Linn Forums

Current time: 2017-12-13, 13:58 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.
2017-01-13, 16:56
Post: #21
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
(2017-01-10 16:36)Martin H Wrote:  Jim, top post and I am so pleased you have taken the time to articulate the issues so clearly and clinically.

+1

KRDS/2 -> A2200 -> M109 & Akurate 226 (silvers & Auralex Subdude)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-14, 21:57
Post: #22
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
At the end of the day, its all up to the consumer and personally I refuse to pay more for any type of download than I would for the physical media.

Much of this music is recycled from the 50s and 60s and 70s, most of which can be found for a pittance at your local street fair or thrift shop. At the same time, there's no shortage of websites that offer DSD downloads of the same content at $40 and up per album, if that's not price-gouging I don't know what is. So even if the MQA people collect half-a-penny at many stages of the chain, more power to them, it is not half as odious to me as a $20+ markup at any given "hifi" one stop.

Those old Romans had it right: caveat emptor!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-15, 12:25 (This post was last modified: 2017-01-15 12:38 by Tin.)
Post: #23
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
(2017-01-14 21:57)TG04 Wrote:  At the end of the day, its all up to the consumer and personally I refuse to pay more for any type of download than I would for the physical media.

Much of this music is recycled from the 50s and 60s and 70s, most of which can be found for a pittance at your local street fair or thrift shop. At the same time, there's no shortage of websites that offer DSD downloads of the same content at $40 and up per album, if that's not price-gouging I don't know what is. So even if the MQA people collect half-a-penny at many stages of the chain, more power to them, it is not half as odious to me as a $20+ markup at any given "hifi" one stop.

Those old Romans had it right: caveat emptor!
It won't exactly be half-a-penny and as soon as MQA gets the upper hand you don't need to be a scientist to see what they'll do to the prices. This will only benefit the MQA shareholders and not the artists.

The reason these DSDs are expensive is for 2 reasons;
- it is a closed format, like MQA, so they can charge whatever they want.
- the mastering will be new and the market for DSD is small. This will never be cheap.

MQA will force the same mastering on everyone, forcing music lovers to listen to music finetuned for earbuds. You wouldn't care obviously as you think paying extra is not worth it, but people here do tend to care.

BTW interesting how many people enter the MQA discussions with fresh accounts. If anything it shows that we're making an impression here. Also, if you want to look like a Linn owner, do not use DSD as an example, our streaming equipment doesn't play propierty formats.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-15, 14:53
Post: #24
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
(2017-01-15 12:25)Tin Wrote:  
(2017-01-14 21:57)TG04 Wrote:  At the end of the day, its all up to the consumer and personally I refuse to pay more for any type of download than I would for the physical media.

Much of this music is recycled from the 50s and 60s and 70s, most of which can be found for a pittance at your local street fair or thrift shop. At the same time, there's no shortage of websites that offer DSD downloads of the same content at $40 and up per album, if that's not price-gouging I don't know what is. So even if the MQA people collect half-a-penny at many stages of the chain, more power to them, it is not half as odious to me as a $20+ markup at any given "hifi" one stop.

Those old Romans had it right: caveat emptor!
It won't exactly be half-a-penny and as soon as MQA gets the upper hand you don't need to be a scientist to see what they'll do to the prices. This will only benefit the MQA shareholders and not the artists.

The reason these DSDs are expensive is for 2 reasons;
- it is a closed format, like MQA, so they can charge whatever they want.
- the mastering will be new and the market for DSD is small. This will never be cheap.

MQA will force the same mastering on everyone, forcing music lovers to listen to music finetuned for earbuds. You wouldn't care obviously as you think paying extra is not worth it, but people here do tend to care.

BTW interesting how many people enter the MQA discussions with fresh accounts. If anything it shows that we're making an impression here. Also, if you want to look like a Linn owner, do not use DSD as an example, our streaming equipment doesn't play propierty formats.

Sorry, but redbook CD had licensing on all aspects by Sony / Philips, and guess what we survived.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-15, 15:07
Post: #25
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
(2017-01-15 14:53)DaveWr Wrote:  
(2017-01-15 12:25)Tin Wrote:  
(2017-01-14 21:57)TG04 Wrote:  At the end of the day, its all up to the consumer and personally I refuse to pay more for any type of download than I would for the physical media.

Much of this music is recycled from the 50s and 60s and 70s, most of which can be found for a pittance at your local street fair or thrift shop. At the same time, there's no shortage of websites that offer DSD downloads of the same content at $40 and up per album, if that's not price-gouging I don't know what is. So even if the MQA people collect half-a-penny at many stages of the chain, more power to them, it is not half as odious to me as a $20+ markup at any given "hifi" one stop.

Those old Romans had it right: caveat emptor!
It won't exactly be half-a-penny and as soon as MQA gets the upper hand you don't need to be a scientist to see what they'll do to the prices. This will only benefit the MQA shareholders and not the artists.

The reason these DSDs are expensive is for 2 reasons;
- it is a closed format, like MQA, so they can charge whatever they want.
- the mastering will be new and the market for DSD is small. This will never be cheap.

MQA will force the same mastering on everyone, forcing music lovers to listen to music finetuned for earbuds. You wouldn't care obviously as you think paying extra is not worth it, but people here do tend to care.

BTW interesting how many people enter the MQA discussions with fresh accounts. If anything it shows that we're making an impression here. Also, if you want to look like a Linn owner, do not use DSD as an example, our streaming equipment doesn't play propierty formats.

Sorry, but redbook CD had licensing on all aspects by Sony / Philips, and guess what we survived.
So exactly which line of my text are you apologizing for?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-15, 16:37
Post: #26
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
(2017-01-15 15:07)Tin Wrote:  
(2017-01-15 14:53)DaveWr Wrote:  
(2017-01-15 12:25)Tin Wrote:  
(2017-01-14 21:57)TG04 Wrote:  At the end of the day, its all up to the consumer and personally I refuse to pay more for any type of download than I would for the physical media.

Much of this music is recycled from the 50s and 60s and 70s, most of which can be found for a pittance at your local street fair or thrift shop. At the same time, there's no shortage of websites that offer DSD downloads of the same content at $40 and up per album, if that's not price-gouging I don't know what is. So even if the MQA people collect half-a-penny at many stages of the chain, more power to them, it is not half as odious to me as a $20+ markup at any given "hifi" one stop.

Those old Romans had it right: caveat emptor!
It won't exactly be half-a-penny and as soon as MQA gets the upper hand you don't need to be a scientist to see what they'll do to the prices. This will only benefit the MQA shareholders and not the artists.

The reason these DSDs are expensive is for 2 reasons;
- it is a closed format, like MQA, so they can charge whatever they want.
- the mastering will be new and the market for DSD is small. This will never be cheap.

MQA will force the same mastering on everyone, forcing music lovers to listen to music finetuned for earbuds. You wouldn't care obviously as you think paying extra is not worth it, but people here do tend to care.

BTW interesting how many people enter the MQA discussions with fresh accounts. If anything it shows that we're making an impression here. Also, if you want to look like a Linn owner, do not use DSD as an example, our streaming equipment doesn't play propierty formats.

Sorry, but redbook CD had licensing on all aspects by Sony / Philips, and guess what we survived.
So exactly which line of my text are you apologizing for?
Music has been mastered for radio for years - loudness wars etc, I think the effect of MQA will be heard but significantly more benign.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-15, 17:14
Post: #27
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
(2017-01-15 16:37)DaveWr Wrote:  
(2017-01-15 15:07)Tin Wrote:  
(2017-01-15 14:53)DaveWr Wrote:  
(2017-01-15 12:25)Tin Wrote:  
(2017-01-14 21:57)TG04 Wrote:  At the end of the day, its all up to the consumer and personally I refuse to pay more for any type of download than I would for the physical media.

Much of this music is recycled from the 50s and 60s and 70s, most of which can be found for a pittance at your local street fair or thrift shop. At the same time, there's no shortage of websites that offer DSD downloads of the same content at $40 and up per album, if that's not price-gouging I don't know what is. So even if the MQA people collect half-a-penny at many stages of the chain, more power to them, it is not half as odious to me as a $20+ markup at any given "hifi" one stop.

Those old Romans had it right: caveat emptor!
It won't exactly be half-a-penny and as soon as MQA gets the upper hand you don't need to be a scientist to see what they'll do to the prices. This will only benefit the MQA shareholders and not the artists.

The reason these DSDs are expensive is for 2 reasons;
- it is a closed format, like MQA, so they can charge whatever they want.
- the mastering will be new and the market for DSD is small. This will never be cheap.

MQA will force the same mastering on everyone, forcing music lovers to listen to music finetuned for earbuds. You wouldn't care obviously as you think paying extra is not worth it, but people here do tend to care.

BTW interesting how many people enter the MQA discussions with fresh accounts. If anything it shows that we're making an impression here. Also, if you want to look like a Linn owner, do not use DSD as an example, our streaming equipment doesn't play propierty formats.

Sorry, but redbook CD had licensing on all aspects by Sony / Philips, and guess what we survived.
So exactly which line of my text are you apologizing for?
Music has been mastered for radio for years - loudness wars etc, I think the effect of MQA will be heard but significantly more benign.
I'm not implying that MQA will be worse than the mastering we had before, but the so-called Hi-Res MQA will have the same mastering as the normal MQA version.

With real Hi Res, where you get a lossless 24 bit version, you have at least a chance to get a better mastering. With MQA you don't.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-15, 17:30 (This post was last modified: 2017-01-15 17:32 by DaveWr.)
Post: #28
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
(2017-01-15 17:14)Tin Wrote:  
(2017-01-15 16:37)DaveWr Wrote:  
(2017-01-15 15:07)Tin Wrote:  
(2017-01-15 14:53)DaveWr Wrote:  
(2017-01-15 12:25)Tin Wrote:  It won't exactly be half-a-penny and as soon as MQA gets the upper hand you don't need to be a scientist to see what they'll do to the prices. This will only benefit the MQA shareholders and not the artists.

The reason these DSDs are expensive is for 2 reasons;
- it is a closed format, like MQA, so they can charge whatever they want.
- the mastering will be new and the market for DSD is small. This will never be cheap.

MQA will force the same mastering on everyone, forcing music lovers to listen to music finetuned for earbuds. You wouldn't care obviously as you think paying extra is not worth it, but people here do tend to care.

BTW interesting how many people enter the MQA discussions with fresh accounts. If anything it shows that we're making an impression here. Also, if you want to look like a Linn owner, do not use DSD as an example, our streaming equipment doesn't play propierty formats.

Sorry, but redbook CD had licensing on all aspects by Sony / Philips, and guess what we survived.
So exactly which line of my text are you apologizing for?
Music has been mastered for radio for years - loudness wars etc, I think the effect of MQA will be heard but significantly more benign.
I'm not implying that MQA will be worse than the mastering we had before, but the so-called Hi-Res MQA will have the same mastering as the normal MQA version.

With real Hi Res, where you get a lossless 24 bit version, you have at least a chance to get a better mastering. With MQA you don't.

True, and irrational or not, having all the bits and sampling frequency data seems safer than all this special data folded down in the so called inaudible bits in the data stream. If this is done as a master, there is no way back....

I think I will stick with extending my vinyl collection, its safe and my hearing likes it.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-15, 19:18
Post: #29
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
I've never been a vinyl addict. I dislike the fiddly bits and prefer software solutions.
But all this stuff with MQA and understanding the severe consequences it could have I'm starting to become a bit jealous at vinyllists.

If Linn has to give in to MQA at one point I hope they'll put in it a different device so it won't harm my normal digital playback.
And if everything fails, I'll start upgrading my turntable.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-15, 20:02 (This post was last modified: 2017-01-16 01:56 by TG04.)
Post: #30
RE: MQA looks bad for music. Let me explain.
Tin, I believe you are on to something. The digital download/streaming route is sheer consumerism, plain and simple, whereas listening to music at a quite moment in your home is something different altogether. Seems we humans remain hunter-gatherers at heart after all this time, we like to to collect things and build edifices to our likes. Consider the schoolkid collecting baseball cards and paying dearly for the last one to complete the series, even if that last card isn't worth much in and of itself. That sort of emotional connection can not be nourished by digital downloads, IMHO. Great for listening on the go, but I can't get the same sound out of my home stereo as I get out of the earphones, even though the same computer and DAC are used. While my turntable continues to collect dust, I feel that conventional CDs do better than downloads in this respect (regardless of bitrate) and they do have that physical aspect too boot.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


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