Viděno tímhle primitivně populistickým a silně zjednodušujícím pohledem, který ve snaze zastírat podstatu věci vynechává zásadní okolnosti, je MQA naprostá bomba.
Zloděj křičí: Chyťe zloděje!
MQA
-
PítrsPraha
- Příspěvky: 3959
- Registrován: 05 pro 2013 10:13
- Kontaktovat uživatele:
- Vybavení
Re: MQA
Naposledy upravil(a) PítrsPraha dne 16 úno 2018 09:08, celkem upraveno 1 x.
Re: MQA
Přesně tak, koupíš si nový DAC s logem MQA, který výrobce DAC bude muset ve formě licence zaplatit.
-
PítrsPraha
- Příspěvky: 3959
- Registrován: 05 pro 2013 10:13
- Kontaktovat uživatele:
- Vybavení
Re: MQA
Kde není argument, nastoupí osobní výpady...
Čti pozorněji, souvislosti jsou v textu výše.
Čti pozorněji, souvislosti jsou v textu výše.
-
PítrsPraha
- Příspěvky: 3959
- Registrován: 05 pro 2013 10:13
- Kontaktovat uživatele:
- Vybavení
Re: MQA
Nepodsunuj mi svoje kraviny. Nikde jsem nezpochybnil (doslovně či významem), že MQA je v současnosti jediný online zdroj hi-res audia za pár drobných.
Ve tvé snaze za každou cenu křesat hádku za pomocí osobních výpadů a čistých lží ti uniká skutečný obsah textů ostatních. Své mindráky si tím jedině prohlubuješ.
Ve tvé snaze za každou cenu křesat hádku za pomocí osobních výpadů a čistých lží ti uniká skutečný obsah textů ostatních. Své mindráky si tím jedině prohlubuješ.
-
merhaut
Re: MQA
Hmmm... Tohle: "Viděno tímhle primitivně populistickým a silně zjednodušujícím pohledem, který ve snaze zastírat podstatu věci vynechává zásadní okolnosti, je MQA naprostá bomba." není zpochybněním?
A v čem je podle tebe tedy podstata věci? A jaké jsou ony vynechané zásadní okolnosti?
A v čem je podle tebe tedy podstata věci? A jaké jsou ony vynechané zásadní okolnosti?
Re: MQA
@merhaut tvoje argumenty mi pripominaju tazobne firmy v amazonskych pralesoch, ktore si hovoria: "wow, ake tazime paradne drevo za vyborne ceny, to bude biznis" pricom pre majoritu sveta su to kreteni co nicia ekosystem..
-
PítrsPraha
- Příspěvky: 3959
- Registrován: 05 pro 2013 10:13
- Kontaktovat uživatele:
- Vybavení
Re: MQA
Ne, protože text významově neobsahuje nic na téma MQA není v současnosti jediný online zdroj hi-res audia za pár drobných. Výroková logika prvního stupně základní školy.
Viz text a odkazy výše. Čti pozorněji.
Viz text a odkazy výše. Čti pozorněji.
To, že selektivně "zapomínáš", co bylo uvedeno výše a dokola se toho (nejen v tomhle vlákně) dožaduješ, není problém, vina, neznalost či jakkoliv jinak to nazveš, nikoho druhého. Konik to vystihl.
Re: MQA
Suvislost je, ze pre ekosystem hudobneho priemyslu je MQA nevyvazena a nespravna cesta, t.j. ovela menej ludom to pomoze ako to viac ludi poskodi. Ak sa stale pytas preco, tak by mozno bolo nacase zacat studovat problematiku MQA vid. postnute zhrnujuce clanky vyssie.
Nechap to zle, sam mam ako jediny zdroj hudby TIDAL + MQA napriek tomu to nie je imo spravna cesta..
Nechap to zle, sam mam ako jediny zdroj hudby TIDAL + MQA napriek tomu to nie je imo spravna cesta..
Re: MQA
HW streamer
A sice neviem preco ti to sem kopirujem ked citat vies ale ak uz ani toto nezaberie, tak zrejme nie si dostatocne otvoreny komplexnejsie sa pozriet na problematiku.
1. It adds complexity and cost (unnecessarily):
a. We already have many high-resolution DACs out there. Do we need a new "format" that's not "fully" backward compatible?
b. Only MQA-certified software / hardware available for decoding. This reduces options for consumers and likely always will especially in the audiophile world where small manufacturers may find it hard to justify licensing costs. Furthermore, small independent developers, free software and Linux distributions would not be able to develop for MQA decoding unless under some kind of license. Ultimately this reduces innovation.
c. MQA versions of downloads such as what we see on 2L (US$19 for 24/96, $23 for 24/192, $24 for MQA, and $30 for studio master DXD) often costs more than downsampled very high quality 24/192. Does MQA encoding actually add any value or are we seeing the added licensing fee passed on to consumers? Is there any justification for the existence of MQA for file downloads when we're not faced with the bitrate limitations of streaming over the Internet?
2. Technical concerns:
a. It reduces the actual bitdepth to the aforementioned "typically 15.85 bits" and up to "17-bits" resolution when decoded. These numbers are from Bob Stuart. I know they want us to ignore this and focus on the analogue output rather than care about the digital technical values. We can argue about this of course; but the point is that a resolution limit has been imposed which is lower than standard 24-bit digital audio.
b. Reconstruction of the first unfold into the 24-48kHz audio frequencies is lossy in nature compared to the original. Again, they may argue that there is no audible difference, and yet again, a limitation has been imposed that would not exist with 24/96, much less from a 24/192 source.
c. MQA upsampling is done with "leaky" filters resulting in weak ultrasonic suppression of imaging above Nyquist. Remember that DAC designers can easily program their devices to do this if felt to be preferable for their designs. Also, we as consumers can choose to do this ourselves with software upsampling if we really think this is a good idea (software like HQPlayer perhaps or even SoX).
d. For those who want to do advanced DSP like room correction filters, ambisonic processing (like this one), or surround processing, we cannot have access to the full digital resolution because of the proprietary MQA decode process. (This is a big deal IMO that limits flexibility and progress as we aim for better sound quality for hi-fi enthusiasts.)
e. The MQA system may in fact add group delay and "blur" the audio, worsening the potential for transients to smear due to the fact that they're using non-linear reconstruction filters. Even if this is accounted for in the encoding step, the compensation would distort playback without an MQA decoder/filter. Clearly, a DAC should ideally not use the MQA filter by default except when the data is specifically encoded for this type of playback.
3. Minimal audible difference:
a. Digital subtraction tests show little difference.
b. Blind listening test with 83 listeners show no clear preference. (In fact, in some situations, standard hi-res was preferred.)
c. Inter-DAC comparisons with MQA decoding show no evidence of significant "authentication" of a standard "studio sound" in the analogue output beyond the expected DAC differences.
4. Unclear Digital Rights Management (DRM) implications:
a. Already as in (1), MQA certified products such as an MQA DAC adds expense and there are fewer software playback options. It locks us into a proprietary mechanism right from the start. This is a backward step considering the years of open and free (for consumer) lossless file formats like WAV, FLAC, ALAC, WV, APE, etc...
b. Potential future stronger mechanisms such as encryption or scrambling to enforce playback only with licensed products at the expense of significant sound quality if one does not "buy in". This is not an issue currently if you feel undecoded MQA sounds as good as CD resolution. However, there are hints in the MQA firmware that more severe forms of DRM can be imposed. It doesn't take a genius to see how that MQA "authentication" indicator can be linked to such a mechanism. Do we even need to entertain this possibility as consumers in 2017 after years of rejected attempts at DRM and digital watermarking?
A sice neviem preco ti to sem kopirujem ked citat vies ale ak uz ani toto nezaberie, tak zrejme nie si dostatocne otvoreny komplexnejsie sa pozriet na problematiku.
1. It adds complexity and cost (unnecessarily):
a. We already have many high-resolution DACs out there. Do we need a new "format" that's not "fully" backward compatible?
b. Only MQA-certified software / hardware available for decoding. This reduces options for consumers and likely always will especially in the audiophile world where small manufacturers may find it hard to justify licensing costs. Furthermore, small independent developers, free software and Linux distributions would not be able to develop for MQA decoding unless under some kind of license. Ultimately this reduces innovation.
c. MQA versions of downloads such as what we see on 2L (US$19 for 24/96, $23 for 24/192, $24 for MQA, and $30 for studio master DXD) often costs more than downsampled very high quality 24/192. Does MQA encoding actually add any value or are we seeing the added licensing fee passed on to consumers? Is there any justification for the existence of MQA for file downloads when we're not faced with the bitrate limitations of streaming over the Internet?
2. Technical concerns:
a. It reduces the actual bitdepth to the aforementioned "typically 15.85 bits" and up to "17-bits" resolution when decoded. These numbers are from Bob Stuart. I know they want us to ignore this and focus on the analogue output rather than care about the digital technical values. We can argue about this of course; but the point is that a resolution limit has been imposed which is lower than standard 24-bit digital audio.
b. Reconstruction of the first unfold into the 24-48kHz audio frequencies is lossy in nature compared to the original. Again, they may argue that there is no audible difference, and yet again, a limitation has been imposed that would not exist with 24/96, much less from a 24/192 source.
c. MQA upsampling is done with "leaky" filters resulting in weak ultrasonic suppression of imaging above Nyquist. Remember that DAC designers can easily program their devices to do this if felt to be preferable for their designs. Also, we as consumers can choose to do this ourselves with software upsampling if we really think this is a good idea (software like HQPlayer perhaps or even SoX).
d. For those who want to do advanced DSP like room correction filters, ambisonic processing (like this one), or surround processing, we cannot have access to the full digital resolution because of the proprietary MQA decode process. (This is a big deal IMO that limits flexibility and progress as we aim for better sound quality for hi-fi enthusiasts.)
e. The MQA system may in fact add group delay and "blur" the audio, worsening the potential for transients to smear due to the fact that they're using non-linear reconstruction filters. Even if this is accounted for in the encoding step, the compensation would distort playback without an MQA decoder/filter. Clearly, a DAC should ideally not use the MQA filter by default except when the data is specifically encoded for this type of playback.
3. Minimal audible difference:
a. Digital subtraction tests show little difference.
b. Blind listening test with 83 listeners show no clear preference. (In fact, in some situations, standard hi-res was preferred.)
c. Inter-DAC comparisons with MQA decoding show no evidence of significant "authentication" of a standard "studio sound" in the analogue output beyond the expected DAC differences.
4. Unclear Digital Rights Management (DRM) implications:
a. Already as in (1), MQA certified products such as an MQA DAC adds expense and there are fewer software playback options. It locks us into a proprietary mechanism right from the start. This is a backward step considering the years of open and free (for consumer) lossless file formats like WAV, FLAC, ALAC, WV, APE, etc...
b. Potential future stronger mechanisms such as encryption or scrambling to enforce playback only with licensed products at the expense of significant sound quality if one does not "buy in". This is not an issue currently if you feel undecoded MQA sounds as good as CD resolution. However, there are hints in the MQA firmware that more severe forms of DRM can be imposed. It doesn't take a genius to see how that MQA "authentication" indicator can be linked to such a mechanism. Do we even need to entertain this possibility as consumers in 2017 after years of rejected attempts at DRM and digital watermarking?
-
merhaut
Re: MQA
koniku, ten tebou postnutý elaborát je jen polemickým názorem proti MQA. Plným domněnek, navíc se vymezuje jen proti offline užití MQA, ale budiž. Ani v něm však není nic o tom, že by MQA mělo někoho poškozovat. Koho podle tebe tedy poškozuje MQA?
Jaký hw streamer na Tidal/MQA používáš? Bluesound, Lumin, Meridian, jiný? Já Node 2 od Bluesoundu.
MQA přináší pro držitele autorských práv následující výhody:
- technickou kontrolu nad online distribuovaným produktem (MQA soubory nelze na rozdíl od nekódovaných flaců volně upravovat ani vyrábět)
- společnou online distribuci různých kvalitativních stupňů ukrytých v jednom souboru, s možností navázaného rozčlenění plateb za službu
- přirozenou obranu proti pirátství = proč ukládat na své úložiště něco, co je kdykoliv za pár drobných online k dispozici?
Pro posluchače je u MQA online výhodou:
- vydavatelem autorizovaná zvuková kvalita
- legalita, legitimnost
- online přístup k muzice ve špičkové hires kvalitě kdykoliv a kdekoliv
A že se za to platí a že je nutno koupit hw/sw? NO A CO?!
Jaký hw streamer na Tidal/MQA používáš? Bluesound, Lumin, Meridian, jiný? Já Node 2 od Bluesoundu.
MQA přináší pro držitele autorských práv následující výhody:
- technickou kontrolu nad online distribuovaným produktem (MQA soubory nelze na rozdíl od nekódovaných flaců volně upravovat ani vyrábět)
- společnou online distribuci různých kvalitativních stupňů ukrytých v jednom souboru, s možností navázaného rozčlenění plateb za službu
- přirozenou obranu proti pirátství = proč ukládat na své úložiště něco, co je kdykoliv za pár drobných online k dispozici?
Pro posluchače je u MQA online výhodou:
- vydavatelem autorizovaná zvuková kvalita
- legalita, legitimnost
- online přístup k muzice ve špičkové hires kvalitě kdykoliv a kdekoliv
A že se za to platí a že je nutno koupit hw/sw? NO A CO?!
Kdo je online
Uživatelé prohlížející si toto fórum: Žádní registrovaní uživatelé a 33 hostů
