Jump to content
IGNORED

Article: A Comprehensive Q&A With MQA's Bob Stuart


Recommended Posts

Proof is in the pudding and that only comes between our noggin, right?

So, people while enjoying the technical discussion of this and that want to know, what will this sound like in my system?

 

Same question I have running Amarra for Tidal where the MQA button is active but currently inert. Is the rumor of June for Tidal going live with MQA?

 

Wonder how MQA will fare against quality redbook on my system featuring the almighty McIntosh 225? Or the wonderful memories of an old heavily twice modded Sony SACD player?

 

Will anyone really come close to even an arm's length of touching SACD at its finest?

Link to comment

I am going to swim upstream against all the praise Bob's communication is getting and say that the answers to the DRM aspect of MQA simply are not good enough. Bob simply refuses to answer the questions, or even admit as to what DRM and IP is. He asserts a narrow and incomplete definition of what DRM and IP is all about (i.e. when he says "DRM is about limiting access, tracking or copy protection. MQA does none of these.") and even says ""In fact, MQA is the antithesis of a DRM system: everyone can hear the music without a decoder!" . Sure, but then everyone can "hear the music" of standard PCM/DSD also "without a decoder", but that is quite beside the point - the point of MQA is what it does WITH A DECODER/MQA DAC, and all of its promises (putting aside the claim of "better than CD quality" with a standard PCM DAC) are about what it can do for the listener, artist, and lables in a MQA format/IP protected ecosystem.

 

 

I understand he is neither a business man or a lawyer and probably does not really know, but the repeating "MQA does not have a DRM component." in bold for emphasis (as if that makes it true), does not answer the questions I asked around DRM like:

 

 

"What LEGAL rights do the purchaser of this technology have that protects them from MQA based DRM (if any)? Since the answer is probably "none", what changes to the licensing is Meridian prepared to make to assure the audio community that MQA can never be used as a DRM mechanism?"

 

 

As has already been said many times and apparantly needs to be said again and again, MQA is but a trivial software tweak (i.e. version 1.1, a mandatory update) away from DRM as even Bob defines it. Thus when he says:

 

 

"MQA files and decoders exist today, they can’t suddenly stop access to the music."

 

 

This is a falsehood and reveals Bob's lack of understanding of how IP , software patents, and software licensing works (I am being generous obviously - does he actually understand and is thus simply lying?)

 

 

I continue to advise circumspection about the motives of Bob and Meridian...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
[ATTACH=CONFIG]25234[/ATTACH]

I did notice that Onkyo has MQA titles up for sale - though the price is twice that of the normal albums.

 

Digital System: Cybershaft 10MHz OCXO clock premium>Antelope Liveclock>RedNet D16>AES Cable>Mutec MC-3+ USB​>AES Cable>Schiit Yggy

Link to comment
[ATTACH=CONFIG]25234[/ATTACH]

I did notice that Onkyo has MQA titles up for sale - though the price is twice that of the normal albums.

 

This was the first thing that came to mind...

 

Digital System: Cybershaft 10MHz OCXO clock premium>Antelope Liveclock>RedNet D16>AES Cable>Mutec MC-3+ USB​>AES Cable>Schiit Yggy

Link to comment
I am going to swim upstream against all the praise Bob's communication is getting and say that the answers to the DRM aspect of MQA simply are not good enough. Bob simply refuses to answer the questions, or even admit as to what DRM and IP is. He asserts a narrow and incomplete definition of what DRM and IP is all about (i.e. when he says "DRM is about limiting access, tracking or copy protection. MQA does none of these.") and even says ""In fact, MQA is the antithesis of a DRM system: everyone can hear the music without a decoder!" . Sure, but then everyone can "hear the music" of standard PCM/DSD also "without a decoder", but that is quite beside the point - the point of MQA is what it does WITH A DECODER/MQA DAC, and all of its promises (putting aside the claim of "better than CD quality" with a standard PCM DAC) are about what it can do for the listener, artist, and lables in a MQA format/IP protected ecosystem.

 

 

I understand he is neither a business man or a lawyer and probably does not really know, but the repeating "MQA does not have a DRM component." in bold for emphasis (as if that makes it true), does not answer the questions I asked around DRM like:

 

 

"What LEGAL rights do the purchaser of this technology have that protects them from MQA based DRM (if any)? Since the answer is probably "none", what changes to the licensing is Meridian prepared to make to assure the audio community that MQA can never be used as a DRM mechanism?"

 

 

As has already been said many times and apparantly needs to be said again and again, MQA is but a trivial software tweak (i.e. version 1.1, a mandatory update) away from DRM as even Bob defines it. Thus when he says:

 

 

"MQA files and decoders exist today, they can’t suddenly stop access to the music."

 

 

This is a falsehood and reveals Bob's lack of understanding of how IP , software patents, and software licensing works (I am being generous obviously - does he actually understand and is thus simply lying?)

 

 

I continue to advise circumspection about the motives of Bob and Meridian...

 

 

Indeed, no time to unpack my argument now and will do tuesday here. For now this "interview" only furthered my suspicion that MQA is a proprietary, lossy DRM-Trojan.

 

It's an IP that first and foremost is about "solving" a problem for the content and the hardware industry - i.e. price discrimination in the streaming market and selling new hardware.

 

On the consumer side it It might be attractive because it also sounds better/different but as long MQA favors a marketing smokescreen instead of proper explanation on what's going on we can only assume that they apply some sort of DSP-alteration to the signal.

 

More to follow.

Link to comment
I am going to swim upstream against all the praise Bob's communication is getting and say that the answers to the DRM aspect of MQA simply are not good enough. Bob simply refuses to answer the questions, or even admit as to what DRM and IP is. He asserts a narrow and incomplete definition of what DRM and IP is all about (i.e. when he says "DRM is about limiting access, tracking or copy protection. MQA does none of these.") and even says ""In fact, MQA is the antithesis of a DRM system: everyone can hear the music without a decoder!" . Sure, but then everyone can "hear the music" of standard PCM/DSD also "without a decoder", but that is quite beside the point - the point of MQA is what it does WITH A DECODER/MQA DAC, and all of its promises (putting aside the claim of "better than CD quality" with a standard PCM DAC) are about what it can do for the listener, artist, and lables in a MQA format/IP protected ecosystem.

 

 

I understand he is neither a business man or a lawyer and probably does not really know, but the repeating "MQA does not have a DRM component." in bold for emphasis (as if that makes it true), does not answer the questions I asked around DRM like:

 

 

"What LEGAL rights do the purchaser of this technology have that protects them from MQA based DRM (if any)? Since the answer is probably "none", what changes to the licensing is Meridian prepared to make to assure the audio community that MQA can never be used as a DRM mechanism?"

 

 

As has already been said many times and apparantly needs to be said again and again, MQA is but a trivial software tweak (i.e. version 1.1, a mandatory update) away from DRM as even Bob defines it. Thus when he says:

 

 

"MQA files and decoders exist today, they can’t suddenly stop access to the music."

 

 

This is a falsehood and reveals Bob's lack of understanding of how IP , software patents, and software licensing works (I am being generous obviously - does he actually understand and is thus simply lying?)

 

 

I continue to advise circumspection about the motives of Bob and Meridian...

Hi crenca- I'm not arguing with you on this one, but have a question for you. MQA requires a licensed decoder for playback of the "complete" MQA file (for lack of a better term). Without the decoder it simply plays a lower resolution version. You consider this DRM (please tell me if this is an incorrect statement, I don't want to put words in your mouth). On the other hand, MP3 files require a decoder license from Fraunher to play at all (no lesser quality option available). Using your logic, MP3 is also DRM. Is this what your saying? And, FLAC would also be DRM but seems to get a pass because it's free.

 

Im not trying to argue with you, just trying to flesh out your position a bit more for my own understanding.

 

Thanks crenca.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
On the consumer side it It might be attractive because it also sounds better/different but as long MQA favors a marketing smokescreen instead of proper explanation on what's going on we can only assume that they apply some sort of DSP-alteration to the signal.

 

More to follow.

I believe a proper explanation is in the Patent application (please let me know if I'm wrong once you've read it). Using your logic, because Google doesn't release its IP and tell the world exactly how it's search algorithm works, there something wrong with the company and the product?

 

link to patent - https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2013186561&recNum=132&maxRec=599628&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=nano+OR+filter+OR+ceramic&tab=PCTDescription

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Hi crenca- I'm not arguing with you on this one, but have a question for you. MQA requires a licensed decoder for playback of the "complete" MQA file (for lack of a better term). Without the decoder it simply plays a lower resolution version. You consider this DRM (please tell me if this is an incorrect statement, I don't want to put words in your mouth). On the other hand, MP3 files require a decoder license from Fraunher to play at all (no lesser quality option available). Using your logic, MP3 is also DRM. Is this what your saying? And, FLAC would also be DRM but seems to get a pass because it's free.

 

Im not trying to argue with you, just trying to flesh out your position a bit more for my own understanding.

 

Thanks crenca.

 

The MP3 specification is readily available (e.g. from ISO), so anyone can write a compatible decoder. Using it may be subject to licence fees depending on application and jurisdiction. The same situation applies to AAC, Dolby, DTS, and various other codecs. If the parent companies of these codecs were to vanish, the content would still remain accessible.

 

MQA, on the other hand, is based on secret algorithms and encodings, so writing an independent decoder isn't possible, or at least it's not supposed to be. Someone will probably reverse engineer it eventually (as happened with MLP), but then we're entering legal grey areas.

 

Some MQA articles have also mentioned encryption. If this is accurate, it means that if the publishers start using a new key, you'll need to update the firmware on you DAC. Good luck with that if the DAC vendor isn't interested in supporting your model or has fallen out of MQA's good graces. This has happened with some Bluray players, so it's not without precedent.

 

The only way they'll convince me they're not interested in any kind of DRM, now or in the future, is by publishing a full specification for the MQA format, either royalty-free or with a reasonable licensing policy (no arbitrary denying or revoking of licences).

Link to comment
The MP3 specification is readily available (e.g. from ISO), so anyone can write a compatible decoder. Using it may be subject to licence fees depending on application and jurisdiction. The same situation applies to AAC, Dolby, DTS, and various other codecs. If the parent companies of these codecs were to vanish, the content would still remain accessible.

 

MQA, on the other hand, is based on secret algorithms and encodings, so writing an independent decoder isn't possible, or at least it's not supposed to be. Someone will probably reverse engineer it eventually (as happened with MLP), but then we're entering legal grey areas.

 

Some MQA articles have also mentioned encryption. If this is accurate, it means that if the publishers start using a new key, you'll need to update the firmware on you DAC. Good luck with that if the DAC vendor isn't interested in supporting your model or has fallen out of MQA's good graces. This has happened with some Bluray players, so it's not without precedent.

 

The only way they'll convince me they're not interested in any kind of DRM, now or in the future, is by publishing a full specification for the MQA format, either royalty-free or with a reasonable licensing policy (no arbitrary denying or revoking of licences).

I don't think it matters what MQA as a company is interested in. What's important is what the rights holders of the content are interested in, with respect to DRM. I doubt MQA the company could, or would want to, mandate DRM without label support.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
I don't think it matters what MQA as a company is interested in. What's important is what the rights holders of the content are interested in, with respect to DRM. I doubt MQA the company could, or would want to, mandate DRM without label support.

 

I think you nailed it right there, and IIRC, it is one of the questions that nobody asked about.

 

So, it does appear to come down to be a question of "What is the marketing intent?" It would seem to me to analogous to SACD, no? A superior audio format available only with higher cost media and decoding equipment? And just like SACD, if you invest in the higher priced media, you can hear the music, but only in what amounts to a degraded format. Unless you also invest in particular hardware.

 

I can see the point of view of those who are worried about DRM, though that is perhaps a bit of a misnomer. I can also see that MQA has Meridian roots, and until recently, Meridian in the form of Solos charged a high premium. That's a workable marketing experience in the MQA "DNA." It does not seem unreasonable that MQA (the technology, if not the company) may follow those roots.

 

I am still in the wait and see period - if MQA becomes ubiquitous, as for example, did Dolby processing, then I cannot see anything but wild success for it in the future. If however, MQA follows the SACD path, I am far less certain even I want to go down that path again. The equivalent to me again is SACD; wonderful sounding, but one has to go to extreme lengths (or ask friends for favors) to get the darn SACD disc's DSD music into electronic storage formats to enjoy. MQA may be a way around that, or at least, one can hope...

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
I don't think it matters what MQA as a company is interested in. What's important is what the rights holders of the content are interested in, with respect to DRM. I doubt MQA the company could, or would want to, mandate DRM without label support.

 

I agree that it is the record companies which are (or some not) interested in DRM. So I would be not surprised if MQA does not contain any DRM but has to comply with the interest of the labels and allows them a backdoor to insert a DRM code.

Link to comment

A82

"The mastering engineer can set encoding or playback parameters where noise level can be increased or decreased in some frequency regions, but is not due to lack of dynamic range in the MQA system."

 

I've been trying to wrap my head around this since the tech of the whole article is far beyond me.

I seem to understand this as that the MQA mastering the engineer will have control over the SQ (noise and dynamics) between what the decoded file and non-decoded file will offer?

Am I grasping this correctly?

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

Link to comment
Hi crenca- I'm not arguing with you on this one, but have a question for you. MQA requires a licensed decoder for playback of the "complete" MQA file (for lack of a better term). Without the decoder it simply plays a lower resolution version. You consider this DRM (please tell me if this is an incorrect statement, I don't want to put words in your mouth). On the other hand, MP3 files require a decoder license from Fraunher to play at all (no lesser quality option available). Using your logic, MP3 is also DRM. Is this what your saying? And, FLAC would also be DRM but seems to get a pass because it's free.

 

Im not trying to argue with you, just trying to flesh out your position a bit more for my own understanding.

 

Thanks crenca.

 

"DRM" or "Digital Rights Management" is of course a collection of words for which there is not dictionary or "orthodox" definition, and so it is a moving target which is subject to ambiguity and rhetorical use and abuse. Just as Bob is defining it in a certain way and then pointing out that MQA does not technically implement the definition (in this he is correct and I don't assert some "hidden" tracking or encryption in MQA 1.0) I can then turn around with my own different definition and fit MQA into and it is off to the rhetorical races, and of course this is what I will do ;)

 

What MQA and DRM really comes down to is the "bigger picture", and how any technical (or "digital") piece of technology fits into a larger business, cultural, ethical, and legal environment and set of circumstances. This is where Robert Harley's article was so insightful and revealing over at Absolute Sound:

 

"...It’s not quite accurate to call MQA a “technology” because it’s more than just a set of hardware and software techniques...then came the Internet, and with it the ability to distribute digitally encoded music without the need for physical formats. It’s impossible to overstate the significance of this development...That development was both a blessing and a curse. The blessing was that here was a cheap and easy way to deliver to consumers the best-available representation of a recording. The curse was that the record companies were delivering to consumers the best-available representation of a recording—a recording that could easily be copied, shared, and even pirated for profit. The record labels’ opening of their vaults by selling high-bit-rate downloads would be tantamount to throwing open the doors to an unguarded shopping mall. Once their catalogs were out in the world, the record companies would have nothing left to sell...The business model is broken...Against this backdrop, Master Quality Authenticated emerged. In a single stroke, MQA solves all these problems, from the technical, to the business model, to the sound quality, to the easy accessibility of that sound quality...In addition to delivering unprecedented sound quality, MQA offers record companies a compelling solution to delivering to consumers the best possible sound while still protecting their archives. When you play an MQA file through an MQA decoder, you hear the high-resolution studio master, yet you never actually possess the high-resolution studio master...."

 

What Robert has written about here is not so much a audio technical problem with a technical solution (i.e. an act of creative engineering that is all about something called "sound quality" and the best way to get it) but something much larger: it is first and foremost the current ethical/business/legal conundrum of artists and labels, which is how to sell something without giving too much away, and how to accomplish this in a business/legal environment that is what it is (i.e. in which "consumers" have certain privileges but so do "content providers" and the arena where this competition occurs is called "the market place" and of course intellectual property law and the courts).

 

Bob's job, and indeed everyone in his industry, is to sell us something that gives them a little more control, solves the "pirate" problem and allows the "content owner" (NOT the consumer) to "retain value" while he at the same time sells access (but importantly not "ownership")to the consumer of something the consumer wants (in this case music).

 

So given all that, "DRM" is not a narrowly defined technical implementation of say copy protection, tracking, encryption, etc. but rather a strategy to "manage" a product and a consumers use of that product which means managing the consumers "rights", ownership, etc. This is why MQA is really all about DRM because as Robert points out THAT is really the problem. Sound quality is not what keeps artists, labels, and the "content industry" up at night, indeed SQ does not even make the short list of problems to be solved (I doubt it even make the long list). What does make the short list is exactly these business and ethical problems, the "broken business model" as Robert so aptly puts it.

 

To answer you questions about MQA as compared to MP3 (which requires an patented decoder to decode) and FLAC (which is "free", I assume an Apache or similar license without looking it up) and what the difference between them, it is exactly as you say "(MQA) simply plays a lower resolution version". This IS exactly the kind of end user "Management" (of "Rights") that is "Digitally" implemented through the use of IP (for it would be illegal to reverse engineer it of course) that is so important to the content industry - it is a much more honest use of the term DRM than saying "DRM is encryption/tracking and MQA does not have these specific mechanisms". In it's current form (v. 1.0) MQA is DRM because it manages what the end users is able to hear based upon their compliance with the terms of service of owning an MQA IP protected file. Also, within those same terms of service is the requirement that the licensee (who is NOT an owner - the "content provider" is) to agree to whatever changes in the future the content owner wishes to make. So, perhaps in the future (v 1.1 or greater) the licensee will be required to suffer copy protection/tracking, and other sorts of "DRM" as more popularly defined. But any current MQA licensee does have to conform yet is still "managed" because of the "limited access (Bob's words)" built in (16/44 only without MQA decoder). Bob of course can provide no assurances of how this DRM will be used because he can't (he is not in control, the "market" is) and everyone knows the industry will push for as much control as they can, while consumers push back.

 

In the end, Bob can narrowly define DRM and then point to ways MQA does conform, but this is to miss the big picture that Robert points to and the actual significant motivations of Meridian and the whole industry. I don't doubt the sincerity of Bob and his quest for real sound quality improvements. I don't doubt that MQA is a real sound quality improvement (certainly over the industry standard now which is 16/44 - and possibly even high sample rate PCM/DSD though I do question just how much of a real gain this is). I do reject Bob's efforts to deny DRM and what it is and how MQA fit's into this bigger "management" picture. I do doubt that "sound quality" is a real motivating factor behind the industry as a whole and its desire for either MQA or something like it. All the technical discussion about SQ is just a selling point/side show to the actual business/legal/cultural problems the industry has.

 

If MQA is to truly be a "success" (and not another niche market player like SACD, etc.) then it will be because it actually solves the sorts of things that keep artists and "content providers" up at night. I think Robert is probably right, in that MQA probably goes some distance to doing this very thing - and in v 1.1 will do so even more...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment

I am MUCH more optimistic about MQA having read through this thread and wish the team all the best, even if the results are just better masters for traditional PCM content which IMO makes more difference than any encoding ever made.

 

HOWEVER the grey skies for me personally are the clouds around what will happen with decoding in the open source domain. If i can't at least add a decoder to my own audio solutions via a plugin with server key and lookup on install, even if licenced on a per user basis, I wont be buying MQA certified tracks and certainly wont be buying MQA certified hardware.

 

That said i am sure i am the minority.

Link to comment
I am MUCH more optimistic about MQA having read through this thread and wish the team all the best, even if the results are just better masters for traditional PCM content which IMO makes more difference than any encoding ever made.

 

HOWEVER the grey skies for me personally are the clouds around what will happen with decoding in the open source domain. If i can't at least add a decoder to my own audio solutions via a plugin with server key and lookup on install, even if licenced on a per user basis, I wont be buying MQA certified tracks and certainly wont be buying MQA certified hardware.

 

That said i am sure i am the minority.

 

My fear is that tracks made from the beginning in MQA wont be available in any other format.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
My fear is that tracks made from the beginning in MQA wont be available in any other format.

 

I am not totally sure, but I *think* that the MQA information is encoded on top of one of the standard formats, like FLAC or ALAC. That should mean the music is always available in CD format. However, it does not mean that the engineer will create a specific version optimized for CD format. -Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
I am not totally sure, but I *think* that the MQA information is encoded on top of one of the standard formats, like FLAC or ALAC. That should mean the music is always available in CD format. However, it does not mean that the engineer will create a specific version optimized for CD format. -Paul

 

Except that we've seen (in the 2L samples) that undecoded MQA is not as good as CD. If anyone starts insisting that these are just early samples and current performance is better, then prove it already by providing a few test files.

Link to comment

 

In the end, Bob can wly define DRM and then point to ways MQA does conform, but this is to miss the big picture that Robert points to and the actual significant motivations of Meridian and the whole industry. I don't doubt the sincerity of Bob and his quest for real sound quality improvements. I don't doubt that MQA is a real sound quality improvement (certainly over the industry standard now which is 16/44 - and possibly even high sample rate PCM/DSD though I do question just how much of a real gain this is). I do reject Bob's efforts to deny DRM and what it is and how MQA fit's into this bigger "management" picture. I do doubt that "sound quality" is a real motivating factor behind the industry as a whole and its desire for either MQA or something like it. All the technical discussion about SQ is just a selling point/side show to the actual business/legal/cultural problems the industry has.

 

If MQA is to truly be a "success" (and not another niche market player like SACD, etc.) then it will be because it actually solves the sorts of things that keep artists and "content providers" up at night. I think Robert is probably right, in that MQA probably goes some distance to doing this very thing - and in v 1.1 will do so even more...

 

I understand these arguments. There is always the question how much DRM influences SQ and MQA seems to offer an improvement instead of degradation. DRM also restricts the use of something the consumers payed for and I see no explanation in these answers how much downloads of MQA files can be used on different devices (I expect there will be no physical media with MQA even if it would be possible).

Internet streaming is the best DRM solution for the labels as there are no files stored on the user end and it is obvious to everyone that the consumer owns nothing- just a service. Looking at the file sizes on the 2L website I see that MQA is 2-2.5x the size of 16/44.1 and that would make streaming possible for only a few with very good internet service (at least not for me). From Bob's answers I do not see any explanation of MQA statements about file size and I have not seen any info from Tidal either.

Link to comment

As I said in other thread, this sounds really becoming yet another HDCD and SACD.

 

Both of which uses proprietary technologies, and both require specific hardware to decode. I must remind everyone that unlike things like mp3, both HDCD and SACD are 'proprietary' that there is no known public standard to build a compatible decoder/encorder (other than heavily reverse-engineered ones)

 

Well, SACD requires now defunct original PS3, and HDCD requires specific software (such as dbpower) to decode it properly.

 

And from crenca, I learned that there is also encryption.... I am sorry, but this is total dealbreaker for me that I just cannot support this.

 

 

 

I understand that this really boils down to trust issue.

 

As a person who experienced early digital music era (I was one of the very first people to obtain very first commercial mp3 player, MPman F10), I know very well that recording industry is something no one should trust in a single bit.

 

This is also one of the reasons that I really dislike Roon's subscription model that I really never 'own' metadata even if I buy a permanent license.

 

 

I really feel that at this point, if any new technology regarding music industry in general to be succeeded, I believe this trust has to be rebuilt.

 

But as I still see industry people lawsuits, recent Slysoft closing and other relentless attacks to customer rights, I don't think we are even close to consider rebuilding a burning bridge between customers and record industry.

Link to comment
As I said in other thread, this sounds really becoming yet another HDCD and SACD.

 

Both of which uses proprietary technologies, and both require specific hardware to decode. I must remind everyone that unlike things like mp3, both HDCD and SACD are 'proprietary' that there is no known public standard to build a compatible decoder/encorder (other than heavily reverse-engineered ones)

 

Well, SACD requires now defunct original PS3, and HDCD requires specific software (such as dbpower) to decode it properly.

 

And from crenca, I learned that there is also encryption.... I am sorry, but this is total dealbreaker for me that I just cannot support this.

 

 

 

I understand that this really boils down to trust issue.

 

As a person who experienced early digital music era (I was one of the very first people to obtain very first commercial mp3 player, MPman F10), I know very well that recording industry is something no one should trust in a single bit.

 

This is also one of the reasons that I really dislike Roon's subscription model that I really never 'own' metadata even if I buy a permanent license.

 

 

I really feel that at this point, if any new technology regarding music industry in general to be succeeded, I believe this trust has to be rebuilt.

 

But as I still see industry people lawsuits, recent Slysoft closing and other relentless attacks to customer rights, I don't think we are even close to consider rebuilding a burning bridge between customers and record industry.

 

Just to be clear, I am not saying that data, metadata - anything is being encrypted in MQA 1.0 (though Meridian employs encryption in their wireless speaker designs for some unspecified reason, even though the data is {supposedly} just the customers PCM/DSD). What I am saying is that any specific technical implementation of DRM is beside the point because MQA 1.0 is already DRM (an end user who does not have an MQA DAC or software decoder is "managed" such that he can only hear 16/44) and the real world business case for MQA is all DRM all day long - SQ is just the "hook" to bring consumers in. Of course, with legal entities such as MQA the consumer has no say at all as to what happens in the future (in MQA 2.0 for example)...

 

The "trust" issue is central, however I think it is important to remember that there will always be this "tension" between consumers and business interests in any marketplace. In the digital music realm, there are analogues that we can look at. For example, we can look a video (VHS/taping in the eighties, DVD and congress in the nineties, etc.). I think consumers have to be vigilant when it comes to IP protected file formats (such as MQA) because the law and courts really do steamroll over their alleged "rights" most of the time, and this is expected because consumers do not have multiple "lobby" groups paying off our lawmakers ...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
I understand these arguments. There is always the question how much DRM influences SQ and MQA seems to offer an improvement instead of degradation. DRM also restricts the use of something the consumers payed for and I see no explanation in these answers how much downloads of MQA files can be used on different devices (I expect there will be no physical media with MQA even if it would be possible).

Internet streaming is the best DRM solution for the labels as there are no files stored on the user end and it is obvious to everyone that the consumer owns nothing- just a service. Looking at the file sizes on the 2L website I see that MQA is 2-2.5x the size of 16/44.1 and that would make streaming possible for only a few with very good internet service (at least not for me). From Bob's answers I do not see any explanation of MQA statements about file size and I have not seen any info from Tidal either.

 

I think that was answered in A40

A40. First you can see Morten’s notes about this recording here: https://shop.klicktrack.com/2l/468051. Morten wanted to do some minor touch-up on the recording. So, in order that nuance would not be lost, we used our ingestion process to give him 24-bit stems. The simple answer is that the re-release was remastered at 24-bit. The MQA file is made from that new 44.1/24 new master. Had he remastered strictly in a 16-bit context, some original magic might have been lost, but the file would have been smaller.7 In the 2L catalogue there are examples of MQA from 44.1/16 that were not remastered in this way.

Link to comment
the real world business case for MQA is all DRM all day long - SQ is just the "hook" to bring consumers in. Of course, with legal entities such as MQA the consumer has no say at all as to what happens in the future (in MQA 2.0 for example)...

 

Hi crenca - Thanks so much for your detailed comments. Whether I agree with you or not, this is the type of intellectual conversation that I love.

 

I'd like to dig deeper into the comment above that I quoted from your post. If, as you say, "the real world business case for MQA is all DRM all day long," why would the major labels really be that interested in it? The reason I say this is because the focus of nearly all large labels is on how to better monetize streaming. I honestly don't think the labels care much about DRM for purchased / downloaded music. Sure there is still money in the iTunes purchase model, but thinking about implementing a new DRM scheme, from a label's perspective, seems to small minded.

 

Back in the early days of blank CD-R discs and high end players that could record to those discs, such as those from Marantz (not talking about computers), users had to purchase "special" blank CD-R discs that would work on those players. These discs were of course much more expensive than standard blank CD-R discs. The reason for the higher price was the record labels made money off every "special" CD-R disc sold. In effect they said, we'll let this go on without fighting it if we get a kick back from the sales of the discs. With this in mind, I wonder if the record labels make any money from sales of decoder licensing? If they do make money from this, then I can see the labels pushing hard for MQA because every phone and AV receiver will need to license the decoder to play the content whether it's purchased/downloaded or streamed from Tidal.

 

On a side note: I'm kind of surprised that nobody mentions MQA was originally going to be used by Pono in the years leading up to the Pono launch. The parties split before the launch and Pono went with straight lossless PCM.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Hi crenca - Thanks so much for your detailed comments. Whether I agree with you or not, this is the type of intellectual conversation that I love.

 

I'd like to dig deeper into the comment above that I quoted from your post. If, as you say, "the real world business case for MQA is all DRM all day long," why would the major labels really be that interested in it? The reason I say this is because the focus of nearly all large labels is on how to better monetize streaming. I honestly don't think the labels care much about DRM for purchased / downloaded music. Sure there is still money in the iTunes purchase model, but thinking about implementing a new DRM scheme, from a label's perspective, seems to small minded.

 

Back in the early days of blank CD-R discs and high end players that could record to those discs, such as those from Marantz (not talking about computers), users had to purchase "special" blank CD-R discs that would work on those players. These discs were of course much more expensive than standard blank CD-R discs. The reason for the higher price was the record labels made money off every "special" CD-R disc sold. In effect they said, we'll let this go on without fighting it if we get a kick back from the sales of the discs. With this in mind, I wonder if the record labels make any money from sales of decoder licensing? If they do make money from this, then I can see the labels pushing hard for MQA because every phone and AV receiver will need to license the decoder to play the content whether it's purchased/downloaded or streamed from Tidal.

 

On a side note: I'm kind of surprised that nobody mentions MQA was originally going to be used by Pono in the years leading up to the Pono launch. The parties split before the launch and Pono went with straight lossless PCM.

 

I was not aware of the "special" CD-R's - interesting and yet another indication that what all this is really about is the business model (whether it is thought of in terms of being "broken" or not) and the need of the industry to monetize what they have in the face of technology and the "digital revolution".

 

As far as streaming, I have been thinking that for a new format (such as MQA or something like it) to really take hold of the marketplace it has to "solve" the "broken business model" here also, or at least be part of the solution. Of course, labels so far have not been able (apparently - do we really know?) to monetize streaming quite apart from the more obvious reasoning for DRM. However, I assume that streaming is here to stay and that a viable business model will be worked out. Indeed, in the future I expect to pay more for streaming than I do today (i.e. my Tidal "hi-res" subscription of $20 a month), and will gladly do so. Surely the labels are interested in an end to end solution that prevents (well, nothing "prevents" - just makes it harder and provides legal recourse) blatant copyright infringement. Now, I recognize MQA is not that (at least not in a "strong" sense) today but one can still see how it is a step in that direction and with the right amount of market penetration and future changes (mandatory update v. 2.0) it becomes exactly that - I know, alot would have to go right in the market for MQA to be such a thing. Even in MQA's current form however I think Robert is right in that it does provide some legal protection for the "studio master" and this apply's to streaming also...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...