As far as I know, people can still listen to ad supported radio and even internet radio. My point, clearly overstated, is that the expectation that all music should be free is a ruinous and unsustainable fantasy that is held onto far too tightly by a large number of music “users.” Along with the fantasy that the stock market will climb ever upward forever, there will a correction that brings us all back to reality. Not sure what the solution is but I think people should expect to pay something for one of the most valuable things in the universe: music.
There is no pure in audio only various levels of what each perceive is better. My 25 per month goes for tidal. Both my kid and I can play fro anyone where
playing remastered moondance right now. It sounds better than the non mqa to me and I am not completely unfolding it until my updated module Arrives. As is it’s not better then shim or other great dsd or pcm I own. It to point and click is what I live for.
Now elk To your point them being in the studio does bother me a bit. But since I have no clue what gets done in there how can I be upset
until tidal I had no van Morrison tidals in anything above red book or vinyl rips. Now I. Have few a few to pic from. Am I wrong for enjoying them ?
I’m sure someone here knows … re the unfolding. If you get it in 44/16… then unfold it and get 96/24… then again and get 192/24… are these just upsampled versions of the original 44/16?
Re ‘wrong for enjoying them’… yes feel very wrong!! Just kidding. :). This is an audiophile site Paul and Co put up right? I think we are all concerned with the ‘direction’ this could go. We have all ready seen what many of us think was the best sounding solution get pushed aside for a slew of reasons. Seems like DSD got life when sound quality was all that mattered …files became available… and designers such as Ted made it the engine that drives the Directstream. I’m guessing convenience was not at the top of the list in his approach.
MQA feels like convenience to me …again. And I’m not saying it doesn’t sound good. I’m saying I think the best option for us audiofools could again get pushed aside. I remember two years ago that absolute sound said after the audio shows something to the effect of ‘…if you didn’t offer DSD …you weren’t a player in the market’. Whether that statement is correct or not - well that’s not the point. The point is - as audiophiles should we settle?
vhiner1 said My point, clearly overstated, is that the expectation that all music should be free is a ruinous and unsustainable fantasy that is held onto far too tightly by a large number of music "users."Agreed, although this is a different point than every music lover spends at least $200.
The attitude of it should be free, and it is just a digital file which is cheap to copy, has led to the devaluation of music as an art as well as piracy accompanied by the self-serving attitude of copy the CD and then sell it.
I do not think the average streaming user will like ads, but perhaps it would work with a premium charged for full resolution.
Elk saidI'm willing to concede that $200 might not be the correct figure, but I was referring to music lovers as opposed to people who occasionally use music as background. Going to one concert these days costs at least $25 and many are far more expensive. We've created a world not dissimilar from this made-up one: "Guy shows up at a concert and says, "Let me in." Doorman says, "Got a ticket?" Guy says, "I shouldn't have to pay. I'm going in anyway." Doorman says, "Well, in that case, be my guest." We really have stumbled into a strange place.vhiner1 said My point, clearly overstated, is that the expectation that all music should be free is a ruinous and unsustainable fantasy that is held onto far too tightly by a large number of music "users."Agreed, although this is a different point than every music lover spends at least $200.The attitude of it should be free, and it is just a digital file which is cheap to copy, has led to the devaluation of music as an art as well as piracy accompanied by the self-serving attitude of copy the CD and then sell it.
I do not think the average streaming user will like ads, but perhaps it would work with a premium charged for full resolution.
Growing up, I remember scraping and saving to buy records and I know large numbers of pre-millienials spent more money than they probably realize on either CDs, shows o records. Even in my mosh pit days, unless you knew the band, you paid the cover or you stayed outside. Nobody got rich, but at least people got paid.
Many “music lovers” spend less than $200, or $300, or $100 a year. Not everyone has the money to spend or, as I have already pointed out, feels it is necessary to do so.
Music lovers come in all types. You do not need to spend money on music to distinguish yourself from those who “who occasionally use music as background.”
And now, coincidentally and amusingly, I am off to make call for a 4:00 concert I am performing in this lovely Sunday afternoon for roughly 1,500 music lovers who will be attending the free concert. We are playing everything from Gabrielli, to Mussorgsky, to contemporary art music, even a a bit of modern jazz written by one of our local composers.
Enjoy and I see your point
timm said I'm sure someone here knows ... re the unfolding. If you get it in 44/16... then unfold it and get 96/24... then again and get 192/24... are these just upsampled versions of the original 44/16?It's more (and less) than just upsampled - the low bits (approx. 7 bits?) of a (24 bit) MQA encoded file contain the metadata and lossy compressed information that helps get some of the information for the next frequency band. This isn't as bad as it might sound (no pun intended): as the frequency goes up in music (and most of life) the amplitude goes down, so you don't need as much dynamic range (as many bits) for 48-96k as you need for 0-48.
Oops, I don’t know what they expect to get if the input is 44.1k/16 bits, there’s precious little “extra” information space available with only 16 bits at 44.1k. The MQA CDs, if 44.1/16, don’t make much sense at all to me.
Elk,
Good luck with the concert and bless you for your gift to the world.
I’ve lived and performed on the street and had homeless people tip me with cigarettes. There are, indeed, people who don’t feel obligated to ever pay for music under any circumstances, but I wouldn’t call them music lovers. I call them music users. I believe many music lovers are spending less now than they used to and that the corrosive concept of “everything’s free” is relatively new. 
I’m sure you’ll point out that those aren’t the exact words I used before, but, given that this is an informal forum, I did my best with the time I had.
I have attended hundreds of concerts, but in the last few years, I have only gone to bucket list artists, or when I have won tickets.
We have some great artists that just came through or are coming. At a minimum of $50 and many at well over a $100, I just can’t do it.
I strongly believe music has value, but streamers like Tidal make it seem like it doesn’t. I won’t let people copy music that I know will deprive the artist of much needed income, but when I see it on Tidal, I think those artists are not making what they deserve. Someone mentioned Van Morrison, I’m sure “Moondance” bringing in a few more dollars is fine. But take a local band like Testa Rosa, they have to have done better selling CDs or downloads on Bandcamp.
And I bet those that see no value in music are the one’s who will record off Tidal. Another A to D conversion, they don’t care. I bet it still sounds better than the cassettes, we played in our cars. I used put together one or two custom mix tapes for every trip we took. Of course it was all music I already bought.
I know what you mean, but I would think the music lovers on this forum, believe that music has value, and hope that the bands or artists are getting a fair payment.
If I am paying for a service how is this bad for an artist , and I know of no way in interrupting a data stream to copy it. But this is still off topic of I am correct is about Mqa being worthwhile for us to have full play back of . I see it as good for all DAC makers to be part of.
Ted Smith said
It's more (and less) than just upsampled - the low bits (approx. 7 bits?) of a (24 bit) MQA encoded file contain the metadata and lossy compressed information that helps get some of the information for the next frequency band. This isn't as bad as it might sound (no pun intended): as the frequency goes up in music (and most of life) the amplitude goes down, so you don't need as much dynamic range (as many bits) for 48-96k as you need for 0-48.Oops, I don’t know what they expect to get if the input is 44.1k/16 bits, there’s precious little “extra” information space available with only 16 bits at 44.1k. The MQA CDs, if 44.1/16, don’t make much sense at all to me.
Well and that’s the problem. The ‘don’t make much sense…’. I am in IT and one of the commonalities I find is a group of people nodding their heads and expecting everyone to nod along. Usually your gut tells you something is amiss. And it is usually correct. You aren’t sure exactly what is wrong - you just know something seems ‘off’. You either call it out or struggle with it for the next X years trying to make it right. Straight lines are always better than zig zag. My experience anyway.
“I know what you mean, but I would think the music lovers on this forum, believe that music has value, and hope that the bands or artists are getting a fair payment.”
Totally agree, Jeff. I think as a culture we need to at least make people who take advantage of artists feel a bit uncomfortable. There needs to be a sense of honor among all people, regardless of socio-economic circumstances, that everyone pays their fair share even if that “share” varies. I pay $300, while others can only spare a cigarette…but no one should be allowed to think it’s okay to just “take.”
Public broadcasters are having great success in good naturedly shaming loyal listeners who never contribute to the pot. Contributions are up according to those I know in the business. Any amount is better than none at all.
I guess one good thing with mqa might be better availability for downloading or streaming huge master libraries.
Funny. You guys talk about paying the artist. And I agree whole heartedly. My son - the artist - writes string quartets. Writing a symphony. Paid 5k to get his music recorded in 96/24. And I say - you need to market this… you need to make money. He is all about the art man. The last thing on his mind right now is money. The creation of it all - that’s all he cares about. I will tell you. Most of us are wired differently.
Whats this got to do with MQA. Haha. I missed it!!
LOL. Our fearless leader allows a wide birth. But I’m definitely ready to move back to MQA specifics.
I will say it relates to MQA in that there will be no MQA streaming unless we can devise a sustainable business model for streaming.
Precisely!
At the heart of it, high-end audio has primarily been a craft industry, and an idiocentric one at that. And competitive in a good way. The great designers are not totally unlike timm’s son.
Good or bad, MQA is a mass-market, one-size-fits-all approach that, IMHO, is fundamentally at odds with the independent DNA that characterizes artists and hardware designers alike.
1234 saidIf I am paying for a service how is this bad for an artist , and I know of no way in interrupting a data stream to copy it. But this is still off topic of I am correct is about Mqa being worthwhile for us to have full play back of . I see it as good for all DAC makers to be part of.
Well, a lot of us don’t see it as good for all DAC makers. MQA requires access to the inner workings of their DAC, that means access to proprietary information. Nobody does it like Ted, others use FPGAs, but I would bet their code is different. And no one I know wants to replace a DAC they are happy with. Yes, I also believe there are people who want a MQA DAC, but not all of us do. We want options, we don’t want studios to go from 24/96 or DSD to MQA, which would give them a monopoly.
As to the artists, we have no idea how they are paid, do they get a penny every time someone plays their music, or a hundredth of a cent, or ???
And finally did you see I mentioned another A to D conversion. I would think you could come off the tape monitor, and go through an analog to digital converter, or straight to a reel to reel, or to cassette. You could get steal a lot of music with a free months trial.
And all that’s true, but it isn’t what really wigs me out about this. They don’t get to know what’s inside our DAC. The way it works is they can model certain aspects of our DAC and then pre-distort their signal to come out the way they want. This means they change the original data even more, in the hopes of getting things “right” for the entire MQA chain.
Two things I don’t appreciate with this approach. First, any change - no matter how slight - to our DAC would have to be submitted to MQA so they redesign a new pre-distortion profile which we then have to approve ourselves (to make sure it doesn’t much things up).
Second, pre-distortion of the digital audio signal is lossy. MQA is lossy. The definition of lossless is simple. What comes out is what went in. That never happens with MQA. Call me old fashioned, but for the past 40 years I have been struggling to perfect sound quality
Call me old fashioned, but for the past 40 years, I have been struggling to perfect sound quality by making things purer, not the opposite.
Lastly, as to point number one, every iteration of MQA trying to make DS sound “better” has failed. Truth is, I put my faith in Ted Smith coupled with our listening team. Between Ted’s wizardry and our listening panel that makes the final decisions, we’ve managed to produce a DAC of extraordinary purity and perfection.
As most of you know, Ted’s working on a new mountaintop improvement right now. He’ll send us a number of versions and we will spend days listening and evaluating to find the one that best fits our model of perfection before releasing it. Imagine if we had to include some wank programmer looking at a scope and guessing what he’s doing into this equation.
Not going to happen. Especially since the signal gets farther and farther away from the truth.
MQA would have you believe it’s getting closer - and I understand the intellectual argument in favor of this.
I just don’t agree.