|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Feb 14, 2017 19:24:30 GMT -5
"A new audio format which allows internet streaming of music at studio quality, seemingly free from copy-protection nasties, and with a clear way for you to know you have bought the real-deal. Seems like the perfect solution, right? Not so fast."Link to Post on Linn's Web Site
|
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Feb 14, 2017 19:49:23 GMT -5
Total agreement here. MQA does not benefit us listeners in the long run. Creators are hamstrung by all the constraints, also the royalties to MQA is outright criminal. Claiming there is no DRM, and they policing it all along the way. There is a word to describe this, however I will refrain from using it. Ahh heck!! GREED!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Feb 14, 2017 21:33:12 GMT -5
I don't see the difference between MQA and something like Dolby Digital/DTS which content creator and end user end up paying them. I mean, how "expensive" is it if Audioquest includes it in their cheap $99 Dragonfly DACs? For me, I would love to see more support for the MQA encoder. People like Jim Collinson from Linn are just butthurt they didn't come up with it. Once you hear MQA fully unfolded deblur, you can't go back.
|
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Feb 14, 2017 22:13:39 GMT -5
I don't see the difference between MQA and something like Dolby Digital/DTS which content creator and end user end up paying them. I mean, how "expensive" is it if Audioquest includes it in their cheap $99 Dragonfly DACs? For me, I would love to see more support for the MQA encoder. People like Jim Collinson from Linn are just butthurt they didn't come up with it. Once you hear MQA fully unfolded deblur, you can't go back. I assume content creators have to pay a licensing fee each time a theatrical movie, Blu-ray or stream is released which makes the them similar. I'm still skeptical but trying to keep an open mind. None of my current DACs are MQA capable and it may be a while before I upgrade. |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Feb 14, 2017 22:24:39 GMT -5
I don't see the difference between MQA and something like Dolby Digital/DTS which content creator and end user end up paying them. I mean, how "expensive" is it if Audioquest includes it in their cheap $99 Dragonfly DACs? For me, I would love to see more support for the MQA encoder. People like Jim Collinson from Linn are just butthurt they didn't come up with it. Once you hear MQA fully unfolded deblur, you can't go back. I assume content creators have to pay a licensing fee each time a theatrical movie, Blu-ray or stream is released which makes the them similar. I'm still skeptical but trying to keep an open mind. None of my current DACs are MQA capable and it may be a while before I upgrade. MQA will work with any file since it's PCM. Your DAC wouldn't be able to unfold the MQA data but you will still benefit from the deblur. Tidal desktop APP is able to unfold the first fold allowing you to enjoy it with your present equipment; however, best sound would come from a hardware that's MQA compatible. Onkyo, Pioneer, and many others will support native MQA on their next hw releases. www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-decoding-explained#cHZoIY81tqE4YKfh.97 |
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Feb 15, 2017 0:02:34 GMT -5
Unfolding and folding Data. Sorry sounds like fancy interpolation, and loss in the process. Marketing thrown in for spice. Almost something from nothing. Not buying it for a pico second. You are going to tell me you are going to be better than a perfectly aligned Master tape done on an Ampex ATR-100 by punching holes in it with this "Digital" process. Count me out. That is like buying cake, and taking the best parts out. MQA is a sham plain, and simple. Just like Pono. This is probably my biggest stand against a non starter since 8 track tape. I am going to get some hate for that, but some how the "So What!" light turns on when someone tries to sell me on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Feb 15, 2017 0:06:04 GMT -5
Not worth it
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator 
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,950
|
Post by hemster on Feb 15, 2017 0:51:16 GMT -5
I would urge those that haven't auditioned MQA to try it. Go in with an open mind and see hear for yourself. Don't knock it till you've tried it. I personally think it depends on the recording. Some may sound great, yet others you'd be hard pressed to hear a difference. It is beginning to get traction now so it'll be interesting to see how it fares. BTW, one would not rationally expect Linn to sing MQA's praises... just sayin'.  |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Feb 15, 2017 7:49:19 GMT -5
There are very few MQA DACs available. The Oppo Sonica DAC I just bought promises to add it via firmware in the future And some others are advertizing MQA ready, whatever that means. The Mytec Brooklyn (about $1100) and the Meridian Explorer 2 (About $200) are the only ones I have found that are available at this moment. Some companies are dismissive of MQA all together (Schit comes to mind)!
|
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Feb 15, 2017 8:17:20 GMT -5
There are very few MQA DACs available. The Oppo Sonica DAC I just bought promises to add it via firmware in the future And some others are advertizing MQA ready, whatever that means. The Mytec Brooklyn (about $1100) and the Meridian Explorer 2 (About $200) are the only ones I have found that are available at this moment. Some companies are dismissive of MQA all together (Schit comes to mind)! Where did you find the Mytek Brooklyn for $1100? FWIW, Mytek Manhattan II also supports MQA. |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Feb 15, 2017 8:23:59 GMT -5
There are very few MQA DACs available. The Oppo Sonica DAC I just bought promises to add it via firmware in the future And some others are advertizing MQA ready, whatever that means. The Mytec Brooklyn (about $1100) and the Meridian Explorer 2 (About $200) are the only ones I have found that are available at this moment. Some companies are dismissive of MQA all together (Schit comes to mind)! Where did you find the Mytek Brooklyn for $1100? FWIW, Mytek Manhattan II also supports MQA. My bad! I thought I had just looked up the price before I posted, but apparently I read something incorrectly - It's more like $2000. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Feb 15, 2017 9:39:23 GMT -5
Unfolding and folding Data. Sorry sounds like fancy interpolation, and loss in the process. Marketing thrown in for spice. Almost something from nothing. Not buying it for a pico second. You are going to tell me you are going to be better than a perfectly aligned Master tape done on an Ampex ATR-100 by punching holes in it with this "Digital" process. Count me out. That is like buying cake, and taking the best parts out. MQA is a sham plain, and simple. Just like Pono. This is probably my biggest stand against a non starter since 8 track tape. I am going to get some hate for that, but some how the "So What!" light turns on when someone tries to sell me on this. I have no idea whether you are right or wrong, but I love your post. It made me smile, in a good way. I will keep an open mind on the subject. I'm certainly not going to run out and be an early adopter. Hell, it wasn't until last September when I got my new car that I started using Pandora!!!  The way I see it I'll just kick back and wait. If it's really the cat's meow then it will just "be" in every device within a few years anyway, whether we like it or not. I jumped on the SACD & DVD-A bandwagon many years ago, and I'm not doing that again. Scam or no scam, the biggest total scam that I relate identically to your post is that of the complete snake oil bull schiit claims for SHM discs from Japan. What a joke. "The plastic makes it sound better." Utterly impossible. People can be so naive. |
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs 
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Feb 15, 2017 10:32:23 GMT -5
Don't waste your money on a new set of speakers,
You get more mileage from a cheap pair of sneakers.
-Billy Joel
|
|
|
|
Post by indyscammer on Feb 15, 2017 10:42:21 GMT -5
Don't waste your money on a new set of speakers,
You get more mileage from a cheap pair of sneakers. -Billy Joel Billy just don't get us very well........... |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 15, 2017 10:42:33 GMT -5
As you say, we'll see if it gets any serious traction..... I personally find the terms "folding" and "origami" to be annoying in this context because they are misleading. When I think about folding paper, or about origami itself, I tend to think of it as making little figures out of paper by folding it. The implication is that you can fold the paper, then unfold it and get back the piece of paper you started with. (Real origami does in fact sometimes involve cutting and gluing the paper.) However, when you "fold parts of the spectrum over other parts", as with MQA encoding, you are in fact overwriting some information with other information, and the information that has been overwritten is DISCARDED. I also recall other descriptions where they seemed to be trying very hard to avoid mentioning that it is a lossy CODEC. Now, if you believe their claims, then that "unfolded" version may even sound better than the original, or may contain more information than an equivalent sized file that is in fact lossless, and the stuff they discard may be totally worthless, but the fact remains that it will NOT be a bit-perfect rendition of the original. (Lately they seem to be claiming that it will be the analog equivalent of a bit-perfect exact copy... sort of.) To me, the upshot of all this is that, at least for now, MQA is yet another method for post-processing audio content which is claimed to IMPROVE the sound. They are ALTERING the digital master in a way that at least some people find pleasing. (And, while I can in fact test a file to see if it's really bit-perfect, an "audible improvement" is always going to be a matter of personal taste.) Now, when and if we actually start seeing albums that were originally mastered in MQA, then it may be possible to compare the MQA master to the PCM master and see which is actually better - or it may not. However, until then, I'll be waiting to see how many of my favorite albums are re-mastered yet again, this time in MQA, and sound noticeably better. (For example, since all those Warner albums have been remastered, I'm waiting to hear all those new MQA remasters - so I can find out how many of them sound dramatically better - if they do. Where are the magazine reviews about how we can buy re-masters of a huge list of classic albums - that really sound noticeably better this time around? I'm waiting.) Other than that, and pretty much separate from it, we may find that the MQA CODEC is a useful way to send high quality music over limited bandwidth (and, as such, it may be a commercial success). On that note we'll see how many people find that the Tidal versions of their favorite CDs sound better than the originals, and whether they find a further improvement when they play it on an MQA DAC. However, I plan to keep the various parts of the MQA ecosystem separate in my head, and avoid falling into the "buy it because it's MQA - whatever exactly that is" trap. I would urge those that haven't auditioned MQA to try it. Go in with an open mind and see hear for yourself. Don't knock it till you've tried it. I personally think it depends on the recording. Some may sound great, yet others you'd be hard pressed to hear a difference. It is beginning to get traction now so it'll be interesting to see how it fares. BTW, one would not rationally expect Linn to sing MQA's praises... just sayin'. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 15, 2017 10:53:27 GMT -5
I'm going to bite here...... Since the MQA encoding is supposed to produce an audible improvement, which is audible on a NON-MQA DAC (even though you're not getting "the full effect"), do you have any specific recommendations of music that is currently available in an MQA version that we will all find terribly impressive? It would be better if the same exact content, from the same master, is available in high-res PCM, or at least regular CD, so we can do a direct comparison between the two versions - to see if we hear a difference - and which one we like better. (Since re-masters always sound different for a wide variety of reasons, it may be difficult to figure out what to credit to the MQA process, but I'm game to at least try.) I would urge those that haven't auditioned MQA to try it. Go in with an open mind and see hear for yourself. Don't knock it till you've tried it. I personally think it depends on the recording. Some may sound great, yet others you'd be hard pressed to hear a difference. It is beginning to get traction now so it'll be interesting to see how it fares. BTW, one would not rationally expect Linn to sing MQA's praises... just sayin'. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Feb 15, 2017 10:55:25 GMT -5
I just read the article. In my eyes the entire thing is up for line by line debate, but I'm not going to start that. It could go on forever.
But the "Stifling creativity" section is just ripe for the picking. In that section I find almost everything he says to be a big load of bullocks. If not total bullocks, then certainly biased towards one man's thoughts and opinions, which in the case of this particular article, are ridiculously easily argued, debated, or from what I read, thrown out and dismissed completely. At first read of this section, I simply laughed, shrugged, or rolled my eyes with his comments, which I found completely back @$$wards and steeped with hypocrisy.
I'm done.
Again, I'll just kick back and see what happens this time. It's not like anything I do or say will change things anyway. That much has been proven to me.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 15, 2017 12:16:08 GMT -5
While I do agree that he may have overstated many of his points, I do think that a lot of them are at least somewhat valid. The MQA gang has devised an ecosystem, or a workflow, or whatever you want to call it, where almost every step of the process has to be licensed. If this were to come to pass it would in fact give them a virtual monopoly on a big chunk of the music production industry. (It's similar to the way that iPods only played iTunes purchased music, and the music you purchased on iTunes would only play on your iPod. It certainly made it a pain in the butt for people who weren't part of the Apple family to sell their music to people who were and vice versa.) The reality is that the vast majority of the current music market has no idea whether MQA sounds good or not.... They'll pay $20 extra for an MQA DAC because a dozen of their new CDs have an MQA sticker on them.... And, assuming they're reasonably intelligent, the MQA guys will buy lots of advertising to convince them that they should.... And, to be totally blunt, I don't care either way, as long as the extra money for all their licensing doesn't get forcibly extracted from MY pocket. I won't mind paying extra if the music actually sounds better... but not just to satisfy some compulsion to possess the latest and greatest. For example, just as I pay $5 more for a 24/192k version of an album than a CD, I may be willing to pay $5 for an MQA version - if it really sounds better. But I will be VERY unhappy if, even though I don't hear a difference, the prices I pay still end up going up because they've added more licensing fees to the process. However, I DO have to agree with his comment about stifling creativity. At some level, if enough people do become addicted to that little green "MQA" light, it WILL make it harder for your favorite garage band to sell their CD. (Because they'll have to pay extra for that MQA license, so they can put that sticker on their CD in order to get people to buy it.) Honestly, I doubt it will make much difference, just as many garage bands sell their stuff as MP3 and don't even bother to do lossless PCM, but the possibility is there. (And, yes, just like iPods wouldn't play industry standard FLAC files, I CAN imagine a player that will only play MQA files..... ) To be totally honest, I think that fellow was being rather alarmist.... (But, then, the MQA guys really do seem to imagine an "MQA licensed world" - which is the same world that he's worried about....) I just read the article. In my eyes the entire thing is up for line by line debate, but I'm not going to start that. It could go on forever. But the "Stifling creativity" section is just ripe for the picking. In that section I find almost everything he says to be a big load of bullocks. If not total bullocks, then certainly biased towards one man's thoughts and opinions, which in the case of this particular article, are ridiculously easily argued, debated, or from what I read, thrown out and dismissed completely. At first read of this section, I simply laughed, shrugged, or rolled my eyes with his comments, which I found completely back @$$wards and steeped with hypocrisy. I'm done. Again, I'll just kick back and see what happens this time. It's not like anything I do or say will change things anyway. That much has been proven to me. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 15, 2017 12:18:19 GMT -5
Yah..... SHM sure did sell a lot of plastic...  (not new bits - just new plastic). Unfolding and folding Data. Sorry sounds like fancy interpolation, and loss in the process. Marketing thrown in for spice. Almost something from nothing. Not buying it for a pico second. You are going to tell me you are going to be better than a perfectly aligned Master tape done on an Ampex ATR-100 by punching holes in it with this "Digital" process. Count me out. That is like buying cake, and taking the best parts out. MQA is a sham plain, and simple. Just like Pono. This is probably my biggest stand against a non starter since 8 track tape. I am going to get some hate for that, but some how the "So What!" light turns on when someone tries to sell me on this. I have no idea whether you are right or wrong, but I love your post. It made me smile, in a good way. I will keep an open mind on the subject. I'm certainly not going to run out and be an early adopter. Hell, it wasn't until last September when I got my new car that I started using Pandora!!! The way I see it I'll just kick back and wait. If it's really the cat's meow then it will just "be" in every device within a few years anyway, whether we like it or not. I jumped on the SACD & DVD-A bandwagon many years ago, and I'm not doing that again. Scam or no scam, the biggest total scam that I relate identically to your post is that of the complete snake oil bull schiit claims for SHM discs from Japan. What a joke. "The plastic makes it sound better." Utterly impossible. People can be so naive. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 12:29:13 GMT -5
First & foremost, I'm a capitalist.
Initially, MQA sounds like politics of "mo" money (& "greed" as vcautokid said).
Remember, we had to have THX certified equipment to get great DVD reproduction at additional cost. How'd that work out?
A Bit perfect master file should remain as recorded, any post processing should be an elective to the end consumer. I would NOT like MQA encoding of masters. Is MQA trying to be the Bose of digital sound???
I bought LPs, cassettes, CDs, DVD-As of the same albums...enough- not interested in more magic dust. So glad I didn't join the SACD craze.
Look how many Artist have sold their copy rights to "big media". I don't care if I "pirate" a copy of an Artist that I've already paid a royalty to, ain't paying another royalty.
Kieth just made some great points to consider.
I agree with Collinson's conclusion.
|
|
The way I see it I'll just kick back and wait. If it's really the cat's meow then it will just "be" in every device within a few years anyway, whether we like it or not. I jumped on the SACD & DVD-A bandwagon many years ago, and I'm not doing that again.
