This brain thing appears to be free.
https://www.voxengo.com/public/r8brain-free-src/Documentation/index.html
1 Like
Development, yes. Fees, No
As is Musicbrainz
The only ones with recurring expenses is…mQa
So the fair and honourable way to implement this is as a separate subscription.
Let those that think they enjoy, pay for their delusion.
1 Like
There is also the commercial version, I don’t know which one Audirvana integrates. The point is there are many features that cost Audirvana some money, be it the licensing fees or implementation effort.
The point is you and I don’t know
I’m not sure MusicBrainz sound signature is free to integrate within your software.
No You didn’t. Which is why bitracer was quoted.
But according to: Supporters - MetaBrainz Foundation
Audirvana is not paying to use Musicbrainz
See above
Sorry I may have posted the wrong link.
Not sure what meta brainz is.
I guess the page is just not updated. It’s a recent thing.
1 Like
Ah thanks.
It was getting confusing with some many brainz ))
1 Like
Well I guess that the mQa fees would be substantially higher than the $100 that seems to be the rate for Musicbrainz.
I do believe that $100 wouldn’t even register with business owners such as Damien of Audirvana nor Danny of ROON
So because You have been misled/conned, You feel the rest of us must help pay mQa?
Or what is the point of Your post?
1 Like
I don’t quite understand the problem. MQA is a choice, as I understand from MQA enthusiasts.
If you want MQA you buy more expensive files or a more expensive Tidal subscription.
And a license for MQA in Audirvana or Roon and alternatively we have a MQA decoder DAC.
Seems perfect to me.
I would even say that the current AS lends itself better to it than ever. With your my.audirvana account you simply activate whether you want to use the MQA license for a month or a year. If not, the MQA choice in the settings is limited to ‘the DAC is a decoder’.
And as far as I’m concerned it’s fine if there are other license models in the current price to activate them separately. I don’t mind paying for development. I don’t really care about the money I could save. But to consciously choose to activate the core decoder.
If there is an better upsampler available for which a license has to be paid, I’d be happy to have that choice.
Again the new AS gives the user plenty of room to choose and activate this per month or year.
2 Likes
It’s interesting to note that is exactly what MQA said was required initially some 5-6 years ago, they said it could not be done in software, probably because they thought prohibiting that would help sales of hardware and thus licensing revenue from that. At some point they realized that was a mistake, and suddenly allowed for software decoding, even though they had initially claimed it wasn’t even possible. Yet another in their pack of lies.
Perhaps the MQA Bashers on Audirvana should join forces with Roon dissenters and get an “anti MQA Forum” going.
What a formidable bunch they would be 
Bob Stuart must be shaking in his boots …
You’re right,
“Let them eat cake!”
…
Oh Dear!… Lost my head!
1 Like
Hi, Mike
This thread is about the possibility of getting a version without mQa. As You have noticed there’s some of us that don’t want nor need another lossy format. Neither do we want to be forced to pay for mQa license.
As things stand at the moment everyone subscribing to Audirvana Studio is supporting mQa since there is no differentiation between those that use the inbuilt “decoder” and those who don’t.
What we are asking for is that those that want to pay extra for decoding the lossy mQa. Are the only ones actually paying for the privilege.
Regarding BS he certainly must be, look at the effort the usual supporters do to neglect GoldenSound’s video’s
Wonder why they do not take him up on his wish to be shown where and how his measurements are wrong…
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 375 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.