 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
62.44.135.56
I am talking about getting the technological capability to transform an existing digital format into MQA to playback through an MQA capable Dac. By us, I mean you, not the recording industry and not Meridian.
Unless this happens, how can it ever get off the ground?
A few months ago, it was the latest brand of snake oil available only via the commercial sector, and as I recall, the majority here (friends and enemies, both) were not buying the hype.
Follow Ups:
MQA is all about making some people a very lot of money. It will once again put the Industry in control of your music. It has nothing to do with sound quality and when was the last time you had problems with diskspace? With 10TB drives it isn't needed. No thanks.
When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it. ~ Bernard Bailey
availability across the music catalog. Not to mention wide acceptance by hardware vendors.
Even hi-rez formats haven't achieved 1% of the market. ;)
Yes, I think that you are right insofar as the consumer market is concered. However it seems to be generally overlooked that MQA has a role as a B2B medium for e.g. the distribution of music files to radio stations and within the music industry. One of MQA's partners, 7 Digital, is involved in this type of area and not with streaming for home (or consumer mobile) use.
One worry I have concerns the latter and the fact that the production of a given track is not limited to a single studio or even country. It could be that unfinished tracks could be MQA encoded then sent to another production area for further work. In other words we may all end up with the result of MQA processing without realising it.
Would that be rather cynical of the recording industry? Well, as an example, most DSD tracks have been converted to PCM and back perhaps several times before punters spend their money on what they think is a true DSD product. So I wouldn't put it past them.
" I am talking about getting the technological capability to transform an existing digital format into MQA to playback through an MQA capable Dac. By us, I mean you, not the recording industry and not Meridian."
Why would a consumer at home want to "transform an existing digital format into MQA" when they already have that exisiting digital format which they can play back with as much perfection as their system allows? What would be the purpose for them of MQA encoding?
OK e.g. someone may have a non-copyright hi-rez audio file that they want to send as an email attachment but such instances would be so infrequent as to have no bearing on the success or otherwise of MQA.
Just to get control of it? From what I have read (and perhaps don't understand), the transfer process to MQA starts with a digital file in some format and the software translates that into MQA and the next step is that you play the file through an MQA capable Dac (of which there appears to be only 1 on the market).
That's pretty unique, isn't it.
Whether it sounds "better" is another question.
For example, I am happy to be able to turn a Wav file into AIFF. It sounds the same to me (and i guess everyone else), but it compacts the Wav file. So, the consumer has control over the size of the stored file.
Now what if you and I could do this at home and improve the quality of the sound at home, understanding that making it worse would kill the whole concept.
Maybe this is like turning lead into gold, whether the first step is under our control or not? Snake oil!
I will try to clarify what MQA does ( or, I suppose for the naysayers, claims to do ).It has two basic functions. The first, and main one, is to enable the data of higher resolution recordings to be contained within the "envelope" of a lower resolution carrier. It does this by "folding" the data into capacity within the lower resolution medium that is not actually used to store music information or, I think more precisely if I understand their claim, audible music information (only noise).
The second function, which is optional, is called "authentication". This is a process by which the original producer of the recording ( which may mean an appropriate person or persons on behalf of the copyright owner) who verify that the MQA encoded recording is the same as the master recording ( I assume that they mean production master rather than multitrack here). Part of this process is to correct known abberations caused by the digital filters in the ADC that was used in the original mastering. To do this MQA ( or the person encoding) needs to be made aware of the ADC used. It is feasible because the range of ADCs used for professional mastering are limited in type and hence they can be analysed and corrective algorithms produced. This is where the improvement to sound comes in.
So there is no point for home users to have access to encoders because they don't need the data reduction capabilities (storage is cheap) and they will not have access to the information needed to correct for the original mastering ADCs influence.Is it better? What I have heard sounded wonderful but I didn't have anything to compare it to. John Atkinson ( whom I trust) opines:
Edits: 08/20/16 08/20/16
Hi Frihed.
We're not likely *ever* going to see a situation where you or I will have access to the encoding software for MQA. This is Meridian/MQA's trade secret sauce licensed to the music industry and folks like Tidal. Only people able to "authenticate" the sound will be able to encode into this format.
Of course the whole "authentication" idea makes no sense for Tidal! I mean, unless they just push all their hi-res and have it encoded into MQA, just how many songs can then they play in MQA at the start that has actually been meticulously "de-blurred" with information from the studio about the original ADC, DSP processing, etc. that could have affected the temporal domain!?
-------
Archimago's Musings : A 'more objective' audiophile blog.
If they don't know the original adc they have a generic encoding that they can apply to any file
Alan
"Of course the whole "authentication" idea makes no sense for Tidal! "
Yes that it a correct observation. Tidal are not at the point in the chain where they can "authenticate" anything. It is the data supplied to Tidal by the original record company that can be "authenticated". Other tracks can be streamed in MQA without "authentification" as "authentification" is not mandatory, it's an option.
So although you are right in that there will be no consumer encoders, it is not the case that only those in a position to "authenticate" will be able to create MQA files or streams. Those streams will just not be "authenticated".
Agree PAR. I think you're right...
I don't recall what the claims would be for unauthenticated MQA like this though... Hard to imagine any kind of de-blurring in this situation. Seems to me at best they just do the data reduction with the lossy ultrasonic folding.
-------
Archimago's Musings : A 'more objective' audiophile blog.
Admittedly, I don't understand the technology. However, as i tried to understand the commercialization, it did sound like it was based on the snake oil model.
Can't codecs be hacked? It happened to Sony years ago when they tried to protect their CDs from being copyrighted, as I recall.
MQA claims to do two things
-Correcting time domain errors
-Lossy compression of higres
Any idea which AD converter has been used during recording?
If not, how do you think to correct for time domain errors of this ADC?
MQA take the part above 20 kHz of a e.g. 192 kHz recording and fold it in the bits below 17.
This is not a lossless process
- Do you have any clue why "we" would sacrifice dynamic range ?
- Do you have any clue why "we" are in need of lossy compression?
The Well Tempered Computer
Thanks. I don't know. I don't care. I am just curious about where there technology is going, not how good or bad it is.
I have heard it. I like it.
But until Tidal starts streaming MQA, if ever, It will not make it. The hardware is out there but almost no software. Every time MQA is interviewed they always say they can't comment on what the software industry is going to do. They are killing there own product unless they give some real answers to the software delivery schedule
Alan
You like it? Great! That does not mean that Mr. Market will like it, or even know about it.
Audiophiles are such a tiny percentage of the overall market, and even Audiophiles likely will disagree over MQA's sonic merits, further reducing MQA's potential market. I don't think that Tidal streaming will be enough to get MQA to anything but a niche product.
Now if Apple were to pick it up and start including it in their products...
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
I really don't care about what the general market has to say about MQA. They don't care about Hi-Rez either. As long as companies will continue to supply our small niche market with devices and software that make our music sound great that is what I care about. Tidal will maybe stream MQA for the nitch market. The mass market who don't know what it is will continue to do whatever they are doing. I don't care
Alan
Ah, but Mr. Market will determine the scope, breadth and depth of the musical libraries available on MQA. Mr. Market will determine the number of and the functionality of the DACs capable of playing MQA encoded music.
If you want to limit yourself to a handful of multi-kilobuck priced MQA compatible DACs and a laughably skinny selection of MQA compatible tracks, then help yourself.
Meanwhile, if I might humbly suggest, when you aren't so whipped up to be a discriminating audiophile, standard Redbook can provide quite satisfying playback. You don't have to tell anyone, but there it is for your enjoyment.
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
I love redbook. Many cds and stream from Tidal. Mr. market did not drive DSD or all the dacs out there that play it.The hardware people and there are now a few that have MQA are not being driven by the market but by us (audiophiles). If Tidal streams MQA and with my $299 Meridian dac I will be ok with that
Alan
Apple is not going to pick up MQA.
They would not be so silly to do it! It makes little sense to maintain the infrastructure for such a proprietary system. They're more likely to go with lossless streaming 16/44 like Tidal than pick this up.
-------
Archimago's Musings : A 'more objective' audiophile blog.
That was a joke. See below.But can you think of a quicker way for MQA, or indeed for any way for MQA to reach mass acceptance?
I sure cannot. MQA is an answer to a question that nobody asked.
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
Edits: 08/20/16
.....MQA is an answer to a question that nobody asked.
Precisely. It is a solution to a problem that does not exist.
This is Meridian's attempt at getting audiophiles and the industry drunk on their marketing Kool-Aid in order to generate licensing revenue for their unneeded proprietary technology.
Create enough buzz around MQA so the press have something to write about and convince buyers that they need it. Hype creates demand. Now force DAC manufacturers to pay licensing fees to incorporate the unneeded proprietary technology, and pass the expense on to the buyers.
No thank you.
Sorry JE, missed the joke in the thread I guess :-).
Agree.
As far as I know, the masses did not ask for hi-res streaming. And certainly nobody asked for this kind of strange hodge-podge of proprietary encoding, lossy ultrasonic reconstruction, strange claim of time-domain accuracy (hard to imagine how they can achieve this in the vast majority of records), etc.
I really cannot imagining anyone thinking the scheme is such a good idea if one took some time to consider what they're doing, the obvious limitations, and loss of freedoms for end users with standard DACs and ability to use DSP.
IMO, this will obviously fail. It was destined to be so since the beginning simply because it doesn't offer anything of obvious benefit.
-------
Archimago's Musings : A 'more objective' audiophile blog.
No worries.
Folks can take this stuff so seriously that it's easy not to notice when someone has their tongue in their cheek.
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]