- Jul 1, 2005
Again it was not the flac file that was sold for money, it was the music. You are trying to make it like you are paying for the milk jug to get the milk when in reality you are paying for the milk. There are no licenses for flac. It is a free codec.That does not change the fact that a FLAC file was exchanged for money/profit. Or does twisting oneself into a pretzel really help? Okay, straight from XIPH's own LICENSE page "The FLAC and Ogg FLAC formats themselves, and their specifications, are fully open to the public to be used for any purpose..." What authority are you citing for your interpreation?
And no you don't need to purchase a product to decode MQA files (if that is the nexus you are trying to draw to the violation of the spirit of FLAC that is floating around in your head). As pointed out to me, they come in a FLAC file. Okay to indulge, I got a MQA track. Played it via JRiver through four different DAC's and a ten year old DAP. None of which are MQA compliant. The track played fine. I didn't need to buy any new equipment did I? It played the FLAC layer (I don't know the properly terminology), just not with whatever special MQA sauce was supposed to be there. As per MQA's own site: "MQA will play back on any device to deliver higher than CD-quality. When paired with an MQA decoder, the MQA file reveals the original master recording".
Yes to use mqa properly you have to purchase mqa certified equipment. They even state that without the proper equipment the quality is not as good and not fully unfolded. And mqa is not better than cd as it adds noise and is a lossy format. Mqa refuses to prove any of their claims. When many people refute their claims they call names and say nah uhh its better trust me, I don't have to prove what I say. It's just like any other snake oil out there and placebo. They can not back up their claims with science and refuse to as ir would prove what everyone else is stating and has shown.