-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions
- Thread starter mitchco
- Start date
- Status
solderdude
Grand Contributor
Like This one ?
They don't need a decoder though and the difficulty seems to have been the ripping of the original master.
ROTFLMAO. Do we need any further proof that MQA is more about Stuart's greed and desire to milk the music listening world than anything else.
Does this mean that the entire Wikipedia article on Microsoft's anti-competitive abuses is a mirage?If it becomes ubiquitous, it means the consumer has spoken and wants it. In that case, that is it and we better not complain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation
It starts here and goes on for quite a few pages:
It is a multi-pronged psychological crutch in answer to the various audiophile myths that digital audio is flawed, plus an answer to the problem that has haunted the record labels since the public got hold of the means to clone digital recordings.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
It solves
The consumer pays the bill and does not benefit other than being told they do which is worth something to some.
From a business point of view MQA is a brilliant scheme.
* see post #912
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,760
- Likes
- 37,614
MQA is the audiophile version of this. Strangely both involve Bob.
What are the bandwidth savings compared to existing lossless compression formats?
solderdude
Grand Contributor
In direct relation to file size between MQA and 192/24 or other Hires formats ?
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,760
- Likes
- 37,614
Shouldn't compare it to 192. It is never any real version other than upsampled 96 khz to 192. It is possibly some version of 96 khz at best. Everything above 24 khz (48khz sample rate) is lossy.
I think it has been shown 96 khz 20 bit FLAC is around the same size and not lossy. (edited to correct this. I should have said 96 khz 18 bit FLAC).
You believe in 192 khz, this is never that. Though it will show it is that. You believe in 96 khz, this is a partly lossy version of that. I consider it the most BS format ever. And BS doesn't stand for Bob Stewart.
If there ever was something that qualified as a solution in search of a problem, this is it.
Last edited:
In relation to those who demand better than RBCD - very few consumers.
I think it is an insignificant market population but am happy to be disabused of my opinion.
Dolby actually made a significant(measurable) improvement in Compact Cassette performance
solderdude
Grand Contributor
Indeed the percentage of streamed music that wants anything above MP3 will be very small. When one is paying the bills for millions of uploads a day it could still be interesting for them ?
I suppose someone knows the actual numbers ?
solderdude
Grand Contributor
Like you I don't know the hard facts.
Could still be worthwhile to them.
If not why would they offer it if there is no financial gain ?
Could still be worthwhile to them.
If not why would they offer it if there is no financial gain ?
I don't see as even a solution, closer to a nod towards a solution looking for a problem to solve. The bandwidth saving is too minimal to really matter.
Again - what is the real bandwidth saving? The financial gain is in customer-lock in and product differentiation.
I cannot get on board with the MQA DRM conspiracy theory, the truth is the market is nearly all streaming these days, and that is all proper DRM, and they can change it to another stronger DRM anytime they chose, just roll out new clients, not this week degrade the listening quality style DRM.My biggest concern is simply with what I've seen happen with every other DRM attempt made in any industry thus far... the paying customer loses out significantly (in portability, durability, or other areas) and the piracy continues unabated. In movies this hasn't changed the amount of piracy much - possibly a little - but it has made HDMI handshaking issues a rather frequent annoyance on all fronts (including when just watching TV sometimes). In software, I can't count the number of times a DRM key server going down has prevented me from being able to use software I purchased. Now I'll soon be able to be in the enviable position of buying music which becomes MP3 quality if my dedicated, appropriately licensed device goes down and I have to listen on something else? Yay!
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2018
- Messages
- 1,449
- Likes
- 4,817
Have a look here
http://www.2l.no/hires/
so let's say in the ballpark of 40% vs 24/96 (way more vs 24/192 obviously, but as it was said above, 24/192 isn't 24/192 in most cases anyway, and certainly not when unfolded by MQA. Note: compression depends a lot on the actual content of a file (actual content and also - in some cases mostly - noise)
One could agree that a 40% bandwidth reduction is worth something to an operator who has significant costs there, but it is hard to say if the bulk of their costs lies there, or in the data centers, or in music-licensing, or employee costs etc... It doesn't matter to companies like Amazon anyway, as they have just been building excess capacity for years and found creative ways to market that. Does it matter for customers? Maybe on some limited data plans but, having hi-res on the move doesn't seem essential to me. I can tell 320Mbps from CD quality on my home systems on the music I know well (and that in itself is somewhat controversial for many), can't objectively hear differences between 24/96 and CD quality unless I am explicitly told what to look for or the mastering is really different or I "train" myself on a specific file. That's with a decent home system. As far as mobile listening is concerned, 320kbps MP3 is perfectly OK - I usually walk, ride or bike and do not meditate in a silent remote mountain temple with a 2k EUR headphone set
Have a look here
http://www.2l.no/hires/
so let's say in the ballpark of 40% vs 24/96 (way more vs 24/192 obviously, but as it was said above, 24/192 isn't 24/192 in most cases anyway, and certainly not when unfolded by MQA. Note: compression depends a lot on the actual content of a file (actual content and also - in some cases mostly - noise)
One could agree that a 40% bandwidth reduction is worth something to an operator who has significant costs there, but it is hard to say if the bulk of their costs lies there, or in the data centers, or in music-licensing, or employee costs etc... It doesn't matter to companies like Amazon anyway, as they have just been building excess capacity for years and found creative ways to market that. Does it matter for customers? Maybe on some limited data plans but, having hi-res on the move doesn't seem essential to me. I can tell 320Mbps from CD quality on my home systems on the music I know well (and that in itself is somewhat controversial for many), can't objectively hear differences between 24/96 and CD quality unless I am explicitly told what to look for or the mastering is really different or I "train" myself on a specific file. That's with a decent home system. As far as mobile listening is concerned, 320kbps MP3 is perfectly OK - I usually walk, ride or bike and do not meditate in a silent remote mountain temple with a 2k EUR headphone set
Can't see FLAC in the table.
De-blur is put forward. Has it been defined and heard in listening tests?
Last edited:
- Status
