johnhunt
pfm Member
You think... again...[/
You keep doing this . It's quite rude.
So what do you actually think?
You think... again...[/
You keep doing this . It's quite rude.
So what do you actually think?
You think... again...[/
You keep doing this . It's quite rude.
So what do you actually think?
I am sorry but you started this.
I think when noone knows what it is about, then it is about money.
I am sorry but you started this.
I think when noone knows what it is about, then it is about money.
insightful , thanks.
I am sorry but you started this.
I think when noone knows what it is about, then it is about money.
Linn certainly seem worried about money issues ie their business and not about music.
PS didn't your OP ask about people's thoughts?
If so why do you keep complaining when someone says "I think"?!
It is about John approach to this conversation. He started this. Have a look at post 94. He wants just facts from us, we cannot think or even pass opinion from inside industry and himself... he can say what he thinks...
Kenni
English clearly isn't your first language but even taking that into account I still don't know what you are on about. I take it you have read the stuff on the Mqa website to do with hardware royalties and taken that on face value. I think that is a bit of a red herring as I've spelt out in the last few posts .
John
John it is not even my second language but that is not important here.
I told you I have insight into industry, and have information mqa is about monies for hardware producers. You dismiss that and you wants 'facts'. Have a read what Bob Stuart has to say. Question 69. Licence per unit. Licence is never for free.
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/694-comprehensive-q-mqa-s-bob-stuart/
Ive just read q69 and the answer. It is does not say anything like 'license per unit, license is never free' . What are these ' industry ' credentials you have? I would think most of Mqa/partner deals are under NDA and as such you are unlikely to know anymore than i do
Only the question raises the unit royalty and in fact the response accidentally or deliberately doesn't either achnowlledge the question or really answer it.
I don't know why this is so difficult for you to grasp but imho , now , today , at the moment Mqa are not charging dac manufacturers a royalty. It would be like a commercial TV station limiting the availability of televisions. Of course it maybe that manufacturers that are not part of the Mqa plan ( what ever that is) , and that might include Linn, are being asked for a license fee.
I am guessing , and you are parroting the literature. neither of us know.
But the amount is a secret. My suspicion is that some early adopters will be getting a peppercorn fee like 1 penny per unit - perfectly legal. Only if MQA becomes dominant and a monopoly will the competition regulators take an interest in who gets to pay how much.Did you even look at wikipedia link? It looks like it is not a secret. They charge per unit.
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?
Then again, I can't possibly know what the hell I'm talking about because I've hardly noticed any difference between my CD originals & the VBR 320kbps MP4 rips.
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.
A more restrained critique from Linn would have sounded less desperate. It reads like they are worried by Mqa and a tiny bit jealous.