Warner Music and MQA - Questions & Concerns

[The Computer Audiophile]

Is the promised sound quality enough to offset the issues above? I won’t know until Sony and Universal license MQA and they all release my reference albums.

 

Hi indierock - Nice to see you at RMAF. I think you raise perhaps the most important question. Is the sound quality good enough to offset the issues?

[Miska]

I also don't believe I'll see all your hard work and IP in HQPlayer open sourced. Not a slight on you at all :~)

 

Unless I get pissed off about it someday, then I'd likely just dump it out as open source rather than letting it rot somewhere forgotten. Some items like the hqp-control command line utility are open source. And some other items like the DFF2DSF converter are not open source but otherwise free (no cost).

 

I just don't see much contributions coming to open source software from audiophile companies. Some companies buy some amount of open source work though (like M2Tech on hiFace driver and I believe Sonore also). So the benefit of open sourcing in this particular niche is not so great. Open source software works in areas where multiple companies and individuals are willing to contribute. It must be balanced give & take relationship, otherwise it doesn't work. I did quite a bit of work on the JACK audio server for example in the past.

 

Since I've been working on Linux and open source things as long as Linux has existed, I nowadays have pretty good hunch on what kind of projects work as open source and which don't.

 

By the way, I don't know how open source is related to all this, but lot of the standardized codecs like MPEG-1 Layer III (aka MP3), AAC, H.264 (AVC), H.265 (HEVC) are open standards published by ISO/IEC MPEG and ITU-T. Even with open reference implementations, but they are not "free" as considered in open source context. There would be much less doubt about MQA if they'd gone through ISO/IEC route. Also a general good practice has been that specification and implementation of a codec are not tied. All this just gives some longevity guarantees on accessibility of media content.

 

Its my guess that all the DAC chip manufacturers will support MQA in not too long.

 

I have my doubts, since most of the chips cost in range $2 - $5. I'm pretty sure MQA is asking more from DAC manufacturers than can be baked into that kind of chip price range. And I have to admit I'm not really into DAC chips in general. Having MQA in a chip is not going to fix performance of that chip. The DSP engine in there is still crap (due to price and power caps, not because engineers wouldn't want to do good job).

 

I always come back to this: If nobody else is going to make my music sound this good, I'll accept MQA.

 

So MQA sounds somehow good to you? To me, the non-decoded compatibility stream sounds much worse than well made RedBook. And for the in-DAC decoded variant I have not heard a DAC yet that would sound as good with the MQA decoding as it sounds with the original hires played through HQPlayer upsampling. But that's just me and I may be biased.

 

Maybe a white glove process could do the same thing with non-MQA flac, but I don't see it happening. How many terrible high res downloads have we all purchased? If MQA fixes this, great.

 

I already have many terrible MQA downloads.

 

For testing purposes I've been buying bunch of recordings in both plain hires FLAC and in MQA. The the plain hires FLAC through HQPlayer upsampling sounds systematically better than the MQA one. And even more so when played for example as DSD512 to T+A DAC8 DSD.

 

If MQA takes over and it's the only thing we can purchase, we'll have to live with it, knowing our niche doesn't matter much anyway. In other words, our complaining falls on deaf ears.

 

I just see this as a great loss overall if it happens. I don't like the idea of one company restricting innovation within the entire sector. I think that is extremely bad overall. And MQA precisely wants to have iron hand on every DAC's internals.

[Miska]

To put it in another way, I'd be sad if MQA becomes Adobe Flash of the audio world. Now there are open standard alternatives like HTML5 for doing all the same Flash does, but better. And HTML5 contains also audio streaming and I think for example Tidal is using it when you use their service through Chrome. But even then the difference is that Flash Player/Plugin was less restrictive and free of charge, unlike MQA decoder.

 

I don't have Flash installed anymore, everything I need works without it. Chrome and Edge/IE come with Flash plugin built-in, but I don't use those, but I sometimes use Chromium which doesn't include the Flash plugin.

[Fokus]

If MQA takes over and it's the only thing we can purchase, we'll have to live with it,

 

Which is why we have to fight it. So that it does not take over, and does not become the only thing.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I just don't see much contributions coming to open source software from audiophile companies. Some companies buy some amount of open source work though (like M2Tech on hiFace driver and I believe Sonore also). So the benefit of open sourcing in this particular niche is not so great. Open source software works in areas where multiple companies and individuals are willing to contribute. It must be balanced give & take relationship, otherwise it doesn't work. I did quite a bit of work on the JACK audio server for example in the past.

 

 

I'm with you on this one. In fact many high end audio companies are just taking form the open source community without giving back. Violating the terms of service for sure, but without short term consequences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have my doubts, since most of the chips cost in range $2 - $5. I'm pretty sure MQA is asking more from DAC manufacturers than can be baked into that kind of chip price range. And I have to admit I'm not really into DAC chips in general. Having MQA in a chip is not going to fix performance of that chip. The DSP engine in there is still crap (due to price and power caps, not because engineers wouldn't want to do good job).

 

 

Good point, but I'm guessing MQA would rather have 1% of 10 million than 5% of 10 thousand. In other words, it could reduce the licensing cost to chip manufacturers and make up the difference on volume. Not sure, just a guess.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So MQA sounds somehow good to you?

 

 

Fully decoded MQA can sound spectacular.

 

 

 

 

To me, the non-decoded compatibility stream sounds much worse than well made RedBook. And for the in-DAC decoded variant I have not heard a DAC yet that would sound as good with the MQA decoding as it sounds with the original hires played through HQPlayer upsampling. But that's just me and I may be biased.

 

No worries about the bias. We all have some. My guess is your experience with full MQA decoding DACs is quite limited due to the fact that the number of them is very limited. I am interested to hear your opinion when you can get your hands on a really good MQA DAC and some source material that enables you to A/B test. For example, many people in the press were given MQA and non-MQA versions of the same material / master. Without the same master, all bets are off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I already have many terrible MQA downloads.

 

 

I have no doubt :~)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For testing purposes I've been buying bunch of recordings in both plain hires FLAC and in MQA. The plain hires FLAC through HQPlayer upsampling sounds systematically better than the MQA one. And even more so when played for example as DSD512 to T+A DAC8 DSD.

 

I could never argue with your personal opinion as to what sounds good / better.

 

 

 

I just see this as a great loss overall if it happens. I don't like the idea of one company restricting innovation within the entire sector. I think that is extremely bad overall. And MQA precisely wants to have iron hand on every DAC's internals.

 

In hear you. These are uncertain times.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Which is why we have to fight it. So that it does not take over, and does not become the only thing.

How are you fighting it? I'm curious to know what people have done or are doing to fight what they think is bad (MQA). No judgement, just curious.

[Melvin]

Interesting - think of all the "producers" who make (mostly electronic) music these days. Because of the PC/digital revolution, the changes to the industry have been significant in the sense that studios/labels (and some artists) have been disempowered and small guys with modest equipment and DAW's have been able to become part of the economy.

 

Now comes along MQA (if it becomes a significant market player) that moves the needle back in the direction of the larger studios/labels/big players. Big "solutions" (and MQA is a big-end-to-end solution) usually help the big boys and hurt the small guys, and help consolidate the market. People often don't like non-consolidated markets - lots of choices (many of them bad) and unpredictable change, but also lots of innovation. Consolidated markets have their advantages (think video - non-tech people can walk into Walmart and purchase a Blue-Ray and it just works).

 

I hate saying this (it makes me sound like a pseudo-marxist) but MQA truly benefits the few at the cost of the many...

 

If MQA remains backward compatible there should be no worries for the little guys (including musicians) who are not part of the studio machine. At least that's how I see it from my limited knowledge on the topic.

[crenca]

Since I've been working on Linux and open source things as long as Linux has existed, I nowadays have pretty good hunch on what kind of projects work as open source and which don't.

 

By the way, I don't know how open source is related to all this, but lot of the standardized codecs like MPEG-1 Layer III (aka MP3), AAC, H.264 (AVC), H.265 (HEVC) are open standards published by ISO/IEC MPEG and ITU-T. Even with open reference implementations, but they are not "free" as considered in open source context. There would be much less doubt about MQA if they'd gone through ISO/IEC route. Also a general good practice has been that specification and implementation of a codec are not tied. All this just gives some longevity guarantees on accessibility of media content.

 

Miska, what are the basic indicators for you when evaluating whether a project/idea will work as "open source"?

 

Thanks for explicating a bit about what "open source" is and is not. Much much more could be said about this (e.g. open source vs. open, what is IP, etc. etc.) but the important thing to remember is it is not a simple dichotomy - it is not "free" (as in can't make a profit, etc.) vs. innovation (as in "take this consumer it can't be done any other way"), etc. It is not Batman vs. Superman. IP and digital is a complicated subject and there are multiple ways to do it, some more consumer friendly than others.

 

Imagine if the medication you take was a "black box" MQA pill, and your doctor could not even know how it works (how for example it interacts with other medications because the mechanism of the drug itself was unknown)?

 

I think it is important to remember that the DRMing of video literally (quite literally) took an act of congress - consumers did not go there willingly. I would counter any pessimism about the ultimate powerlessness of consumers with the powerlessness of "the industry" in the personal computer age. As someone upstream said "...It's too late, big studios/labels have lost control of the market..." which is so true in multiple ways. In our niche (the niche of the "computer audiophile", which is a niche of audiophiledom) we of course know how to network (through forums like this one) and we can at least be a bit informed as to how we $spend$ and how our digital purchases work in our digital ecosystems.

[loop7]

This is one of the most informative and intriguing threads I've read on CA in a while.

 

I'm hoping consumers are skeptical and smart about MQA as I truly believe labels are hoping for yet another way to sell people music a second or third time.

 

Selfishly, I hope MQA can take streaming to another level but I still have major reservations about one private company owning this.

[Rt66indierock]

Hi indierock - Nice to see you at RMAF. I think you raise perhaps the most important question. Is the sound quality good enough to offset the issues?

 

I enjoyed meeting you as well. I'll post about RMAF 2016 next week. I didn't want to be the first to write about the power issues in the rooms in any case. This week was filled with Yom Kippur which affects my professional and social life, a personal income tax deadline in the US and the 30th anniversary of receiving my license to practice public accounting from the State of Washington tomorrow.

 

Don't forget the Rt66 part, my life time study of the mother road was common ground with John Atkinson. He even encouraged me to keep posting.

[new_media]

How are you fighting it? I'm curious to know what people have done or are doing to fight what they think is bad (MQA). No judgement, just curious.

 

Well, I would not want my only choice for "better than CD quality" audio to be a proprietary technology that requires "authentication" for proper playback.

 

I would always want the option of high-res PCM/DSD that can be converted to and from different formats and played back at full resolution without a corporate blessing.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Well, I would not want my only choice for "better than CD quality" audio to be a proprietary technology that requires "authentication" for proper playback.

 

I would always want the option of high-res PCM/DSD that can be converted to and from different formats and played back at full resolution without a corporate blessing.

I know what you want, but the question was, what are you doing to fight it?

 

:~)

[new_media]

I know what you want, but the question was, what are you doing to fight it?

 

:~)

 

Fighting with my credit card is about all I can do.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[The Computer Audiophile]

Fighting with my credit card is about all I can do.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I hear ya.

[Axiom05]

Fighting with my credit card is about all I can do.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Same for me.

[esldude]

This business about the credit card. Actually there is so little music or gear purchasing power at present has no effect. Which is part of what is at the core of MQA and how it is conducting this. Part of what isn't liked. If MQA can manage it, they will convince all commercial music outlets to sign on to MQA as a distribution format. Then there is no choice. I doubt they will convince all, and then you do have some choice. I doubt if MQA will positively or negatively effect the commercial success of music companies very much. If mostly successful MQA will interfere with our own and other companies efforts at usefully using DSP, copying into other formats for portable use etc. They will lock it down and that is that. That is the part we as audiophiles, at least some of us don't like. So the sunny side of pessimism is that 95% of all recorded music is done so poorly even a quality crippled undecoded MQA is probably of little musical consequence. I still rankle at them becoming the gate keepers to potential better quality and making us pay for it as well as deciding when and where it can be used all without our consent.

[Fokus]

How are you fighting it?

 

By exposing it for what it is on some audio forums.

[orgel]

…

 

- You can also buy encoding/encryption machine for $20k

…

 

I hate saying this (it makes me sound like a pseudo-marxist) but MQA truly benefits the few at the cost of the many...

 

This isn't a perfect analogy, but the "franchising" aspect of MQA reminds me of Kodak's PhotoCD program back in the 90s. (Oh, you don't remember PhotoCD? Oh, you don't remember Kodak?)

 

At the time, I was working for a prepress service bureau, and the owner thought that PhotoCD would be a good way to expand business, so we trotted on up to Rochester, NY, got a really nice dog-and-pony show, and my boss decided to go for a PhotoCD setup, which consisted of a SPARCstation (Oh, you don't remember Sun?) running PhotoCD software, a very nice film scanner and a pretty nice flatbed scanner, and a PhotoCD writer (pretty much a regular CD-R burner, but those were a lot more expensive back then). At the time, this seemed like a reasonable decision and I had fun with the hardware, but within a couple of years it became clear that PhotoCD wasn't going to catch on in a big way, demand for PhotoCD died down, and that was more or less that. I think my boss broke even … maybe.

 

Now, the PhotoCD workstation was more like $100K, vs $20K for the MQA setup, and PhotoCD was always going to be a temporary bridge technology (which wasn't nearly as clear at the time as it is in hindsight), but I can't help but notice some similarities. Playing the percentages, I think MQA likely won't become pervasive and all these little "MQA houses" will be left holding the collective bag.

 

Just my opinion.

 

--David

[Doak]

........I think it is important to remember that the DRMing of video literally (quite literally) took an act of congress - consumers did not go there willingly. I would counter any pessimism about the ultimate powerlessness of consumers with the powerlessness of "the industry" in the personal computer age. As someone upstream said "...It's too late, big studios/labels have lost control of the market..." which is so true in multiple ways. In our niche (the niche of the "computer audiophile", which is a niche of audiophiledom) we of course know how to network (through forums like this one) and we can at least be a bit informed as to how we $spend$ and how our digital purchases work in our digital ecosystems.

 

This may very well be "IT" - Could MQA be the music industries way of regaining control?? A Trojan Horse? Wolf in sheep's clothing? Pick your own metaphor.

[crenca]

This isn't a perfect analogy, but the "franchising" aspect of MQA reminds me of Kodak's PhotoCD program back in the 90s....Now, the PhotoCD workstation was more like $100K, vs $20K for the MQA setup, and PhotoCD was always going to be a temporary bridge technology (which wasn't nearly as clear at the time as it is in hindsight), but I can't help but notice some similarities. Playing the percentages, I think MQA likely won't become pervasive and all these little "MQA houses" will be left holding the collective bag.

 

Just my opinion.

 

--David

 

 

I think this is an important analysis, and reveals what can happen on the vendor/consumer side when a closed, proprietary, non "open" process/format is bought into. It also is a perennial aspect of tech in the digital world. I think it is clear that given a bit of time the market usually steers right around attempts by companies to build a dam and "control" the flow. This is why those who are anxious that accepting MQA in full (with all the downside) can be the only way to accomplish the SQ improvements that MQA offers are really arguing against history - there is always a better mousetrap right around the corner...

[The Computer Audiophile]

I just moved some posts into a new thread. I think the topic raised in the Archimago's blog post is really interesting, but will take this MQA thread far from its intended purpose. Thus the new thread - http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/mqa-press-industry-consumers-etc-30231/

[labjr]

In some of the recent interviews I've read with MQA people, I read a passage where the MQA spokesperson was describing hi-rez PCM as the record companies' "crown jewels" and how they had to be "protected" (can't for the life of me find it now).

 

I simply extrapolated that Warner may see replacing the PCM material at HDtracks (the material that MQA says must be "protected") with the recently created MQA versions of the same material as a way to "protect" the content. This is being discussed on other forums as well. Food for thought, that's all.

 

I read a similar statement about "crown jewels" in a Stereophile interview with Spencer Chrislu of MQA. This makes absolutely no sense to me. Supposedly MQA encoding sounds better than the original 24 192 file right?? So who would care about the original anymore?? I mean if GE can make a synthetic diamond more perfect than a natural one, who cares if they have a real one?

[The Computer Audiophile]

I read a similar statement about "crown jewels" in a Stereophile interview with Spencer Chrislu of MQA. This makes absolutely no sense to me. Supposedly MQA encoding sounds better than the original 24 192 file right?? So who would care about the original anymore?? I mean if GE can make a synthetic diamond more perfect than a natural one, who cares if they have a real one?

 

Keeping the "crown jewels" and delivering something else (MQA) really makes it seem like we are getting into a DRM nightmare all over again.

[new_media]

Keeping the "crown jewels" and delivering something else (MQA) really makes it seem like we are getting into a DRM nightmare all over again.

 

Exactly. If MQA DACs disappear from the market, then the consumer is left with less-than-redbook quality files and no way of transcoding them to another format without sacrificing quality.

 

With hi-res FLAC or WAV, I know I can covert to whatever new lossless format may come along without compromising resolution.

[Axiom05]

Keeping the "crown jewels" and delivering something else (MQA) really makes it seem like we are getting into a DRM nightmare all over again.

 

Yes, just another example of the confused & contradictory message coming from the MQA folks.