Linn Forums

Current time: 2017-12-16, 06:10 Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Linn Forums / Linn Music Systems & Hi-fi Separates / Network Music Players & Music Streamers v / MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.

Post Reply 
MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
2017-01-10, 19:00 (This post was last modified: 2017-01-10 19:02 by DavidHB.)
Post: #11
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
(2017-01-10 18:29)Martin H Wrote:  You would hope the music and audiophile press that should understand this in it's entirety would be highlighting the issues. I suspect it's easier for them ...

... and, more importantly, more lucrative ...

(2017-01-10 18:29)Martin H Wrote:  ... to instead applaud a new technology and make ra, ra ra noises.

Come back, Flat Earthers. Where are you when we need you?

David

Main system: [Basik/Basik+/K5/Lejonklou Gaio >][Roksan Kandy Mk III >] KEDSM > Akurate Exaktbox 10 > Linn Silvers> A4200 x 2 and A2200 > K600 > Akubariks
Second system: Kiko
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-10, 20:10
Post: #12
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
Quote:So the next question following Jim's post would seem to be this. If the revenues from MQA, creating a cost which would ultimately be borne by the consumer, are as stated by Jim, is there anyone out there who is prepared to say what benefit the consumer is supposed to gain by incurring that cost?

Yes, those who have most to gain from MQA - and their claim is that it's studio quality/hi-res/what the artist intended, compared to cd-quality/flac (ignoring HiRes flac/wav that already exists). Any easy sell, especially to those who currently only bother with mp3/cd-quality and which is debatable to say the least.

Quote:If I understand Jim's argument correctly, it is that there is in fact no such benefit, and that MQA is in effect an attempt to use monopoly power to manipulate the product price to the detriment of the end user. It may or may not be DRM, but, on Jim's analysis, the attempt is intended to have the same result.

Correct. DRM by another name and another technology (see the utimaco pdf Tin linked to in the other thread).

Akurate EDSM | Majik ExaktBox-I [on Custom Design iRAPs] | Majik 140, REL T5
Rega RP1, [QNAP HS-251+, Jitterbug, MinimServer, Asset], Kazoo [Linx1010]

AV: Marantz NR1506 | B&W 620(C), M1(S), REL T5 (LFE) | Fronts powered by Linn
Net: NetGear DGN2200 | GS108 | AQ Forest x3

Hello to Jason Isaacs
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-10, 23:21
Post: #13
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
Well put Jim! To my knowledge this is the first concise piece explaining the business-model and pitfalls of MQA from somebody working in the audio-industry.

I hope your post see's wide circulation beyond this forum!!

http://www.last.fm/user/mcgillroy

MDSM/2 - 6100/D - active Kabers - Nubert 441w sub + Qobuz Sublime.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-11, 00:32
Post: #14
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
Thanks for such a clearly articulated post Jim.

Main: AK/0/D; AEDSM; MeiCord AExaktbox10; Silvers 2x A4200/1; K400 NSL Exakt dual-mono PMC Twenty.26; Twenty.C; Blacks AV5125 PMC Twenty.21
Playroom: SBT; V-DAC1; Cyrus6; M773e
Garage: SBT/Rega DAC; Arcam AVR100; 2x AV5125; Aktiv Ninkas, Trikan, AVSeKretan
www.audiophilemusings.co.uk
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-11, 04:44 (This post was last modified: 2017-01-11 05:23 by gdp1965.)
Post: #15
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
Thanks Jim for the post. Just my 2 cents worth (I'm sure people will disagree with me): this could quite possibly be a 'storm in a tea cup'. I don't really know anyone outside the hifi interest circles who cares for sound quality. Tidal hasn't really been that much of an impact, and to get the good sound it's a faff for "non hifi folk" anyway. Whenever I try to explain to anyone about better sound they look at me like I've gone mad, so maybe this will just blow over in this iPod wearing era we are in
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-11, 07:08
Post: #16
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
GDP1965; HS vs Betamax vs Video2000 was such a storm, as was the Brexit poll, as was the possibility that Trump would be elected, as was...

If there is one single thing that we should learn from history is that you can never rely on storms not to leave the confinement of the glass.
Even on this so called audiophile forum there are plenty of people eager to welcome MQAs lossy and DRMy format.
If you compare this with paintings..

You have a painting by Monet which is the actual performance by the artist.
As we obviously can't have that, most people who have a keen interest in art settle for the Giclée, which would be the 24 bit Studio Master.
Then we would have cheaper posters, CD, and finally the reproduction of a 3 year old as the MP3.

So now suddenly there is MQA which, in the best scenario will end up north of the poster but because its lossyness can never reach the Ciglée.
Realistically is will just be another poster because most music has been released as CD only and it won't be worth the trouble doing a remaster.
The only new addition is a shiny lock attached to that poster of which MQA holds the key.
The lock also has a LED attached to it to prove that you paid extra.

As we can see even people in art are queuing because they want to have the poster with the lock.


Another issue with MQA that I think has not been mentioned before is compression.
Compression is a necceesity when reproducing music, albeit 24 bit, vinyl or CD quality.
The amount of compression we see is usually based on the predicted environment of where the music will be reproduced.
So, you get a lot of compression on CD because most people will listen to it on their phones and in cars or cheap stereos and less compression, if they did multiple masters, on vinyl and 24 bit.
With MQA you have 2 of those targets in 1 single mastering.

Now guess.. will that single mastering and level of compression be the one which will allow 99% of the people to listen to it, or will it be the mastering of the handful of audiophiles who are able to reduce the noise in their surroundings to a level so that they can hear the extra level of dynamics?

With MQA we will have lost the loudness wars and even though that in some cases you might achieve a few extra bits, we all know that the dynamic headroom of a good master is more important.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-13, 00:25 (This post was last modified: 2017-01-13 01:15 by andy2.)
Post: #17
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
Meanwhile over at the audistream forum Jims thoughtful comments and legitimate concerns above are deleted by the MQA shills as 'Linn advertisement':
http://www.audiostream.com/comment/51549...D7CLv3V.97
Nice.

Apple Power Mac G5 Server - Chord - AEDSM - Chord - AExaktbox10 - Linn Silvers - 4200 / 2x 3100 (5100 w 2 channels removed) - K400 / K600 crimped bananas - 242s Solid Stands
- Exaktbox Sub- Linn Silvers - 2x221 Sub
LP12 w Linn stuff & SmokeD LiD
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-13, 04:37
Post: #18
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
(2017-01-13 00:25)andy2 Wrote:  Meanwhile over at the audistream forum Jims thoughtful comments and legitimate concerns above are deleted by the MQA shills as 'Linn advertisement':
http://www.audiostream.com/comment/51549...D7CLv3V.97
Nice.

I'm not convinced by the conspiracy view of MQA, but don't see any justification for deleting the post over at audiostream.com, and can't see how it can fairly be described as a "Linn advertisement." The deletion of the post there gives me more pause than any of the arguments here.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-13, 09:41
Post: #19
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
(2017-01-13 04:37)stuartb Wrote:  
(2017-01-13 00:25)andy2 Wrote:  Meanwhile over at the audistream forum Jims thoughtful comments and legitimate concerns above are deleted by the MQA shills as 'Linn advertisement':
http://www.audiostream.com/comment/51549...D7CLv3V.97
Nice.

I'm not convinced by the conspiracy view of MQA, but don't see any justification for deleting the post over at audiostream.com, and can't see how it can fairly be described as a "Linn advertisement." The deletion of the post there gives me more pause than any of the arguments here.

It should be noted that I didn't post that over on Audiostream. It might have been nice if the person who did would have linked to it rather than just copy and paste; it would have look less spammy too.

Jim
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-13, 15:41
Post: #20
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
(2017-01-13 09:41)Jim Collinson Wrote:  
(2017-01-13 04:37)stuartb Wrote:  
(2017-01-13 00:25)andy2 Wrote:  Meanwhile over at the audistream forum Jims thoughtful comments and legitimate concerns above are deleted by the MQA shills as 'Linn advertisement':
http://www.audiostream.com/comment/51549...D7CLv3V.97
Nice.

I'm not convinced by the conspiracy view of MQA, but don't see any justification for deleting the post over at audiostream.com, and can't see how it can fairly be described as a "Linn advertisement." The deletion of the post there gives me more pause than any of the arguments here.

It should be noted that I didn't post that over on Audiostream. It might have been nice if the person who did would have linked to it rather than just copy and paste; it would have look less spammy too.

Jim

..Had no idea, as a sucker I fell for it...

Apple Power Mac G5 Server - Chord - AEDSM - Chord - AExaktbox10 - Linn Silvers - 4200 / 2x 3100 (5100 w 2 channels removed) - K400 / K600 crimped bananas - 242s Solid Stands
- Exaktbox Sub- Linn Silvers - 2x221 Sub
LP12 w Linn stuff & SmokeD LiD
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)