FredericV Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 1 hour ago, GUTB said: Anyway, enough of that. Basically, this was Computer Audiophile MQA Haters Presentation 2017. The title was pretty deceptive as the DRM discussion only took up a little bit of the talk at the end, and the presentation was mostly about why MQA sucks. You talk exactly like Peter Veth and the other key opionion makers. They all use the word "hater" to attack the MQA debunkers. MikeyFresh 1 Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
Popular Post FredericV Posted January 1, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 1, 2018 2 hours ago, Norton said: For example, HQP is very popular on this site, I don't see anyone complaining that it requires you to buy a licence and install a key. Isn't Miska just managing his digital rights too? More than one high-end player software exists, so there is competition. HQP is not a monopoly, more players exist with upsampling features and custom filters. MQA tries to infect the highres world to become the one and only format by making deals with the largest studio's, therefore becoming a monopoly format for highres, and then convince hardware vendors this is the only format so they need to implement this or fear not to tick the box and loose business. MQA is trying to become a monopoly on highres distribution. semente, Shadders and Sonic77 2 1 Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
FredericV Posted January 1, 2018 Share Posted January 1, 2018 7 minutes ago, PeterSt said: In your mind, yes. So did you already sign the MQA contract to decode the first unfold in your player? Do you want to be part of MQA's new world order? http://www.aes.org/events/143/specialevents/?ID=5624 "We have 3 distinguished panelists to guide you through the new world order" Shadders 1 Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
FredericV Posted January 1, 2018 Share Posted January 1, 2018 8 minutes ago, PeterSt said: Maybe we must redefine DRM into sub categories. There plainly is no DRM in MQA at this moment, so saying that it is because the possibility is there (I surely agree with that) is b*ll. That a lot can be arranged with it, is true just the same. But DRM is still DRM as DRM is supposed to operate, and this is not in there. Why do you believe this? Why does MQA needs strong crypto? To protect the crown jewels. With MQA you don't get access to the master, but you get the right to lisen to some approximation of the master, only on MQA dacs. This is a clear form of DRM. Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
FredericV Posted January 1, 2018 Share Posted January 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, PeterSt said: Because you want to see it like that. Because I want to see it like that. For a dev who wants to incorporate MQA into his player, it makes sense to deny that MQA contains DRM. Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. 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