advertisement


MQA

Status
Not open for further replies.
mansr said:
MQA doesn't go quite that far. Here, the content is encoded with a secret algorithm and access is only granted to those in possession of a licensed decoder. Anyone else gets a version with artificially reduced quality. This is very much a management of your digital rights, aka DRM.
Click to expand...

So can the full MQA file code be easily copied and shared and used by any MQA licensed decoder?
 
Stuart Frazer said:
@DimitryZ as I said from the start of my postings in this thread - I am open to MQA if it sounds good to my ears when I eventually get to hear it. In terms of your postings, I'm just amazed that an individual happy MQA user spends so much time defending the technology from sceptical phishies! I would much prefer to use that time enjoying the MQA listening! No offence intended.

Thanks to all for answering and clarifying my posts and questions thus far.
Click to expand...
If I wasn't here this thread would be total echo chamber, and Bob Stuart hate party.
 
Stuart Frazer said:
So can the full MQA file code be easily copied and shared and used by any MQA licensed decoder?
Click to expand...
Of course.

The baseline LPCM is open to all. MQA "goodies" or "abominations" only open up on an MQA DAC.

The baseline LPCM does have added noise above 16KHz, where the MQA data is hidden in the noise. I long confirmed that it is audible on some content.

For streaming via Tidal, this is actually not an issue, as it decodes the MQA content in the app.

The "big fear" is that MQA will "take over" and all people will have on CDs is MQA.

Since, in 5 years they haven't and Amazon got into hires without it, the chances of that happening are exceedingly small.
 
DimitryZ said:
If I wasn't here this thread would be total echo chamber, and Bob Stuart hate party.
Click to expand...

To be fair, if you were not here, Dimitry, this thread would have echoed nothing with about just two or three replies ..., and would have vanished into obscurity as fast as it could have slid down the first page of the Audio section of PFM.

What this thread has done is allow for a wide discussion of the various questions regarding the ethics of the MQA financiers, and the system's technical qualities [failings, and, in only your words, benefits].

It will have done a lot to discourage those who might have taken-up the MQA from even considering it.

In your way you have managed a single handed torpedo salvo into MQA below the water-line.

You opened up a can of worms for all to observe. MQA must wish that anti-MQA types like the Golden One, and the MQA evangelists like you would simply button their lips. Both approaches are harmful to their profit making scheme.

I am not sure what to say except that this is the biggest slow motion wreck of a thread I have ever seen on PFM. MQA must be rolling their eyes at this if they are looking. I am surprised that they have not asked you to "cease and desist" - if discretely - because the longer you persist with it, the greater the damage to MQA becomes. Each of your posts, Dimitry, is literally another shell launched into the battleship MQA.

For myself, this thread turned me against MQA very early on, but I can acquire a morbid curiosity when someone keeps digging a bigger hole, when the gentle advice to a friend would be [and indeed I proffered it early on] to chuck the spade.

Now I am enjoying the mayhem, so please, dear Dimitry, carry on. As your were; let me encourage you, for having turned me against MQA, all I want is for you to turn more neutral people off it, and that is best served by you keeping up the good work of undermining confidence that MQA might even be worth investigating with your continuing posts.

Absolute brilliance! Bravo!!!

Best wishes from George
 
Last edited:
George J said:
Too be fair, if you were not here, Dimitry, this thread would have echoed nothing with about just two or three replies ..., and would have vanished into obscurity as fast as it could have slid down the first page of the Audio section of PFM.

What this thread has done is allow for a wide discussion of the various questions regarding the ethics of the MQA financiers, and the system's technical qualities [failings, and, in only your words, benefits].

It will have done a lot to discourage those who might have taken-up the MQA from even considering it.

In your way you have managed a single handed torpedo salvo into MQA below the water-line.

You opened up a can of worms for all to observe. MQA must wish that anti-MQA types like the Golden One, and the MQA evangelists like you would simply button their lips. Both approaches are harmful to their profit making scheme.

I am not sure what to say except that this is the biggest slow motion wreck of a thread I have ever seen on PFM. MQA must be rolling their eyes at this if they are looking. I am surprised that they have not asked you to "cease and desist" - if discretely - because the longer you persist with it, the greater the damage to MQA becomes. Each of your posts, Dimitry, is literally another shell launched into the battleship MQA.

For myself, this thread turned me against MQA very early on, but I can acquire a morbid curiosity when someone keeps digging a bigger hole, when the gentle advice to a friend would be [and indeed I proffered it early on] to chuck the spade.

Now I am enjoying the mayhem, so please, dear Dimitry, carry on. As your were; let me encourage you, for having turned me against MQA, all I want is for you to turn more neutral people off it, and that is best served by you keeping up the good work of undermining confidence that MQA might even be worth investigating with your continuing posts.

Absolute brilliance! Bravo!!!

Best wishes from George
Click to expand...
Ok, George.

We have exchanged interesting messages prior.

I guess this is not one of them.

And let's be clear - you are against hires in general, so you were by definition against MQA when you got here.
 
mansr said:
Yes, files can be copied. To play them without degradation, you need to pay Bob Stuart. In some ways, it's similar to the idiotic blank media tax levied on CD-Rs in some countries.

If you haven't yet, you should read this piece from Linn: https://www.linn.co.uk/uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music-heres-why
Click to expand...

That's an interesting write-up from Linn. I can see their concerns and reluctance to get involved at this stage. The Apple ALAC comparison is interesting as that's how I see it and look how Apple had to abandon that lock-in and open source their coding.

I think in it's present format MQA will be a niche audiophile format - some will use it and some won't. A bit like vinyl v CD years ago.

Personally, like @George J I have no real desire to try MQA at the moment. I'll let this Betamax x VHS format war go the distance. However, in hindsight, we now know that Betamax lost and it was the better format!
 
DimitryZ said:
Ok, George.

We have exchanged interesting messages prior.

I guess this is not one of them.

And let's be clear - you are against hires in general, so you were be definition against MQA when you got here.
Click to expand...
Dear Dimitry,

You have once again fallen into the trap of making assumptions. Before this thread I was not up on MQA at all. I did not know it was a so called Hi-res format, albeit an inaccurate, and by extension lossy, one.

I learned that in the course of this thread. This thread has literally been an education for me with its discussion points about MQA, of which the more I learn, the less I like it. So though I have not been a believer in recording frequencies above human hearing since the advent of 96/24 hi-res back in the 1990s, I can add MQA to it as an un-necessary adjunct to my existing replay methods.

Back in 1993 EMI were restoring some historic analogue recordings on 96/24 digital hard drives because it gives greater flexibility in remastering, before creating Redbook CD standard masters for public release. The problems were extensively written about by the engineers working on the project at EMI at the time. Their conclusion was that about ninety-nine per cent of people could not spot a 96/24 master being replayed compared to 44/16, and even then, though about one per cent could reliably tell the difference, they did not consistently prefer it, for the very reasons that have been mentioned earlier in this thread.

Best wishes, George
 
Last edited:
George J said:
Dear Dimitry,

You have once again fallen into the trap of making assumptions. Before this thread I was not up on MQA at all. I did not know it was a so called Hi-res format, albeit an inaccurate, and by extension lossy, format.

I learned that in the course of this thread. This thread has literally been an education for me with its discussion points about MQA, of which the more I learn, the less I like it. So though I have not been a believer in recording frequencies above human hearing since the advent of 96/24 hi-res back in the 1990s, I can add MQA to it as an un-necessary adjunct to my existing replay methods.

Back in 1993 EMI were restoring some historic analogue recordings on 96/24 digital hard drives because it gives greater flexibility in remastering, before creating Redbook CD standard masters for public release. The problems were extensively written about by the engineers working on the project at EMI at the time. Their conclusion was that about ninety-nine per cent of people could not spot a 96/24 master being replayed compared to 44/16, and even then, though about one per cent could reliably tell the difference, they did not consistently prefer it, for the very reasons that have been mentioned earlier in this thread.

Best wishes, George
Click to expand...
So given this, George, why did you feel compelled to write a long, sarcastic and angry rant *at* me recently (it certainly wasn't *to* me).

You could have simply thanked this thread (myself even excluded) for offering you more knowledge than you had before so you could now make decisions that were right for you.

That is what you actually meant, correct?

And I assure you, I have not fallen "into a trap," or otherwise.
 
DimitryZ said:
So given this, George, why did you feel compelled to write a long, sarcastic and angry rant *at* me recently (it certainly wasn't *to* me).

You could have simply thanked this thread (myself even excluded) for offering you more knowledge than you had before so you could now make decisions that were right for you.

That is what you actually meant, correct?

And I assure you, I have not fallen "into a trap," or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Dear Dimitry,

You fall into a trap when you make an incorrect assumption and base a reply with argument on it. This trap you have fallen into several times in this thread in replies to me.

Strange as it may seem, when I first read about MQA, it was an irrelevance for me, whose library of recorded music was almost all on CD, transferred lossleesly in AIFF. As I read the information at the time, the MQA line was that it offered similar levels of performance to FLAC streaming with smaller file sizes, thus enabling easier internet streaming. It claimed to have solved all the the problems of the then notorious MP3 lossy streaming systems and offered something as good as CD from internet streaming.

Fair enough, but I listen to the radio for lesser known music and CDs and radio for my favourite music. It did not offer anything much to put it anywhere near requiring attention at the time. In fact, till I saw this thread, I had all but forgotten about it, like compact cassettes and Betamax!

So I read the thread title and then read about twenty pages and reply!

And yes, I am grateful to the many [including yourself, who so successfully chaired the discussion] who have added something to my knowledge of MQA.

As it went, I was kind of positive about MQA as an internet streaming method given that I pay for data rather than have unlimited internet access. This thread has been a great corrective for me, and I must especially thank you personally for your forensic approach to any who disagreed with you in bringing elucidation of much clearer and more detailed argument than is common in internet debate. So I went from mildly positive, but completely ignorant, to being well aware of the arguments being rehearsed from all angles, and most of these more perfectly crystallised, because of your almost legal barister-like probing of so many of the replies here. And thereby have been utterly convinced that if MQA became a monopoly situation it would be deplorable, even for recordings that I am most unlikely ever to seek out. There should always be alternatives, except where the recording artist want MQA exclusively.

You are quite good, till you lose composure here and there, at debating. Indeed I would say that this thread would have been as nothing without your forth-rite contributions.

So thanks to you all, and especially Dimitry. Best wishes from George

PS: I am sure this is not yet mined out, so please do carry on.
 
Last edited:
I find it interesting that streaming services will provide music by convicted paedophiles and murderers but a guy whose music tracks feature test tones has his music removed.
 
George J said:
Dear Dimitry,

You fall into a trap when you make an incorrect assumption and base a reply with argument on it. This trap you have fallen into several times in this thread in replies to me.

Strange as it may seem, when I first read about MQA, it was an irrelevance for me, whose library of recorded music was almost all on CD, transferred lossleesly in AIFF. As I read the information at the time, the MQA line was that it offered similar levels of performance to FLAC streaming with smaller file sizes, thus enabling easier internet streaming. It claimed to have solved all the the problems of the then notorious MP3 lossy streaming systems and offered something as good as CD from internet streaming.

Fair enough, but I listen to the radio for lesser known music and CDs and radio for my favourite music. It did not offer anything much to put it anywhere near requiring attention at the time. In fact, till I saw this thread, I had all but forgotten about it, like compact cassettes and Betamax!

So I read the thread title and then read about twenty pages and reply!

And yes, I am grateful to the many [including yourself, who so successfully chaired the discussion] who have added something to my knowledge of MQA.

As it went, I was kind of positive about MQA as an internet streaming method given that I pay for data rather than have unlimited internet access. This thread has been a great corrective for me, and I must especially thank you personally for your forensic approach to any who disagreed with you in bringing elucidation of much clearer and more detailed argument than is common in internet debate. So I went from mildly positive, but completely ignorant, to being well aware of the arguments being rehearsed from all angles, and most of these more perfectly crystallised, because of your almost legal barister-like probing of so many of the replies here. And thereby have been utterly convinced that any situation where MQA becomes a monopoly situation would be deplorable, even for recordings that I am most unlikely ever to seek out.

You are quite good, till you lost composure here and there, at debating. Indeed I would say that this thread would have been as nothing without your forth-rite contributions.

So thanks to you all, and especially Dimitry. Best wishes from George

PS: I am sure this is not yet mined out, so please do carry on.
Click to expand...
Excellent, George!

I will add "barrister" to "grave digger" and other colorful epithets you have kindly bestowed upon me in this thread.

Since, according to you I am shooting torpedoes and shells at MQA, I suppose that would also make me a "submariner" and "cannoneer."

I wear them all with pride!

And it's literally impossible to fall into an "assumption trap" with you, as you write exactly what you think at any given moment. And you think a lot of things, in very rapid succession.

Be well.
 
DimitryZ said:
Excellent, George!

I will add "barrister" to "grave digger" and other colorful epithets you have kindly bestowed upon me in this thread.

Since, according to you I am shooting torpedoes and shells at MQA, I suppose that would also make me a "submariner" and "cannoneer."

I wear them all with pride!

And it's literally impossible to fall into an "assumption trap" with you, as you write exactly what you think at any given moment.

Be well.
Click to expand...

Dear Dimitry,

I write what I am thinking, and being a person who ponders for an age before deciding many things, what I think does not change all that quickly, though it can when presented with suitable new evidence.

However, I don't always make my point as clearly as I would wish. For example, you believed that I don't stream, but for more than fifteen years I have been streaming music, albeit locally from Hard Drive, and some YouTube music ...

You assumed that I did not stream ... so yes, we all read what we think someone means but wrong assumptions are par for the course. You do it: I do it.

Best wishes from George
 
DimitryZ said:
Oh that's simple. He broke the usage agreement he signed.

What about the pedophiles and murderers?
Click to expand...

Who is the “usage agreement” with? Which part of the “usage agreement” did he break?

So providing music with test tones is against the “usage agreement” and MQA can pressure Tidal/Labels into removing artistic content?
 
George J said:
Dear Dimitry,

I write what I am thinking, and being a person who ponders for an age before deciding many things, what I think does not change all that quickly, though it can when presented with suitable new evident.

However, I don't always make my point as clearly as I would wish. For example, you believed that I don't stream, but for more than fifteen years I have been streaming music, albeit locally from Hard Drive. You assumed that I did not stream ... so yes, we all read what we think someone means but wrong assumptions are par for the course. You do it: I do it.

Best wishes from George
Click to expand...
Of course George.

Local hard drive streaming has remained a foreign concept to me. I love my discs, big and small, black and rainbow and my cassettes and 8-tracks too much.

I don't buy downloads for the same reason. Why clog your hard drives when cloud servers are always there and have better speed and security. So for me streaming is Tidal, Qobuz, Amazon HD, Spotify and Nugs (streaming of live concerts).

I did put ~60Gb of 320mp3 and FLAC files from my physical media onto my phone, but that's strictly for travel.
 
Blackmetalboon said:
Who is the “usage agreement” with? Which part of the “usage agreement” did he break?

So providing music with test tones is against the “usage agreement” and MQA can pressure Tidal/Labels into removing artistic content?
Click to expand...
Don't be silly.

He was on a platform that is specific to young/unknown musicians, where MQA runs an auto encoder.

It's open for musicians explicitly for the purpose of music publishing. I am sure, uploading anything but music is explicitly forbidden in the long legal text he scrolled down on when he clicked "agree."

Certainly hiding test tones in the file for the purposes of "taking down MQA" is, well, not in the user agreement. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top