Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › MQA: Revolutionary British streaming technology
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MQA: Revolutionary British streaming technology - Page 68

post #1006 of 1012
Quote:
Originally Posted by LajostheHun View Post


HDMI or anything like it was necessary for MCH audio transmission. SPDIF was not capable for that by design. Sure they could have updated it, but the goal was to reduce cable counts and simplify things with video in the same stream if needed. Yes copy protection was a big part of it and they have a designation abbreviation for it too.[ HDCP] however it is not exactly hidden from the public. HDMI specs are moving target since the constant change in need for transmission, mostly of the video side of things. For audio HDMI 1.4 is all one need probably even lower 1.2a. unless you have some crazy 32/384 or larger files to play.

Yes, that's the "Kool-aid" line.  We "needed it" for the bandwidth, and we "needed it" for the single-cable solution.

 

No, we didn't.  

 

At the time of HDMI's inception there were already two viable single-cable solutions that could have been further developed, and actually have been:  IEEE-1394 (Firewire), and SDI.  Since then, both have progressed too, and now HD-SDI can interface with HDMI and handle 4K and all the audio formats just fine, but with a single 75 ohm coax that is easily field-terminated with BNC connectors, and has far better maximum length capability. IEEE-1394 is a data transmission method, and support multiple chained devices.  Neither was considered for the consumer "single cable" solution because neither has built-in handshaking for copy protection.  HDCP answered that need for content creators, which was key to having the whole consumer HD video thing work.  No studio wanted consumers to be able to get a studio-quality digital copy of their content for free.  Of course, that's stupid.  It's already a moot point, and easily circumvented.  Its Spy VS Spy.  The Spy lost. 

 

Since then, we got DisplayPort, a rather thought-out but ill-fated single-cable solution.   You know what one of the primary differences between HDMI and DisplayPort is?  HDMI comes with a recurring and per-unit licensing fee.  

 

Sound familiar?  

 

And, of course, DisplayPort was late to the table, late always looses.  But don't anyone think that HDMI was a necessary solution.  I was an agreement between content owners and hardware manufacturers to block consumer copying, first, foremost, and fundamentally.  It's badly engineered, suffers from mechanical issues, electrical issues, length limits, and is not field-terminatable.

 

Everything else about HDMI was already covered by the existing tech, or could be with very little effort. 

 

Now parallel that with MQA.  See what I mean?

post #1007 of 1012
Your point is taken but try not to simplify mine as "kool aid" mad.gif

Yes I'm aware of other options that was either used on PCs or pro gears but not on consumer devices. Sure the copy protection was why they were never considered, but I'm afraid that train has left the station a long time ago.


MQA is not present on any physical media presented to the public, but I certainly see where you are going with this, but like I've said the public ignores the "revolution" of HR audio, and until the labels decide to scrap all current standards there is no reason to raise the flag just yet.
post #1008 of 1012
Quote:
Originally Posted by LajostheHun View Post

Your point is taken but try not to simplify mine as "kool aid" mad.gif

I used the label because that's the position presented to the "public", and pretty much everyone accepted it blindly. It's just simply not the true story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LajostheHun View Post
Yes I'm aware of other options that was either used on PCs or pro gears but not on consumer devices. Sure the copy protection was why they were never considered, but I'm afraid that train has left the station a long time ago.

True, of course, copy protection could certainly have been accomplished with any existing technology, they didn't need to invent a new one. My point is: A technology was forced on the public, it was unnecessary, and the benefits were not in the public's favor. And MQA, while not an exact parallel, is at least running on a parallel track, and that train is now boarding...fast.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LajostheHun View Post


MQA is not present on any physical media presented to the public, but I certainly see where you are going with this, but like I've said the public ignores the "revolution" of HR audio, and until the labels decide to scrap all current standards there is no reason to raise the flag just yet.

Right, but go one step farther. The two primary road-blocks to HR audio's market penetration are: clear and unmistakable benefit (full market penetration can only be achieved with product or service with a 5-10-fold percieved improvement over the existing product/service), and actual, real, HR content (for practical purposes, non-existent, and up-sampling doesn't count).

 

Transmission of HR...that's already done, and MQA isn't required to accomplish it.  

 

MQA is presented as a benefit to consumers (spun as miraculous, but in reality, unconfirmed, and frankly, dubious at best), and is a financial benefit to one primary party, many secondary parties (content providers get to charge more/again for their entire library), but no clear benefit the ones actually paying for it.  Let just hope we still get a choice.

post #1009 of 1012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gringo View Post
 

I'm not convinced that the general public simply does not care about sound quality but rather most have not got a clue what it is and regard people who bang on about audiophile stuff as just a bunch of nerds.  I think the public at large need educating and need to throw away their Apple ear buds and understand that Beats are not the state of art as far as headphones are concerned but then that's just my opinion.

 

 

I'm not convinced that the general public doesn't inadvertently have it right.  The majority of people around me stream music from Pandora or some other free or cheap streaming service over Bluetooth in their cars and via a web browser in the office on Friday afternoons using a pair of headphones that certainly cost well under $300, if not $30. When they go home, their neat little Amazon Echo they got this holiday season will play their favorite songs in the kitchen, too, while they are making dinner.  They think it is the bee's knees and it sounds fantastic.  This the general public.  Ask any of them about MQA.  Good luck educating them.  

 

From what I've discovered, it seems that the audiophiles are the ones that need to be educated.

post #1010 of 1012
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonitus mirus View Post
 

 

I'm not convinced that the general public doesn't inadvertently have it right.  The majority of people around me stream music from Pandora or some other free or cheap streaming service over Bluetooth in their cars and via a web browser in the office on Friday afternoons using a pair of headphones that certainly cost well under $300, if not $30. When they go home, their neat little Amazon Echo they got this holiday season will play their favorite songs in the kitchen, too, while they are making dinner.  They think it is the bee's knees and it sounds fantastic.  This the general public.  Ask any of them about MQA.  Good luck educating them.  

 

From what I've discovered, it seems that the audiophiles are the ones that need to be educated.


​They have it right as regards value for money, for very little they get a great deal.  Right as regards to sound quality that is something quite different. My comment about educating was not in respect of MQA but of high quality audio in general. Whether the general public themselves want to be educated is also very debatable.  As regard to MQA, as far as I am aware, they don't advertise to the general public so of course they no zilch about it.

post #1011 of 1012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gringo View Post
 

[1] This means logically the earlier claims that it would be dead on arrival have been proved to be premature and therefor been found to be incorrect.  How long MQA lasts is a completely different thing which no one knows and we are all free to speculate.

[2] As I now almost exclusively stream music, I can say that to my ears MQA music files, (that I have listened to on my non MQA rig), certainly don't seem inferior to other offerings that Tidal provides and [3] has not cost me a penny piece more.

[3a] I'm still on the fence awaiting the chance to do some extended MQA enabled listening tests before I make my mind up as to whether I will reach for my wallet or not.

 

1. I can't remember if I was one of those who predicted DOA. My main focus has been that MQA appears to offer the consumer nothing, what has existed for many years already offers higher SQ and reduced file sizes. However, history has already famously demonstrated that higher quality does not necessarily win out (betamax vs vhs).

 

2. And so it shouldn't. And, it certainly shouldn't seem superior either or rather, seem superior to what Tidal could have chosen. However, whether it does will depend on how rigorous your listening tests or how well your biases have been manipulated by the marketing. In theory, MQA should never sound inferior compared to HD lossless as everything MQA is discarding is inaudible anyway.

 

3. Yet!!

3a. If you do "reach for your wallet" then obviously MQA will have cost you. Furthermore, the content itself will eventually cost you too, one way or another: Either directly, in terms of eventually higher cost for MQA material or indirectly in terms of the cost being recouped from other parts of the chain, such as from the fees to artists, recording studios, etc. Most likely, eventually it will cost you both ways!

 

G

post #1012 of 1012


Hmm, not sure I get this it will cost you? It is the same fee on Tidal as any hifi account.

 

Next point, have any of the detractors heard MQA v other high res formats to compare?

 

Historically getting access to HD files is / was currently cost prohibitive and a bit of a joke IMO. And I am convinced some were never actually high res originals to start with. MQA is trying to link the integrity of the source master through to the supply of that file, trying to avoid any degradation and trashing of the data and quality.

 

In Tidal, if you can select MP3 for your mobile device, and Masters for your home system, what is the problem?

 

Lets face it, when is there ever a free lunch in music formats, the chaos of SACHs, DSD, HD Masters. IMO about time someone took it on.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › MQA: Revolutionary British streaming technology