 
|
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 |
1.36.197.215
In Reply to: RE: Andres Koch Slams MQA as A Money Grab and a Fraud posted by Isaak J. Garvey on March 17, 2017 at 14:17:53
I'm a veritable Luddite clinging to Vinyl and CD and using hard drives to my computer audio DAC.I thought this MQA was mainly about speed because streaming was taking up too much space.
I live in Hong Kong my download speed as I write this is 732.01 mbps. I have unlimited downloads/uploads at $50CaD ($35US) a month.
So I don't see the benefit of worrying about size of files. For serious listening I pick and choose what I want to play - not listening to glorified FM. And sure as poop not PAYING for glorified FM.
Edits: 03/19/17Follow Ups:
...from what little I've been able to gather about MQA's business model, mobile streaming seems to be its raison d'être. At this point most mobile devices have data speeds and data limits where compression would be useful. If this is the case, the plan might have a fatal flaw: most of the persons I'm familiar with that stream music on their mobile devices are more than satisfied with 128KB MP3 stuff. "HiRez not valued-MQA not needed.
MQA's raison d'être is to give Meridian control over a big chunk of music distribution so they can get rich on royalties. There is something in it for the music labels too, namely a form of DRM. I'm sure the likes of Warner, Universal, and Sony hate the fact that the only way they can sell us yet another copy of Miles Davis or Fleetwood Mac right now is to put DRM-free downloadable LPCM files on sites like HD Tracks. I don't see anything in it for the consumer though.
Better sound?
Alan
Which is likely to give us better sound, a hi-res PCM file losslessly compressed with FLAC, or the same file lossily compressed with MQA?
The best case for MQA is that the data it loses isn't musically important and most people in most cases can't hear the loss. But you could say the same for MP3 and any other lossy codec.
My mobile phone connection on AT&T is sufficient to handle up to 10 simultaneous streams of raw, uncompressed 24/96 PCM. And my cable connection at home is 2-3 times faster than that. And compressing with FLAC cuts the required data rate nearly in half. MQA cuts it nearly in half again, but so what?
I don't see how I as a music consumer benefit from adopting another lossy compression format when there really isn't any need to save bandwidth. Especially when it's a proprietary format that requires a licensed decoder. It's taken a long time to get past MP3 and get the labels to offer downloads and streams in open, lossless formats. I don't want to go back.
I don't think you are alone.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
...I have trouble understanding MQA's value to me as a consumer. If there is value, the controversy and MQA's inability so far to get a marketing type handle on it has obscured that value.
By mobile devices this would presumably be phones since this is the number one mobile device and after listening the iPod 7plus which is unlistenable dredge and my Samsung S7 Edge (which is also unlistenable dredge) the bitrate of the music seems secondary to AWFUL headphone outputs and whatever cheap arse parts both of these companies are employing.
The best sounding phone on the market is apparently the LGV20 which incorporates 4 DA converters comes with B&O play and the matching earbuds ($200 so presumably better than the ones that come with Apple and Samsung) and also has a hires microphone.
So if MQA is targeted to mobile phone plans then I suppose it makes sense but then I still don't get why a person can't just download the files off their computer to their phone and save the expense. And even then - the LGV20 may be the best sounding phone but that's like saying the Tarantula is the best looking spider.
I'm buying a CD player! :)
I've never seen this suggested anywhere. In fact, I spoke to one person deeply involved with MQA who told me he thought mobile wasn't an interesting market because the differences aren't important on mobile devices, in typical mobile settings.
I've wondered myself about the economics, and come to think, tentatively, that it's the streaming businesses that benefit most from the compression. One way or another, they pay money for every megabit you steam.
jca
...Mobile streaming is pretty much implied in the stuff I've read about it. I'm not an industry professional so I don't have direct access to the professional MQA promotional material so maybe there's something else.
MQA's usefulness for mobile streaming seems the only obvious application given that most stationary locations like homes and businesses have low cost unlimited broadband where the "high rez" compression aspects of MQA are of little advantage compared to what's out there now. And so we loop back to the question of whether or not the majority of mobile streamers have any interest in high rez, esp if they have to pay extra for it. At this point, I'm guessing not.
Ty Roberts of Universal specifically mentions mobile and 24 bit audio on phones here.
Edits: 03/19/17
Argh...
You would think your Chief Technology Officer would check with his engineers or just pull out a calculator before saying something stupid like that.
The raw bit rate of 24/96 PCM is 4608000/s (4.39 Mbps). If you figure about 40% savings from FLAC, the required bandwidth for lossless streaming of 24/96 is about 2.64 Mbps. Ancient old 802.11b wifi from circa 2000 sustains about 6-7 Mbps with a good signal, or half of that with a weak signal. So even the oldest wifi networks are no problem unless other users are loading the connection. These days, it's hard to find a wifi connection that isn't at least 802.11n (everything new is 802.11ac). 802.11b provides a real bandwidth of at least 20 Mbps with a weak signal, or more like 40-60 Mbps with a strong signal. So it's pretty ridiculous to claim wifi can't handle hi-res streaming.
A mobile phone from circa 2010 on an HSPA+ network could also handle a 2.64 Mbps stream with no problem. And these days, on AT&T 4G LTE, I can typically get 60-70 Mbps in most places. Bandwidth is just not a problem for streaming hi-res audio. Just look at all the people streaming 1080p video on their phones!
My answer: I know.
Yes, it is absolute bollocks. And so is MQA.
All they have left to cling to is the supposed "de-blurring" which a tiny
cabal of audio writers seem to be stoked about
All they have left to cling to is the supposed "de-blurring" which a tiny
cabal of audio writers seem to be stoked about
Which I think is also bollocks...
You had better believe it is bollocks.
bandwith is very expensive.
Not working for free.
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 ]
