Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About davewantsmoore

  • Rank
    Log! It's big, it's heavy, it's wood.
  • Birthday October 16

Profile Fields

  • Location
  • Country
  1. Sharing/ selling music on file.

    People have the right to sell their property to other people. It would not be a good thing for "the rights of artists" to take that away. Where would it end? I have a nice wooden dining table... but I don't want it anymore (I've renovated and it doesn't fit anymore). Can I sell it to you? .... No. You must buy a brand new one, because the artist "has the right" to make a new sale ?!?
  2. Sharing/ selling music on file.

    You can lend a CD to someone. I'd be pretty sure that if the HDD containing your music was the only copy you possessed, then you could lend it too. How could you be sure a copy wasn't made while it was loaned out?! :-s At any scale, even a mixtape for a friend, it's a breach of Australian copyright law. From a moral perspective... then scale seems pretty relevant to most people It's perfectly legal to sell an (original) CD or record to someone. The law prevents copies/duplicates.

    Scary stuff. Thanks Marc.
  4. From the link: 382.8/24 as FLAC = 69MB 382.8/24 resampled to 44.1/24 FLAC = 14MB 382.8/24 encoded with MQA to 44.1 FLAC = 16MB MQA is 2MB bigger, because it's noise floor compresses less (because that's where MQA stores it data) Jussi then says that to encode the original, you need ~120/18, and the FLAC encoding is 13MB. (3MB smaller than the MQA encoded file). This would require a resample at playback. HQPlayer and MQA can do that without penalty, but most other players/DACs would not.
  5. Did you misread #2? There IS a purpose to having those high sampling rates (time precision) .... just no point in pumping out sound waves that oscillate faster than you can hear. Which is why for example, some roll off, or noise in the reconstructed audio at > 20khz is no issue.
  6. However. Jussi is is spot on about one big thing. FLAC is a perfectly reasonable alternative to all of this from the perspective of data rates. FLAC doesn't satisfy the use case of avoiding a (potential) resampling at playback, where the DAC doesn't support the specific rate... or where the DAC chooses to resample internally. ie. MQA say they can do a better job of rendering the audio, than you DAC can do resampling to it's preffered rate. MQA contend that this resampling harms the audio. Is this use case by MQA contentious?! I think so - others do not.
  7. Archimago blog on MQA (guess what, he's not a fan )

    I believe that MQA has benefits .... which is why people trying to poke holes in those are heading down the wrong path. The vast vast majority of people will not care... and of the small group of people who do matter (eg. the recording industry, etc.... it can be demonstrated to them how the claims of "false benefits" are actually flawed). .... but they've done what any other (un?!) reasonable corporation would do. They've offered their benefits in a way which has the potential to maximise their power (and hence ability to extract long term profits) over the industry.
  8. Yes, but it is a v. complicated discussion. This post essentially has it. https://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/entry/466-some-analysis-and-comparison-of-mqa-encoded-flac-vs-normal-optimized-hires-flac/?tab=comments#comment-1554 MQA rely on a couple of things with what they are doing: 1) The noise floor is not audible. Replacing it with dither is ok. Audio does not require high bit rates to sounds good. For example, the coment from 2L themselves about the recordings used as some of the MQA demos, which was that 14bit was they highest amount of dynamic range (content above the noise) that they had ever been able to present on a recording in practise (this is more than 84dB above the noise floor of the recording environment) 2) Frequencies above ~20khz are not audible.... but there is a purpose to having them available in reconstructing the data in the audible range. Actual SPL at >~20khz is inaudible. If people don't agree with these things (especially 1), then they will not like the idea of MQA.
  9. The author is incorrect to infer that the "deblurring" feature is somehow related to, or undoes the "MQA compression" (ie. representing everything above a certain sample rate in an encoded form ... and using the noise floor to repsent that data) MQA "deblurring" does not do anything to undo "MQA compression". Nothing. It seems the claims of "lossy" are made mostly by people who don't understand well what is going on.... and are treating lossless and lossy as almost a binary, black/white thing. Rather than considerig MQA compression (in isolation from all the "benefits" the claim to bring, like "deblurring") to being even close to audible.... I'd consider that the output of an MQA decoder IS effectly the identical article to what is in the studio vault. One intersting thing here is, also that while sighted/placebo can markedly help MQA (I'm expedcting an improvement) .... the fear of "lossy" can also run the other way for them (I'm expecting this to sound bad).
  10. THIS. MQAs biggest marketing hurdle right now, are people who are claiming the "format is not lossless". Lossless is very strong word. Any "loss" by definition means "not lossless". However.... most people who are claiming that "MQA is not lossless" are IMVHO misguided. There's no loss worth any attention.... and if we "ague against MQA" based just on this "I don't want lossy", then a bigger picture is potentially being missed. You seem to have misunderstood. Distribute lossless music using less bandwidth. Allow the capabilities of different players (eg. 16/44, 24/96, 24/386, etc.) be met, without resampling the audio at playback (eg. if your content is 24/192, but you DAC only does 24/48, there is no (traditional) "resample" at playback to take the 192 -> 48. To authenticate the "authenticity" of the content you are playing, by using encryption. (ie. you know the content hasn't "changed" since it left the studio) Potentially many other things which the MQA system allows, which they haven't discussed openly yet.
  11. Archimago blog on MQA (guess what, he's not a fan )

    Of course ... on a decade by decade scale, ALL recording and playback formats have got better..... If you look at (some parts of) both the bottom end, and the top end of the market, the improvements are drastic.
  12. Archimago blog on MQA (guess what, he's not a fan )

    Yes ... but also the point was the you would get CD-quality (or improvements on CD quality) without a decoder. This is one of the very real and important dangers of MQA. That the control that the system offers will be used to intentionally degrade quality when a decoder is not used. (I'm talking about drastic and intentional changes in quality in the future, as opposed to right now). There are lot of problems for anything to achieve market dominance.... but that is their goal. It seems shaky at the moment. As as far as it's potential?! .... The system certainly offers the ability to deliver very attractive features/experience.... and if they play their cards right, consumers could find it really really valuable .... but this unlimited control, can also be used for 'evil'
  13. Archimago blog on MQA (guess what, he's not a fan )

    Serious? Becasue eventually everything might be encoded with MQA.... and people may always/sometimes want to listen without a decoder. When I tried, I was unable to pick any difference between the CD rip, and the MQA played without a decoder ... I wasn't surprised. I would have been surprised if MQA sounded worse. I would have been not surprised, but typically-suspicious if MQA sounded better. There's a lot of people (eg. the blog this thread refers to) bellyaching about what MQA "looks like"... A rmpfyf has alluded to, the practical reality of this is a lot more complex, than many who people commenting "unacceptable" seem to appreciate .... and the fact that the measurements show the things they do isn't surprising.