Now we know why Amir is pro-MQA

[Sal1950]

It's a solution without a problem but it certainly does generate a revenue stream for Bob et Al.

Ah but there was a problem, how was the recording industry going to get bit perfect files of the original master recordings out of the hands of Joe Citizen? Discussion of conventional DRM, copying, etc had blown up in the past, so what to do. OH WAIT, I know, let's come up with a new proprietary file system that can be sold on the basis of claimed improved SQ and reduced file size. Over time we can encode even CD's and HD downloads and ultimately only give the consumer something less than the gold standard of audio. All the while with everyone making money on selling new software, hardware, and all those golden oldies in the vault one more time.
WOO HOO, we're gonna screw them and they'll pay us for the privilege.

 

[Maki]

I like Amir but I gotta disagree with him, MQA is actively harmful to the industry and audiophiles in general. Proprietary codecs are a huge step back - I don't see any reason to go this route when even Microsoft is embracing open source. With internet speeds getting faster and cheaper, streaming 24/192 lossless audio is not out of the question right now, let alone years into the future. MQA seems to be a format better fit for 2009 than 2019.

 

[watchnerd]

A pappermint and spearmint weigh the same, but don't taste the same.

Huh?

If I wanted to see if how their tastes differ, of what relevance is the weight?

 

[Wombat]

Ah but there was a problem, how was the recording industry going to get bit perfect files of the original master recordings out of the hands of Joe Citizen? Discussion of conventional DRM, copying, etc had blown up in the past, so what to do. OH WAIT, I know, let's come up with a new proprietary file system that can be sold on the basis of claimed improved SQ and reduced file size. Over time we can encode even CD's and HD downloads and ultimately only give the consumer something less than the gold standard of audio. All the while with everyone making money on selling new software, hardware, and all those golden oldies in the vault one more time.
WOO HOO, we're gonna screw them and they'll pay us for the privilege.

Yes. At least with SACD the 'fallback(no special player)' position is standard RBCD.

 

[Jimster480]

OGG VBR -q9

Honestly its probably the best for streaming considering its file size + quality.
AAC is quite good aswell but its apple license..

 

[Dogen]

OGG VBR -q9

Honestly its probably the best for streaming considering its file size + quality.
AAC is quite good aswell but its apple license..

AAC is open source.

 

[Jimster480]

AAC is open source.

It is not open source and you have to pay royalties.
I have just looked it up.

"However, a patent license is required for all manufacturers or developers of AAC codecs.[41] For this reason, free and open source software implementations such as FFmpeg and FAAC may be distributed in source form only, in order to avoid patent infringement. (See below under Products that support AAC, Software.) "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding#Licensing_and_patents

This explains it in a nutshell.

 

[Dogen]

It is not open source and you have to pay royalties.
I have just looked it up.

"However, a patent license is required for all manufacturers or developers of AAC codecs.[41] For this reason, free and open source software implementations such as FFmpeg and FAAC may be distributed in source form only, in order to avoid patent infringement. (See below under Products that support AAC, Software.) "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding#Licensing_and_patents

This explains it in a nutshell.

I stand (or slouch) corrected. I wasn’t aware of this requirement - thanks for correcting my misstatement.

 

[Jimster480]

I stand (or slouch) corrected. I wasn’t aware of this requirement - thanks for correcting my misstatement.

I think that if it was totally free, everyone would be using it.
Spotify uses it with their web client, and so does google.

But Spotify desktop client and Android client uses Ogg VBR.
Even Spotify on iPhone and iPad are using Ogg VBR because Apple charges them literally per user for any "application" that is using AAC.
Browsers are "free" so they can use AAC without paying royalties and as such, Spotify's website can stream in AAC via browser.

 

[amirm]

I didn’t realize Amir was in the Meat Quality Assurance (MQA) industry.

I have many talents....

 

[amirm]

AAC is quite good aswell but its apple license..

Apple has no IP in AAC. They are simply a licensee (user) of AAC.

I would think that AAC patents are expiring soon though if they have not already.

 

[March Audio]

Beat you to it

Interesting report. So basically if it's doing anything it's so subtle no one can really tell. If it offers nothing better than flac compression it has no purpose.

 

[Jimster480]

Apple has no IP in AAC. They are simply a licensee (user) of AAC.

I would think that AAC patents are expiring soon though if they have not already.

You are actually correct in that.
I always thought that it was an Apple technology, I guess because it was the only codec used by iPods and stuff back in the day.
Either way it isn't a free license for software or hardware to use in any commercial product.

 

[Thomas savage]

I think Bob S has some compromising ‘Kardashian’ type material on @amirm and that’s why the poor bastard has to be pro MQA on the forum .

Don’t suffer alone amir, Iv got a man who specialises in these types of extortion events . The video of you and Bill in the bath tub together won’t get out,, by the way where dose that rubber duck go? It’s there at the start then suddenly it seems to disappear and Bill has this huge smile on his face ..

 

[Don Hills]

... If it offers nothing better than flac compression it has no purpose.

MQA maxes out at about 15 to 18 bits per sample, depending on the source. It's been shown in actual tests that reducing the bit depth of a 24/96 original to 18 bits ("18/96") then compressing with FLAC results in a similar or smaller file than the MQA encoded version of the 24/96 original.

To me, the biggest lie by MQA is that it's closer to what was heard in the studio. This simply isn't true, for any music that was originally recorded and mastered with standard PCM. What was heard in the studio, and approved for release, was heard via a standard PCM DAC. If MQA sounds different to that, it's not as close to the original.

 

[svart-hvitt]

MQA maxes out at about 15 to 18 bits per sample, depending on the source. It's been shown in actual tests that reducing the bit depth of a 24/96 original to 18 bits ("18/96") then compressing with FLAC results in a similar or smaller file than the MQA encoded version of the 24/96 original.

To me, the biggest lie by MQA is that it's closer to what was heard in the studio. This simply isn't true, for any music that was originally recorded and mastered with standard PCM. What was heard in the studio, and approved for release, was heard via a standard PCM DAC. If MQA sounds different to that, it's not as close to the original.

Yep, so «better» and «as heard in studio» are incompatibles. You can’t have both; it’s an impossibility.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Interesting report. So basically if it's doing anything it's so subtle no one can really tell. If it offers nothing better than flac compression it has no purpose.

The fact that some people can reliably discern it from PCM on some recordings indicates that it's not transparent, which would make it inferior to FLAC, surely?

 

[March Audio]

The fact that some people can reliably discern it from PCM on some recordings indicates that it's not transparent, which would make it inferior to FLAC, surely?

I only had time to quickly skim the report so I know I missed detail. When you say discern it from PCM do you mean it was though better on PCM? The test was looking for one parameter, clarity. Was there better clarity on these particular tracks with MQA or PCM?

 

[Wombat]

I only had time to quickly skim the report so I know I missed detail. When you say discern it from PCM do you mean it was though better on PCM? The test was looking for one parameter, clarity. Was there better clarity on these particular tracks with MQA or PCM?

Can you get better clarity than the original?

 

[JJB70]

The audio industry is in a similar position to some other mature industries in trying to figure out ways to maintain sales and product churn of a mature technology which effectively plateaued years ago. Actually in some respects it has gone down hill in terms of mastering. My CD player in a mid 90's Sony ES model and until it dies I have no reason to replace it as it still cuts the mustard sonically. Despite all the interest in DACs, if we look beyond measured performance I think the audible performance of DACs passed a point of diminishing returns years ago. Any PC or tablet can be used as a genuine hi-fi source and despite efforts to convince us other wise I firmly believe the RBCD standard is as good as anybody needs. But the industry can't really say that the gears they sold us years ago is as good as we need and that high-res is a waste of time when their whole commercial existence requires us to believe otherwise hence the efforts to convince us that things like high-res and MQA are some sort of big improvement.
My own opinion is that for the record labels they might be better off offering de-crapified re-masters of their back catalogues that they completely screwed up with digital re-mastering. I have zero interest in MQA or other high-res formats per se but what I would be very interested in is being able to buy high dynamic range re-masters of a lot of the stuff which has been rendred as crap in order to play well on BT speakers and car stereos. One of the ironies of the audio industry is that as the hardware reached technical perfection (almost) the software took a nose dive.