advertisement


MQA

Status
Not open for further replies.
DimitryZ said:
So, you have asked Bluesound to "pick apart" their firmware into a standalone software and they gave you permission?
Click to expand...
No, but I don't need to. If someone places a file on a public web server, I can download it and use it however I please, unless I have entered an agreement not to. I have not entered any such agreement.

DimitryZ said:
Does Bluesound has any patents on their designs and may consider their code to be proprietary?
Click to expand...
I'm not distributing anything covered by patent or copyright, so it doesn't matter.

DimitryZ said:
And by implying that MQA rendered LPCM stream is DAC independent, do you mean that you hacked other MQA DACs and extracted their firmware as well?
Click to expand...
To a sufficient extent, yes.
 
mansr said:
No, but I don't need to. If someone places a file on a public web server, I can download it and use it however I please, unless I have entered an agreement not to. I have not entered any such agreement.


I'm not distributing anything covered by patent or copyright, so it doesn't matter.


To a sufficient extent, yes.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure you are quite wrong that you can use the software from Bluesound server however you please. Bluesound can easily claim you are limiting their future business opportunities by deconstructing their firmware and putting it in the public domain.

However, if you have this amazing capacity, let's do an experiment.

Let's take a piece of music from Tidal and Qobuz catalog, pick a short clip of music interested parties can get familiar with and have you do some standard metrics in the FINAL (unfolded and rendered) MQA and LPCM versions. We can also use 2L files.

Deal?
 
DimitryZ said:
Not really. Sit tight.

But before you are....busy, you should publish a detailed paper, describing a step by step analysis of MQA decoding, including rendering, using a representative piece of actual music, taken from 2L and comparing to an LPCM version. You have gone through a ton of work and it's really interesting to see it.

Please include details on how you processed each step and which device you used. Publish it here, on CA, ASR and SBAF for maximum visibility.
Click to expand...

There's enough evidence already of the ineptitude of MQA's filter and compression algorithm.
For some people that is enough to rule out a listening assessment.

It sounds good to you, that's fine.
 
mansr said:
I have not distributed anything that is subject to copyright.
Click to expand...
You most certainly have. They have a de facto copyright on their firmware if they choose to excercise it.

If someone gives you a manuscript, you don't have a right to modify it and put it on the web for distribution.

But I don't really care.

I am interested in doing an MQA/LPCM listening and numerical comparison.

Let's pick a piece of music that exists in both formats and is HIGHLY likely to have come from the same master. 2L files I think are the best easily available examples.

Let's pick a clip of music, that has some dynamic contrasts, sharp transients and silences. Those who have MQA hardware will listen and you will produce and publish standard metrics for these clips (fully decoded/rendered from MQA to final LPCM), including some sharp transients comparisons in the time domain.

This has been consuming you for years. Put your software where your mouth is.

Deal?
 
DimitryZ said:
You most certainly have. They have a de facto copyright on their firmware if they choose to excercise it.

If someone gives you a manuscript, you don't have a right to put it on the web for distribution.
Click to expand...
Where have I done anything of the sort?
 
mansr said:
Where have I done anything of the sort?
Click to expand...
Let's not quibble over what you have done, though it's a classic copyright violation outside of "Fair Use" doctrine. But it happens often enough nowdays, most companies don't care unless you punch them on the nose with it. Like did you even buy their hardware before you chose to repurpose their firmware?

And why would Bluesound mind that you took their firmware that they released explicitly for the purpose of updating their customers' hardware, and remade it into a hacked software tool that you have used to publically disparage a streaming format they support? I am sure they are totally cool with it.

But that's all water under the bridge - what's done is done. The tool is in the public domain, so we may as well use it.

Let's do the experiment.

Deal?
 
Last edited:
Zombie said:
Doesn't Dimka like that you reproduce copyrighted silence?
Click to expand...
I am offering an actual experiment with real music and which will showcase MANSR's MQA full software decoder capability.

Remember, reverse engineering killed HDCD. You all should be lobbying him to agree.
 
Don't be foolish. Music is free to copy. Trade secret decoder is not.

SOP...like DSD, HDCD, etc.

But systems like that fail eventually, as dedicated hackers back-engineer or straight-out steal the code. This is what happened to HDCD, and now it's probably MQA's time, with an assist from MANSR.
 
Last edited:
mansr said:
I haven't even done that. John Cage can rest easy.
Click to expand...
Still mulling over my offer?

Or are you afraid that carefully handled music, like 2L files will not show artefacts that you have been railing against for so long?

This will be an open public experiment, not some hack jobs we have seen so far. And you will publish the fully decoded and rendered MQA clip(s), so anyone can hear them.

Deal?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top