MQA at CES

[Doak]

https://www.facebook.com/auralic.ltd

 

Correction to previous posting RE: MQA, written by someone not at CES.) During CES, MQA discovered that wireless high-resolution Music Streamers without built-in DACs (i.e., AURALiC’s ARIES, ARIES LE & ARIES MINI) require a slightly different implementation of its technology.

MQA has not yet completed finalizing the definitive version of the technology; no MQA partner has yet to receive the actual final version of this emerging technology, which will be downloadable to any product in the very near future.) Because of this, AURALiC’s original plan to include TIDAL/MQA capability in the v3.0 firmware being issued today will not occur.

Xuanqian Wang

President & CEO

---------------------------

Just so more readable.

 

Seems consumers, manufactures, i.e. everyone concerned is being jerked around by Meridian. Rollout of MQA is looking more and more like a fiasco from this seat.

[Doak]

Honestly, virtually all of this extended discussion is pointless. Since it clearly appears that MQA will require new DAC's that support it, this format is dead in the water. There was a "chance" when it appeared that it could be handled with software but that chance is null and void. As someone mentioned earlier, it would take a miracle for MQA to succeed and there aren't many of those in existence. And, even in the beginning, far too many people were far less impressed with it anyway.

 

Add in the way they appear to have misled or, at the very least, misinformed partners like Auralic, and others, there goes any credibility, in addition.

 

JC

 

Totally agree with this assessment.

[Doak]

The deleted FB should be read one more time.

 

"It is unfortunately that MQA has decided to pull back the integration on ARIES/ARIES LE during CES as they have decided to make it an 'end to end' technology which means it will always requests a MQA certificated DAC to work.

 

ARIES ARIES LE, will be able to playback or stream music contains MQA format but will not listed MQA certificated device, to benefit from MQA, you will need a MQA certificated DAC and this is the only way.

 

We are sorry about the decision made by MQA."

 

Now when will MQA be willing to say this public ?

Why is this British Flying Cirsus still avlive?

Cause they totally f.....

 

Could be the reason Auralic pulled that and subbed a much more diplomatic statement was to allow some room for negotiation with Meridian, though that is simply conjecture. Actually, it seems that nearly everything regarding MQA is conjecture. With no attempt at clarification from "the horse's mouth" the rollout of MQA is looking more and more like the proverbial cluster f***.

[Doak]

Yep, it probably had alot to do with a contract dispute but there might be some truth in the above bolded statement - the truth being the direction Meridian (and others in the industry) want MQA to go - and end to end hardware "solution" that is "authenticating" the music. It surely reveals competing interests and strategery within Meridians corporate thinking, like "do we get it out there in a relatively open and diverse way to enable market penetration, or do we ask for more upfront to ensure quality/control?". In the end, the bolded would not work with streaming/Tidal (chicken before the egg problem) so they could not demand the "MQA certified DAC" path...

I too expect this IS what is going on. The word "shameful" comes to mind.

[Doak]

Michael Lavorgna follows up on MQA:

http://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-continued#RsoECjEggo1R14Ek.97

 

Kindly, do not shoot the messenger.

[Doak]

I am not an attorney either, but I know there is no small amount of truth in what you say. One thing I hate about this whole issue is what you said in your last sentence. You did not mean it this way, but the implication is I "want" to do something illegal with "content" simply because I can. There is a sort of "presumption of guilt" when a person who actually $paid$ for something wants to say, back up that file - or play it on multiple devices, or ones that do not have DRM built in.

 

Perhaps someone can explain exactly what the differences in "ownership" is between a book that I own, a downloaded high-res music file and/or PCM encoded CD, and say a shovel. When I buy a shovel, or discuss a shovel and what I can do with it, folks are not inclined to say "your ownership of said shovel does not legally entitle you to do anything you want with it" (e.g. walk over to your neighbor and bash his skull in ).

 

All this circles back around to the question as to why Meridian is encrypting data within their products, when the content of that data is open format and thus (as far as I am aware) not subject to the normal DRM practices...

 

See this thread for discussion on this subject:

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-music-downloads-and-streaming/just-reminder-you-dont-own-any-digital-music-downloads-26531/