guenthi_r
Active Member
Fully agree.Agreed. But it would have to detect the watermark, not just rely on tags.
Fully agree.Agreed. But it would have to detect the watermark, not just rely on tags.
The dangerous products have come and gone and you seem to be OK with them such as Blu-ray format. Do you know a legal method to copy one? I know how to do that with MQA. Do you know how to play them without a bunch of proprietary technology with high licensing fees? I assure you MQA costs a fraction of these. So let's not be a part-time vegetarian. You have let the biggest dogs out of the gate and are worrying about the little ones...Concerning the future of MQA, with the backing MQA has now, things may change so I do believe that MQA is a dangerous product.
Yeah, but will rather prefer the streaming service let us filter MQA encoded content with the low cost MP3/Ogg plan. Tidal finaly seem to undertsand they are now actually streaming lossy and have adjusting price to reflect this in some markeds.Thats the biggest problem. Maybe we need a MQA-Detector tool to be on the safe side (eg. in DACs..)
- HiFi - $17.99 AUD a month with lossless High Fidelity sound quality (1411 Kbps)
- HiFi Plus - $23.99 AUD a month with lossless High Fidelity sound quality (1411 Kbps), Master Quality audio (up to 9216 Kbps), and immersive audio - 360 Reality Audio, Dolby Atmos Music
Probably old news but.....
Regarding people stating that MQA is offered for free through Tidal (that the price was not increased). It seems Tidal is making a move towards Spotify lossless plan.
https://support.tidal.com/hc/en-au/...jgn3v_oHH2PiUl9_RQcNmVN8NEPux9YKIui9uFcOQ35F8
So a 33% increase in price if you want MQA compared to 16(13-15)/44.1... Still free?
This is not a logical reasoning. The just of this argument seems to be, You didn't ever complain about X so you have no right to complain about Y.The dangerous products have come and gone and you seem to be OK with them such as Blu-ray format. Do you know a legal method to copy one? I know how to do that with MQA. Do you know how to play them without a bunch of proprietary technology with high licensing fees? I assure you MQA costs a fraction of these. So let's not be a part-time vegetarian. You have let the biggest dogs out of the gate and are worrying about the little ones...
Your are a nice person, but I would not let Mr Atkinson escape with his credentials so easy.
Unfortunately, its more of the same snake-oil, if you scratch the surface: bachelor degree... full AES membership is anyone’s for only $115/year, IEEE membership - $104/year, ‘former NARAS member’ - all one need is two artists for buddies and a couple of articles in those ‘highly engineering’ Stereophile pages... Totally petty, I know, but that‘s what it is, and Mr. Atkinson started it. (I have zero affiliation with audio industry and my audio credentials are more impressive. So total sham - bringing such credentials as an argument for in-depth technical discussion.)
To clarify, I am/was not calling Mr Atkinson a sham. I do not know Mr Atkinson, so he might be a fine, genuine person. I leave it up to readers to decide.
What I was solely rebutting is that an AES, IEEE, etc. memberships - that Mr Atkins happened to bring to the discussion - are hardly a "hard earned credential". I apologize for the confusion, and clarified it (while standing behind my position).
Mr. Atkinson is too modest here - actually he is the author of AES paper (which is not a small feat, believe me):Associate member of the IEEE but to avoid any confusion on this issue, I am a full member of the AES, not an associate member.
And as I wrote, I am not "arguing by credential." I was responding to a poster's misleading implication that I don't have any audio engineering credentials.
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
Whats the point of you measuring and comparing DAC's. I follow your recommendation, then I pay Qobuzfor for Hi-res content and are served a FLAC file under false premises with degraded MQA content? This is happening right now and you will not take part in flagging this as a problem but rather list a number of historical moments that at some time met its maker course better technology made waves.The dangerous products have come and gone and you seem to be OK with them such as Blu-ray format. Do you know a legal method to copy one? I know how to do that with MQA. Do you know how to play them without a bunch of proprietary technology with high licensing fees? I assure you MQA costs a fraction of these. So let's not be a part-time vegetarian. You have let the biggest dogs out of the gate and are worrying about the little ones...
The dangerous products have come and gone and you seem to be OK with them such as Blu-ray format. Do you know a legal method to copy one? I know how to do that with MQA. Do you know how to play them without a bunch of proprietary technology with high licensing fees? I assure you MQA costs a fraction of these. So let's not be a part-time vegetarian. You have let the biggest dogs out of the gate and are worrying about the little ones...
My speculation: They may use that empty space to allow a set of special soft-slope filters (perhaps some kind of bezier or adaptive type) in order to reach the now higher Nyquist fr (48Khz or 96Khz) in a much softer way, so as not to shift phases of high frequency content and also completely avoiding aliasing.
While, say, 300-400db/octave antialiasing filter could be required in Redbook (which I understand is nearly impossible and so, some degree of aliasing must be allowed in Redbook)
MQA says
1- square waves, high amplitude white noise, and presumably big amplitude impulse tones completely outside the maximum amplitudes of the music the system is programmed for, as all of them contain upper octaves and ultrasonic in high amplitudes. MQA is not intended to register high amplitude in ultrasonics, because there is NO MUSIC with that profile, and because that space is better used for custom filters fixing time domain issues. If you understand what MQA does (and if both accomplished amateurs are in fact accomplished, they knew it BEFORE doing those tests), you don't need a test to know a square wave will not perform OK.
the system is intended to be lossless compared with analog input; but to fix the flaws of that input (by correcting time domain issues) if instead that input is digital.
I'm pretty sure the people that say it doesn't haven't tried, at least in long auditions and/or with MQA DAC's or properly configured. Otherwise, we won't be reading all this hate.
But when it comes to MQA files, the switch from the Chord to the Project (with the DAC properly configured in the pc to decode by hardware, not that obvious) is instantly noticeable, even with the Chord already playing MQA unfolded by software. The sound opens up..
That's not the gist of it. OP brought up Dolby:This is not a logical reasoning. The just of this argument seems to be, You didn't ever complain about X so you have no right to complain about Y.
I explained how the analogy was wrong and that there is alternative to Dolby. Then folks tried to defend Dolby and DTS as being better than MQA and I explained the opposite is true.Look at what happened with dolby. There is absolutely no room for innovation in that market because dolby has a monopoly.
That's cool.Yes, but the practical question for users is really whether to support MQA by (a) subscribing to services like Tidal that use MQA, and (b) buying MQA capable DACs. The only thing we can do is vote with our feet to the extent possible.
Not if you are Australian. That is bad for MQA then since they no longer get to be there for every user and use that to drive hardware adoption....So a 33% increase in price if you want MQA compared to 16(13-15)/44.1... Still free?
I'm not ok with it and never suggested I was you maybe have me confused with someone else.That's not the gist of it. OP brought up Dolby:
I explained how the analogy was wrong and that there is alternative to Dolby. Then folks tried to defend Dolby and DTS as being better than MQA and I explained the opposite is true.
This aside, as I have explained, your position makes no sense. Either you are for ALL open formats or not. You can't be selective in wanting high-res audio open, but perfectly fine with other closed audio formats. I don't know how you rationalize it in your mind, much less say I am not making sense.
Notice the wording: "Master Quality audio reflects the original source".Probably old news but.....
Regarding people stating that MQA is offered for free through Tidal (that the price was not increased). It seems Tidal is making a move towards Spotify lossless plan.
https://support.tidal.com/hc/en-au/...jgn3v_oHH2PiUl9_RQcNmVN8NEPux9YKIui9uFcOQ35F8
So a 33% increase in price if you want MQA compared to 16(13-15)/44.1... Still free?
I explained how the analogy was wrong and that there is alternative to Dolby. Then folks tried to defend Dolby and DTS as being better than MQA and I explained the opposite is true.
This aside, as I have explained, your position makes no sense. Either you are for ALL open formats or not. You can't be selective in wanting high-res audio open, but perfectly fine with other closed audio formats. I don't know how you rationalize it in your mind
Either you are for ALL open formats or not.
AFAIC, it is quite simple.
I prefer open formats but will live with closed, proprietary formats if they improve my audio experience.
MQA doesn't improve my audio experience.
Most of the people in this thread aren't worried about Hi-Res audio but are worried about how MQA is used to replace completely standard and open 44.1kHz 16-bit streaming/CDs and how it demonstrably loses a significant amount of data on non-MQA devices.
There is a difference between the eco-system in which Dolby and DTS appeared and the eco-system in which MQA finds itself now. Dolby and DTS brought the benefit of standardization in a new, developing, field. MQA attempts to replace existing open and fully functional existing standards.
There is a difference between
no solution -> proprietary solution
no solution -> proprietary solutions -> open solutions -> proprietary solution
or even worse
no solution -> proprietary solutions -> open solutions -> proprietary solution with underhanded replacement of previous open solutions.
That has to be the weakest argument in all of this thread... "paid shills", "tools", "inability to rationalize" etc are not even arguments.
Yes, Stuart/Craven etc are clever persons and, who knows, they may have developed the best method there will ever be to fold the high-frequency content of Hi-Res files, but again...
which problem are they solving for the customer? What is the benefit?