advertisement


MQA bad for Music?

Mr_Sukebe said:
Jim,
Be specific about your concerns, based upon actual issues, not speculation, also taking account my point that patent holders are NOT obliged to actually implement everything covered by the patent.

As for me, IT, so nothing to do with audio electronics, but plenty with technology and logic.
Click to expand...

There wasn't a "concern" here. I was just pointing out your mistake as already explained. It is perfectly reasonable that you might not have been aware of the mistake as you'd need to understand or have the relevant parts of the patents pointed out. Fair enough if patents aren't something you've had to deal with.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
There wasn't a "concern" here. I was just pointing out your mistake as already explained. It is perfectly reasonable that you might not have been aware of the mistake as you'd need to understand or have the relevant parts of the patents pointed out. Fair enough if patents aren't something you've had to deal with.
Click to expand...

you've just completely avoided answering my question.
You know as well as I do that I was referring to your concerns about MQA.
 
Robert said:
An unnecessary addition to the digital arena and doomed to failure, thankfully.

These commercially driven boffins will keep pushing things to the market which we just don't need, then conjuring-up marketing to drive adoption and sales.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is one potential application area for MQA which might take off and isn't streaming.

This is on Blue Ray discs. Again, the patents allow for this. However unlike AudioCD the MQA encoded data would (probably) be presented as if 48k/24 and thus treated as such by non-MQA players.

Most music BD discs I've encountered include a 48k/24 audio track. Using MQA encoding for this would let companies 'hide' the extended frequency/time response in the least-sigificant 8 bits or so per sample. Which should then not be noticable for many users who play the track as LPCM. That in turn offerred the disc and player makers two commercial benefits.

1) The discs then could omit having a higher sample rate LPCM. (But of course, many omit this anyway.)

2) Player makers would probably use this to sell 'new models' on the basis that your old one was 'obsolete'.

This would be much less likely to cause problems for LPCM replay than attempts to get MQA onto Audio CDs.

What isn't clear, of course, is if this might fare any better than MLP. So I have no idea if it will be tried. But it is another application that the patents would cover.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
You know as well as I do that they are discussed already in various other postings. :)
Click to expand...

In which all you did was passed conjecture, and "filed for future reference". I don't remember you saying anything of significance actually supported by genuine facts. Pretty good going in 18 months...
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
Maybe you can let some of us have a thread to actually discuss experiences without pissing all over it and keep to a different one to negatively speculate to your hearts content.
Click to expand...

Mike, why don't you start a thread titled something like 'MQA -- subjective impressions only'?

As things stand, this thread is titled 'MQA bad for music?', which hardly fits your requirement for "a thread to actually discuss experiences without pissing all over it". In fact, "pissing all over it" is precisely what the title of this thread invites.
 
mattgbell said:
Mike, why don't you start a thread titled something like 'MQA -- subjective impressions only'?

As things stand, this thread is titled 'MQA bad for music?', which hardly fits your requirement for "a thread to actually discuss experiences without pissing all over it". In fact, "pissing all over it" is precisely what the title of this thread invites.
Click to expand...

I really think the original article posted by Linn could aptly be named "MQA is bad for Linn".
 
mattgbell said:
Mike, why don't you start a thread titled something like 'MQA -- subjective impressions only'?

As things stand, this thread is titled 'MQA bad for music?', which hardly fits your requirement for "a thread to actually discuss experiences without pissing all over it". In fact, "pissing all over it" is precisely what the title of this thread invites.
Click to expand...

We tried that a few months ago, and the thread was still crapped upon.
I would only be willing to do it with agreement from the "triangle of speculation" that they'd leave it alone.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
We tried that a few months ago, and the thread was still crapped upon.
I would only be willing to do it with agreement from the "triangle of speculation" that they'd leave it alone.
Click to expand...

I don't recall a thread with a title such as I've suggested. What was it called?
 
radamel said:
I really think the original article posted by Linn could aptly be named "MQA is bad for Linn".
Click to expand...

Tell me, would you pay for FLAC, not for content but for pure file format? This is what MQA is trying to do. You will pay for album and you will pay for file format as it was physical cd. Of course cost will be hidden, you will never know you are paying for this.
 
kenniGT said:
There is a nick at the top of my post. If I say something it means is my opinion. You do not need IMO for that.
Click to expand...

The thing is sometimes I post facts and not opinions.

For example I can say that MQA just inked an agreement with UMG or that Tidal's MQA streaming didn't cost any of their HiFi subscribers a penny more.

If it is an opinion and not a fact I'd rather be explicit about it.
 
kenniGT said:
Tell me, would you pay for FLAC, not for content but for pure file format? This is what MQA is trying to do. You will pay for album and you will pay for file format as it was physical cd. Of course cost will be hidden, you will never know you are paying for this.
Click to expand...

Well I have not paid a penny more to have MQA streaming.

The few MQA albums I've downloaded and paid for were less expensive than their 24/192 versions (not to mention their DXD versions).

So I really don't know what you are talking about.
 
radamel said:
Well I have not paid a penny more to have MQA streaming.
Click to expand...

'For now' you forgot to add.
Early days but hardware producers have to pay already (fee per unit) and they will transfer cost on us eventually.
Of course they will not tell you that, it will be hidden in overall cost.
 
kenniGT said:
'For now' you forgot to add.
Early days but hardware producers have to pay already (fee per unit) and they will transfer cost on us eventually.
Of course they will not tell you that, it will be hidden in overall cost.
Click to expand...

No I did not forget to write "for now". I could have added "up until now" but as unlike you I am not prescient about future Tidal's pricing policy so I don't think that would make much sense.

The fee for unit hardware makers allegedly pay is low enough to allow such inexpensive DACs such as Meridian explorer 2 or the soon to be launched Mytek clef to be MQA compliant.

In the case of MSB DACs I wonder if the total MQA fee will amount to anything remotely material considering the RRP.

And you can't possibly know if adding MQA will increase or lower the breakeven selling price of a particular piece of hardware. It all depends on MQA's feature impact on selling volumes. It may perfectly be possible that MQA will allow for a lower selling price.
 
mattgbell said:
I don't recall a thread with a title such as I've suggested. What was it called?
Click to expand...

I don't believe anyone titled a thread as such, however there was definitely a request made by another member to logically use one of the two existing threads for subjective discussions and the other for the technical side of things.
 
radamel said:
No I did not forget to write "for now". I could have added "up until now" but as unlike you I am not prescient about future Tidal's pricing policy so I don't think that would make much sense.

The fee for unit hardware makers allegedly pay is low enough to allow such inexpensive DACs such as Meridian explorer 2 or the soon to be launched Mytek clef to be MQA compliant.

In the case of MSB DACs I wonder if the total MQA fee will amount to anything remotely material considering the RRP.

And you can't possibly know if adding MQA will increase or lower the breakeven selling price of a particular piece of hardware. It all depends on MQA's feature impact on selling volumes. It may perfectly be possible that MQA will allow for a lower selling price.
Click to expand...

You miss the point completely. Introducing any fee, even a penny for something what is for free now is very bad thing. If you do not understand that I am afraid I can not help you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top