Don Hills Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Thanks. I tried to explain this here too before. Streaming and DRM doesn't make any sense at all. DRM only makes sense in downloads and physical media! Streaming and DRM makes perfect sense to me... For example, content over HDMI is "streaming", and it has DRM in the form of HDCP. "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 I think you misunderstand this point. Tidal is streaming MQA now. There is no DRM involved there, because it doesn't make sense. MQA is being accused here of having DRM, but until now you can only use it as a Tidal stream. The point is, HDMI was designed with DRM capability. The DRM has the ability to reduce the resolution of the video if the receiving device isn't "authenticated". Doesn't that sound very much like MQA? Now note that DRM wasn't applied to HDMI at first but now that HDMI is the default format, HDCP is increasingly becoming enabled. "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Not at all. I am really, really stupid. There could be some truth in that. You're here, for a start. :-) "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 ... It seems to me that some amount of the concern here is that MQA will be the *only* choice. I am saying, based on what I know to be true, this is not the case. What's your opinion on whether it should ever be allowed to happen? "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 ... My favorites are the guys who are still stewing over a 4+ year-old review of Ethernet cables. ... Ask yourself something -- you are still concerned with and thinking about a 4+ year-old review of Ethernet cables. How meaningful is your life? ... The Ethernet review matters, to me at least. I include your Ethernet cable review as part of the opinion I've formed of you. (Not, of course that you should care what I think of you.) I weigh everything you say against what you've said in the past, and how accurate or truthful it has proven to be. "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 If I understand your question correctly as - should MQA be *allowed* to become the only choice - my answer is absolutely not. I do take issue with "allowed" because i do not understand the practical implications of that statement. You understood me correctly. Thanks for the answer. I could have left out the word "allowed". "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Thank you. In terms of "accurate or truthful", how would you gauge what I've written in these terms? If you mean what you've written in this thread, I think you've generally been true to form. There were a couple of things that stood out, I marked them "like" or "dislike" as appropriate. "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to reviews I've written. It wasn't clear what you were referring to. "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 ... Anybody heard any good tunes on MQA? You know, music. That's why we are here, right? If you mean here as in this thread, you're wrong. It's not what this thread was created to discuss. A lot of the discord that you decry in the rest of your post would be avoided if people would stick to topic. Yeah, like that's ever likely to happen... "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 No, I was tell you my view changed. I never meant to imply that anyone else's views had changed. How to I know what other people think. Your writing skills appear to have undergone a 180 degree change... :-) "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 Very true. I started to realize it was more important to type fast than it was to think or check for typos. In my opinion, placing priority on speed over thinking is a mistake made by too many here. "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Dynamic range compression is an artistic decision made by people involved in the creation of the art (music). Musician, singer, producer, mastering engineer, label head, etc... all factor in. The only way to change this is to get people to want to change their art. I would never tell a painter to use different colors because some people who are color blind can't see the entire painting. The tail shouldn't wag the dog. I'd love it if all albums had huge dynamic range and were recorded using best practices, but I also don't want to impede on the artistic process. I don't buy it. Literally. Overcompression isn't going to go away until people stop buying overcompressed music. There are various ways to work towards this, but it's a whole new thread. "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 ... I didn't even have to pass any kind of minimal competency evaluation. If you've half a mind to post in this thread, that's all you need. "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 8 hours ago, Ralf11 said: ... To be honest, Porsche doesn't really mean anything, except to a hugely small () segment of the population. Most people today seem quite happy with their crummy fat SUVs ... (cough) Cayenne. (/cough) "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 21 hours ago, mansr said: Most likely, these CDs are simply the usual MQA data with the low 8 bits removed. These bits contain the compressed high frequencies while the 9th bit, which becomes the LSB in 16-bit format, carries the authentication signatures and some kind of peak extension data (similar to HDCD). If the patents are any indication, they lossy compress the information above 22 KHz and store it in the lowest 3 of the 16 bits. So an undecoded MQA CD is 13/44.1 audio - OK for modern overcompressed music, not so good for orchestral. "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 3 hours ago, Sal1950 said: First MP3, next MQA Gizmodo reported yesterday that Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits IIS, developer of the MP3 audio data-compression system, has terminated the licensing program that allows companies to create MP3 encoders and decoders. ... This is another example of misdirection, akin to MQA's marketing. What has really happened is that the patents for MP3 have expired, so you no longer need to purchase a license. Instead, Fraunhofer would like you to purchase a license for AAC, for which the patents are still current. So far from being "the death of MP3", it heralds a new beginning... fung0 1 "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 9 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said: Got it. MQA does not prevent piracy, and it contains no mechanism for tracing illegal copies back to their bootleg sources, as far as any public explantanations to date of MQA technology are concerned. ... I believe it does contain such a mechanism, according to Mansr's analysis of the control bitstream. "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 6 hours ago, mansr said: Maybe some of them see the downsides. Linn certainly seems to. Unlike the majors, Linn cares about audio quality. Teresa 1 "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said: ... Sorry, I find that particular analysis agenda driven and speculative rather than factual. ... Sticking to the facts: - The control stream contains metadata fields which can be used for origin identification / fingerprinting. - The option exists to encrypt some of the data stream to further reduce the quality of non-decoded playback. You can come to your own conclusions as to the scenarios where these capabilities might be used. "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 4 hours ago, lucretius said: If I can copy an MQA file and give it to 100 friends and they can play it fine, including the unfolding on their MQA enabled DAC, then where is the DRM? If you knew that the metadata embedded in the MQA bitstream could be used to trace the copies back to you, would you still do it? "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 33 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said: Claimed here like a lot of things, but unproven. I very seriously doubt it. Unless independently proven, I think it is "fake news". If Stuart and Craven can cram enough information into those low order 8 bits to do that plus pull up to 356/382k resolution from a 44/48k-24bit file, it will be one of the greatest technical feats of all time. It's not being done now as far as I know. The point is that it has the capability. (The metadata is in the control bitstream, not the "low order 8 bits". One of the bits in every sample is dedicated to metadata. Plenty of room.) "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said: I wish I could as well. In which case, all I can do is assign it the same amount of credibility as I find myself having to assign to so much else about MQA. And the amount of salt I'm thus consuming is having a bad effect on my health... Jud 1 "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 56 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Who you find credible is your decision. If you want to group me into the same category as others who you find lacking credibility, there's nothing I can do to help. My sources of this information have proven to me to be very credible over the years. I believe them. To be clear, I wasn't doubting your credibility. I do believe you were told the information. I can't be so sure about your source. I'd need to know whether they were in a position to know the information, and their motives for divulging it. We're not getting much hard information from MQA. On the actual topic, it could well be that DAC designers can use their own filters, provided that they conform to MQA's filter specifications. It's been the story so far that DAC designers have to submit their DACs and filters to MQA for testing to confirm that the overall response is to MQA specs. What I'm hearing from designers so far is that their own preferred filters do not meet those specs. If MQA are now willing to relax those specs, allowing DAC designers to do the final unfold while still using their preferred filters, then the final unfold can now also be done in software as the first unfold can. Which in turn removes the need for having an MQA enabled DAC... "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 3 hours ago, Sal1950 said: Not really, I don't have to taste the food in Cook County Jail to know I'd rather not live or die there. Fixed it for you... Jud 1 "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Don Hills Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said: ... When immediate profits and membership numbers aren't the most important aspect of the business, all your bets are off. "If you aren't in business for fun or profit, you shouldn't be." Jud 1 "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now