Why We Don’t Need MQA

[shadders]

Shadders maybe you don't and maybe people can bootleg that section.

Mqa can bring higher quality sound to more people. More people want it easy than not.

So more people do need mqa for that

Hi,

I have done some more searching on MQA negative aspects, and the statement it is better quality is not proven, and the statement it is lossless is not correct either. I would search to try and see all the arguments, pro and against.

MQA Ltd want full control of the entire music system, if you want to play MQA files. It is a proprietary system, which means no one can develop anything for MQA without MQA Ltd input, control and payment to MQA Ltd.

One aspect which may be worth considering, is that when you purchase an Audio/Video amplifier/receiver, you only ever purchase the equipment with the full expectation that you want to use it to decode Dolby or DTS bitstreams.

In the future, you will possibly be buying a DAC that has MQA capability, with absolutely NO intention to play MQA files, yet you are paying the MQA Ltd duty/tax. You could find an alternative DAC, but if you really want the one with MQA capability, then you are paying this tax. Why should you pay this extra cost to support MQA Ltd, with no intention to play the relevant files.

This is why some manufacturers are not providing MQA capability. We need this type of scrutiny to ensure that we do not implement a system without a full understanding of the end results.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[ellisdj]

Thats no different to buying lots of kit with a load of features you may not use. Thats been th case for me for loads of purchases

The price is the price and if you want it you have to buy it even if you dont use all the features.

However if you have the feature you can atleast use it

 

[shadders]

Thats no different to buying lots of kit with a load of features you may not use. Thats been th case for me for loads of purchases

The price is the price and if you want it you have to buy it even if you dont use all the features.

However if you have the feature you can atleast use it

Hi,

No, it is not. Features are provided by the manufacturer at their cost. MQA is provided by the manufacturer at YOUR cost.

If you purchase any piece of equipment with MQA capability, then you will be paying a third party indirectly. If you purchase a television with 3D capability you expect it to be part of the package. You would not expect to be paying Hollywood a fee to have that capability. When you purchase a 3D movie, you pay extra for that movie, so no need to pay Hollywood twice for 3D.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[ellisdj]

Yes but the price for the unit is still the price. So if you want it you have to pay that for it or buy something else or nothing. No guns to anyones head.

I dont care where that money goes and whos pocket it goes in.

At least if its got mqa i can use it. If it doesn't have it no option to.

You use the av receiver example which is a good one. if i bought a unit now I would be paying for atmos and dtsx but i dont have the setup to use it but i would struggle to buy a unit without these options. I would be paying for that privilege still

 

[manicm]

Shadders, all digital audio involves mathematics obviously, but MQA have patented the dithering application in the encoding, and other pending patents in the processing/encoding, so let's disagree and I'll stop here.

Hi,

The dithering is for the implementation of MQA on 16bit CD physical media, or download. That is the coding aspect of MQA.

MQA also provides the reversal of temporal blurring. This is what you CANNOT patent, since this mathematical process is used in many other engineering disciplines. As such, if you know the recording equipment used etc., YOU can do the same as MQA without patent infringement.

You don't need MQA.

Regards,

Shadders.

The dithering is NOT for only 16 bit CD media - it's integral to the 'folding' process - you're simply wrong here.

Read the white paper and others again.

 

[shadders]

Yes but the price for the unit is still the price. So if you want it you have to pay that for it or buy something else or nothing. No guns to anyones head.

I dont care where that money goes and whos pocket it goes in.

At least if its got mqa i can use it. If it doesn't have it no option to.

You use the av receiver example which is a good one. if i bought a unit now I would be paying for atmos and dtsx but i dont have the setup to use it but i would struggle to buy a unit without these options. I would be paying for that privilege still

Hi,

Yes, but when you purchase an A/V receiver you are purchasing it exactly for that, Dolby or DTS, whatever the version. You are expecting to pay for the decoding capability. It is possible that Dolby or DTS do not charge extra for their latest versions.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[shadders]

Shadders, all digital audio involves mathematics obviously, but MQA have patented the dithering application in the encoding, and other pending patents in the processing/encoding, so let's disagree and I'll stop here.

Hi,

The dithering is for the implementation of MQA on 16bit CD physical media, or download. That is the coding aspect of MQA.

MQA also provides the reversal of temporal blurring. This is what you CANNOT patent, since this mathematical process is used in many other engineering disciplines. As such, if you know the recording equipment used etc., YOU can do the same as MQA without patent infringement.

You don't need MQA.

Regards,

Shadders.

The dithering is NOT for only 16 bit CD media - it's integral to the 'folding' process - you're simply wrong here.

Read the white paper and others again.

Hi,

There is no folding in the high resolution version of MQA.

Where in the white paper does it state that folding is used in the high resolution version

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[manicm]

Shadders, all digital audio involves mathematics obviously, but MQA have patented the dithering application in the encoding, and other pending patents in the processing/encoding, so let's disagree and I'll stop here.

Hi,

The dithering is for the implementation of MQA on 16bit CD physical media, or download. That is the coding aspect of MQA.

MQA also provides the reversal of temporal blurring. This is what you CANNOT patent, since this mathematical process is used in many other engineering disciplines. As such, if you know the recording equipment used etc., YOU can do the same as MQA without patent infringement.

You don't need MQA.

Regards,

Shadders.

The dithering is NOT for only 16 bit CD media - it's integral to the 'folding' process - you're simply wrong here.

Read the white paper and others again.

Hi,

There is no folding in the high resolution version of MQA.

Where in the white paper does it state that folding is used in the high resolution version

Regards,

Shadders.

Please go to the MQA website. Folding is ALWAYS done, regardless of the master.

 

[shadders]

Shadders, all digital audio involves mathematics obviously, but MQA have patented the dithering application in the encoding, and other pending patents in the processing/encoding, so let's disagree and I'll stop here.

Hi,

The dithering is for the implementation of MQA on 16bit CD physical media, or download. That is the coding aspect of MQA.

MQA also provides the reversal of temporal blurring. This is what you CANNOT patent, since this mathematical process is used in many other engineering disciplines. As such, if you know the recording equipment used etc., YOU can do the same as MQA without patent infringement.

You don't need MQA.

Regards,

Shadders.

The dithering is NOT for only 16 bit CD media - it's integral to the 'folding' process - you're simply wrong here.

Read the white paper and others again.

Hi,

There is no folding in the high resolution version of MQA.

Where in the white paper does it state that folding is used in the high resolution version

Regards,

Shadders.

Please go to the MQA website. Folding is ALWAYS done, regardless of the master.

Hi,

I checked the website, and it does state folding, but, it does not state explicitly that the high resolution version folds the >20kHz information as a dithered signal.

With the CD version, the higher frequencies are folded into the baseband signal of the 20kHz bandwidth and encoded using the 3 LSB's by using dithering techniques. It is possible, that the downloading is exactly this format/encapsulation too. That is, there is only one file size, which is a similar size to a CD file.

My point has always been, I would never want a CD in this format. I will never want the 3 LSB's used for any information other than the original CD specification data.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[ellisdj]

Its possible but i doubt it. I dare say either their licensing fees have increased and they are adding value to it or they charge for the new formats.

Look at dolby vision an end to end solution where dolby will be paid at every stage. Very similar to mqa yet people in av will lap it up and pay more if they get better quality visuals. Noone is complaining about dolby and any extra being charged by manufactures to have it in their kit.

 

[shadders]

Its possible but i doubt it. I dare say either their licensing fees have increased and they are adding value to it or they charge for the new formats.

Look at dolby vision an end to end solution where dolby will be paid at every stage. Very similar to mqa yet people in av will lap it up and pay more if they get better quality visuals. Noone is complaining about dolby and any extra being charged by manufactures to have it in their kit.

Hi,

You are missing the point. If you want a specific DAC, that has MQA, you have no option but to pay MQA Ltd indirectly, for something you will never need or wanted.

When you buy an AVR, you are buying because you WANT the capability of Dolby or DTS. The extra charges you are willingly paying, because that is what you want. Else you would buy a 2 channel hifi amplifier.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[ellisdj]

Shadders its exactly the same

When you buy an av receiver now you are paying for atmos and dtsx decoding and you may not use that - but you are paying for it. You have the option to buy something else or buy nothing - no gun to anyones head. The price is the price

When you audition / demo a dac you will listen to it and if you like it buy it, if not you dont.

Noone is going to say oh no I am not buying this because £50 of the rrp is going to MQA so I am not buying it because of that - come off it. They will buy it because they like it.

I think the opposite will be true - wow this is a bonus I can now listen to MQA files sounding their best for my money so that is an extra on top of the purchase.

Its up to the manufacturer to price the product accordingly and if it delivers the sonic goods noone is going to quibble the price.

 

[shadders]

Shadders its exactly the same

When you buy an av receiver now you are paying for atmos and dtsx decoding and you may not use that - but you are paying for it. You have the option to buy something else or buy nothing - no gun to anyones head. The price is the price

When you audition / demo a dac you will listen to it and if you like it buy it, if not you dont.

Noone is going to say oh no I am not buying this because £50 of the rrp is going to MQA so I am not buying it because of that - come off it. They will buy it because they like it.

I think the opposite will be true - wow this is a bonus I can now listen to MQA files sounding their best for my money so that is an extra on top of the purchase.

Its up to the manufacturer to price the product accordingly and if it delivers the sonic goods noone is going to quibble the price.

Hi,

No, it is exactly the opposite. You buy an AVR because you want Dolby/DTS.

You should not be forced to pay the MQA Ltd tax for a feature you don't want.

Maybe this is why many manufacturers are NOT supporting or will be providing MQA capable DAC's.

On another note, would you accept a free operating system on your PC if it meant that the PC was sending your personal details, file names, keystrokes (hence passwords), and the capability for a person to remotely access your PC without your knowledge or agreement? Sell some of this information to other businesses etc. Would your approach be, that is ok, as it is free?

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[ellisdj]

Shadders its exactly the same - I want a 5.1 channel receiver - yet 99% of the market comes with atmos and dts x - they are not free they are part of the package that makes up the price. I have to pay for them even though I wont use them - do I care NO

If I want the dac that happens to have MQA in it then I have 2 choices buy it or dont buy it - the price is the price - it doesnt matter what I get included as features that I may or may not use - the price for the unit is exactly that and if I want it I have to pay it or buy something else - or dont buy. That choice remains, no gun to anyones head ever in this regard.

In fact you can look at it the other way around - I am getting more for money just like DSD support etc - more options of higher quality content to listen to for my money.

As the future is more than likely going to end up heavily streaming orientated then for the majority of music styles that are not classical or jazz if I can get it in MQA then its likely going to sound better than the normal streaming CD quality option - so I am getting better sound for more music content for my money - both in streaming subscription and dac cost.

So I am actually up and not down as a consumer - so I am actually a happier consumer - that will be the opinion for 95% of people Shadders - very small minority look at it like you I would say

If you are trying to look at it from the manufacturer point of view with all the spiel about handing over data - then should you be putting that in this forum ? - we are consumers not manufacturers ?

 

[ellisdj]

Lets look at this scenario

2 Dacs for £500 are demo'd

They both sound similar to the consumer he likes both - both similar feature set yet.

1 has MQA support the other doesnt - what one is the person going to buy? - No Brainer so some of that sale goes to MQA however that sale was made for the manufacturer thanks to MQA so their 3rd Party cut was earned there alone.

Everyone is happy

 

[ellisdj]

Lets look at this scenario

2 Dacs for £500 are demo'd

They both sound similar to the consumer he likes both - both similar feature set yet.

1 has MQA support the other doesnt - what one is the person going to buy? - No Brainer so some of that sale goes to MQA however that sale was made for the manufacturer thanks to MQA so their 3rd Party cut was earned there alone.

Everyone is happy

 

[shadders]

Shadders its exactly the same - I want a 5.1 channel receiver - yet 99% of the market comes with atmos and dts x - they are not free they are part of the package that makes up the price. I have to pay for them even though I wont use them - do I care NO

If I want the dac that happens to have MQA in it then I have 2 choices buy it or dont buy it - the price is the price - it doesnt matter what I get included as features that I may or may not use - the price for the unit is exactly that and if I want it I have to pay it or buy something else - or dont buy. That choice remains, no gun to anyones head ever in this regard.

In fact you can look at it the other way around - I am getting more for money just like DSD support etc - more options of higher quality content to listen to for my money.

As the future is more than likely going to end up heavily streaming orientated then for the majority of music styles that are not classical or jazz if I can get it in MQA then its likely going to sound better than the normal streaming CD quality option - so I am getting better sound for more music content for my money - both in streaming subscription and dac cost.

So I am actually up and not down as a consumer - so I am actually a happier consumer - that will be the opinion for 95% of people Shadders - very small minority look at it like you I would say

If you are trying to look at it from the manufacturer point of view with all the spiel about handing over data - then should you be putting that in this forum ? - we are consumers not manufacturers ?

Hi,

I agree with the final decision which is either you buy it, or don't buy it. That decision will be determined based partly on whether you want to pay for features you don't want. With DSD, there are CD players that cost more with this capability, from the same manufacturer.

You still purchase an AVR because you want Dolby/DTS, whatever the version, and you are still paying for that capability. This is not the same for DAC's.

On the operating system question, it was a general question, not related to DAC's. Not sure why that question is not allowed on this forum.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[abacus]

Currently most discs/files are designed to give a good performance on any type of equipment, however if you want the original master, you must buy another Hi-Res file. (Plus, some shady manufactures/dealers are just converting the standard files to Hi-res, which means no improvement, despite paying more)



MQA allows a single file to carry both, thus keeping most typical users happy, and allowing Hi-Fi enthusiasts to have the full Hi-res experience for no extra cost, providing they have an MQA compatible product. (In most cases MQA can be added via a firmware update (Assuming the hardware can be updated) just like it was with DTS-X) MQA also solves the problem of unscrupulous manufactures/dealers, as the master is authenticated by the studio, not by a 3rd party.



Yes, there are other ways to achieve the same results, however to be acceptable to the masses, it requires a single standard, (Unless you wish another format war) which MQA provides.



Bill

 

[ellisdj]

It is the same Shadders because you buy the DAC for its sound and maybe the features you do want same as I want this sound quality from an av receiver but just in 5.1 - if it has other features as well then they are a bonus to the consumer imo - never thought of as a reason the product should be cheaper. We all want it cheaper all the time but we dont get it and are happy to pay for what we deem worth it

 

[ellisdj]

Good post Bill and we should get that for all music styles - not just classical and jazz - that is the best bit about it because I dont want to listen to jazz and classical I want Ed Sheeran and One Direction at that quality - just as an example

 

[shadders]

Currently most discs/files are designed to give a good performance on any type of equipment, however if you want the original master, you must buy another Hi-Res file. (Plus, some shady manufactures/dealers are just converting the standard files to Hi-res, which means no improvement, despite paying more)

MQA allows a single file to carry both, thus keeping most typical users happy, and allowing Hi-Fi enthusiasts to have the full Hi-res experience for no extra cost, providing they have an MQA compatible product. (In most cases MQA can be added via a firmware update (Assuming the hardware can be updated) just like it was with DTS-X) MQA also solves the problem of unscrupulous manufactures/dealers, as the master is authenticated by the studio, not by a 3rd party.

Yes, there are other ways to achieve the same results, however to be acceptable to the masses, it requires a single standard, (Unless you wish another format war) which MQA provides.

Bill

Hi,

MQA is a proprietary standard. You will not be able to update DAC's as you have stated, as they will not have the inherent programmability, which will be a processor, or FPGA. Some DAC's may have the relevant power, but it will be a new design for many manufacturers.

Any progress in audio should be an open standard, where there is no requirement for patent fees, so anyone can provide a high resolution capability in their designs, or on a PC.

You DO NOT get the original master, you receive a lossy coded interpretation of the master. If you examine the Benchmark manufacturer website, you will see the diagrams from the patent, which shows that the 24bit sample is reduced toma 17bit sample, so you are NOT getting the 24bit sample as per the master.

We already have sufficient formats for high resolution. If you receive an upsampled /resampled high resolution download, then you can always check using Audacity, and complain to the trading standards. Not optimal, but you have a process for redress. Hifi News analyses downloads, so another avenue for determining if the high resolution file is exactly that.

The hifi press could be a bit more vocal on this too, supporting hifi buffs, and shaming those vendors that provide false downloads.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Frank Harvey]

You DO NOT get the original master, you receive a lossy coded interpretation of the master.

Is it better to get a slightly lossy (not to MP3 extent, obviously) direct copy of the original (genuine) master, or a lossless copy of a master that either isn't authorised (and so could differ quite a bit from the original) or could sound naff?

 

[shadders]

You DO NOT get the original master, you receive a lossy coded interpretation of the master.

Is it better to get a slightly lossy (not to MP3 extent, obviously) direct copy of the original (genuine) master, or a lossless copy of a master that either isn't authorised (and so could differ quite a bit from the original) or could sound naff?

Hi,

Not sure that is acceptable. A lossy file derived from a master, just because you may receive an upsampled/resampled version from a dodgy vendor. Why should the recording industry need MQA to ensure that a file is derived from a master. They already control the DVDA or DSD production, so just make sure that is right. Why require an external company to provide provenance?

Unless there is another reason we are not aware of at the moment.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Al ears]

You DO NOT get the original master, you receive a lossy coded interpretation of the master.

Is it better to get a slightly lossy (not to MP3 extent, obviously) direct copy of the original (genuine) master, or a lossless copy of a master that either isn't authorised (and so could differ quite a bit from the original) or could sound naff?

Hi,

Not sure that is acceptable. A lossy file derived from a master, just because you may receive an upsampled/resampled version from a dodgy vendor. Why should the recording industry need MQA to ensure that a file is derived from a master. They already control the DVDA or DSD production, so just make sure that is right. Why require an external company to provide provenance?

Unless there is another reason we are not aware of at the moment.

Regards,

Shadders.

I agree it's a bit difficult to see exactly what Meridians plans are for MQA ultimately and the need to acquire extra hardware to hear these files as they should be heard can only end up going one way in my opinion.

Perhaps next time I cam in the market for a new DAC I might get one with MQA functionality but that's not going to be for a good while.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Not sure that is acceptable. A lossy file derived from a master, just because you may receive an upsampled/resampled version from a dodgy vendor. Why should the recording industry need MQA to ensure that a file is derived from a master. They already control the DVDA or DSD production, so just make sure that is right. Why require an external company to provide provenance?

Unless there is another reason we are not aware of at the moment.

Regards,

Shadders.

I fully agree. But, we are at a point where there seem to be numerous masters around for any given album, and albums are being "remastered" by making them louder via compression, along with increased higher frequencies. If all is true about MQA, I'd rather trust MQA. Certainly my comparison of The Doors' L.A. Woman album came out in favour of the MQA version with regards to hearing things I couldn't quite make out on the 24/96 remaster. Plus, most of the rockier (noisier) albums seem to be better baalnced, being able to hear everything more equally, rather than only hearing the dominating aspects of the music. There's been a few albums where I've heard stuff I've never heard before. More of this please, regardless of how we get it!