pink fish media

Go Back   pink fish media > discussion > audio

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #46  
Old 14-02-17, 03:04 AM
johnhunt johnhunt is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
It was in comment to " I'd also be surprised if Tidal tried to increase fees as their upside is more members". Meridian/MQA wants their licensing fees. Either Tidal has to charge extra for the MQA version, or people who don't want or need MQA end up subsidizing the MQA users.
I think the revenue will come from MQA stream income. So the more dacs and the more delivery mechanisms, like tidal the better. It doesn't make sense for Mqa to hold those channels back by charging license fees especially as their is investment required, like Tidal for the app/gui. The upside for tidal is more members, differentiation and the dac makers ..more sales.

tidal won't increase membership fees , especially as they are already twice Spotify. All complete guesswork obviously !

.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 14-02-17, 03:07 AM
DNM DNM is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by radamel View Post
If fully decoded MQA sounds as good as (or perhaps even better than) DXD or DSD 256 the file size would be considerably bigger for a comparable sound quality.
DXD/DSD recordings can sound great because they are simply good recordings, nothing to do with the format. Its all about the production.. the microphones used, mic positioning, preamps, ADC and the sound engineer(s) of course.

I have some great DSD recordings that still sound just as great when they're converted to PCM, as compared to DSD direct to DAC. On the other hand I own some crappy SACD's!

With regard to MQA, unless we know the source of the MQA recordings we think we prefer and can compare them to the PCM from the same master, we are comparing apples and oranges.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 14-02-17, 03:14 AM
Julf Julf is offline
Evil brother of Mark V Shaney
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by radamel View Post
If fully decoded MQA sounds as good as (or perhaps even better than) DXD or DSD 256 the file size would be considerably bigger for a comparable sound quality. Like it or not MQA allowed for Hires streaming. That's no small feat IMHO.
Let's not confuse raw bit rate with sound quality.

In any case, we can successfully stream high quality video, with much larger bandwidth requirements than audio, so streaming "Hi-res" audio is not a real problem.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 14-02-17, 03:56 AM
radamel radamel is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
Let's not confuse raw bit rate with sound quality.

In any case, we can successfully stream high quality video, with much larger bandwidth requirements than audio, so streaming "Hi-res" audio is not a real problem.
Be that as it may, AFAIK there is no other commercially available hires streaming service other than Tidal's MQA.
__________________
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.-
Groucho Marx
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 14-02-17, 04:06 AM
Julf Julf is offline
Evil brother of Mark V Shaney
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by radamel View Post
Be that as it may, AFAIK there is no other commercially available hires streaming service other than Tidal's MQA.
I guess Qobuz and Deezer have concluded that most of their customers are happy with 16/44.1 for streaming,
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 14-02-17, 04:14 AM
linnfomaniac83 linnfomaniac83 is online now
lover of all things linn
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 7,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
I guess Qobuz and Deezer have concluded that most of their customers are happy with 16/44.1 for streaming,
I'm happy with Qobuz at 16/44.1, it sound great. I tried Tidal but hated the interface, the catalog wasn't great and I had clicks, pops and dropouts. I tried it when Qobuz were in trouble to see if it was a viable alternative, it wasn't. Glad Qobuz managed to find a buyer.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 14-02-17, 04:16 AM
radamel radamel is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
I guess Qobuz and Deezer have concluded that most of their customers are happy with 16/44.1 for streaming,
Spotify probably concluded that 320kbits/s is good enough for most of their paying subscribers.

So?
__________________
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.-
Groucho Marx
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 14-02-17, 04:43 AM
Julf Julf is offline
Evil brother of Mark V Shaney
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by radamel View Post
Spotify probably concluded that 320kbits/s is good enough for most of their paying subscribers.
Clearly, yes.

Quote:
So?
The point is that the lack of hi-res streaming is not one caused by technical limitations (that MQA would solve), but by lack of customer demand.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 14-02-17, 04:58 AM
radamel radamel is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
Clearly, yes.



The point is that the lack of hi-res streaming is not one caused by technical limitations (that MQA would solve), but by lack of customer demand.
It's kind of hard to estimate the demand when the offer doesn't exist. Up until the Walkman's being sold by Sony one could say that there was no customer demand for such a product.


Now for the first time there is Tidal's hires streaming available. Let's see how the demand for that impacts their subscribers growth and if any other competitor decides to launch an alternative hires streaming service (MQA or not).
__________________
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.-
Groucho Marx
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 14-02-17, 05:01 AM
Julf Julf is offline
Evil brother of Mark V Shaney
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by radamel View Post
Now for the first time there is Tidal's hires streaming available. Let's see how the demand for that impacts their subscribers growth and if any other competitor decides to launch an alternative hires streaming service (MQA or not).
Indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 14-02-17, 05:16 AM
Jim Audiomisc Jim Audiomisc is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by radamel View Post
The point is also that those alternatives like bitstacking or noise shaping are not available in a commercial streaming service. And MQA is.
Oh, indeed. :-) However that just transfers to the stream companies (and their users) the issue of explaining their answer to the question. Why would people choose a closed commercial systems that extracts money from the process when there are open free alternatives that work as well and which don't require an end-user to use updated software or hardware, etc?
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 14-02-17, 05:23 AM
Jim Audiomisc Jim Audiomisc is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
Let's not confuse raw bit rate with sound quality.
Actually, I suspect that is the primary root of what people *are* doing. Just as some may be assuming that all the 24 bits per sample are real audio info rather than excess-specified noise - i.e. padding that clogs up FLAC and bloats the results.

Its quite understandble that most end-users won't know or care about the distinction between data and information or the basics of IT. However the curio is then why companies who stream may also show no sign of understanding. What isn't clear is: Do they really not know? Or are they just adopting a commercial system because they expect it to sell on the standard commercial "better by brand" thinking? Or because they fear that end-users would shy away from an alternative that can't proudly claim "24 bit" on the box?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 14-02-17, 05:24 AM
radamel radamel is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Audiomisc View Post
Oh, indeed. :-) However that just transfers to the stream companies (and their users) the issue of explaining their answer to the question. Why would people choose a closed commercial systems that extracts money from the process when there are open free alternatives that work as well and which don't require an end-use to use updated software or hardware, etc?
If open free alternatives work as well or not remains to be seen, I'd say.

For the time being no such alternatives are commercially available. When and if they become available I'd be interested in comparing their SQ to MQA's.
__________________
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.-
Groucho Marx
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 14-02-17, 05:31 AM
Jim Audiomisc Jim Audiomisc is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by radamel View Post
If open free alternatives work as well or not remains to be seen, I'd say.

For the time being no such alternatives are commercially available. When and if they become available I'd be interested in comparing their SQ to MQA's.
But if no-one gives you a chance to try them?

OK, let's extend the logic here. If no streaming company is willing to offer the alternatives maybe people could do their own DIY tests and try the alternatives. Neither bitstacking nor noise shaping down to 16bit require any change to the player software or hardware. So if programs can be used by people to generate bitfrozen or noise shaped versions, people can use them on some of their existing high-rate 24bit files and judge for themselves.

The can also FLAC the results to assess the effect on the required file sizes and stream rates.

I've already made available demo programs for the above. Anyone interested in making such use of them? I can do various things here, but it is clearly a matter for others to decide if they, individually, can hear the relative quality in a controlled test.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 14-02-17, 05:54 AM
radamel radamel is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Audiomisc View Post
But if no-one gives you a chance to try them?

OK, let's extend the logic here. If no streaming company is willing to offer the alternatives maybe people could do their own DIY tests and try the alternatives. Neither bitstacking nor noise shaping down to 16bit require any change to the player software or hardware. So if programs can be used by people to generate bitfrozen or noise shaped versions, people can use them on some of their existing high-rate 24bit files and judge for themselves.

The can also FLAC the results to assess the effect on the required file sizes and stream rates.

I've already made available demo programs for the above. Anyone interested in making such use of them? I can do various things here, but it is clearly a matter for others to decide if they, individually, can hear the relative quality in a controlled test.
That's quite interesting.

Hope to find the time to be able to give it a go.

Cheers!
__________________
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.-
Groucho Marx
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
pink fish media