MQA is Vaporware

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, Miska said:

Even if a format is "extinct" the content is not. So if I ever purchase content I want to have the freedom to losslessly transcode it to a new container without having to purchase the same content over and over again. Standard FLAC, ALAC and such allow this. MQA is breaking this possibility, on purpose. Since I use primarily Linux, I won't be able to use that software.

 

4 hours ago, Miska said:

If the single vendor companies, like MQA, go extinct, possibility to purchase new devices with MQA decoding capability will likely also cease. And it will be very hard to keep the MQA encoded content usable.

 

 

This is a reasonable argument against MQA -- more specifically, against purchasing MQA files vs streaming MQA. I agree that one should be able to transcode the MQA file without loss to any container without having to repurchase the same content over again.

[Michael Lavorgna]

Just now, mansr said:

Oh no, another hour of this.

 

10 minutes according to my clock. And here's something you may not know - you don't have to read what I post.

[mansr]

Just now, Michael Lavorgna said:

10 minutes according to my clock.

Oh, you meant EDT. Thank goodness.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, lucretius said:

This is a reasonable argument against MQA -- more specifically, against purchasing MQA files vs streaming MQA. I agree that one should be able to transcode the MQA file without loss to any container without having to repurchase the same content over again.

Too bad the loss is baked into the format, even if you had a decoder.

[lucretius]

11 hours ago, mansr said:

The format allows for much more degradation, including to the point of uselessness, without a decoder. They're just not using those features yet.

 

I'd like to ponder this thought a little more.  Perhaps a streaming provider like Tidal would have motivation to do this (e.g. different price tiers). But what motivation would there be for doing this when it comes to the sale of MQA downloads?  Who in their right mind would by such downloads (that are severely degraded without the use of a decoder) ?

[Shadders]

3 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

I'd like to ponder this thought a little more.  Perhaps a streaming provider like Tidal would have motivation to do this (e.g. different price tiers). But what motivation would there be for doing this when it comes to the sale of MQA downloads?  Who in their right mind would by such downloads (that are severely degraded without the use of a decoder) ?

Hi,

Possible that you purchase the standard version with red book compatibility, and then pay for an unlock to experience the unfolding.

Similar, if they can implement this for MP3 quality, pay to unlock to CD quality, or pay further to unlock to full MQA based quality.

If many are not too bothered about quality, then they can download MP3 level quality, which would be cheaper.

Regards,

Shadders.

[lucretius]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

Too bad the loss is baked into the format, even if you had a decoder.

 

There's "loss" baked into all digital formats. In the case of MQA, can you hear the "loss"? Vis-a-vis redbook and or 24/96, 24/192, DSD, etc.? 

[Charles Hansen]

1 hour ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

I've spoken to many people about MQA and not one of them, including people with PhDs in physics, raise any of the speculative stuff I see here. Of course, these people are not as qualified to call other people liars ;-)

 

Hi Michael,

 

This is getting old. Stuart is a proven liar - he lied about the Meridian MCD not having op-amps in its signal path, he lied to John Curl and tried to patent a circuit John sketched for him at a "friendly" dinner meeting, and he continually lies about MQA - that it is "lossless" (and then changes it to "perceptually lossless"), or that it doesn't have DRM, or that 16 bits provides 144 dB S/N ratio (later changing that to 120 dB S/N ratio).

 

This list is practically endless. But if you want to believe Pinocchio, that is your prerogative.

 

Best,

Charles Hansen

 

PS - Or if you want to catch him on a more "sane" day, when he was apparently not in such desperate need of money, you can hear him tell you why nobody needs MQA here: 

 

[mcgillroy]

4 hours ago, Miska said:

 

If the single vendor companies, like MQA, go extinct, possibility to purchase new devices with MQA decoding capability will likely also cease. And it will be very hard to keep the MQA encoded content usable.

 

Especially since we don't know how key-managment is implemented. Is MQA controlling the PKI and handling root-keys + signing processes?

 

Anybody shed some light on this? Michael can you ask Bob if you get the chance?

[lucretius]

10 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

Especially since we don't know how key-managment is implemented. Is MQA controlling the PKI and handling root-keys + signing processes?

 

Anybody shed some light on this? Michael can you ask Bob if you get the chance?

 

Great question!

[Charles Hansen]

42 minutes ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

What do you make of this: https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality

 

Hi Michael,

 

It's fairly obvious that every single word was written by MQA. If you think this passes for "journalism", think again. Regurgitating press releases (likely for pay) is shabby and deceitful. It would be no different than if Ayre were to release a "new" product that was an exact copy of a competitor's product - except for the logo.

 

Best,

Charles Hansen

[lucretius]

23 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Possible that you purchase the standard version with red book compatibility, and then pay for an unlock to experience the unfolding.

 

But if the "standard" version is severely degraded, why buy it?

 

 

23 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Similar, if they can implement this for MP3 quality, pay to unlock to CD quality, or pay further to unlock to full MQA based quality.

If many are not too bothered about quality, then they can download MP3 level quality, which would be cheaper.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Do you really think this is plausible?

[lucretius]

8 hours ago, Hifi Bob said:

They could, if they wanted, render copies of the file decodeable only on your own devices. E.g. you would go to the MQA web-site, create an account, and register the serial numbers of up to (say) five MQA devices. Then when you purchase an MQA file, you would supply your MQA account ID and you'd receive the file encrypted with your own personal devices key. (This would be much harder to achieve with MQA on CD, of course.)

 

Who in there right mind would purchase either an MQA CD or MQA download as described above?  I just don't see a business case for it.

[Sal1950]

Good show guys, a very clear and precise presentation on the negative aspects of MQA.

 

Sadly the Boys Club of High End Dollar$ will never allow anyone under their umbrella of influence
to publish anything anti-MQA in a manner that wouldn't be dismissive and discrediting.

What a sad situation that the High End print media and many websites pursue a policy of subverting the

truth in preference to lies that make money. 

[lucretius]

33 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Good show guys, a very clear and precise presentation on the negative aspects of MQA.

 

Sadly the Boys Club of High End Dollar$ will never allow anyone under their umbrella of influence
to publish anything anti-MQA in a manner that wouldn't be dismissive and discrediting.

What a sad situation that the High End print media and many websites pursue a policy of subverting the

truth in preference to lies that make money. 

 

Who's to say that the anti-MQA folks don't have their own "Boys Club of High End Dollar$"?

[Andyman]

52 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

Hi Michael,

 

It's fairly obvious that every single word was written by MQA. If you think this passes for "journalism", think again. Regurgitating press releases (likely for pay) is shabby and deceitful. It would be no different than if Ayre were to release a "new" product that was an exact copy of a competitor's product - except for the logo.

 

Best,

Charles Hansen

 

I had presumed (hoped) that was the point he was making

[Sal1950]

22 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Who's to say that the anti-MQA folks don't have their own "Boys Club of High End Dollar$"?

Where is it?  I want to join.

For all the time and energy I've expended here and elsewhere in my rant against MQA I'd love to have been paid or at least felt I was gaining some ground for someone, somewhere.

[Charles Hansen]

18 minutes ago, Andyman said:

I had presumed (hoped) that was the point he was making

 

Hi Andy,

 

After re-reading his post, I think you are right. And in that case it was a pretty pathetic "point". The only reason I put the phrase "the forum for the "pro" industry" is simply because if one was not familiar with the site "Gearslutz", one would have no idea what it was about and might dismiss it out-of-hand (just as I'm sure that many dismiss the brand "Schiit Audio" out of hand).

 

If he then is trying to make a "point" that the post I linked should be disregarded because he found a paid ad disguised as an article on a completely different website, that is a much farther stretch than I can handle. It's as silly as saying that since Bob Stuart is a known liar that all persons named "Bob" should also not be trusted.

 

Thanks,

Charles Hansen

[FredericV]

2 hours ago, mcgillroy said:

Especially since we don't know how key-managment is implemented. Is MQA controlling the PKI and handling root-keys + signing processes?

 

Anybody shed some light on this? Michael can you ask Bob if you get the chance?

 

It's a fact that studio's still don't have access to an encoder. So MQA holds all the cards related to signing the files.
No mastering engineer signs the files. It's all done in an MQA facility.

[kumakuma]

3 hours ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

If I found a compelling argument, I would report on it.

 

Start here:

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30572-mqa-technical-analysis/

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/search?q=mqa

 

I'm sure others will be glad to provide you with links to other information if you're interested. Just ask. 

 

 

[lucretius]

delete

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Where is it?  I want to join.

 

"I dont want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member".

[Jud]

20 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

Hi Rt66,

 

Especially when the DVD-A remixes were so god-awaful. I think Mickey Hart (or whomever did those) forgot to take enough acid. They made the Grateful Dead sound like the Osmond Brothers.

 

Cheers,

Charles Hansen

 

Horses for courses - I liked that DVD-A (while thinking DVD-A versions of Tommy and Gaucho, for example, were indeed godawful).  I haven’t yet heard an MQA version I preferred to a hi res version unless the mastering was obviously different (different instrument locations, that sort of thing).  But I know folks who have, and that’s fine with me.  Why should I have a say about what they like?

[Shadders]

3 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

But if the "standard" version is severely degraded, why buy it?

 

 

 

Do you really think this is plausible?

Hi,

Technically possible, but commercially probable ?. Not sure - would have to be a slow migration, that is, all downloads and CD's etc., are MQA.

If albums began to be only available in MQA - this would indicate the start of the process.

So it is a wait and see really.

What we do know, is that DRM is in the MQA capability.

If it is never to be used - then why build it in ?

Regards,

Shadders.

[Jud]

42 minutes ago, Shadders said:

 

If it is never to be used - then why build it in ?

 

A possible reason (how probable I’ll leave for others to discuss) is legal protection.  Getting past copy protection is a big no-no under US copyright law, so even a little goes a long way in protecting your intellectual property.

 

It would be possible to employ the DRM in MQA for this purpose without regard to whether record labels or streaming services would want to use it exclusively in the market.