advertisement


MQA beginning to see the light?

In equally good humour one could say that MQA have had time to study 18 months of critique and learn from it.

Perhaps you're right.

But I must say that from what Bob Stuart had been saying it wouldn't surprise me that MQA decoding via software or via streamers would become a reality.

Of course an integrated solution should yield the best results (ceteris paribus) because having information about the DAC is also important (according to MQA).
 
Jim,
Your point is already in place for many users. I already buy HD files and download them. Doesn't really matter for me how long they take or the amount of data used as I'm on an unlimited tariff with the bandwidth to support HD audio streaming.
However, most businesses don't have contracts like that (well most that I've seen anyway). They typically pay by actual data used. Now imagine you're Tidal, and wish to stream 24 bit files. Full versions are what, 3-4 times bigger than an MQA equivalent. Saving 75% of your streaming costs for some of your user base would be a SIGNIFICANT saving for a streaming service like Tidal.

DXD or DSD 256 is about 8x the size of MQA!
 
In equally good humour one could say that MQA have had time to study 18 months of critique and learn from it.

Naw, that's not MQA, that's just how Meridian have always worked.
Some companies announce well in advance what they plan to do, which looks good and keeps the user base well informed, but also introduces the possibility of being late or under-delivering.
Meridian operate the other way around. Say pretty much nothing upfront, until they're ready to rock and roll, thus potentially over-delivering against expectations.

For example, just look at the release of their new flagship DAC. There was virtually nothing about it until it's now available.
 
THowever, as mentioned in that Q&A, MQA is not a file format and, as such, a source which was recorded using MQA can be played either on existing equipment or MQA-enabled equipment. You don't have to pay extra to replay something you've already bought.

Afraid the above is quite misleading and obscures the problem.

It is a *format* which differs from LPCM in that some of the bits presented as if LPCM are there for other purposes and alter what would otherwise be LPCM info. Thus it will not play correctly *as* LPCM in an LPCM player that has no awareness of MQA.

Standard LPCM wave files and Audio CD data are defined to be LPCM. Not altered by MQA. Failing to make this distinction and understand its implications may lead us back into a mess of the kind HDCD often propagated in practice.
 
Jim,

However, most businesses don't have contracts like that (well most that I've seen anyway). They typically pay by actual data used. Now imagine you're Tidal, and wish to stream 24 bit files. Full versions are what, 3-4 times bigger than an MQA equivalent. Saving 75% of your streaming costs for some of your user base would be a SIGNIFICANT saving for a streaming service like Tidal.

That was also the argument on their side for 128k mp3. However the reality is that as time passes the costs of space and bandwidth fall to the point where people stop caring. The most common failing for people in technology is not realising that things tend to change much more rapidly than they expect, and often then make redundant previous assumptions.

So I can see your point over, say, a 5 year-ish period . But more than ten years from now I suspect this will all be seen as quaint. And a closed controlled system may be veiwed as a bar to progress.

Plus, of course, the point that we've already shown that you can get around a factor of 4 reduction by the free and open methods we've been experimenting with here! So Tidal can use that for nothing, as soon as they fancy. One player for it is *already* available. So they, and anyone else, can now create and and play (and DSP) such files if they wish.

Unlike closed fixed hardware-based systems it can also, of course, be improved as and when users fancy, for free.
 
Jim>
Maybe you're right about the potential for businesses to not be charged on a data usage rate. However, that's guesswork, and right now, businesses will plan based upon what they're pretty certain about.
Given the chance to bring to market something they will claim is roughly on par with 24 bit, but without a massive increase in streaming costs is almost certainly going to appeal. Just saying.
 
Don't forget MQA is not just a compression process. What about the pre & post ringing removal process that everyone who has heard it is banging on about. I thought that was the main draw. Can an open-source alternative to this be developed too?
 
The short answer is: yes.
Haven't they more or less told us what the filter is anyway? and certinly the specification that the ringing duration has to match that of 10m (?) of air.
 
Yes, they have said what filter shape they're aiming at. And there is no reason why any of the *sound quality* aspects of what they promise can't be matched by open alternatives. Physics and Maths don't distinguish.

When it comes to hardware, and mass manufacture, big companies can get benefits of scale. But that evaporates when you're talking about software or thought.

So far as I can see, every part of the sound quality side of what MQA claims could be done by open alternatives. Not only 'free' as in 'no charge' but 'free' in the sense that anyone using it could check and improve as well as detect problems.

If you think about it, in a matter of just a few days, a few people here have already largely got the same results using sensible approach based on the same idea that some of the standard LPCM Shannon Space is currently wasted and can be discarded or used in a slightly different way. Just that the ways we've come up with are simpler to impliment, and free. But we already have scaling down the sizes of files, etc, by a factor of about 4.

If I could do this, lots of others can probably do better. I'm not a particularly good programmer. Just someone who starts with the awareness that these things can be done, and some grasp of what might be useful approaches.

All that said, I suspect that trying to match something as extreme as the 'behaviour of air' would be problematic in reality anyway. Nice as marketing puff, though. :)

But given microphones, amps, and ADCs that good, what follows could still use an open approach.
 
Hard for me to comment as I don't use Google, Microsoft, or Facebook. :)

More accurately, it is many years since I bothered with Google or Microsoft, and have zero interest in Facebook. But I agree that many people simply follow the herd and don't look for alternatives. Or it never occurs to them that they may exist. So, yes, there is power in marketing and in habituating people, yes.

However you may have noticed that AltaVista sort of went away, despite once being well used. So things do change, and can do so very quickly. Ditto for the way MS were calling Linux "communism" a few years ago, but now contribute to the Linux kernel as markets have changed around them and phones, tablets, etc, grew. So again, tomorrow may not simply be a bigger version of yesterday. :)
 
I agree that things do change a lot these days especially in the technology area. :)

But there are still many advantages to have scale. Being first to market in the right moment with the right technology is sometimes absolutely decisive.

There are many other examples like Netflix, Uber, Salesforce.com, Amazon Web Services, etc.
 
Still haven't understood a word of this techno-chat.

In recent years it seems to me that most successful new media products have been "black box" solutions with significant mass-market consumer benefits. In simple English, no one gives a flying !@£$ how it works, it just has to provide a significantly enhanced consumer experience to justify the cash outlay.

I'm not getting that vibe here ....
 
Yes, they have said what filter shape they're aiming at. And there is no reason why any of the *sound quality* aspects of what they promise can't be matched by open alternatives. Physics and Maths don't distinguish.
....
All that said, I suspect that trying to match something as extreme as the 'behaviour of air' would be problematic in reality anyway. Nice as marketing puff, though. :)

But given microphones, amps, and ADCs that good, what follows could still use an open approach.
While thinking about this a while ago, I came across this. Shame it only sampled at 48kHz, but still the impulse response looks to be determined by the mic. Lookng at the BBC mic it seems to ring for several milliseconds ie at least 500 times longer than the desired MQA impulse response. From which we conclude.......
https://www.audiothing.net/impulses/vintage-mics/
 
@sls

Most people probably just care about how good it sounds and when will a decent music library be available.

But many here worry about DRM, if it addresses a real problem, how to measure it in order to be certain that it delivers what was promised, if it will somehow decrease the sound quality vs the much loved redbook standard, how to implement DSP with MQA, what will happen in the case of one box solutions with non MQA DACs, why is it a closed proprietary system and not free and open, if it could be a first step to world domination... :D
 
Still haven't understood a word of this techno-chat.

In recent years it seems to me that most successful new media products have been "black box" solutions with significant mass-market consumer benefits. In simple English, no one gives a flying !@£$ how it works, it just has to provide a significantly enhanced consumer experience to justify the cash outlay.

I'm not getting that vibe here ....


The issue here is not really about the potential benefits, as most of us here have never heard MQA working as it should and even those who have only a limited amount of content to check.

The optimum action would be to be patient until there's more content out there and kit to check it with.
The threads on the subject at the moment are frankly less helpful as they're full of conjecture, mostly negative.
 
Still haven't understood a word of this techno-chat.

In recent years it seems to me that most successful new media products have been "black box" solutions with significant mass-market consumer benefits. In simple English, no one gives a flying !@£$ how it works, it just has to provide a significantly enhanced consumer experience to justify the cash outlay.

I'm not getting that vibe here ....

You missed details like the possibility of getting the same sort of "enhanced experience" for less cash, and being able to make improvements to it without having to pay more.

The other point is being able to check what you bought in case it could have been better.

Overall, it boils down to if people want to be able to make informed choices.
 
The issue here is not really about the potential benefits, as most of us here have never heard MQA working as it should and even those who have only a limited amount of content to check.

The optimum action would be to be patient until there's more content out there and kit to check it with.
The threads on the subject at the moment are frankly less helpful as they're full of conjecture, mostly negative.

Now read the postings about the advantage handed to someone who is 'first to market when there is no clear alternative competing to offer the same 'advantages' at lower cost.

Look at it from the other side: If people are offerred a system that provides the same sound quality / file size tradeoff (or better) cheaper, and more easily used, adapted, checked etc, what's the problem with that? But people can't choose what isn't on offer.
 
You missed details like the possibility of getting the same sort of "enhanced experience" for less cash, and being able to make improvements to it without having to pay more.

The other point is being able to check what you bought in case it could have been better.

Overall, it boils down to if people want to be able to make informed choices.

To answer:
You don't know how much this is cost, so irrelevant.
Whilst I admire your perseverance on your own idea:
- It's not finished, so it's not ready for peer review
- it's not a saleable product, so why would any music company agree to it
As suggested above, most customers don't care about exactly how things work. I'm guessing you don't understand a lot of the items in your house on EXACTLY how they work. So frankly, why apply it here?

Right now YOU are discouraging informed choice. Because this and the other thread have a number of elements that are either unknown as yet, or have shown to be incorrect as we've gone through.

Seriously, take a break.
 


advertisement


Back
Top