misterdog
Not the canine kind
This guy has deliberately gone for an MQA master on the vinyl release.
So we need to invest in an MQA cartridge for our turntables ?
This guy has deliberately gone for an MQA master on the vinyl release.
Maybe I was reading about other stuff and saw this article, I get regular emails about new vinyl releases and MQA mastered ones had never flagged up so was curious about this guy and his Doors release. Not done much in depth searching but it doesn't appear to be a popular option yet.So we need to invest in an MQA cartridge for our turntables ?
@DimitryZ, the post really was an attempt at humor, and was not aimed at any one participant in this thread. Winning the MQA thread was meant to be interpreted as both the pro or anti position. As with cable threads I am surprised by the number of hours spent, and passion involved in trying to change the other side's mind, knowing that it probably won't happen.In my life, as an immigrant, I have had to withstand MUCH more real life abuse than my opponents here can ever muster. Though I admit, the gravestone was a clever attempt.
This guy has deliberately gone for an MQA master on the vinyl release. Not a band I collect so I won’t likely get to hear the record. I was surprised when I saw vinyl coming off MQA masters, thoughts, does his quote stand up to scrutiny?
It is the case regardless of the invention. Let me elaborate. I said that a patent fails for insufficiency if it does not provide enough information for a skilled person to practice the invention as claimed in the patent. The crucial point here is "....to practice the invention as claimed in the patent". Therefore, it need only be possible for a skilled person to do something that works in the manner set out in the patent's claims, for the requirement for sufficiency of disclosure to be met. It does not require the patent to enable a skilled person to implement the invention in exactly the same way as the patent proprietor does.
.
MQA patent allows the creation of an MQA-like system. Just not a creation of an identical system. Windows patents shows how to create a Windows-like OS, just not Windows exactly. It's always the same.
Sure, you just can't make fake Windows. Same as MQA, once one takes dramatically different levels of functionality.
Yes. The snag then being that - to be of use to end-users when a given implimentation is in use those who wish to use it need a 'compatable' process that deals with details that aren't in the patent. The bun and the sixpence. For some decades now this has become quite common in patents I've read.
The drawback for the patent holder is that it means a 'clean room' devising of a compatable method isn't protected by their patents. The challenge for 3rd parties, though, is to find one. However the use of 'imperfect' reconstruction filters is hardly novel, so this could be done openly and used with DACs that are not themselves MQA types.
Erm it could be functionally identical so long as it used 'clean room' methods given some limits. One is that any methods openly used before the patent could be used as they can't be claimed by the patent. e.g. using 'imprefect' filters to generate aliasing. The other is that a method may differ from the *novel* ones in the patents.
Using a an old fashioned NOR gate in a patented arrangement doesn't stop other people from using NOR gates.
Hence it seems to me to be quite possible that we could find someone devises an open source - at least partial - MQA decoder. Even if it can't use MQA as a brand name. it might perhaps be called a FAQE system, though with E = Enhancer.
Interesting to speculate if the bitflagging pattern that indicates MQA is protected. i.e. No-one could use that bit pattern. But the use of such patterns again isn't new. So an open FAQE creator could probably also be employed if someone thought a neat ideal.
That said, I guess a FAQE enhancer would be more useful and who knows, perhas each DAC producer could offer their own variety of reconstruction filters for the user to experiment with. A wider choice for users. Should be welcome for those interested in this sort of thing...
Hence it seems to me to be quite possible that we could find someone devises an open source - at least partial - MQA decoder. Even if it can't use MQA as a brand name. it might perhaps be called a FAQE system, though with E = Enhancer.
I feel compelled to butt in again, not about MQA but Internet bandwidth... . Whilst some friends in the US and other places enjoy GB bandwidth, here in the forward thinking, 1st world UK we are still dealing with 2 digit mb speeds. Some have single figure speeds.
We have frequently experienced buffering when watching HD and someone else doing something online. BT 'guarantees' 36mbs. If only. It frequently drops below this.
So, Internet bandwidth is still an issue for many and will be so for some time.
This is a genuine query, my preferred format is vinyl, I do have Tidal and Qobuz subs and MQA capable DACs, I’m not fussed about it as a format but like many do not want it foisted on me, I want to make my own choice if I want the MQA version or not.
This guy has deliberately gone for an MQA master on the vinyl release. Not a band I collect so I won’t likely get to hear the record. I was surprised when I saw vinyl coming off MQA masters, thoughts, does his quote stand up to scrutiny?
On Amazon I found a Norwegian Jazz LP and nothing else after a cursory search so not yet a widespread thing it seems.
This is my fear turning into reality! Total marketing BS hype turning a lossy format into a PR benefit. Dominic Cummings/Leave.EU-grade audio.
PS Thankfully I already have all the Doors albums I want on Steve Hoffman-mastered DCC vinyl or original Elektra, so no digital stuff of any description anywhere in the signal path.
Your first point is not strictly correct. A "clean room" devised method that worked in the manner claimed in a patent would still infringe the patent despite the fact that it was not copied from the original.
As I mentioned upthread, at least one third party, Auralic, has devised their own method of reconstruction or decoding (call it what you will!) MQA that they claim does not infringe MQA's patents. I don't think that they have been sued, so this may indeed be possible!
Working around a patent without risking infringement is not a simple thing. However, it can be done in many cases, but it requires engineers to work with patent attorneys (who will always be technically as well as legally qualified), as the solutions required are not always that obvious or simple. Fun though .
I don't. And one of my worries is that - yet again - 'new' issues of Joni Mitchel material will be farted about.