Ultimately, wouldn't it be us consumers who pay any and all license fees? It is all in the price of everything..
Is MQA in your Future?
- Thread starter WobblySam
- Start date
Sound Dragon
Yawns and sets his couch on fire!
I for one am glad to see innovation and continued development of streaming formats. As to money being the driver behind it? Well I wouldn't expect someone to do it for free.
I am curious how much cost is associated with the licences to include "certification" from MQA. If we are talking about an added cost to a DAC of a few bucks won't be too much of a game changer from a purchase perspective.
I am curious how much cost is associated with the licences to include "certification" from MQA. If we are talking about an added cost to a DAC of a few bucks won't be too much of a game changer from a purchase perspective.
bhunter
The Spherical Cow
It is, but too few people seem to understand the pass through to the consumer. There is no need for another format unless you are one of the companies that gain either profit or control. Proprietary data formats are always bad IMNSHO.
bhunter
The Spherical Cow
It's more about control of content. Steady predictable streams of income for content publishers. Just like the Digital Millenium Act of 1996 and the WIPO, the usual suspects are in play with powerful lobbying efforts underway.
Kinda like analog vs. digital, we know where the argument starts, digital guy's can't even agree within their own realm.
Play what you enjoy stop worrying about what's "Best" and what the other guy likes as that's very subjective
DaveVoorhis
Addicted Member
Ok... But what problem does MQA solve? What does it do that no existing (particularly, lossless) audio format does? Why do we need it? Why should we want it?
DaveVoorhis
Addicted Member
Quoted for truth.
Proprietary data formats invariably impose conditions and costs for their use. That usually turns into increased costs to the consumer with no other benefit compared to non-proprietary data formats, because that's an inevitable consequence of the goal of proprietary formats: revenue streams for their developers, which would otherwise not need to be paid for non-proprietary data formats.
DaveVoorhis
Addicted Member
That's because "digital" isn't one thing; it's a collection of technologies and devices. The "analog guys" can't agree on the best turntable, cartridge, tape, speakers, amplifier, preamplifier, speaker wire, speaker stands, interconnects either, and these are all in the "analog" realm.Kinda like analog vs. digital, we know where the argument starts, digital guy's can't even agree within their own realm.
Johnny 007
Active Member
I get the distinct feeling that the companies that want nothing to do with MQA take that position simply because they don't want to pay money to Meridian. They don't seem to care what their customers want. Which is fine. The customers will just go elsewhere, if they want MQA. Maybe someday all streaming music will be of the highest possible quality and then it won't much matter, so long as our internet providers aren't charging us an arm and a leg for too much usage. Just the other day I got an email from Comcast. Apparently, I had exceeded my monthly gigabyte limit. They'll wave the extra charges for the next three months, and then they'll begin charging me for each 10 gigabyte I'm over the limit. No big deal, but keep in mind that "unlimited" seems to have its limits.
lizard84
Abider
Reading back through this thread that question has been responded to. It appears to be designed as a Hi-Rez delivery system that delivers those files in a smaller container for streaming company's. Sure arguments have been made here that bandwidth capacity has or is expanding but that doesn't necessarily negate the need. All Company's, and I'm not just talking audio streaming ventures will always search for ways to minimize costs, minimizing manufacturing costs, ease delivery. You can't argue away the advantage MQA gives a streaming venture by reducing the file size on every hi-rez stream from the standard hi-rez file. Who knows how Tidal will do, if they will survive, but the MQA format is clearly designed with streaming in mind. Tidal may be in trouble, but so are all the streaming outfits. They survive solely on venture capital, that includes the hi-rez outfit from Europe that E-stat referred to, they were in serious trouble until another investor got on board. Having said that, streaming is here to stay, as is hi-rez streaming and an idea like MQA is going to be the way to go for the surviving outfit. Maybe not MQA but a system that delivers a HQ stream in a minimal file size. It's just good business.
DaveVoorhis
Addicted Member
There are multiple formats that already do that: MP3, AAC, Ogg Vorbis, AC-3, WMA, aptX-HD, etc. Some are free.
What does MQA provide that the others don't?
lizard84
Abider
I double checked my outputs and equaled where necessary in my comparisons. I see a lot of complaints toward MQA on this thread with the hope that something sticks. The DSP issue should make it a no go for those heavy invested in DSP, shouldn't be a problem for the vast majority of streamers. Yes, I get a blue lite, I also get a display of the exact resolution of a given MQA studio track.
As a few of us read it, you admitted to comparing standard resolution MQA files to hi-rez calling the methodology and the opinions from that comparison into serious question. That needs to be properly addressed with another comparison.
lizard84
Abider
There are indeed multiple formats, of those which ones are currently being used to stream hi-rez files en mass across the world at a level comparable to Tidal's MQA offerings?
DaveVoorhis
Addicted Member
None (yet), but the question isn't why MQA has been adopted by Tidal -- the answer is obvious; it's a commercial partnership to benefit MQA Ltd and Tidal. The question is what we consumers get out of it, and why alternatives -- like lossless FLAC, which also saves significant space/bandwidth over raw PCM encoding but is lossless, unlike MQA -- aren't being adopted. But, it's easy to speculate why: it's because releasing lossless high-res into the world allows too much opportunity for uncontrolled redistribution. MQA presumably restricts that, but then the advantage is wholly to MQA Ltd and its commercial adopters; the consumer eventually gets to pay for it.
W9TR
Super Member
Full disclosure - I don't have an MQA DAC and am listening to it with the first unfolding done by the Tidal PC application. I have read all the patents, points and counterpoints that are out there. So have a pretty good idea of how the system works and why it does what it does.
What I am hearing sounds very good indeed.
There are two problems that MQA solves. The first is streaming bandwidth. I live in a rural area and my download speed is maxed out at 8 MBPS. So for me, the statement that bandwith is not an issue and we can just stream Hi-Rez audio at any bitrate and bit depth is patently untrue. The MQA stream is pushing my internet connection as it is.
The second is the de-blurring of the original master. This seems to be glossed over in most discussions. I think it is a critical aspect of the technology. A lot of early digital was mastered with A/D converters that performed very poorly by today's standards. These A/D converters from Sony, Phillips, Soundstream, etc. all had very steep rolloff anti-aliasing filters whose characteristics impacted the time domain performance of these systems. MQA claims to be able to un-do the damage done by these A/D converters. Since recording studios generally take excellent notes, MQA should be able to determine the A/D converter used in mastering and apply the appropriate correction.
Tom
lizard84
Abider
That's business, that's successful capitalism, provide a product and get fairly compensated for it. I'm getting my moneys worth.
Condorsat
Audio Enthusiast
Good point ... IMHO ... bandwidth has and will continue to be an issue in US regardless of what many people want to believe.
Yes, the fact that the MQA process goes back to determine the specific ADC used on the original conversion is not discussed often enough.