MQA Reviewed
- Thread starter joeinid
- Start date
YuriKorzunov
New member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 66
In my opinion main MQA issue for us, end users, is MQA size comparing with FLAC.
Here other article with technical details http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/origami/ThereAndBack.html
Here other article with technical details http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/origami/ThereAndBack.html
CPP
Active member
I really don't care how the bits and freq fall with this new standard/format. I care about how it sounds as compared to what I already own and at what cost to take advantage of MQA and how much content there will be.
still-one
Well-known member
YuriKorzunov
New member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 66
Absolutelly. As engeneer, I care about binary identity of format if it is lossless.
If it is lossy format, there should provided:
- linear phase and amplitude frequency response at 0 ... 20 kHz,
- noise/distortions level as claimed,
- for the noise/distortions level applied better compression ratio than FLAC.
CPP
Active member
You would love the chat over at computeraudiopohile, they are now into MQA Spectrum analysis with pretty graphs and all done as comparisons between non-MQA and MQA decoded files..
ps:I'm a retired engineering operations manager.
still-one
Well-known member
If it sounds better it is better. When you look at a painting do you worry which type of paint the artist used.
YuriKorzunov
New member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 66
Hi Chris,
Mansr there shown many interesting things.
Last time I observe big activity about MQA in different forums and participate in the discussions.
Unfortunately, this format is closed.
I think, that big heap of information from different sources will give me new level of understanding of this format.
Hi Jim,
When I ride on car, I don’t worry that type of automatic gear there : )
But as audio developer I know approximately correlation between better quality and values of parameters.
These parameters should be measured in complex and correctly.
As example, when I read THD in a manual, it say me nothing. Because it is only smallest part of full picture.
With parameters I can define the purpose for any engineer (experienced or not in ear tests). An he/she can achieve the result.
Also impossibly to catch by ear difference 0.1…1 dB in full band during all working hours.
CPP
Active member
Yep closed tight. All anyone can do is speculate about what magic is going on in the decoding.
As a consumer, I'm suspicious of any format change that A) Portends another round of remixes and reissues of the existing catalog B) Leads the way to locking out users that haven't kept up on subscription fees.
While it may provide some technical advance, it appears a Trojan Horse for DRMA. Unless it offers lifetime access to files I've purchased, anyplace, at any time - it's not a net plus.
If it's a licensing scheme (as I suspect) then it must grant fully transferrable rights to the user, or it's a just rent seeking.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
While it may provide some technical advance, it appears a Trojan Horse for DRMA. Unless it offers lifetime access to files I've purchased, anyplace, at any time - it's not a net plus.
If it's a licensing scheme (as I suspect) then it must grant fully transferrable rights to the user, or it's a just rent seeking.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
still-one
Well-known member
As with all streaming services you never own the music and you must keep up with subscription fees. That is no different from your cable/satellite TV, your cell phone service.
Like other music you can purchase MQA files though not many titles yet. I will do that for MQA content that I want to own just as I do for other digital now.
BS on DRMA non-issue. The sky is falling, The sky is falling.
It is no different from any other music you download. Until they change the current laws you cannot transfer the rights to others. This is too wordy to spell out here but then again everyone chooses which laws they are willing to break.
If I purchase a subscription to a streaming service, the licensing rights are paid by the service, in aggregate.
If I purchase a file, and must pay a subscription fee to play it, I don't own the file - I lease it.
It's clearly intended to prevent me from exercising my ownership rights to transfer propety, IE - DRM.
If the license doesn't offer recovery of corrupted files in the future, it doesn't serve consumer interest.
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/05/schiitting-on-mqa/
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
YuriKorzunov
New member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 66
It may be business-model for permanent incoming of copyholders. Sometimes it allow to decrease a one-time payment of end-user.
I suppose, a part of home music library may be do not continued.
CPP
Active member
Correct so much talk about DRM, me its like you noted like cable TV. Interesting study, like this one http://www.forbes.com/sites/freekve...ed-record-companies-music-sales/#2ad640e44bc1
still-one
Well-known member
I am not sure whether you are trying to protest MQA or Streaming in general. Bottom line, you don't own the music, you are getting access as long as you pay your monthly fee. If you don't like that model then purchase CD's or downloaded files. The With CD's you can make a copies for your use as long as you keep the original CD. If you give away or sell the CD legally you no longer have rights to keep a copy. As far as digital files, legally you cannot sell dowloaded music either, but as I indicated before its easier to read up on that.
You have virtually no ownership rights to copyrighted digital files.
I'm not streaming, other than for rare background listening on my TV. I'm a throwback who prefers to own my copy, in whatever format.
If the MQA stamp doesn't also allow me to replace corrupted downloaded files, then it serves the publisher only.
LPs have been sold secondhand, CDs as well. The buyer either owns the file purchased - in the delivered format or it's a lease which may be terminated by the seller at their discretion.
It's not semantics; MQA is like any other attempt to restrict access, it only leads to higher costs for users.
The technology sounds promising from a noise shaping standpoint, but if it isn't applied as a new format that is compatible with my current catalog - no thanks. I've already got enough copies of The Beatles White Album.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
If the MQA stamp doesn't also allow me to replace corrupted downloaded files, then it serves the publisher only.
LPs have been sold secondhand, CDs as well. The buyer either owns the file purchased - in the delivered format or it's a lease which may be terminated by the seller at their discretion.
It's not semantics; MQA is like any other attempt to restrict access, it only leads to higher costs for users.
The technology sounds promising from a noise shaping standpoint, but if it isn't applied as a new format that is compatible with my current catalog - no thanks. I've already got enough copies of The Beatles White Album.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
still-one
Well-known member
So in other words you just wanted to bitch about nothing. MQA is no different than any other download you can stream or purchase. If you have problems with the legality of owning and transferring digital files, start a new thread.
You are joking correct about higher costs. Vinyl costs at least double that of CD's and more than hi-rez files.
CPP
Active member
I think you nailed it Jim.
If it becomes the standard, it degrades the performance on current gear - by design - hardly innocuous.
DRM in the form of ongoing fees to play files that have already been purchased is an intrusion that no one has asked for, and offers no benefit to consumers forced to adopt it as a "feature".
The marketplace should determine format changes, based on benefits to the users rather than the sellers.
This issue is far from trivial as it bears directly on privacy issues and ownership rights in a digital landscape.
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa
Sent from my HP 10 G2 Tablet using Tapatalk