Yes; you seem to be promoting a methodology that involves illegal ripping and sharing.
Wouldn’t a simpler model be to just sign up for a trial of Qobuz and Tidal, or perhaps use the 2L Testbench?
I’m not promoting it, I’m recognising that it likely exists.
I’m also implying that if someone believes there’s a problem with those files, then they also don’t believe MQA’s “A”.
Now, could you please start telling us which are the files that sound better to you instead of trying to change the subject by bloviating or spreading slanderous accusations ?
1 Like
While this may or may not be true, this would only be relevant if they were taking analogue masters and creating MQA files directly from those. Based on the volume / cost of remastering from analogue masters I suspect this is not the case in the majority of cases, which brings me back to my original thought. If there is a perceived improvement in MQA conversions of redbook sources, then the same could be achieved with the correct upsampling/filters.
4 Likes
Well, since you have a computer, the curiosity and access to both masters to compare, wouldn’t you think it’d be easier if you did the capturing yourself instead of expecting someone to do it for you ? You’re the one claiming differences and claiming you’re curious where they come from here, not me… so since we’ve got a device with a user that believes they can hear differences, it’d make the most sense to use that proven valid device, don’t you think ?
1 Like
I am sorry if I “unambigously stated”. My intent was more for discussion and sharing. Actually, my points is that the ratio hi-res versus normal formats in availability is still very low and I do believe that if it was smaller in size it would help to get more support from general public.
In many part of the world, like Asia or US, data plans are still an issue and you don’t have real offer for unlimited data.
1 Like
Ok, I understand you are being sarcastic.
Anyway, as I said, data plans, battery usage, yes, computational power and gigabits does matter at least in my view (and I respect people thinking differently).
To be honest I didn’t know Monkey’s Audio but looking at their own description, it is just a Rice Coding algorithm which is again, a very old technology (from the 70’s or older). I am surprised it is computationally taxing, but I must admit, no experience on it…
From a pure technical standpoint the MQA is much more sophisticated. You may think it is a lame attempt and that’s your right but at least from a pure theoretical standpoint I find it interesting. Then I find also the approach of Richard very interesting as he tries to listen to MQA for what it is, the first real new format since ages.
Is it a good format or not, I think that’s an interesting debate.
1 Like
Fully agree with your point.
Indeed that’s only work if they do it properly with a proper source like a very good DSD or preferably an analogic recording.
Ifi issue had the same issue with thei Nano DAC, got fixed using their GTO filter update, but the regular firmware dropped out all the time as well.
This would require starting with knowing whether or not we’re dealing with identical masters, which unfortunately might prove quite difficult by ear, especially not knowing what’s in the MQA sausage.
This, I think, is where we disagree the most, because I don’t think that’s even the question: the question to me “would what MQA does be achievable without a closed format”, and “is it worth the compromise(s)”. The answer to the first question is “yes, and for all we know, it would be trivial”, the answer to the second is “no”.
1 Like
I am interested to know why it is such a problem this “close” aspect.
I mean, DTS, Dolby Digital are also “close” format? MP3 was (don’t know if there is still royalty on it).
At the end of the day it is a technology, I am not surprised we need to pay for it if it is working.
1 Like
I sometimes wonder if we would be where we are today if Berners-Lee had made the Web a licensable technology?
3 Likes
Do you mean by that than no software company or patent should be paid ?
I am myself a fan of open-source and contributor on some github repositories as an hobby. But on my day job also technology related I am happy to be paid :-).
1 Like
This perpetuates a misconception, writing open-source software doesn’t mean you work for free. I’d have not been paid in years if that were the case.
1 Like
I understand the difference between a license and the service associated. I am working in the IT industry.
But in the case of the MQA, how do you expect Meridian to be paid ?
That’s not the point I was making, I don’t get my income from support services either.
I’d start by coming up with a product that there was a real demand for and let revenue generation take care of itself. I’ve not considered how I might monetise a solution to a non-problem when perfectly good open implementations exist.
4 Likes
Funny enough, I just read than MP3 is totally royalty free only since 2017.
Not bad for a format invented in 1988…
1 Like
Ok so I guess you re not working for Redhat :-).
1 Like
Well I understand your point but I don’t really get why you don’t want other people to use the product if they like to?
I mean Volumio works well, why going to Roon ? It is your personal choice no? Isn’t it good to have choice ?
I didn’t say anything on that subject. That said, I’d have thought not charging a fee would be a great way of encouraging more people to use it, but I might be wrong.
Yeah, agreed, let’s ask the same to Roon Labs, we might be lucky :-).
1 Like