Who?Jack owns Tidal now,Y'all can relax now.
Who?Jack owns Tidal now,Y'all can relax now.
He bought Tidal??Jack Dorsey Twitter founder
He bought Tidal??
Moby is MQA.
The problem is that the 'hifi' version is simply MQA but with MQA flagging removed. meaning any tools to check for MQA flagging will say it is not MQA. But actually it is.
Here is the deltawave comparison between the MQA version and Hifi version of Moby - Porcelain:
View attachment 125480
The audio content of the file is 100% bitperfect identical.
The only difference is the "Master" track has MQA flagging. That's it
But the hifi version is still the MQA release just disguised as regular FLAC.
The same happened with my tracks, the "HiFi" version had no MQA flagging at all and nothing would recognise it as MQA. But it was 100% bitperfect to the MQA release and was not the same as my master.
@Glasvegas @snowsurfer Tidal is serving MQA and falsely describing it as "Lossless CD Quality"
You aren’t thinking crazy enough! As I said a few posts back, if every version is really MQA they can easily engineer a situation where the “non-MQA” version is made to sound worse.the craziest!) Would their doubting customers want to compare the MQA file to the non-MQA file, they wouldn't be hearing any difference! See you loose nothing with MQA... no reasons to have any doubts...
MQA is all about "selective availability." Even the earliest patent filings and other docs talk about enabling varying levels of quality on playback depending on whether the user has purchased a licence, either generic or for a specific file.Because when they control both versions they then have the ability to hobble the non-MQA version thus “proving” the MQA version is better.
Not saying they are doing this (yet) but they could if they choose to. Then you get a situation where you need an MQA capable DAC and they get licensing fees at every step.
My jokes just never work here. Hey The Navigator Guild are the only Species in the known universe, whom can Fold and Unfold Space. Get it …..We will need one of these:
View attachment 125547
MQA is all about "selective availability." Even the earliest patent filings and other docs talk about enabling varying levels of quality on playback depending on whether the user has purchased a licence, either generic or for a specific file.
They too ran a ruthless monopoly.We will need one of these:
View attachment 125547
No it is not. Whataboutism tries to shift topic to some other thing. Apple's conduct here is not some other thing. They have used their "format" (OS) to take away choice from you and to tax every developer for software distribution on their device unlike previous practice (on Windows, Linux, MacOS) to have none of that. This is what you claim with MQA, right? That you are not a user of high-res audio but fear that it would take over the world as far as baseline lossless audio as well. And charge everyone. Well, Apple has done that but you don't seem to want to go there. That tells me you have an emotional need to fight MQA and not any kind of principled reason to go after it.
Indeed, same thing is said about whataboutism as I explained above. From the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
"Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair. "
You fail the bolded section if you are OK with Apple, Blu-ray, Netflix, heck the entire scheme Tidal uses to for subscription business.
My jokes just never work here. Hey The Navigator Guild are the only Species in the known universe, whom can Fold and Unfold Space. Get it …..
MQA-CD’s are already a thing: https://www.google.com/search?q=MQA...HXXPCFgQ_AUoAXoECAIQAQ&biw=1366&bih=882&dpr=2
Sorry, my letter heading below is because my limitations, that alude to your paragraphs in same order:
A- Well, that's an interesting shit. Now we are discussing if capturing ultrasonic is important at all, not the "lossyness" detected in these tests. That's a step forward, and I would be very interested in the refutals. But I'm not able to talk in behalf on Meridian or MQA in this.
B- The same relevance as described in the audible band. Ultrasonic band also has noise floor that you don't need to recover; and the slice of data captured by ADC there, instead of all the noise and artifacts added by the capturing process; data that is even smaller, and so, much more compressible to "fold" it in previous bands (folds) of the origami process: the chunks of 0-48 / 48-96 (less data) / 96-192 (even less) / 192-352 (tiny) of a the DXD source. And, again, if we engage in if that information is statistically relevant we would have, at last!, moved the discussion from this nonsense of lossless to a more substantial point. Perhaps it is relevant, perhaps not: wouldn't it be more useful for us all to be diccussing about that instead of the desire of a lossnessy that is out of context in this subject?
C- "Dither a regular PCM and file and you get more DR". But the point is that Redbook doesn't do that. Meridian chooses one way to regain that wasted space. Of course creative audio engineers may find others. But, again, we are making is a step forward in the discussion: now we would not be questioning what MQA does, but instead if it does it the best way.
D- The noise floor of the incoming signal in the 0-24Khz region (and please remind that MQA is 24-bit depth, giving more headroom that even the best reproduction chain is able to resolve, among other considerations). It was just discarded and replaced like said in B above.
Precisely, it’s been there from the start. Once they control the chain it’s end to end DRM. And if they control the chain up to the point where the only “master” that exists is MQA then everyone is held hostage.MQA is all about "selective availability." Even the earliest patent filings and other docs talk about enabling varying levels of quality on playback depending on whether the user has purchased a licence, either generic or for a specific file.
You need to read more about audio industry. MP3 was not free until patents ran out. AAC was not free until patents ran out. Dolby and DTS codecs are not free. All subscription services use some content of content protection to tie content to a user.I think you need to read more of the Wikipedia post. It’s perfectly reasonable for audiophiles to care about poor business practices in the audio industry, but not care about it in the software industry.
This site is focused on science and engineering in audio. Measurements are one aspect of that. That aside, your point is without merit. People consume content from many sources. I listen to Amazon music when on the road and am fine with its compression there. At home, I play a full range of content from my own CD rips to high-res downloads and Tidal content (with and without MQA).This site is focused on measuring audio equipment, but there’s no point in buying transparent audio equipment if you’re feeding it lossy garbage with a leaky filter like MQA.
The answer, he decided, was to insist that his new format be decoded only within the DAC. This would also be a further incentive for the labels in that DRM coverage would extend all the way to the analogue stage, elegantly preventing copying without losses, just like in the good old days.
This is a statement from 20 years ago and is completely wrong. Labels stopped caring about control when they decided to give Steve Jobs permission to distribute MP3/AACs with no Fairplay (Apple DRM). That then led to outfits like HDTracks and their competitors to distribute even high-resolution content without copy protection. All the people in the labels that used to care about this were fired years ago (after failure of SACD/DVD-A).What do the labels desire the most? "Control," Bob said to himself, "and that's what I'll sell them." In another word, DRM. An end to the scourge of piracy. Of course, the music-buying public had long ago rejected DRM, so something clever was needed.