Now we know why Amir is pro-MQA

[Thomas savage]

Could be an interesting thread in itself. When is something a conspiracy theory, and when is it just 'slippery slope'? Answer: it's a conspiracy theory when you want to discredit 'the other side'.

In the UK they introduced university tuition fees a few years ago - it had been free until then. At the time, the fees were capped at £3000. I remember a government minister being grilled about it on the day they were introduced. "Now that you have introduced fees, what's to stop you from increasing them to, say, £6000, then £9000 in future?". The minister replied "There are no plans to increase the fees above £3000".

I don't remember anyone at the time sniggering about 'conspiracy theories'; everyone pretty much knew that the fees would be going up!

It was not free before, tuition fees were/ are just ‘ targeted ‘ fund raising with a deferred re-payment system . It’s a credit scam sorry scheme lol

 

[Cosmik]

It was not free before

To UK residents it was free:

David Eccles, Secretary of State for Education, under Harold Macmillan's Conservative Government, published the Education Act 1962, which granted an exemption for "ordinarily resident", full-time, students from University tuition fees

 

[andreasmaaan]

Similar in Australia. University education was made free under the social democratic government of the 70s. This model was then replaced by a partially-subsidised deferred payment scheme in the late 80s (also under a subsequent centre left gov IIRC). Then non-subsidised upfront-payment places were added in the 90s for students who didn’t have adequate entrance scores to qualify for subsidised places. This model was then extended to international students, who paid not only full tuition fees but also a premium which went into university coffers as profit, effectively subsidising state university funding. Then, in the late-2000s, this “full-fee” model was scaled back to apply only to international student places (who continue to pay a premium in addition to standard tuition fees), with all domestic places now falling under the partially-subsidised deferred-payment model. Education is now Australia’s second-largest export and is a major source of revenue for public universities (or a subsidy for state education funding, depending on how you look at it).

 

[Krunok]

Guys, this thread needs some serious car analogy, not your trolling about tuition fees!

 

[DuxServit]

@Krunok ok so here’s a car analogy: MQA is like a small front-wheel drive electric car climbing uphill in a snow-storm

You can’t decide whether to get out of your Jeep 4WD to offer to push, or offer to tow it uphill. In either case, it’s a pain in the a***

 

[Krunok]

@Krunok ok so here’s a car analogy: MQA is like a small front-wheel drive electric car climbing uphill in a snow-storm

You can’t decide whether to get out of your Jeep 4WD to offer to push, or offer to tow it uphill. In either case, it’s a pain in the a***

LOOL

Ok, I'm glad we're back on track with this thread!

 

[Patrick1958]

And yet some of the recordings from digital prehistory are regarded as audiophile classics. Take the album The Nightfly recorded in 1981:

Released in 44.1/24 bit.
Played via Tidal desktop renderer , 96/?
Or there is another master or MQA is upsampling, so much for bringing to the listener the original studio master via MQA
Available on HDtracks only in 44.1/24

 

[pwjazz]

Guys, this thread needs some serious car analogy, not your trolling about tuition fees!

MQA is ethanol. Drivers didn't ask for it, it's got less energy density than the real stuff, it's more corrosive to fuel supply systems and as it's produced in the US it's not even environmentally beneficial. Despite all this, it has become almost impossible to get any gasoline without it.

 

[SIY]

To UK residents it was free:

No, it just meant students got other people to pay for it. If there's facilities and paid employees, it ain't free.

 

[Cosmik]

No, it just meant students got other people to pay for it. If there's facilities and paid employees, it ain't free.

If you are not yet in the workforce, it is free - to you. It is 'free' in other ways, too: it gives you the freedom to choose any course and any university you like. Not saying that's necessarily a 100% good thing in every respect, but it could be a very liberating thing for some people.

 

[SIY]

If you are not yet in the workforce, it is free - to you.

But not free. You just got someone else to pick up the bill, generally without any choice on their part.

My dinner at a nice restaurant last week wasn't free just because my boss picked up the check.

 

[amirm]

Science and objectivity? I see a ton of hypocrisy, inconsistency and contradiction on this site.

This is not science:

This is a forum, not "science." A forum involves all kinds of people including folks like you who have yet to contribute an ounce of science. Yet we tolerate it and with it, dilute what "science" is about.

Merely assert position X as truth/fact:

“I am here to protect the truth.”
“I am not defending them. I am defending audio science/truth.”
“Yes, making sure truth and fairness gets a chance.”
My wish though is that everyone instead takes a breath and listens to the full set of arguments. And run with facts in the future.

You don't know the facts or the truth. You are following others who you think have the facts and truths and upset that everyone doesn't go along with that. Because if they did, that would make you right and if they don't, wrong. The latter drives you to raise the noise level and animosity of the forum with no good whatsoever coming out of it.

Heaven knows if you really wanted to discuss science, you wouldn't create a thread with the title of: "Now we know why Amir is Pro-MQA."

Give us some credit that we can see through people's intentions no matter how good they think they are in hiding it.

 

[amirm]

The discussion has piqued my interest again. A couple of questions:

1. Why create a new format like MQA if you're not intending to take over the world? I can't see that it would be worth bothering in that case.
2. If it's all open and above board, what is the problem it is supposed to be solving? We know that anyone who doesn't care about sound quality would just as happily stream much smaller lossy formats, and the people who do care about sound quality would happily use a bit more bandwidth for an uncompressed file (and has been noted, audio streaming is becoming a trivial application for current and future internet speeds). It's as though MQA is intended for a consumer who doesn't exist.

Put those two things together, and it gives the impression of being a system that is intended not for the consumer, but for the supplier.

Every new audio format including international standards are created with intention of #1. Huge amount of effort goes into them and people/companies expect to get paid for their efforts.

Hardly any Audio/video standard is "above board." Indeed they are the exact opposite: a cartel of companies get together, create an international standard which has force of law in some countries, and then, after the format is published, get together and decide how much to charge everyone. Think MPEG. Think Blu-ray. Think AVC video codec. Think AAC. All open standards (sans blu-ray). All demanding royalties, and litigate like mad if you don't pay. See a case I was involved in a bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcatel-Lucent_v._Microsoft_Corp.

"Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway Inc. 470 F.Supp.2d 1180 (S.D.Cal.,2007) is a patent infringement case between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Alcatel-Lucent was awarded $1.53 billion in a final verdict in August 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego. "

1.53 billion dollars just for one bit of technology related to MP3.

Now, you say that the technology is not aimed at the consumer. Of course it is. High-resolution audio "is a thing." It puts a smile on many people's face when they get content at higher sample rate as the CD. So "demand" exists to some extent or there would be no adoption.

Companies like Google push in-house codecs with little value over other competitors/hence no consumer demand (think VP9) but that is Google, not MQA.

In summary, there is some demand from consumer point of view, and hence some adoption.

Problem is that MQA is too small of a company and has too little resources to get broad adoption of a new format. And because the format only solves a problem for a fraction of music listening world, it just has no chance of world dominance. Companies like Apple, and Amazon, simply have no interest in adopting it.

Major hardware companies like Sony, etc. also don't care yet about MQA. Once they do, they will go after them with patent litigation just the same before they are allowed to get anywhere big.

What all this boils down to is very, very modest adoption of the format with no damage to anyone.

 

[SIY]

Problem is that MQA is too small of a company and has too little resources to get broad adoption of a new format. And because the format only solves a problem for a fraction of music listening world, it just has no chance of world dominance. Companies like Apple, and Amazon, simply have no interest in adopting it.

I heard that about HDCD as well. And if memory serves, it still survives, albeit not branded, as DRM.

 

[Sal1950]

What all this boils down to is very, very modest adoption of the format with no damage to anyone.

I'd have to strongly disagree with that, as do large numbers of members here.
The aimed goal of replacing the availablity of unmodified high res files is an will be a major damage to anyone concerned.
If the claims of different sounding files is true, that is a nail in it's own coffin.
But then you know our feelings so I don't understand how you can make the claim of "no damage to anyone"?

 

[Krunok]

Every new audio format including international standards are created with intention of #1. Huge amount of effort goes into them and people/companies expect to get paid for their efforts.

No, not every one.

From Wiki:
FLAC is an open format with royalty-free licensing and a reference implementation which is free software.

 

[JJB70]

I honestly have no issue with MQA charging for their technology. As far as I am concerned if you develop something and take a commercial risk then you have the right to make a profit my objection is to the usual hi-fi reviewers jumping into the same bed with commercial interests to try and convince people to buy into something which is at best an answer looking for a question and which appears to offer nothing of value. Especially when if these people were genuinely motivated by a desire to improve SQ then they would be trying to de-crappify crappy mastering (well, in my opinion).

 

[Cosmik]

Amir you contradict yourself.

You say:

Every new audio format including international standards are created with intention of #1. Huge amount of effort goes into them and people/companies expect to get paid for their efforts.

But then you say:

Problem is that MQA is too small of a company and has too little resources to get broad adoption of a new format. And because the format only solves a problem for a fraction of music listening world, it just has no chance of world dominance.

The only way both statements can be true is if Bob Stuart never thought it through; started a business without adequate resources and without realising that he had no chance of achieving #1.

But you've told us that Bob Stuart is a world-beating industry super-veteran with a brain the size of a planet.

The only conclusion can be that he indeed is aiming for #1, and he also has a plan to get there that the rest of us (even you) are not privy to...

 

[Krunok]

I honestly have no issue with MQA charging for their technology. As far as I am concerned if you develop something and take a commercial risk then you have the right to make a profit my objection is to the usual hi-fi reviewers jumping into the same bed with commercial interests to try and convince people to buy into something which is at best an answer looking for a question and which appears to offer nothing of value. Especially when if these people were genuinely motivated by a desire to improve SQ then they would be trying to de-crappify crappy mastering (well, in my opinion).

I cannot agree more. IMHO MQA is simply a shot in the wrong direction and the road toward better SQ leads through better mastering, not through some new lossy codec..

 

[SIY]

"The most difficult problems to solve are those which are nonexistent."