MQA Discussion Group

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 14306 times.

CanadianMaestro

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1037
  • Skepticism is the engine of true progress
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #120 on: 11 Sep 2017, 02:07 am »
We all gotta pay for it one way or another even if we don't use MQA.  You are a shill for a format that if successful will do harm to hi-end audio.

Like death and taxes.

 :violin:

zoom25

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 514
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #121 on: 11 Sep 2017, 02:37 am »
I still don't understand how an "audiophile" or a music enthusiast would not want to listen to the exact lossless file as is from the studio.

The previous point by ampdesigner should be seriously considered: What happens to MQA when you start streaming high-res?...If right now the argument is that the 24 bit versions sound better than the 16 bit versions, and that's why someone likes MQA over 16 bit, what happens when hirez streaming comes? Would you still prefer the MQA over the 24 bit lossless master?

From Beats to mid-fi to high-end to ultra high-end, no matter how sleazy or cheesy it sounded, I thought we ALL agreed on the motto: "Hear it as the artist intended."...How are we letting MQA off the hook with a 180 on the most fundamental thing about this pursuit? How is there not more of a pushback by the community!?

Here I am pushing people for uncompressed and we're doing a 180 with a lossy and patented format.

I will gladly play for music or software or hardware, but not for meaningless patented money grab that will indirectly come my way.

Since this is a Bryston subforum, I hope they don't go for MQA at all. I'd rather pay extra for better analog circuitry than a useless DOA format.

CanadianMaestro

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1037
  • Skepticism is the engine of true progress
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #122 on: 11 Sep 2017, 02:42 am »
I still don't understand how an "audiophile" or a music enthusiast would not want to listen to the exact lossless file as is from the studio.

The previous point by ampdesigner should be seriously considered: What happens to MQA when you start streaming high-res?...

I thought we ALL agreed on the motto: "Hear it as the artist intended."...How are we letting MQA off the hook with a 180 on the most fundamental thing about this pursuit? How is there not more of a pushback by the community!?

Here I am pushing people for uncompressed and we're doing a 180 with a lossy and patented format.


The world is not always a rational place, lad. Injustices happen. No saints in this world, stick by your principles. Don't go nutz over it, be thankful for what you have (lossless + BDA-1 + BDP = OMG-1), and let the free market run its course.

witchdoctor

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #123 on: 11 Sep 2017, 03:24 am »
Schiit racing to the bottom?  Do you have a clue on how well they are doing?  The ostrich called Schiit just keeps growing because people who do value audio quality at a reasonable price are their constantly growing customer base.

In their own words:  "Support open Schiit. We're not big on closed, rights-managed, licensed formats. So when someone whips you into a frenzy about the latest unicorn format, we're afraid we won't be able to help. We'll simply keep working on the best ways to play the music you have and own—you know, like CDs, FLAC, and lossless high res PCM. (And if this format talk confuses you, just rest assured that our DACs will play the music you have, rather than something you have to buy."

The major labels are desperate to make money again on what they have already made money on.  Their signing on to MQA signifies nothing more than a money grab. 

You talk about value, but you just don't want to spend real money on music or your gear.  Be satisfied with your mid-fi and leave us who care about audio quality alone.  Zoom25 is spot on with: "MQA. Kill it with fire. We all gotta pay for it one way or another even if we don't use MQA."  You are a shill for a format that if successful will do harm to hi-end audio.

Look, Shiit makes fine gear in a non MQA world. Do you know WHY every DAC is redbook friendly? It is because that is the format every label uses. If you read the article I posted EVERY major label is converting their catalogs to MQA. How can you not go to the bottom of the ocean if your hardware is not compatible with the format used by every major label.  :scratch:

As far as my system I at least had the sense to move to immersive audio using all active speakers. Please don't tell me you are using those inferior passive ones. If you have been drinking the passive speaker kool aid get over to the Active Speaker thread where James can help you out.

Witchdoctor studios uses the same active speaker/immersive setup as Abbey Road studios (only without the 8 subwoofers).




jseymour

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #124 on: 11 Sep 2017, 03:34 am »
Schiit Audio is growing so BS on their going to the bottom of the ocean.  Get a better system and you might get some credibility.

witchdoctor

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #125 on: 11 Sep 2017, 03:36 am »
Schiit Audio is growing so BS on their going to the bottom of the ocean.  Get a better system and you might get some credibility.

Better than a 14.1 all active speaker immersive and MQA enabled system  :thumb::
Do I detect some jealousy here? Active speaker envy? BTW, you can't see the screen for my projector but it comes down from the ceiling when I push a button. Watch the Abbey Road studio vieo I posted, they mastered Pink Floyd's immersive audio in a system with the same setup.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMlFN8V4qW4



jseymour

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #126 on: 11 Sep 2017, 03:47 am »
Jealousy?  Make me laugh.  I have Spatial M3 Triode Masters.  Why would I care where your screen is?  We are talking about stereo systems.  Spare me your BS about being MQA enabled.  So you have a HT system.  Mine is a dedicated stereo system.

witchdoctor

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #127 on: 11 Sep 2017, 03:54 am »
Jealousy?  Make me laugh.  I have Spatial M3 Triode Masters.  Why would I care where your screen is?  We are talking about stereo systems.  Spare me your BS about being MQA enabled.  So you have a HT system.  Mine is a dedicated stereo system.

Congratulations on being a dedicated two channel purist, enjoy. I assure you that two channel stereo is not going to the bottom of the ocean along with Schiit and the other manufacturers that miss the MQA train so don't worry. People using headphones guarantees 2 channels survival plus there will always be room for nostalgia in this hobby :D.

BTW, there is another thread for stereo vs immersive audio discussions here:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=150038.0


witchdoctor

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #128 on: 11 Sep 2017, 05:59 am »
Two new steaming services are offering MQA, Deezer and 7 Digital/HDTracks new service HDMusicstream plus new hardware partners:

https://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-ifa-2017-updates

https://www.audiostream.com/content/hdmusicstream-hdtracks-new-all-mqa-streaming-service

CanadianMaestro

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1037
  • Skepticism is the engine of true progress
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #129 on: 11 Sep 2017, 11:29 am »
"Do you know WHY every DAC is redbook friendly? It is because that is the format every label uses".
- For very good reason: Redbook sounds great. Period.

MQA is yet another audio "advance" that reflects the lack of technical innovation rampant among labels. Audio codecs/formats have likely reached saturation levels in terms of audio quality, and coupled with the limits of human hearing, it's no surprise that they want to recycle the catalogs with "better" formats. Until a truly better-sounding format comes along to vastly improve the classical music catalog (which is massive and still not yet available in a better-sounding form than 96/24 PCM), I'm going to sit back and enjoy my PCM Redbook music.

AmpDesigner333

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1814
    • Digital Amplifier Company
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #130 on: 11 Sep 2017, 01:19 pm »
....If you read the article I posted EVERY major label is converting their catalogs to MQA....
Sorry, I just find that devisive and misleading.  Maybe it's just your wording.  Converting to MQA is just an algorithm. Like, select the file and press "convert".  Studios will continue to store masters in high res PCM (even for vinyl), or DSD (despite low resolution at high frequencies).  MQA is just compressed PCM, but you can't charge license fees on straight PCM.  You also can't force consumers to buy a new DAC that way. Follow the money.

AmpDesigner333

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1814
    • Digital Amplifier Company
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #131 on: 11 Sep 2017, 01:24 pm »
Congratulations on being a dedicated two channel purist, enjoy. I assure you that two channel stereo is not going to the bottom of the ocean along with Schiit and the other manufacturers that miss the MQA train so don't worry. People using headphones guarantees 2 channels survival plus there will always be room for nostalgia in this hobby :D.

BTW, there is another thread for stereo vs immersive audio discussions here:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=150038.0
Nostalgia Audio Thread:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=152357.0

2-channel is NOT Nostalgia Audio!

AmpDesigner333

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1814
    • Digital Amplifier Company
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #132 on: 11 Sep 2017, 01:29 pm »
"Do you know WHY every DAC is redbook friendly? It is because that is the format every label uses".
- For very good reason: Redbook sounds great. Period.

MQA is yet another audio "advance" that reflects the lack of technical innovation rampant among labels. Audio codecs/formats have likely reached saturation levels in terms of audio quality, and coupled with the limits of human hearing, it's no surprise that they want to recycle the catalogs with "better" formats. Until a truly better-sounding format comes along to vastly improve the classical music catalog (which is massive and still not yet available in a better-sounding form than 96/24 PCM), I'm going to sit back and enjoy my PCM Redbook music.
Great points!   You and Jseymour are restoring hope.  So glad some people see through the marketing blitz!

witchdoctor

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #133 on: 11 Sep 2017, 02:05 pm »
There will always be a place for redbook, just like there is for vinyl. So far we have 3 streaming services lined up for MQA and 0 for other hirez formats. One of the most popular hirez download sites is hdtracks.com which offers every format. They will be streaming exclusively in MQA.
If Spotify joins the party it is game over and I think every manufacturer will need to support it.
LG is making their phones MQA capable, can you imagine a "hirez" phone? It makes sense now that Sprint has invested in Tidal.

zoom25

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 514
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #134 on: 11 Sep 2017, 02:38 pm »

If Spotify joins the party it is game over and I think every manufacturer will need to support it.


I remember Spotify either last year or this year briefly offered a lossless service to select users and the idea was floated. It barely lasted and was never heard from again. I don't know if they didn't push with it since then to work out the kinks with their lossless offering and pricing or held back to consider MQA...

CanadianMaestro

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1037
  • Skepticism is the engine of true progress
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #135 on: 11 Sep 2017, 02:56 pm »
There will always be a place for redbook, just like there is for vinyl. So far we have 3 streaming services lined up for MQA and 0 for other hirez formats. One of the most popular hirez download sites is hdtracks.com which offers every format. They will be streaming exclusively in MQA.
If Spotify joins the party it is game over and I think every manufacturer will need to support it.
LG is making their phones MQA capable, can you imagine a "hirez" phone? It makes sense now that Sprint has invested in Tidal.

hdtracks: Some of their albums are rumoured to be just standard 44/16 that have been upsampled without deriving from original masters.

hi-rez phones: gimmick. I can see it: more casualties as car drivers and pedestrians are even more distracted. Go for it, and do audiophilia a grand service.

CanadianMaestro

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1037
  • Skepticism is the engine of true progress
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #136 on: 11 Sep 2017, 02:58 pm »
Great points!   You and Jseymour are restoring hope.  So glad some people see through the marketing blitz!

Thanks, bud. I'm just a music lover. A good day for me is if I can open an attachment. Seriously, hopefully, more engineers will chime in and sound the clarion call. No matter. Common sense and ears will rule.

R. Daneel

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 678
Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #137 on: 11 Sep 2017, 05:14 pm »
I don't know why some folks seem to be inclined to represent the music industry's interests. They're clearly not working for Sony or Warner and still they feel sorry for them.

There is nothing and no one to feel sorry for.

Let's talk about patents for a moment - and not "patent-pending" nonsense that "noisome braggarts" bark out loud - but real important patents that lead to major breakthroughs in science and technology. Guess what, patents have a life span! After expiration date, anyone can use it free of charge!!

But not music. Apparently, Bon Jovi Christmas collection recycle/revamp edition will always be eligible for a law suit if you dare to play it publicly. That's an exaggeration but I think you get the point.

Does that seem fair?

No one will die if MQA becomes yet another useless try to license what should by definition be accessible - and it is useless.

Look at it from this perspective. Everyone big wants to have it and as always, the press and the media is their strike force and even some previously unsuccessful producers turned audio journalists want to see it happen. Many of these don't have even the basic understanding of the mathematics or even the fundamental principles on which audio codecs rely. Those who are against are fewer and smaller but they do have solid background on which they base their statements. Why not listen to them instead when they stand to benefit nothing from saying what they feel is right?

Rupret

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #138 on: 14 Sep 2017, 03:21 am »
Wow ... all this makes me glad that I'm big, dumb, and stupid.  MQA is available now, it sounds good to me, and I enjoy listening to it.  Why does anything else matter?  I don't get it.

witchdoctor

Re: MQA Discussion Group
« Reply #139 on: 14 Sep 2017, 03:58 am »
Wow ... all this makes me glad that I'm big, dumb, and stupid.  MQA is available now, it sounds good to me, and I enjoy listening to it.  Why does anything else matter?  I don't get it.

Actually you do get it... plus you didn't have to pay an extra fee on top of the $20 a month Tidal cost before they added MQA. Enjoy :thumb: