MQA is Vaporware

[Michael Lavorgna]

Below the Meridian Explorer prominently displayed in the "media kit" is something like a mission statement:

 

 

That sure sounds like the opposite of consumer advocacy to me.

 

And then, this:

 

 

 

This media "network" exists purely for advertisers. I don't see how that can be disputed.

The page of the TEN site you are looking at, "AudioStream Media Kit" is a page designed by corporate for potential Advertisers. You can read about AudioStream's Editorial policies on our About page.

[Michael Lavorgna]

Vincent,

 

I've met Michael and I think it is best to let him speak for himself. What he posted in this tread is his and his alone.

 

I'm more than happy to listen to anyone's opinion when I talk about audio. If Michael wants to read the original post and comment on it great. I may comment his post but I will not comment on the language. He is doing a great job of making MQA an audiophile format. Number two on my list of the ways for MQA to fail in the United States.

 

Finally you should look at The Enthusiast Network website and see how small the audio part is. Especially look at Audiostream and note the picture.

 

Yes - we met at RMAF before Darko's panel. I recall we continued to discuss the Door's "Riders On The Storm" and the recorded rain at the beginning of the track. You thought that the recorded rain was a keyboard. This 'conversation' began on the Stereophile website in the comments:

 

MQA: Questions and Answers | Stereophile.com

 

I remember this so clearly because it struck me as odd that you would bring this up 2 months after the original exchange.

 

In any event, it was nice meeting you, albeit rather briefly.

 

Question for you: what relevance does the picture on the TEN website have to me?

[Vincent1234]

The page of the TEN site you are looking at, "AudioStream Media Kit" is a page designed by corporate for potential Advertisers. You can read about AudioStream's Editorial policies on our About page.

Thanks, Michael. I studied journalism myself and based on that background I have already explained the usual practice of segregation of commercial and editorial activities when we are talking 'proper' journalism several times.

However, it doesn't seem to be accepted by many members here. It's what it is.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Michael Lavorgna]

Thanks, Michael. I studied journalism myself and based on that background I have already explained the usual practice of segregation of commercial and editorial activities when we are talking 'proper' journalism several times.

However, it doesn't seem to be accepted by many members here. It's what it is.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

I thought the term "Media Kit" would explain along with the context...

 

I've been looking at audio forums for a very long time and I occasionally comment. As you can see, when I do, people are more interested in the "me" they've fabricated to fit some imagined version of a "reviewer". You can tell it is imagined, and poorly imagined at that, because the portrayal is a one-dimensional character defined by the commenters bugaboo du jour.

[4est]

I was taking "load up" to mean rip. Obviously I was mistaken.

Trading physical CDs for each other, buying them, or selling them used is perfectly legal. Ripping then selling is questionable in the US and AIUI illegal in the U.K. Selling rips is illegal in the US.

[mansr]

I think it's pretty far-fetched indeed. First off, it would mean a severe restriction of their current policy to only allow CD quality (for non-MQA users) in a later stage.

 

They already restrict playback to "CD" quality for non-MQA DACs.

 

You shouldn't underestimate the market response if this would be the case. People would get mad and rightfully so. It could simply mean the end of you.

 

Not if they get to a point where the bulk of music is distributed as MQA.

 

As far as I can recall it would be a first in history for any sound format if such a restriction would happen later on and again, it would go completely against the technology trend of the last years. Standards are regularly set right from the off. Changing them later doesn't give you much credit.

Secondly: I have never heard anyone here complain about the fact that you also need to pay now for your dts and Dolby Digital decoders in your Blu-Ray and DVD players. Why is everybody mad about a standard that acts similarly, but at least doesn't FORCE you to buy it..?

 

Dolby Digital and DTS didn't replace anything that existed before. They provided something new: surround sound. Some form of compression was necessary to provide this feature within the physical bitrate limitations of the DVD medium (~10 Mbps).

 

As for nobody complaining about the locked-down nature of the DVD format, that's flat-out wrong. The creators of the DeCSS program were even put on trial (and acquitted) in Norway.

[Richard Dale]

You could easily add a standard cryptographic signature (e.g. PGP) to a FLAC file. The format allows arbitrary fields in the header that will simply be ignored by decoders that don't recognise them.

 

Since you make the analogy with software distribution, let's take that one step further. Many devices, for instance most phones, will refuse to run software that doesn't pass the signature verification, meaning you can't replace the vendor's software with something else. This is something free software advocates strongly object to. Would you like a DAC that will only play music with a valid signature? I can easily see MQA making it a licensing condition that DACs be limited to CD quality if no signature is found. Obviously, they'll have to wait for the format to catch on first.

 

If you think this seems far-fetched, look no further than to HD video. To produce a Blu-ray player, you must agree to limit the picture to DVD resolution if the display connection doesn't have HDCP encryption. MQA could become the music industry's equivalent of HDCP.

 

I don't see signing packages in itself is something Free Software advocates object to, and the combination of reproducible builds where a build system will always give the same binary for a given set of input source files, with signed packages is an important way to guarantee the provenance of a Free Software package so that you know that the can be no back doors or other sorts of malware added.

 

As you say, it is possible to use package signing to prevent proprietary software blobs being replaced with Free Software. But cryptographic signing is only a tool, and whether it is a 'good thing' or a 'bad thing' is entirely dependent on how is it used.

 

i don't think it is possible to argue convincingly that just because MQA uses cryptography for verifying the provenance of a recording, it automatically follows that in the future cryptography will be used to restrict music tracks being played on devices with certain features. That is only a problem if you don't trust the MQA developers and content creators. I personally have an open mind, and I'm interested in more technical details of exactly how MQA uses cryptography currently, without feeling the need to speculate about what it may or may not do in the future.

[Richard Dale]

They already restrict playback to "CD" quality for non-MQA DACs..

 

No they don't, MQA software decoding has just been adding to the Tidal app and others.

[Michael Lavorgna]

Not if they get to a point where the bulk of music is distributed as MQA.

 

One of the more interesting announcements at CES came from Rhapsody/Napster and Pandora - they will both stream hi-res content this year. Part 2 of that news is they will not be using MQA.

[bogi]

No they don't, MQA software decoding has just been adding to the Tidal app and others.

 

Also to many free apps? Aren't they becoming new commercial restrictions? How can you play MQA-ed content as hires through foobar2000, AIMP Player, Bughead Emperor and many many others? Only with MQA certified DAC. Where came the freedom of choosing a DAC? If MQA-ized audio world would become the reality, what would it mean for the world of free apps? Did you consider impacts of potentially MQA-ized audio world to this ecosystem? Maybe you are using only commercial products, maybe you don't care.

[Abtr]

Like many of the remastered stuff available on Tidal, MQA (Master) versions of albums often sound worse than the original (non-remastered) versions. A very obvious MQA example is Jethro Tull's Aqualung. The original version of Aqualung on Tidal sounds way, way better than the MQA version. Just try it! Admitted, the MQA version of Aqualung is based on the Steven Wilson Mix and Master version, which sounds horribly flat and compressed, but what on earth did EMI think to use this version for the MQA release?

 

All's well and good, as long as the original (non-remastered, lossless CD quality) versions remain available, but already with many (non-MQA) remastered versions that's often not the case. For example you can only download remastered Dire Straits, Pink Floyd, etc. from Tidal. If Tidal is going to replace all their lossless 44.1 files by arbitrary remastered MQA versions then I'm out.

 

Finally, what would be Tidal's intention to not make their MQA catalogue searchable? And sometimes the MQA version is listed in the regular entry for an artist, albeit unrecognizable as such until you actually play the file, and sometimes it's not. This is all very annoying and doesn't seem to have anything to do with providing better sound quality for their (HIFI/Master) customers..

[mansr]

One of the more interesting announcements at CES came from Rhapsody/Napster and Pandora - they will both stream hi-res content this year. Part 2 of that news is they will not be using MQA.

 

That's interesting. Do you know what they will be using?

[Michael Lavorgna]

That's interesting. Do you know what they will be using?

 

 

Not definitativly but so far the word is FLAC. There is also the more-than-rumored Pono hi-res streaming service. They are working with OraStream (so also non-MQA). There are also other hi-res streaming services coming but I do not have specifics.

[mav52]

That's interesting. Do you know what they will be using?

 

Some other tidbits from CES Universal, Sony and Warner Music, Pandora, RIAA Announce Support for Hi-Res Audio Streaming | Billboard

 

I like this little announcement "" Notably absent from today's announcement are streaming market leaders Spotify and Apple (the latter of which is reportedly developing their own high fidelity technology).""

[Richard Dale]

Also to many free apps? Aren't they becoming new commercial restrictions? How can you play MQA-ed content as hires through foobar2000, AIMP Player, Bughead Emperor and many many others? Only with MQA certified DAC. Where came the freedom of choosing a DAC? If MQA-ized audio world would become the reality, what would it mean for the world of free apps? Did you consider impacts of potentially MQA-ized audio world to this ecosystem? Maybe you are using only commercial products, maybe you don't care.

 

I do care about the world of Free Software apps. I use MPD Free Software in my three different music systems running on Raspberry Pis, although the apps I run on my Android phone and iPod Touch are proprietary.

 

It may well be a bad idea if the only music you could purchase was MQA encoded, but it hasn't happened and isn't likely to happen IMHO. If you are a 'glass half full' person like myself on this issue, you might think that MQA is an interesting addition to the High Res ecosystem, that will help make High Res music to be more popular in general. Maybe I will carry on buying mainly CDs for music as I do now, but have the bonus possibility of extra choices such as using Tidal streaming via MQA that I wouldn't have had otherwise.

[Michael Lavorgna]

I do care about the world of Free Software apps. I use MPD Free Software in my three different music systems running on Raspberry Pis, although the apps I run on my Android phone and iPod Touch are proprietary.

 

It may well be a bad idea if the only music you could purchase was MQA encoded, but it hasn't happened and isn't likely to happen IMHO. If you are a 'glass half full' person like myself on this issue, you might think that MQA is an interesting addition to the High Res ecosystem, that will help make High Res music to be more popular in general. Maybe I will carry on buying mainly CDs for music as I do now, but have the bonus possibility of extra choices such as using Tidal streaming via MQA that I wouldn't have had otherwise.

 

 

It seems to me that a more imminent and real concern is the decline of download sales and increasing popularity of streaming. I think we can agree that hi-res downloads are a niche within the download niche. As such, one question on my mind is how long can hi-res download sites survive?

 

If we couple this with hi-res streaming and the label's desire for copy protection, it strikes me that the more real and present danger (apologies) is the longevity of hi-res downloads.

[Vincent1234]

They already restrict playback to "CD" quality for non-MQA DACs.

 

No, and I think you know very well this is not correct, unless you missed a lot of the previous discussions. It's 24/96 max based on the current (partial) Tidal MQA software decoding. That's far beyond CD quality. It's actually called hi-res. And you don't need an MQA DAC for that at all. You do however for resolutions above that.

 

Not if they get to a point where the bulk of music is distributed as MQA.

 

As discussed here earlier that's not very likely at all. Again a lot of if's here.

 

Dolby Digital and DTS didn't replace anything that existed before. They provided something new: surround sound. Some form of compression was necessary to provide this feature within the physical bitrate limitations of the DVD medium (~10 Mbps).

 

As for nobody complaining about the locked-down nature of the DVD format, that's flat-out wrong. The creators of the DeCSS program were even put on trial (and acquitted) in Norway.

 

I'm not talking about hacking DVD encryption here. That's illegal, whether you like it or not.

My comment is about lots of people here pointing at MQA for its proprietary nature while it doesn't even force you to buy it. Dolby Digital and dts do. You are already paying for it for many, many years with each player you own or have owned in the past.

 

 

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[plissken]

Have you heard MQA?

Even Darko thought MQA sounded clearly better than the original HD files in his comparison. Or is he now a suspect too, after the 'discussion' here with Michael yesterday? After all, 'you cannot trust the audio press'..

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

Darko can also hear the difference in Ethernet cables. Indeed you can not trust the audio press.

[mansr]

No, and I think you know very well this is not correct, unless you missed a lot of the previous discussions. It's 24/96 max based on the current (partial) Tidal MQA software decoding. That's far beyond CD quality. It's actually called hi-res. And you don't need an MQA DAC for that at all. You do however for resolutions above that.

 

It's limited to somewhat less than CD quality if you don't have a licensed decoder, either hardware or software.

 

As discussed here earlier that's not very likely at all. Again a lot of if's here.

 

It's important to recognise possible bad developments before they happen. Once they do, there's no going back.

 

I'm not talking about hacking DVD encryption here. That's illegal, whether you like it or not.

 

In some countries it is legal so long as you only do it in order to watch DVDs you've legally purchased.

 

My comment is about lots of people here pointing at MQA for its proprietary nature while it doesn't even force you to buy it. Dolby Digital and dts do. You are already paying for it for many, many years with each player you own or have owned in the past.

 

The introduction of DVDs didn't take away my ability to do something I could previously. If MQA has its way, I will no longer be able to obtain lossless high-res music in a non-proprietary format.

[Michael Lavorgna]

Darko can also hear the difference in Ethernet cables. Indeed you can not trust the audio press.

 

You miss the point, again. Cables have no 'sound' of their own. However, cables in an audio system can change the sound of that system.

[Vincent1234]

Darko can also hear the difference in Ethernet cables. Indeed you can not trust the audio press.

Actually I'm more worried if I can trust you [emoji1]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Vincent1234]

It's limited to somewhat less than CD quality if you don't have a licensed decoder, either hardware or software.

 

 

 

It's important to recognise possible bad developments before they happen. Once they do, there's no going back.

 

 

 

In some countries it is legal so long as you only do it in order to watch DVDs you've legally purchased.

 

 

 

The introduction of DVDs didn't take away my ability to do something I could previously. If MQA has its way, I will no longer be able to obtain lossless high-res music in a non-proprietary format.

 

My my, so many if's for you to worry about.. What about just listening to music more and enjoying it, either with or without MQA? Trust me, the world will keep turning either way. [emoji6]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[plissken]

I think you misunderstand this point. Tidal is streaming MQA now. There is no DRM involved there, because it doesn't make sense. MQA is being accused here of having DRM, but until now you can only use it as a Tidal stream.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

MQA is on the edge of a quandary:

 

1. They are competing against open sourced, very mature formats, that are DRM free.

 

2. Some of these formats are 100% lossless

 

So what does Meridian do? They borrow a page from the HDCP play book and implement something very similar to ICT.

 

They can't do full run DRM because the market place wont have it, but they can water mark the file to Redbook equivalency on non MQA 'blessed' hardware/software.

 

They've basically instituted audio constraint token.

 

The real issue is with such bandwidth available it's a Pyrrhic solution from the consumer point of view.

[Richard Dale]

It seems to me that a more imminent and real concern is the decline of download sales and increasing popularity of streaming. I think we can agree that hi-res downloads are a niche within the download niche. As such, one question on my mind is how long can hi-res download sites survive?

 

If we couple this with hi-res streaming and the label's desire for copy protection, it strikes me that the more real and present danger (apologies) is the longevity of hi-res downloads.

 

I've bought some hi-res downloads from HD Tracks, but I think they are grossly overpriced and you can't always know if they are actually going to sound good. I don't think I always have to own music like we did in the 20th century, but I don't want to spend money on something like an MQA download which could be the Elcaset or 8-track tape of dead formats in 5 years. MQA as a streaming format makes more sense for me personally.

 

Most of my hi-res music is from the B&W Society of Sound music club, which has a business model that I think is under appreciated. I trust the B&W SOS music because it is run by people who care about sound quality and also have good contacts with people who make the sort of music I enjoy, such as the Real World record label. So rather than join a 'one size fits all' music streaming service I would prefer to join something more niche like a 'Blue Note Jazz club' or similar where you could stream the tracks (in MQA?), get a track in hi-res every month, and get bonus items like audiophile vinyl or books on Jazz and so on that you could purchase with a club discount.

[Michael Lavorgna]

I've bought some hi-res downloads from HD Tracks, but I think they are grossly overpriced and you can't always know if they are actually going to sound good. I don't think I always have to own music like we did in the 20th century, but I don't want to spend money on something like an MQA download which could be the Elcaset or 8-track tape of dead formats in 5 years. MQA as a streaming format makes more sense for me personally.

 

Most of my hi-res music is from the B&W Society of Sound music club, which has a business model that I think is under appreciated. I trust the B&W SOS music because it is run by people who care about sound quality and also have good contacts with people who make the sort of music I enjoy, such as the Real World record label. So rather than join a 'one size fits all' music streaming service I would prefer to join something more niche like a 'Blue Note Jazz club' or similar where you could stream the tracks (in MQA?), get a track in hi-res every month, and get bonus items like audiophile vinyl or books on Jazz and so on that you could purchase with a club discount.

I am on a very similar page. 99.9% of the music I buy is new and not a product of the 'big three'. Bandcamp is a great resource for me, and my tastes, and a large % of the purchase price goes directly to the artist. They also offer CD-quality and hi-res downloads for the same price as the lossy version. You can also 'stream' your purchases...