services, meaning that you'd never actually "own" the music in question, only rent it. So is the DRM question actually relevant?
 


advertisement


Back
Top