hemster
Global Moderator 
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,951
|
Post by hemster on Feb 16, 2017 21:37:00 GMT -5
Personally, I think MQA will stand or fall on its own merits - after all, either it DOES sound better or it DOESN'T sound better, and even if it does sound better, are people willing to pay a premium for it. I am still skeptical and think it is just another money-making ploy that depends on it becoming the buzzword that everyone thinks it is better just because it says it is supposed to be better. I don't think MQA is any more credible than that guy who supposedly improves various products, including Emo gear, by removing RMF or EMF or whatever interference with his voodoo methods, that was a topic of discussion several months ago. ------>>snip<<------- Sure, but before dismissing it I want to be open-minded and see how it fares in the market. As you say, will consumers pony up for it? That remains to be seen. So until then, I'm withholding judgement and not jumping into either camp. |
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,951
|
Post by hemster on Feb 16, 2017 21:39:08 GMT -5
It all starts to sound like "if you buy anything with an MQA sticker it will sound wonderful, but, if you buy more stuff with MQA stickers on it, your music will sound even better". (It's also starting to sound like they're trying very hard to figure out more pieces to sell you.) If I were a DAC manufacturer, I wouldn't consider MQA hardware implementation for a while. Personally I'm hoping for a software solution so our current investment in hardware is not wasted. |
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Feb 16, 2017 22:44:24 GMT -5
If you ever get the chance to meet Dr. AIX (Mark Waldrep) at an audio show, do so.
I've met him a couple of times, and he's always been interesting and engaging, as well as very passionate about the music.
(If you have a chance to meed David Chesky, do that too, but he quite the character).
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 16, 2017 23:14:55 GMT -5
I don't understand why one would need a MQA DAC. If MQA is simply an interesting new take on a Lossy Compression CODEC which tries to make the best use out of channel bandwidth by taking Human Perception into account, then it could be uncompressed into 192kHz/24bit PCM just before being fed to a DAC. Just like we already do uncompressing FLAC containers of 192kHz/24bit audio. As we already do for MP3. I suppose if the MQA decompression step was computationally really expensive one could consider a DAC with a hardware MQA decompression assist. But I haven't heard that's the issue. To be honest, if they had a much simpler description of what they're doing I'd be a lot less suspicious. But given the incredibly vague and vigorous hand waving and obfuscated descriptions I see, my Spider Sense is tingling with Fraud Alert. Casey Hi Casey - Without meaning to be ugly in any way, I agree with you - I don't think you understand. The technology claims to do a variety of things (as I understand it - and not claiming that I fully do - so I may not understand either, but...): 1. It claims to compensate for the damage that the "brick wall" low-pass filters (used in the original analog-to-digital conversion) did to the music 2. It claims to compensate for the damage that similar (inverse digital-to-analog) filters in your particular and specific DAC will do to the music on playback 3. It also (incidentally) claims to do so with a smaller file size that moves high-frequency data into a different part of the audio spectrum before "unpacking" it 4. It, finally, claims to be backward compatible with non-MQA DACs, and to sound better than red-book CD files Are any/all of these claims legitimate? Heck if I know - I haven't heard it. These are my understandings, based only on what I've read. And, like you, I'm suspicious. The proof, however, is in the listening - and until I hear it, I'm withholding judgement. Cordially - Boomzilla |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Feb 17, 2017 2:04:30 GMT -5
No problem at all Boomzilla, and absolutely no offense taken! I'm very aware of my ignorance. But it is amazing how badly all of this is being explained by the promoters of this given how much resources they're pouring into it. Pedagogically, they're a complete failure. Casey |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 17, 2017 2:11:19 GMT -5
Hi again, Casey - I can't argue that. You'd think they could at least hire ME to dumb it down some! LMFAO
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Feb 17, 2017 6:09:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 17, 2017 9:19:44 GMT -5
I'm waiting on a MQA decoder plugin for Foobar
|
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Feb 17, 2017 9:43:56 GMT -5
 An MQA encoded file can be played back in four ways; with no decoding, software decoding, hardware decoding, and a combined software/hardware decode. If you play back a 24-bit/192kHz MQA-encoded file using iTunes through a regular DAC (i.e. a non-MQA DAC), you will get a 24/48 file. If you play back a 24-bit/192kHz MQA-encoded file through an MQA software decoder like Tidal HiFi, Audirvana, or (soon) Roon, and you are using a regular DAC (i.e. a non-MQA DAC), you will get a 24/96 file. A software decoder does not offer the ability to 'unfold' the original file to resolutions higher than 24/96 (or 24/88.2). If you play back a 24-bit/192kHz MQA-encoded file through an MQA-enabled DAC, you will get a 24-bit/192kHz file. If you are also using a software decoder like Tidal HiFi, Audirvana, or (soon) Roon, you can have the software decoder perform the first 'unfold'.  This scenario plays out the same for other resolutions above 24/96 and 24/88.2. One thing to note: if the original MQA file is 24/48, 24/96, or 24/88.2, it will pass through the software decoder and be 'unfolded' to its original resolution. This brings up the interesting fact that people who love their DAC and its proprietary digital filter may very well be able to have their cake and eat it too, especially when streaming MQA content from Tidal HiFi. Comments From Bob Stuart The strength of MQA is that one file can be played back in a wide variety of situations by the customer. The three presentations you discussed: No decode; MQA Core; Full decode are all previewed in the studio. Each is optimally set up for that presentation (with appropriate de-ringing). MQA Core (which comes out of the soft decoder or digital outputs) carries the additional information necessary for an MQA Renderer (eg Dragonfly) or a full Decoder (eg MSB, Brinkman, Mytek, Meridian) to 'finish the job downstream'. Full software decode is not possible because the DAC must be known and characterized. MQA is an analog to analog process. Read more at www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-decoding-explained#BfLbw9TFBMasZWQS.99I don't understand why one would need a MQA DAC. If MQA is simply an interesting new take on a Lossy Compression CODEC which tries to make the best use out of channel bandwidth by taking Human Perception into account, then it could be uncompressed into 192kHz/24bit PCM just before being fed to a DAC. Just like we already do uncompressing FLAC containers of 192kHz/24bit audio. As we already do for MP3. I suppose if the MQA decompression step was computationally really expensive one could consider a DAC with a hardware MQA decompression assist. But I haven't heard that's the issue. To be honest, if they had a much simpler description of what they're doing I'd be a lot less suspicious. But given the incredibly vague and vigorous hand waving and obfuscated descriptions I see, my Spider Sense is tingling with Fraud Alert. Casey |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 17, 2017 9:59:22 GMT -5
No problem at all Boomzilla, and absolutely no offense taken! I'm very aware of my ignorance. But it is amazing how badly all of this is being explained by the promoters of this given how much resources they're pouring into it. Pedagogically, they're a complete failure. Casey You mean like reading the fine print on the back of an insurance policy? Maybe it is an ongoing evolving process, driven more by what results in the most $$$. |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Feb 17, 2017 10:05:41 GMT -5
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 17, 2017 10:15:45 GMT -5
Your statement is in fact technically not entirely correct...... but the nuances are confusing. (Think of it like removing out of focus blur from a photo....) When you remove blur from a picture you analyze the picture, make a guess about how much blur there is, then do something mathematical to reverse it. Of course, since you cannot know for sure how much of what you think is blur belongs there, you are GUESSING about what to do to remove it. If you make a very good guess, then the result will be a close approximation to the original. (When you see those sharpened telescope pictures, they're starting with the assumption that the picture is SUPPOSED to be a bunch of little pinpoint stars.) Note also that many DACs have very little pre-ringing (and/or post ringing). While you cannot effectively and accurately remove pre-ringing you most certainly can minimize how much the DAC adds (although there's usually a tradeoff). However... to address your question... Part of what the MQA encoder does to "optimize" or "improve" the stuff you process with it is to "anticipate" ringing that was present in the original and remove it. And part of the "optimization" that is performed on an "MQA DAC" is to minimize the amount of this sorts of errors it introduces (that's part of what they mean by "time domain optimization"). Therefore, at least in principle, the encoder removes pre-ringing from the content itself, and the "MQA certified DAC" avoids putting any back in. (Presumably they're claiming that they manage to do this partly by virtue of the final decoding step being individually optimized for the hardware of the DAC that's doing it.) As they describe it, what the software decoder does is "the first unfold"...... However, smoke and mirrors aside, it's rather difficult to figure out exactly what that means. They talk about "a second unfold that gets it to 192k" - but DACs put out analog audio (so where is that 192k?) And the Dragonfly (which is an "MQA renderer") only supports 96k anyway. It sounds to me as if what they're really claiming is that "the MQA renderer does some more stuff to further optimize how their encoded content sounds". (My guess is that it constitutes further decoding of some sort, perhaps using algorithms that are customized to the particular DAC.) As I've mentioned before, I personally find their whole "folding" and "unfolding" paradigm to be totally obtuse, not at all informative, and somewhat misleading. Any talk about the sample rate of the original is more or less moot.... Remember that the original has been ALTERED by their encoder to "improve" the way it sounds. Nobody is claiming to be able to get you back to the original; that is no longer the GOAL of the process. The goal of these decoding steps is to get you to the ALTERED (and presumably improved) encoded version. Therefore, the only real question is whether each step gives you a significant improvement. (As I've mentioned, the fact that any claimed improvement is going to be subjective sort of worries me, but that may be just me.) We now come to other interesting questions.... For example, is an "MQA renderer", which does that second level of decoding, but doesn't itself sound especially good otherwise, going to sound better than an otherwise really good DAC that skips that second level of encoding? I guess we'll have to wait and see (or hear).... Note that: 1) you cannot actually get back information that's really gone 2) you can sometimes add fake information that, under limited circumstances, may be a good guess (which MIGHT get you closer to the original) 3) even if the new information is totally fake, or you've simply removed some things you think are obvious artifacts, you may like the end result Think of it as "synthesized high-res" - which is not to say that it might not sound good (my 4k TV makes pretty good fake 4k from HD content). I would compare all this to the various de-blurring options in Photoshop..... (and, as with them, I would certainly want the option to turn it off in particular cases where I especially don't like the result). That's why I would personally much prefer a separate "MQA processor" - which I could turn on and off - rather than yet another pervasive ecosystem. Well one thing that an MQA DAC does is...surprisingly .... remove pre-ringing ! And apparently this is not pushing the pre-ringing in to post ringing....but removing pre-ringing. I'm not sure how they did that. But that's my understanding. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 17, 2017 10:26:52 GMT -5
Being cynical, one might suggest that the reason is that they want you to buy lots of stuff with "MQA inside" stickers on it - without worrying about the details. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, their claim is that, by optimizing part of the decoding process to the particular hardware of the DAC itself, they are able to do a better job. (By which we mean that they are able to compensate for the design of the DAC itself to get a better overall result.) It's not that it's computationally expensive; it's that it has to be individually customized to the hardware in each particular DAC. Even further, their licensing gives them access to the DAC design, and the ability to approve or modify it to suit THEIR requirements as well. (Therefore, the claim is that an "MQA certified DAC" has been optimized to do an excellent job of playing their encoded content, and even redesigned if necessary to meet the requirements.) The general claim is that, after making such vast improvements to the file, it would be a shame if ANYTHING in the playback chain were to mess them up. Remember that they're claiming that, even though MQA is technically lossy at the digital level, it will be more AUDIBLY accurate to the analog original than a lossless digital file. (I'm not endorsing that claim.. but that IS what they're claiming.) And, yes, I agree that it would be much nicer if they would get their story straight and stop changing the details and the way they explain it. I don't understand why one would need a MQA DAC. If MQA is simply an interesting new take on a Lossy Compression CODEC which tries to make the best use out of channel bandwidth by taking Human Perception into account, then it could be uncompressed into 192kHz/24bit PCM just before being fed to a DAC. Just like we already do uncompressing FLAC containers of 192kHz/24bit audio. As we already do for MP3. I suppose if the MQA decompression step was computationally really expensive one could consider a DAC with a hardware MQA decompression assist. But I haven't heard that's the issue. To be honest, if they had a much simpler description of what they're doing I'd be a lot less suspicious. But given the incredibly vague and vigorous hand waving and obfuscated descriptions I see, my Spider Sense is tingling with Fraud Alert. Casey |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 17, 2017 10:29:38 GMT -5
The overall problem is that, in order to do US any good, it has to both work well AND be accepted by consumers. Also note, however, that it is a "perceptual" as well as a "technical" product. (Which is a nice way of saying that, even if it was a technical failure, but a lot of people "just thought it sounded nice", it could still be a commercial success.) Personally, I think MQA will stand or fall on its own merits - after all, either it DOES sound better or it DOESN'T sound better, and even if it does sound better, are people willing to pay a premium for it. I am still skeptical and think it is just another money-making ploy that depends on it becoming the buzzword that everyone thinks it is better just because it says it is supposed to be better. I don't think MQA is any more credible than that guy who supposedly improves various products, including Emo gear, by removing RMF or EMF or whatever interference with his voodoo methods, that was a topic of discussion several months ago. ------>>snip<<------- Sure, but before dismissing it I want to be open-minded and see how it fares in the market. As you say, will consumers pony up for it? That remains to be seen. So until then, I'm withholding judgement and not jumping into either camp. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 17, 2017 11:07:52 GMT -5
4k upsampling as performed in video processors and 4k TVs is virtually never "a simple pixel upsampling" these days. Various rather sophisticated algorithms are used to create fake information to make the resulting upsampled picture look better. The simplest methods use math to detect things like curves and angled lines and "fill in the inside corners of the stair steps and smooth off the outside corners" to make the lines look smoother. The fancier methods actually analyze the image and detect objects in the picture and optimize them. (For some interesting reading, you can look up stuff like "bicubic interpolation" and how text fonts are "anti-aliased" on your computer screen. However, in simplest terms, it mostly comes down to guessing where the extra pixels should be, and adding pixels to make the picture look smoother and sharper. The distinction is that, since we can't know where the original pixels really were, we're adding new pixels where we think they probably were, based on "preceptual cues" - where they look good. Think of it like sanding a fine wood carving; the sandpaper isn't making the surface more accurate - but it is making it smoother and prettier.) I can tell you how simple audio upsampling works - for example from 96k to 192k. - You start with your original audio samples - You use interpolation to CREATE new samples between them. (Straight line interpolation means that each new sample is the AVERAGE of the two on either side of it; polynomial interpolation uses a curve based on several points on either side.) - You now apply some filtering to "smooth out the irregularities". (While the technical details are far more complicated, at an abstract level this is pretty much like using a little fine sandpaper to smooth out the errors.) What you end up with is a file which technically contains no new information... or, rather, contains new information that, since you guessed it, doesn't bring you any closer to the original. (Think of it like gluing flocking on a painted picture of a cat because the flocking looks more like fur than flat paint. The result arguably "looks more like A REAL CAT" but not specifically THE ORIGINAL CAT.) In the case of audio, since the DAC smoothes the analog output anyway, you end up with the same amount of detail. (The fact that you made extra digital detail, which was them lost in the conversion anyway, makes the process sort of moot.) In the case of a 4k TV, the picture DOES usually look quite a bit sharper - even though some of the added detail may be "fake". You are seeing a sharper picture; it just may not be exactly like the original picture. NOW.... in the case of MQA, they are actually "intelligently analyzing the original and specifically correcting errors that they determine were caused by the original encoding process". (Imagine if your 4k TV was smart enough to add a little furriness to cats and remove a little furriness from sports cars because it knows that cats should have fur and cars shouldn't.) The MQA guys have figured out what sorts of flaws are likely to have been caused by the original A/D converter - and how to remove or reverse them..... at least that's the claim. Their claim is that the result of their processing is actually closer to the original ANALOG content than the original digitally encoded copy. However, all technical details aside, from Tidal's point of view, what THEY'RE selling here is the claim that.... MQA lets them deliver a stream that sounds better than CD quality, but using the same amount of bandwidth as CD quality used to. In other words, they're simply promising better quality in less bandwidth... which is always a good thing. And it would be great for them if people actually find that they think MQA files do sound "better than the original". And, apparently, at least some people do believe that some MQA albums do sound better than the original. (Note, however, that even delivering "the same quality using less bandwidth" would be a significant benefit commercially.) Note that MQA is trying to "play both sides of the fence here" - by claiming that what they deliver is "better than the original" they CANNOT claim that it's lossless. (So they've got to convince people that it's really better to avoid losing some ground.) Personally, I believe that, IN THE STREAMING MARKET, this is NOT AT ALL A PROBLEM. If I DOWNLOAD A FILE I want it to be bit-perfect. But, if I'm listening to a stream, which I cannot record anyway, then I just want it to sound as good as possible. This sets the proverbial bar much lower for success in the streaming market. (However, MQA seems to be trying to take over the entire planet, sort of all at once.... ) Hi Keith and all, the HD to 4K interpolation being good does not seem a good analogy to me (because it's just a perfect 4:1 pixels upsample, quite easy to do) and I really don't see it as simple to 'unfold' audio from a 96kHz sample rate freq to 192kHz, I really don't get how this can be done. So I agree with you,this "synthesized high-res" is, at the very least, quite suspicious. BTW, don't you think that Spotify being a market leader as it is that is losing lots of customers in Tidal's favor has to come up with something really soon to stop that trend and to completely spoil current Tidal's 'lossless' competitive advantage?? Having to serve music to 30M premium subscribers in highres maybe easier for them using something like 'folded while streaming' MQA files, don't you think?? |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 17, 2017 11:16:12 GMT -5
That is exactly the way I understand the claims/process. The biggest problem seems to be that they keep changing the story - both the claims and the explanations they use to justify them. We'll never know how much of their odd explanations are deliberately misleading and how much are simply failed attempts at a simple but accurate explanation. (In marketing terms, the POSITIONING for the product keeps changing - no doubt evolving as they find out about their market.) They seem to me to be trying to "be everything to everyone" and to "redesign the world to fit their idea of what it should be". Hi Casey - Without meaning to be ugly in any way, I agree with you - I don't think you understand. The technology claims to do a variety of things (as I understand it - and not claiming that I fully do - so I may not understand either, but...): 1. It claims to compensate for the damage that the "brick wall" low-pass filters (used in the original analog-to-digital conversion) did to the music 2. It claims to compensate for the damage that similar (inverse digital-to-analog) filters in your particular and specific DAC will do to the music on playback 3. It also (incidentally) claims to do so with a smaller file size that moves high-frequency data into a different part of the audio spectrum before "unpacking" it 4. It, finally, claims to be backward compatible with non-MQA DACs, and to sound better than red-book CD files Are any/all of these claims legitimate? Heck if I know - I haven't heard it. These are my understandings, based only on what I've read. And, like you, I'm suspicious. The proof, however, is in the listening - and until I hear it, I'm withholding judgement. Cordially - Boomzilla |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 17, 2017 11:16:14 GMT -5
KeithL Right now they are selling MQA as a streaming format. But I wonder why they haven't done what you've suggested. Something like uncompressed MQA or something. Where they provide the MQA stream - with the timing errors deblurred or whatever benefit they claim....but also lossless. I.e. it's not piggybacking on the last few bits to store its information. They don't HAVE to give you a cd quality file right? Why can't they provide you a much larger file while taking advantage of the MQA processing? There must be some people interested in this. But having said that....what that does is create "better options" and for some products....better or options are not actually the best thing to encourage adoption. When consumers are presented with choices that aren't "simple" then they shy away. So that's why they may be sticking to the one file approach. Just download the mqa file, play it on your regular player, don't think about it. Similar to Apple's itunes. But if your player has the mqa logo, then it'll play "even better". Simple not complicated. They don't have to choose the quality. It just works.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 17, 2017 11:49:30 GMT -5
You have to understand that lossless is a very specific term with a very specific meaning; a lossless file is identical to the original (or can be decoded to something that's identical to the original). There is no such thing as "timing" in a file - a file is just a list of numbers. When they "apply deblurring" they are ALTERING the information so as to reverse previous changes that occurred due to blurring. In order to do this they must change the information itself. (They're not removing timing errors; they're removing artifacts caused by previous timing errors). So, by definition, a file with deblurring applied cannot be lossless. Having a lossless file with deblurring applied would be like having a text document, with spelling errors corrected, but with every single letter identical to the original. What might perhaps make sense would be to use a "core + extras" philosophy - like Dolby TrueHD. The Dolby TrueHD data stream consists of a "core stream" plus an "extra information" stream that can be used to modify it. You can play the core stream, which is just a plain old Dolby Digital stream - and is lossy. Or you can use the extra information in the extra stream to "adjust" the lossy stream so as to no longer be lossy (by "correcting" the differences between the two). This could theoretically be done with something like MQA. I'm going to go out on a limb and give you my PERSONAL GUESSES as to why it isn't: 1) it probably simply doesn't align well with how their process actually works 2) it doesn't align with their BUSINESS MODEL
Assuming that MQA lives up to its claims, I personally would prefer to simply be able to buy the "repair module" from the encoder - as software or hardware. That way I could simply play all of the music I currently own through it and benefit from the repair process. (This may be impractical because the encoding process MIGHT require a huge amount of processing power.) And, of course, it wouldn't require me to buy new music, or require music producers to license it. (No matter how expensive that one box would be, they could only sell it once, and most people wouldn't buy it.) However, their business model is clearly to license their technology to every music producer and consumer. - they want to be paid to license production equipment - they want to be paid to license consumer playback hardware AND software - they want to be paid to process and encode existing music (either as a service or by licensing the encoder) - they want to offer a "premium" processing option In short, they want to control the entire music production ecosystem. (And THAT is what the fellow from Linn considers to be so sinister.) The reason many hardware DAC manufacturers aren't buying into this is quite simple. MQA wants to have "approval" on every DAC design that carries the logo - which means that you have to get every design approved by them before you can sell it. (In other words they're asking every manufacturer to subject his products to "outside approval" by them.) This would only be even vaguely reasonable if there was a huge amount of customer interest (read that as +$$$) involved. Imagine what would happen if Exxon demanded approval on every new car design...... The short answer is that they COULD take existing masters (for example 24/96k ones), apply their "error correction" processing to them, then sell you "fully processed 24/192k files". They simply don't want to; it doesn't fit their business model. (They also say it still wouldn't be quite as good  .) I should also note that something quite similar already exists... (although, of course, MQA claims to do a much better job) The Dolby Professional Encoder (v2, I think), used to encode TrueHD audio, has an option to "take 48k originals, process them to minimize pre-ringing, and deliver the result as a more natural sounding 24/96k TrueHD output". 48k is the standard sample rate for audio on DVDs and video discs, and this option is intended for re-mastering the audio tracks that go with older video content being re-released in TrueHD. (We've probably both heard discs processed with it - although nobody bothers to tell you  .) Check out page 6: www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-truehd-lossless-audio-performance-white-paper.pdfKeithL Right now they are selling MQA as a streaming format. But I wonder why they haven't done what you've suggested. Something like uncompressed MQA or something. Where they provide the MQA stream - with the timing errors deblurred or whatever benefit they claim....but also lossless. I.e. it's not piggybacking on the last few bits to store its information. They don't HAVE to give you a cd quality file right? Why can't they provide you a much larger file while taking advantage of the MQA processing? |
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Feb 17, 2017 12:09:07 GMT -5
SO MUCH FOR MQA DACS......
According to the latest press releases, the next version of Audirvana (the popular music player for Apple computers) will do FULL MQA DECODING IN SOFTWARE.
I would expect to see similar support to appear in other major players sometime soon.
This is confusing! Do you need or not an MQA dac to get the "full effect"? |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Feb 17, 2017 12:15:20 GMT -5
The reason many hardware DAC manufacturers aren't buying into this is quite simple. MQA wants to have "approval" on every DAC design that carries the logo - which means that you have to get every design approved by them before you can sell it. (In other words they're asking every manufacturer to subject his products to "outside approval" by them.) This would only be even vaguely reasonable if there was a huge amount of customer interest (read that as +$$$) involved. Imagine what would happen if Exxon demanded approval on every new car design...... I assume Dolby and DTS do not require approval before a manufacturer can sell an AVR or pre/pro? If not, this is a MAJOR difference. |
|
.)
.)
