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.
Apart from the shivers running down my spine at the thought of the possibility that a lossy MQA master was used to produce this vinyl record, I find the Bruce Bot(c)nick quotation about deblurring interesting,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.
MQA uses more bandwidth than the same audio data encoded with FLAC.That’s not quite true.
We know that it uses more bandwidth that 16bit FLAC and less than 24bit FLAC
I think you need to ask MANSR about his work on an open source MQA decoder. He seems uncharacteristically shy of this subject...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...
Again, so much effort to quote other people's opinions! How about you own experience?Apart from the shivers running down my spine at the thought of the possibility that a lossy MQA master was used to produce this vinyl record, I find the Bruce Bot(c)nick quotation about deblurring interesting,
Particularly in light of the findings reported by Roy in the Norwegian Stereo+ article that I translated above. Here is the pertinent quotation from the Stereo+ article,
"Even though MQA brags that precisely de-blurring and dynamics are their
strong suits, it is my experince that Qobuz is even better at exactly these aspects."
So ...
I don't have any work on an open source decoder. Here's the link to what I have, again: https://code.videolan.org/mansr/mqa/I think you need to ask MANSR about his work on an open source MQA decoder. He seems uncharacteristically shy of this subject...
And if they streamed MQA as FLAC, you could finally crack the encryption and publish a free decoderMQA uses more bandwidth than the same audio data encoded with FLAC.
What does it do?I don't have any work on an open source decoder. Here's the link to what I have, again: https://code.videolan.org/mansr/mqa/
Did you ever play DVDs when they were relatively new? The horrors of proprietary codecs!My real issue with MQA is that it's proprietary closed source and requires licensing.
it alarms me that streaming platforms would encode their libraries with a proprietary codec, and that the consumer cost of streaming devices increases because licence fees are paid to MQA.
We just don't need this - it's bad.
Does it bring anything I want to the party in terms of sonic benefits or required net bandwidth? - no.
Is there anything more horrible than a studio monkeying about with a digital master before pressing it onto an LP? Buttering toast twice? I am screaming on the inside...No idea if it is true. Seems mad. But raises the curious question of how someone will 'de-blur' the 'tip resonances' of the cutter and their stylus. 8-] However...
Oh dear! An LP of MQA?! At least HDCD on an Audio DVD was prefectly decodable back into LPCM! But perhaps just another sign of the behaviour of some in the music biz. If it sells another 'version', great, count the money!
The horrible answer is...contracts.How did MQA become so closely associated with Tidal? Does anyone know?
It is my guess that without the growing presence on Tidal MQA would have gone the way of Betamax by now, and without MQA, where would Tidal be today?
I suspect Tidal was struggling financially (we know they were) when MQA came along and offered them some cash in exchange for pushing their product.How did MQA become so closely associated with Tidal? Does anyone know?
Sausage-making of business is so unsightly...I am clutching my pearls.I suspect Tidal was struggling financially (we know they were) when MQA came along and offered them some cash in exchange for pushing their product.
Is there anything more horrible than a studio monkeying about with a digital master before pressing it onto an LP? Buttering toast twice? I am screaming on the inside...
I thought this was an interesting review:
M
There is no way it can. MQA is a digital process that requires the exact bits produced by the encoder to be fed into the decoder. That can't possibly happen if it has passed through an analogue medium.It will be even more laughable if the result *can* actually be MQA 'decoded'.