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. Strictly Stereo

    Strictly Stereo Trade: Strictly Stereo

  2. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    The point in this context is related to earlier discussions wrt the idea that Noise Shaped versions may well match MQA in terms of quality and file or stream sizes. And have the advantage that no-one would need to pay for new software or hardware. The aim here is that at some point anyone who is interested can give the idea a try for themselves and make up their own mind.
     
  3. Julf

    Julf Evil brother of Mark V Shaney

    To let you judge for yourself if noise-shaped 16 bits is as good as 24 bits - or if there is any difference at all.
     
  4. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    Yes. The snag at present is that most people will presumably need a Windows or Mac version. I don't use either, and I tend to do programming by using the simplicity of RISC OS programming first, then port to Linux/GCC. However by suppling the source code I can hope someone else can deal with porting, or use what I've done as a stimulus to do something better! That way people need not be slowed down to the low speed at which I write programs! :)
     
  5. ssimon

    ssimon pfm Member

    Thanks, being an analogue purist, IMHO it will fail.
     
  6. Julf

    Julf Evil brother of Mark V Shaney

    "Fail", in what way? Fail to tell if there is a difference or not?
     
  7. Julf

    Julf Evil brother of Mark V Shaney

    I wish we had a body of well-recorded public domain music material we could use to produce test tracks (so that people wouldn't have to do the processing themselves).
     
  8. johnhunt

    johnhunt pfm Member

    I saw that , I still don't think hardware manufacturers are actually paying.for example , Audio quest paying a royalty on that little stick dac they make as well as having to invest to get it Mqa ready, I don't think so.
     
  9. ssimon

    ssimon pfm Member

    According to the article highlighted by the OP ,MQA are trying to get a stranglehold on "Hi-Rez" music. I predict they will fail to do that.
     
  10. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    I have no idea if they will, or not. But it will probably depend on if the big companies sign up, use it, and may then not offer alternatives if they decide they can 'single inventory' on MQA as the versions for end-users. In the end, you can't buy what no-one will sell you.

    Similarly, I have no idea if anyone would adopt the free open alternatives. But in order for anyone to consider them it would help if people have a chance to try them out so they can decide on the basis of experience. As an engineer I'm interested in letting people come to an informed choice.
     
  11. Julf

    Julf Evil brother of Mark V Shaney

    Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you.
     
  12. Werner

    Werner pfm Member

    And in the process create market fragmentation and consumer confusion.

    Just what was needed ...
     
  13. kenniGT

    kenniGT pfm Member

    I will quote what you said. You think... but you dont know.
    And you think without analasing what is availble out there. That is not proper thinking process.
     
  14. ssimon

    ssimon pfm Member

    Remember the trade are not hi-fi enthusiasts, they will sell "hi-rez" to the gullible public as long as it is good enough. If they can put the cuffs on so much the better
     
  15. johnhunt

    johnhunt pfm Member

    You are right I don't know , but my opinion is that at this stage of the game certainly Mqa are not charging dac manufacturers license fees. For example do you think audioquest are paying a royalty on their forthcoming Mqa firmware updrade to the black/red stick dac?
     
  16. davidsrsb

    davidsrsb pfm Member

    They are still trying to get to the dominant position, it doesn't cost them money to give one penny licences to early adopters to increase market share.
    If MP3 history is anything to go by, the high fees will be for the ADCs and encoders.

    Remember when you couldn't market a cassette recorder that didn't have Dolby B and that was an expensive and hard to obtain licence for small companies
     
  17. busb

    busb pfm Member

    The question brings forth several different responses in my mind:
    1. Having a proprietary system where licensing fees are bled off at so many stages, whatever the perceived SQ benefits are just isn't a good idea, IMO.
    2. Has it been proven that 16/44.1k is indeed inadequate? Many stated that so-called Hi Res sounded better then others pointed out that the mastering was different! If this is the case, the music industry has been extremely economical with the truth!
    3. Do we actually need a music industry (as it is currently set up) for many types of music anyway? Social media does have some positives. Streaming services for new unestablished acts could be setup if they don't already exist. Well known orchestras could effectively become their own labels that some are already. In other words, do we need so many middlemen taking a slice for doing exactly what? There is a legal structure already that deals with copyright.
    4. DRM may well be unpopular but artists should not be ripped off by criminals or consumers either.
    I personally don't get all exercised over "owning" a hard copy of music, film, novels, textbooks etc. To me the whole point is the content & not the pretty box it comes in! What is important to me is being able to recover from loss or theft & being able to pass on the music I've 'bought" to whoever I decide after my demise - something that has yet to be properly sorted within a legal framework.
     
  18. johnhunt

    johnhunt pfm Member

    I think the licensing income will be per stream. Any other costs at other stages incedental if anything.
     
  19. kenniGT

    kenniGT pfm Member

    You think... again...
     
  20. adamdea

    adamdea pfm Member

    This is the $64k question.
    How can you really have a hirez campaign that isn't disingenuous
    An honest technically sound pitch can only amount to
    Buy the 24/96 because it's broadly the format this was actually mastered in any has some sort of authenticity if that floats your boat plus it might possibly sound better if we can't be trusted to downsample competently.

    Everything else is exploiting people with OCD and or golden eared fantasies. Can you expect them to play fair. What's the point? They're selling a bullshit product.

    Aside from that I simply can't see a market for hi rez streaming. How much of a market is there even for 16/44 streaming. I imagine that people who really must have hi rez probably like owning stuff. Unless MQA really gets a stranglehold on the market from top to bottom it's never going to be the echt master. Only something that arguable sounds the same as it.
    And we already have something that sounds the same as the echt master- it's called 160bps vbr AAC, or if you absolutely must 320kbps or 16/44 flac.
    What in the name of god is the point of MQA?
    How many people have exactly the right mixture of OCD about hi rez AND non OCD about lossy compression?
     

Share This Page