1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Where we are now: The site is back up and running! The character set encoding issue has been fixed so old posts should now look ok. I am currently working on themes/skins etc and I will be deleting the temporary green skin very soon as it has many issues. I will do a very quick variation on the stock blue skin first just to get a light-grey background and san-serif font, and I will set this as default. Later this week I will hopefully add a professional third-party skin in pfm colours (life is way too short to do this crap myself, and I've found one I really like than needs next to no tweaking). We are getting there slowly...
    Dismiss Notice
  3. May I please request people check and update their email address if it is out if date. I ask as I’m getting countless bounce errors as the server fails to send notifications through etc. I’ll eventually figure out how to send these to a black hole somewhere, but it makes sense to address it at source as quite a few folk are obviously not getting the thread and conversations notifications they have set in their preferences.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

MQA bad for Music?

Discussion in 'audio' started by kenniGT, Feb 13, 2017.

  1. radamel

    radamel pfm Member

  2. Julf

    Julf Evil brother of Mark V Shaney

    "What are the costs associated with implementing MQA in my product?

    Other than your own standard engineering costs (required to integrate the technology), you will need to become a Licensee for the MQA decoder. The license agreement will outline the commercial terms & conditions for your company and products, and will also document the per-unit royalties payable to MQA.

    "Why are your per-unit royalties not published?

    At MQA, rather than focus on the one or two products you may have in mind immediately, we prefer to have a dialogue with you about all your product-lines that the MQA technology may be relevant on moving forward. With this is mind, we can discuss what the long-term partnership could be, and reflect this in a fixed per-unit royalty that spans a number of years. That way your product managers always know what the per-unit royalty cost for the MQA decoder will be, and it also ensures these costs are not volatile or negatively impacted during ramp-up phases, or with seasonal fluctuations in sales.
  3. radamel

    radamel pfm Member

    No I don't have it nor do I think you do.

    Do you have it although you can't disclose it?
  4. Julf

    Julf Evil brother of Mark V Shaney

    No, the reason I don't have it is that my usual sources have told me that they can't tell me. :)

    They have dropped hints about magnitude and structure.
  5. radamel

    radamel pfm Member

    So your insinuating that Mytek bet the house by taking up MQA was based on "hints", then?
  6. Julf

    Julf Evil brother of Mark V Shaney

    No. I pointed out that even if the licensing terms would be a major barrier for smaller manufacturers, there can still be a few that might take the jump - so the fact that one small manufacturer goes for MQA doesn't prove that the licensing isn't a major hurdle.. Read what you will into that.
  7. radamel

    radamel pfm Member

    I don't read much into that really. Just a few ifs, cans and mights.
  8. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    Does that mean that each company can't know what their competitors are being charged for what they may regard as a very similar requirement? i.e. they may feel exposed to being discriminated against (or for!) but have no way to tell?
  9. Julf

    Julf Evil brother of Mark V Shaney

    As far as I know, yes. I don't think stuff like that totally secret in such a small industry, but in fact it is pretty much "we charge you what we think we should charge you". That also means that there might have been favorable arrangements for some early adopters.
  10. kenniGT

    kenniGT pfm Member

    For Mytek it was also beneficial, if you look back, it is good advertising for them. Right?
  11. radamel

    radamel pfm Member

    That should also be considered, I agree.
  12. ssimon

    ssimon pfm Member

    I'm sure that's a closely guarded secret, early adopters may pay less to build that Critical Mass.

    P.S. I'm pleased to be an analogue fan, so I'm not in this race.
  13. HarryB

    HarryB pfm Member

    Exactly. You win the Internet.
  14. johnhunt

    johnhunt pfm Member

    what costs, for what? Some cash for Mqa to test implementation or a On going cost per device? The revenue is going to be in plays not in penalising the partners that willl facilitate those plays. I might be wrong but you don't seem to have any facts either
  15. davidavdavid

    davidavdavid EARWAG

    Hopefully Damien of Audirvana Plus will make public version 3.0 at the end of this week which will support software "decoding" of MQA files, how much it folds/unfolds is to be seen and heard.

    As for Linn's article, I reckon bad for the Music Industry would have been more apt. I've been listening to a number of MQA files via a borrowed Meridian Explorer 2. Perhaps with the aid of the more upmarket MYTEK DAC the files would sound better, more a live. I wasn't swept away with the "difference" in sound. Am really curious if unfolding to 24/352 really is on par with DSD256. Again, it would be to the MYTEK or similar MQA compatible DAC to assist in such a comparison.
  16. kenniGT

    kenniGT pfm Member

    Have a think! Why there is handful of partners on MQA website? It was launched back in 2014. Maybe they should go to Dragon's Den and ask for help? ;)

  17. davidsrsb

    davidsrsb pfm Member

    Nowhere does it say that MQA licence fees are RAND, so one friendly early adopter might get a (very) cheap deal, while a big competitor to Meridian might face a high cost. I know MQA and Meridian are officially separate, but....
  18. johnhunt

    johnhunt pfm Member

    that doesn't sugggest that any are paying Mqa
  19. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    I think I raised a Noise Shaping program in this topic thread a while ago. So this is just to say that I have now put a version of a program that takes a 24bit Wave file and generates a 16bit noise shaped version up at


    Please NOTE though, that this is a *RISC OS* version. So its main use at present is that it contains the source code in a RO dialect of 'C'. This may be useful for anyone interested in doing a similar program for other platforms. Although at some point I'll probably do a Linux/GCC version and make it available.

    The zip contains a 'Help' file as well as the source code.
  20. ssimon

    ssimon pfm Member

    Sorry, what's the point?

Share This Page