advertisement


MQA bad for Music?

Mr_Sukebe said:
....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?
Click to expand...
If MQA was only for streaming there would certainly be fewer issues. The snag is that the labels will be tempted to consolidate on one format to save effort at their end, affecting companies like HD Tracks that do sell music downloads

MQA appears to have the infrastructure to support a variety of DRM systems. Nothing has been seen in the wild yet, but these are early days
 
johnhunt said:
If you know all the answers why start the thread in the first place. bored of you now
Click to expand...

I investigate the subject parallel to this thread. It started with feedback from industry for me. If you bored of me, please do not replay to my posts :) Simple.
 
davidsrsb said:
If MQA was only for streaming there would certainly be fewer issues. The snag is that the labels will be tempted to consolidate on one format to save effort at their end, affecting companies like HD Tracks that do sell music downloads

MQA appears to have the infrastructure to support a variety of DRM systems. Nothing has been seen in the wild yet, but these are early days
Click to expand...

If we don't know how drm "might" be applied, then your earlier comment about the potential is just conjecture. Don't we have enough of that negative hype already?
Wouldn't it make more sensible to focus on whether it has sonic merit? After all, this is an audio forum and it's still free to try it with software decoding.
Surely makes more sense to base your judgement on personal experience as against whatever bias is being thrown around by people with their own agendas.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your impression is mistaken. If you look at the MQA patents, etc, they clearly cover examples like putting MQA encoded material onto "Audio CDs".

What isn't clear yet is if any CD producers will intentionally do this. But the attractions of 'single inventory' to business mean it may happen because MQA is presented as 'compatable' with standard LPCM replay.

And as in the HDCD example, it may end up on some Audio CDs, etc, without clear intent or labelling.

It may well be that streaming is the case which fits best the MQA arguments. But the potential scope isn't limited to that.
 
Jim, how can you say I'm wrong?
Right now there's a pitifully small number amount of mqa to buy and apparently over 1500 albums on tidal? Sounds like one of us has their maths wrong, and I don't think it's me.

As for the future, again just conjecture, as are the earlier comments on drm.

Have you made the effort to listen yet?
 
Werner said:
So it may be poison, as long as it sounds nice it is OK?

In my experience it is poison, and it does not sound any nicer than what we had before.
Click to expand...

I may get hit by an asteroid that tomorrow...
Seriously, all this negative hype, almost all based on conjecture makes me wonder if we're on an audio forum to share experiences, or just to share bias based upon whatever is motivating you.
Let me put it another way, some persons here "might" be sponsored by groups who wish for it to fail. Certainly feels like it to me. How is that any different to blanket statements about poison, secret sauces and most of the other unsubstantiated bs being bandied around.

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.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
Jim, how can you say I'm wrong?
Click to expand...

You may need to re-read what you wrote, which was: "I rather got the impression that MQA was aimed at streaming services".

This "impression" is mistaken.

Note also that you snipped my other comment that:"It may well be that streaming is the case which fits best the MQA arguments. But the potential scope isn't limited to that."

Have you read and understood the Patents?
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is perhaps the most important lesson anyone can learn when it comes to music reproduction and hi-fi gear.

It is Law.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
I may get hit by an asteroid that tomorrow...
Seriously, all this negative hype, almost all based on conjecture makes me wonder if we're on an audio forum to share experiences, or just to share bias based upon whatever is motivating you.
Let me put it another way, some persons here "might" be sponsored by groups who wish for it to fail. Certainly feels like it to me. How is that any different to blanket statements about poison, secret sauces and most of the other unsubstantiated bs being bandied around.

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...

I would expect anyone interested in audio reproduction to welcome any advance that brought a genuine improvement ,
Keith
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
You may need to re-read what you wrote, which was: "I rather got the impression that MQA was aimed at streaming services".

This "impression" is mistaken.

Note also that you snipped my other comment that:"It may well be that streaming is the case which fits best the MQA arguments. But the potential scope isn't limited to that."

Have you read and understood the Patents?
Click to expand...

Jim,
Your opening words were "your impression is mistaken", I consider my English comprehension as sufficient to interpret that.

Ref the patents, so what?
Just because they have them, doesn't mean their obliged to use them, and you already know that. To again iterate, I don't understand the detail of a lot of technology, despite working in the field. Doesn't mean I avoid using it.

So again, how about letting people discuss experiences of using it, as against trying to piss on it with negative speculation.

And have you listened to it!
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
Jim,
Your opening words were "I think you're mistaken", I consider my English comprehension as sufficient to interpret that.

Ref the patents, so what?
Just because they have them, doesn't mean their obliged to use them, and you already know that. To again iterate, I don't understand the detail of a lot of technology, despite working in the field. Doesn't mean I avoid using it.

So again, how about letting people discuss experiences of using it, as against trying to piss on it with negative speculation.
Click to expand...

Your would need to read and understand the patents to understand why your earlier comment was mistaken. Without that, your mistake is quite understandable given the current actual usage of MQA.

I'm now curious about your "working in the field" comment. What field is that?
 
Werner said:
So it may be poison, as long as it sounds nice it is OK?

In my experience it is poison, and it does not sound any nicer than what we had before.
Click to expand...

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.

Such a waste of talent and resources.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Your would need to read and understand the patents to understand why your earlier comment was mistaken. Without that, your mistake is quite understandable given the current actual usage of MQA.

I'm now curious about your "working in the field" comment. What field is that?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

Such a waste of talent and resources.
Click to expand...

You've missed a lot of IMOs IMO.
And I don't know who you think you're speaking for when you say "(...) which we just don't need". Certainly not for me.

BTW I strongly disagree with you.

IMO MQA made possible a streaming service that may be even better than redbook local files via USB asynchronous in terms of sound quality. And IMHO that's no small feat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top