pink fish media

Go Back   pink fish media > discussion > audio

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #106  
Old 17-02-17, 07:45 AM
Julf Julf is offline
Evil brother of Mark V Shaney
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssimon View Post
Thanks, being an analogue purist, IMHO it will fail.
"Fail", in what way? Fail to tell if there is a difference or not?
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 17-02-17, 07:47 AM
Julf Julf is offline
Evil brother of Mark V Shaney
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Audiomisc View Post
Yes. The snag at present is that most people will presumably need a Windows or Mac version. I don't use either, and I tend to do programming by using the simplicity of RISC OS programming first, then port to Linux/GCC. However by suppling the source code I can hope someone else can deal with porting, or use what I've done as a stimulus to do something better! That way people need not be slowed down to the low speed at which I write programs! :-)
I wish we had a body of well-recorded public domain music material we could use to produce test tracks (so that people wouldn't have to do the processing themselves).
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 17-02-17, 08:21 AM
johnhunt johnhunt is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strictly Stereo View Post
I saw that , I still don't think hardware manufacturers are actually paying.for example , Audio quest paying a royalty on that little stick dac they make as well as having to invest to get it Mqa ready, I don't think so.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 17-02-17, 08:44 AM
ssimon ssimon is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
"Fail", in what way? Fail to tell if there is a difference or not?
According to the article highlighted by the OP ,MQA are trying to get a stranglehold on "Hi-Rez" music. I predict they will fail to do that.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 17-02-17, 08:58 AM
Jim Audiomisc Jim Audiomisc is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssimon View Post
According to the article highlighted by the OP ,MQA are trying to get a stranglehold on "Hi-Rez" music. I predict they will fail to do that.
I have no idea if they will, or not. But it will probably depend on if the big companies sign up, use it, and may then not offer alternatives if they decide they can 'single inventory' on MQA as the versions for end-users. In the end, you can't buy what no-one will sell you.

Similarly, I have no idea if anyone would adopt the free open alternatives. But in order for anyone to consider them it would help if people have a chance to try them out so they can decide on the basis of experience. As an engineer I'm interested in letting people come to an informed choice.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 17-02-17, 09:09 AM
Julf Julf is offline
Evil brother of Mark V Shaney
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssimon View Post
According to the article highlighted by the OP ,MQA are trying to get a stranglehold on "Hi-Rez" music. I predict they will fail to do that.
Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 17-02-17, 09:24 AM
Werner Werner is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,676
And in the process create market fragmentation and consumer confusion.

Just what was needed ...
__________________
ceterum censeo mqam delendam esse
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 17-02-17, 03:24 PM
kenniGT kenniGT is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnhunt View Post
I saw that , I still don't think hardware manufacturers are actually paying.for example , Audio quest paying a royalty on that little stick dac they make as well as having to invest to get it Mqa ready, I don't think so.
I will quote what you said. You think... but you dont know.
And you think without analasing what is availble out there. That is not proper thinking process.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 17-02-17, 03:36 PM
ssimon ssimon is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werner View Post
And in the process create market fragmentation and consumer confusion.

Just what was needed ...
Remember the trade are not hi-fi enthusiasts, they will sell "hi-rez" to the gullible public as long as it is good enough. If they can put the cuffs on so much the better
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 17-02-17, 09:40 PM
johnhunt johnhunt is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenniGT View Post
I will quote what you said. You think... but you dont know.
And you think without analasing what is availble out there. That is not proper thinking process.
You are right I don't know , but my opinion is that at this stage of the game certainly Mqa are not charging dac manufacturers license fees. For example do you think audioquest are paying a royalty on their forthcoming Mqa firmware updrade to the black/red stick dac?
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 17-02-17, 11:36 PM
davidsrsb davidsrsb is online now
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,906
They are still trying to get to the dominant position, it doesn't cost them money to give one penny licences to early adopters to increase market share.
If MP3 history is anything to go by, the high fees will be for the ADCs and encoders.

Remember when you couldn't market a cassette recorder that didn't have Dolby B and that was an expensive and hard to obtain licence for small companies
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 18-02-17, 01:21 AM
busb busb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 634
The question brings forth several different responses in my mind:
1. Having a proprietary system where licensing fees are bled off at so many stages, whatever the perceived SQ benefits are just isn't a good idea, IMO.
2. Has it been proven that 16/44.1k is indeed inadequate? Many stated that so-called Hi Res sounded better then others pointed out that the mastering was different! If this is the case, the music industry has been extremely economical with the truth!
3. Do we actually need a music industry (as it is currently set up) for many types of music anyway? Social media does have some positives. Streaming services for new unestablished acts could be setup if they don't already exist. Well known orchestras could effectively become their own labels that some are already. In other words, do we need so many middlemen taking a slice for doing exactly what? There is a legal structure already that deals with copyright.
4. DRM may well be unpopular but artists should not be ripped off by criminals or consumers either.
I personally don't get all exercised over "owning" a hard copy of music, film, novels, textbooks etc. To me the whole point is the content & not the pretty box it comes in! What is important to me is being able to recover from loss or theft & being able to pass on the music I've 'bought" to whoever I decide after my demise - something that has yet to be properly sorted within a legal framework.
__________________
HiFi pics
http://tinyurl.com/c2djevc
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 18-02-17, 01:35 AM
johnhunt johnhunt is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,304
I think the licensing income will be per stream. Any other costs at other stages incedental if anything.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 18-02-17, 01:42 AM
kenniGT kenniGT is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnhunt View Post
I think the licensing income will be per stream. Any other costs at other stages incedental if anything.
You think... again...
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 18-02-17, 02:05 AM
adamdea adamdea is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by busb View Post
The question brings forth several different responses in my mind:
1. Having a proprietary system where licensing fees are bled off at so many stages, whatever the perceived SQ benefits are just isn't a good idea, IMO.
2. Has it been proven that 16/44.1k is indeed inadequate? Many stated that so-called Hi Res sounded better then others pointed out that the mastering was different! If this is the case, the music industry has been extremely economical with the truth!
This is the $64k question.
How can you really have a hirez campaign that isn't disingenuous
An honest technically sound pitch can only amount to
Buy the 24/96 because it's broadly the format this was actually mastered in any has some sort of authenticity if that floats your boat plus it might possibly sound better if we can't be trusted to downsample competently.

Everything else is exploiting people with OCD and or golden eared fantasies. Can you expect them to play fair. What's the point? They're selling a bullshit product.

Aside from that I simply can't see a market for hi rez streaming. How much of a market is there even for 16/44 streaming. I imagine that people who really must have hi rez probably like owning stuff. Unless MQA really gets a stranglehold on the market from top to bottom it's never going to be the echt master. Only something that arguable sounds the same as it.
And we already have something that sounds the same as the echt master- it's called 160bps vbr AAC, or if you absolutely must 320kbps or 16/44 flac.
What in the name of god is the point of MQA?
How many people have exactly the right mixture of OCD about hi rez AND non OCD about lossy compression?
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 09:39 PM.


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