|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
97.104.29.242
In Reply to: RE: Here is the original AES paper posted by tubby2 on January 18, 2016 at 16:35:42
Will MQA work with DSP, either a software or a hardware DSP solution.
Edits: 01/19/16Follow Ups:
DSP stands for a Digital Signal Processor. A "profiler" is a dedicated DSP implementation already done in hardware. However to be small and cheap the current MQA implementation can be limited of functionality as prohibiting the seeding I am suggesting.
Changes depend upon the nature of the MQA implementation. It may be that the MQA implementation was done in some form of Flash Programmable Gate Array (FPGA's) as therefore permitting a software fix. The worst case scenario is to redo the chip.
As Mr. Atkinson pointed out there is good reason to maintain singular hi-rez files. In thinking about that, nothing stops the streaming service from using some full blown Digital Signal Processor (seeded under licence)to manipulate the files and perhaps put two versions on their site. This allows MQA to work under the current implementation.
I guess for me it will be a wait and see process for MQA.
> Will MQA work with DSP, either a software or a hardware DSP solution.It should, as long as the writer of the code has paid the appropriate
license fee to MQA.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 01/19/16
There you have it. A tax on an in invention that will cost far more than the savings from sending a small number of bits over the internet. Absurd.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
> > It should, as long as the writer of the code has paid the appropriate
> > license fee to MQA.
>
> There you have it. A tax on an in invention that will cost far more than
> the savings from sending a small number of bits over the internet. Absurd.
I really don't get your sense of entitlement, that you appear to believe
that you are entitled to use for free technology that a team of engineers
has spent years developing. Every time someone plays an MP3, the
Fraunhofer Institute has received 2 royalty fees, one for the encoded
file and one for the player. Every time someone plays a DVD, a host of
patent owners have each received a royalty for the video encoder and
another from the manufacturer of the player. Yet you complain that the
developers of MQA _shouldn't_ so benefit.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
This booklet makes the case for why intellectual property is bad.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
> This booklet makes the case for why intellectual property is bad.
Tell me what you do for a living and try to explain why you shouldn't do
it for free.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Kinsella completely ignores the concept of fair use which arose specifically in light of the arguments he makes. IP law has evolved to enforce distribution rights not usage rights.
He uses as an example patenting a drilling technique. I can certainly drill my own land using the patented technique. What I can't do is start a business drilling other people's land using the technique.
He also uses books as an example. I can copy a book limitlessly for my own use as long as I don't distribute the copies.
In case you didn't know it, there are lots of people who have done well developing open source software. The best example is Linus Torvalds. In the music world there are bands that have done well while not using copyright, e.g. The Grateful Dead.
There is nothing unique in MQA to justify special treatment, compared to, say, FLAC, which has always been free and open. But yes, a lot of money may be necessary to pay for advertising and publicity, etc... if one goes the proprietary route.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
> > Tell me what you do for a living and try to explain why you shouldn't do
> > it for free.
>
> In case you didn't know it, there are lots of people who have done well
> developing open source software. he best example is Linus Torvalds. In
> the music world there are bands that have done well while not using
> copyright, e.g. The Grateful Dead.
So what. Torvalds get royalties from distributors like Red Hat and from
those who embed Linux in their products. The Grateful Dead were the
highest-paid touring band in the US for many years, so their attitude to
copyright was an adjunct to their primary source of income.
So please answer my question. You don't work for nothing; why should
the engineers at MQA?
> There is nothing unique in MQA to justify special treatment, compared
> to, say, FLAC...
You obviously haven't read the papers on MQA. Get back to me when you
have.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
To answer your question, I am retired. Some of the work that I did in the past involved what were volunteer efforts developing and publishing computer network protocols, including the original standardized version of Ethernet. This technology was freely licensed by Digital, Intel and Xerox. After leaving Digital (in 1994) I worked as an consultant/expert in computer networking and helped to educate people on networking technology (and also in some cases to help defend them against unwarranted patent lawsuits).
Josh Coalson was the original developer of FLAC, an open source project. Why do you think he made his CODEC free and open source? Why do you think that Bob Stewart should get more?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
People develop tech R&D to make money, then they become philanthropists and give stuff away. Not the other way around:)
13DoW
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: