MQA is Vaporware

[rando]

MQA is shaping up to be one heck of a book on tape format.

[Jud]

4 hours ago, Shadders said:

I don't see this happening, so why then offer MQA, if it costs the record industry more money to offer ?, and MQA (as per your statement) is there to stop the record industry offering the crown jewels ?

 

Because (again) the music industry doesn't need it to avoid offering the crown jewels, and (again) telling people you need new hardware to get the full effect limits their market, so (again) it seems to me much more likely the reason is to be able to market something shiny and new.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, rando said:

MQA is shaping up to be one heck of a book on tape format.

 Ha! Way too funny. 

[Shadders]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Because (again) the music industry doesn't need it to avoid offering the crown jewels, and (again) telling people you need new hardware to get the full effect limits their market, so (again) it seems to me much more likely the reason is to be able to market something shiny and new.

HI Jud,

That is the point isn't it - why offer MQA if it costs more money than the return on investment ? and is not needed to stop bootlegging ?.

Offering something shiny and new that costs more money, than existing formats make no business sense.

So, maybe, the shiny and new is not the reason ?

What the reason is, we can only speculate, *cough*DRM*cough*.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Jud]

7 hours ago, Shadders said:

HI Jud,

That is the point isn't it - why offer MQA if it costs more money than the return on investment ?

 

Who was saying it would cost more than the ROI?

 

7 hours ago, Shadders said:

Offering something shiny and new that costs more money, than existing formats make no business sense.

 

Let's make this very simple and easy.  This week Apple rolled out shiny new phones, a couple of which cost a little more than the existing phones.  This seems to me to make great business sense, to have something shiny and new you can sell for more money.  No?

 

7 hours ago, Shadders said:

So, maybe, the shiny and new is not the reason ?

What the reason is, we can only speculate, *cough*DRM*cough*.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Apple also rolled out a new phone that costs a *lot* more than their existing phones.  So they have the iPhone 8, on which they will likely depend for the majority of sales (if the iPhone 8 doesn't sell well, this week's launch will certainly be a business failure), and the iPhone X, the luxury model.  This model is aimed not at the majority of the market, but at early adopters with a lot of money to spend who must have what is reputed to be the latest and greatest.  I'm sure Apple wants the iPhone X to do well, but priced at $999 and up I am sure they are not relying on it for anywhere near the majority of their sales.

 

For the music industry, MQA without specific MQA hardware occupies the same position the iPhone 8 does for Apple.  It's a little more money but not a lot, they will push it as being better than the mp3 and AAC in the market right now (just as Apple extols the improvements of the iPhone 8 over the iPhone 7), and they will rely on it for the vast majority of sales.  What DRM gets the music industry is a "luxury model."  If you spend ~$100 or more on specific MQA hardware, then you, the early adopter with an extra ~$100 to burn, will hear an "even better" version than the "better" version the vast majority are buying.

 

So just like the iPhone 8, if MQA *without* specific MQA hardware doesn't sell to the masses, it will be a business failure.  The "luxury model" of MQA that DRM enables is like the iPhone X: it will be nice to have the extra sales, but this isn't what will make or break the product.

[Shadders]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Who was saying it would cost more than the ROI?

 

 

Let's make this very simple and easy.  This week Apple rolled out shiny new phones, a couple of which cost a little more than the existing phones.  This seems to me to make great business sense, to have something shiny and new you can sell for more money.  No?

 

 

Apple also rolled out a new phone that costs a *lot* more than their existing phones.  So they have the iPhone 8, on which they will likely depend for the majority of sales (if the iPhone 8 doesn't sell well, this week's launch will certainly be a business failure), and the iPhone X, the luxury model.  This model is aimed not at the majority of the market, but at early adopters with a lot of money to spend who must have what is reputed to be the latest and greatest.  I'm sure Apple wants the iPhone X to do well, but priced at $999 and up I am sure they are not relying on it for anywhere near the majority of their sales.

 

For the music industry, MQA without specific MQA hardware occupies the same position the iPhone 8 does for Apple.  It's a little more money but not a lot, they will push it as being better than the mp3 and AAC in the market right now (just as Apple extols the improvements of the iPhone 8 over the iPhone 7), and they will rely on it for the vast majority of sales.  What DRM gets the music industry is a "luxury model."  If you spend ~$100 or more on specific MQA hardware, then you, the early adopter with an extra ~$100 to burn, will hear an "even better" version than the "better" version the vast majority are buying.

 

So just like the iPhone 8, if MQA *without* specific MQA hardware doesn't sell to the masses, it will be a business failure.  The "luxury model" of MQA that DRM enables is like the iPhone X: it will be nice to have the extra sales, but this isn't what will make or break the product.

Hi Jud,

I am saying it will cost more money - they have to pay MQA Ltd, whereas for all other streaming, including MP3 now, it is licence free ? The extra layer of MQA has to be paid for by someone. So, maybe as you have said the price for MQA will be higher.

 

Apple have people buying into the brand, MQA Ltd is not the same as Apple. So people purchasing an expensive iPhone is expected - this is what Apple fans do. So, shiny and new - if they also sell it for more - then ok - maybe people will be inclined to purchase MQA over others as they may attribute more money must mean it is better. But then, sometimes consumers can be quite adept at seeing a scam - why pay more for something which on a mobile sounds no different to another stream or download ?

 

For MQA, if the business model is that it will be sold for more money than its counterpart, then ok - business case seems to be valid.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Hifi Bob]

3 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi Jud,

I am saying it will cost more money - they have to pay MQA Ltd, whereas for all other streaming, including MP3 now, it is licence free ?

MP3 and Vorbis (Spotify) are licence free; AAC is free for streaming.

[Miska]

9 hours ago, Shadders said:

The extra layer of MQA has to be paid for by someone. So, maybe as you have said the price for MQA will be higher.

 

Yeah, degraded DRM MQA versions of hires album download cost 2€ more than the original non-MQA hires version...

 

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

 

Yeah, degraded DRM MQA versions of hires album download cost 2€ more than the original non-MQA hires version...

 

Hi,

This is speculation - as it will cost the record company more than current offerings, to provide - so i am trying to see why they want to sell something shiny and new, as a loss leader, or for profit as above.

Some people can be convinced of anything, especially if subjectively presented.... cables, isolation mats, green pens on the edge of the CD, the list is nearly endless. existing list = existing list + MQA;

Regards,

Shadders.

[FredericV]

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/12847173-post86.html

RMAF has cancelled the MQA Panel.

 

Quote

This was to be Sat 12noon in prime time with Richard Schram owner of Parasound moderating. MQA rep Mike Jbara bailed first on his desire to talk with me ahead of the panel, then RMAF cancelled the panel. Coincidence or pattern? You decide. I would bet my savings they were pressured to do so by Jbara or Stuart in the face of a serious panel with serious questions.

They must be very afraid of Brian Lucey and those with real questions

[Rt66indierock]

29 minutes ago, FredericV said:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/12847173-post86.html

RMAF has cancelled the MQA Panel.

 

They must be very afraid of Brian Lucey and those with real questions

 

Or they are all just assuming everything will blow over. See John Darko's birthday post today with Bob Stuart handing him money.

[crenca]

4 hours ago, FredericV said:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/12847173-post86.html

RMAF has cancelled the MQA Panel.

 

They must be very afraid of Brian Lucey and those with real questions

 

Very interesting. As far as the idea that MQA is about the quote shiny new thing unquote, I think that is true of any new thing and quite beside the point.  Of course any new product is going to position itself as something new and worthwhile having, that is just a truism.

 

Robert Harley of absolute sound was exactly right two years ago when he admitted that MQA begins and ends with DRM and that is why it exists.

[Rt66indierock]

15 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Very interesting. As far as the idea that MQA is about the quote shiny new thing unquote, I think that is true of any new thing and quite beside the point.  Of course any new product is going to position itself as something new and worthwhile having, that is just a truism.

 

Robert Harley of absolute sound was exactly right two years ago when he admitted that MQA begins and ends with DRM and that is why it exists.

 

Where did Robert Harley say this exactly? The iOS 11 release is causing some interesting rumors about whether MQA is even necessary for streaming.

[daverich4]

15 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Robert Harley of absolute sound was exactly right two years ago when he admitted that MQA begins and ends with DRM and that is why it exists.

 

I save my copies of TAS and over the last couple of years there have been numerous editorials and articles by Robert Harley acting as an MQA fanboi and raving about the SOUND. The only time I can remember him mentioning DRM is to dismiss online claims that it exists in MQA files. I can't imagine that he ever made the statement that you claim he did or anything even remotely like it. 

[crenca]

29 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

I save my copies of TAS and over the last couple of years there have been numerous editorials and articles by Robert Harley acting as an MQA fanboi and raving about the SOUND. The only time I can remember him mentioning DRM is to dismiss online claims that it exists in MQA files. I can't imagine that he ever made the statement that you claim he did or anything even remotely like it. 

 

That is the thing about MQA, it has a singular ability to make people talk out of both sides of their mouth. In his "MQA from 30000 feet" article Robert explains very well what MQA is, why it is DRM, why the industry even needs this kind of DRM in a desperate sort of way, excetera ( i.e. "crown jewels", etc.).  He of course then explicitly denies everything he just said in an effort to sell it a as something it is not, that is something that is benign for audiophiles, manufacturers, and the general consumer.  Of course you can't have it both ways and so this double-minded effort is failing and perhaps the canceling of the panel at RMAF is as good sign of this failure as anything else.

 

Now it must be said that Roberts intention with this article was not to do what he did, it's just that he was a bit too honest about the industry motivations and the place in MQA has in the current landscape.  Go back and read it again and see what you think, but you have to have an attitude of the  "loyal opposition".  In other words read it with a bit of a critical mind...

 

As in MQA cheerleader Robert is so desperate now that his last editorial had him analogizing MQA with Kuhn's "Scientific Revolutions".  It really is getting laughable.

[daverich4]

11 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

That is the thing about MQA, it has a singular ability to make people talk out of both sides of their mouth. In his "MQA from 30000 feet" article Robert explains very well what MQA is, why it is DRM

 

Can you tell me what issue of TAS that was in?  Or where else it might have been? I'd like to read the whole article for myself. Thanks. 

[daverich4]

Never mind, I found it. This is what he ACTUALLY said:

 

 "ln 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. That high-resolution signal exists only at the decoder output, in analog form but matches very closely the analog in the studio. Of course, you can store an MQA-encoded file (it’s formatted as a 44.1 or 48kHz/24-bit FLAC file) with all the high-resolution information embedded in it, but to access that hi-res information you must play it back. It must be noted here that MQA has no form of copy protection or digital-rights management (DRM) whatsoever. Contrary to what some Internet posters think, MQA is not an evil scheme to institute DRM.

 

Not exactly "MQA begins and ends with DRM" as you claimed. 

[crenca]

4 hours ago, daverich4 said:

Never mind, I found it. This is what he ACTUALLY said:

 

 "ln 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. That high-resolution signal exists only at the decoder output, in analog form but matches very closely the analog in the studio. Of course, you can store an MQA-encoded file (it’s formatted as a 44.1 or 48kHz/24-bit FLAC file) with all the high-resolution information embedded in it, but to access that hi-res information you must play it back. It must be noted here that MQA has no form of copy protection or digital-rights management (DRM) whatsoever. Contrary to what some Internet posters think, MQA is not an evil scheme to institute DRM.

 

Not exactly "MQA begins and ends with DRM" as you claimed. 

 

It is exactly as I claimed.  The " compelling solution" is a textbook description of DRM, a very good example of it and if I was going to teach a class on DRM this would be a primary example. Robert sums it up nicely. The fact that he in the very next sentence denies exactly what he described is simply part of the circus that is in MQA.

 

Not only is his few sentences formally correct as far as a logical definition of DRM, it is also factually correct and describes an actual case of DRM in the wild, namely MQA.

 

Not sure if you actually understand what DRM is, but it is not limited to encryption or a copy protection scheme.

[tobes]

On 6/9/2017 at 11:03 PM, Charles Hansen said:

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: 

 

This is what I can't figure out.

I can't see any mass market need for MQA from a consumer point of view. When you compare Bob's example of DVD vs Bluray (which I think is a significant and demonstrable leap in quality) the MQA vs 16/44 comparison is very subtle.

The general public attitude would be complete disinterest in the MQA format - I bet the average person would laugh in your face if you tried to demonstrate how it's 'better'. Audiophiles who want/appreciate higher SQ can buy the legitimate hi-res recordings.

 

A murky agenda by the record companies seems to be the only answer.

[asdf1000]

4 hours ago, tobes said:

I bet the average person would laugh in your face if you tried to demonstrate how it's 'better'.

 

Not only this, but linking to @Jud's earlier comment about the 99% vs us (1%), good luck convincing them (the 99% happy with Spotify and Apple Music) to pay double for their monthly streaming subscription.

[fung0]

6 hours ago, Em2016 said:

Not only this, but linking to @Jud's earlier comment about the 99% vs us (1%), good luck convincing them (the 99% happy with Spotify and Apple Music) to pay double for their monthly streaming subscription.

 

Exactly. The streaming market has found its sweet-spot price points, and they're not likely to shift. They're certainly not going to double, in exchange for claimed benefits that the average consumer can't hear or even understand. Nor is there much new money to be extracted from the 1% audiophiles - especially not by downgrading the quality of the data.

 

The adoption of MQA must be about something other than increased revenues.

 

Discussions took place in the boardrooms of the big companies that have already signed on. Graphs were presented in PowerPoint. What do you suppose they said?

[lmitche]

20 minutes ago, fung0 said:

 

Exactly. The streaming market has found its sweet-spot price points, and they're not likely to shift. They're certainly not going to double, in exchange for claimed benefits that the average consumer can't hear or even understand. Nor is there much new money to be extracted from the 1% audiophiles - especially not by downgrading the quality of the data.

 

The adoption of MQA must be about something other than increased revenues.

 

Discussions took place in the boardrooms of the big companies that have already signed on. Graphs were presented in PowerPoint. What do you suppose they said?

Simple, the headline says, "MQA DRM prevents unpaid copying of music files from proliferating on the internet". The graph shows a downward trendline of illegal downloads from today, going into the future. It has a music industry revenue line pointing upwards.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, lmitche said:

Simple, the headline says, "MQA DRM prevents unpaid copying of music files from proliferating on the internet". The graph shows a downward trendline of illegal downloads from today, going into the future. It has a music industry revenue line pointing upwards.

 

Well, but it doesn’t.  It prevents unpaid copying of the originals, but then so does the decimation to lower resolutions that is ubiquitous today.  It doesn’t at all prevent copying of MQA files (or, with a little more trouble, streams).

 

 It seems to me the attraction of MQA must be the ability to sell something as new and hi res and better sounding.

 

As I’ve speculated before, MQA without new hardware could be sold as something better, and MQA with new hardware could be sold as a luxury tier for fewer people.

[lmitche]

16 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Well, but it doesn’t.  It prevents unpaid copying of the originals, but then so does the decimation to lower resolutions that is ubiquitous today.  It doesn’t at all prevent copying of MQA files (or, with a little more trouble, streams).

 

 It seems to me the attraction of MQA must be the ability to sell something as new and hi res and better sounding.

 

As I’ve speculated before, MQA without new hardware could be sold as something better, and MQA with new hardware could be sold as a luxury tier for fewer people.

Jud,

 

Sorry to be unclear. I was answering this question:

 

Discussions took place in the boardrooms of the big companies that have already signed on. Graphs were presented in PowerPoint. What do you suppose they said?

 

It's about the future outcome, not what MQA does today.

 

 

[mansr]

16 minutes ago, Jud said:

Well, but it doesn’t.  It prevents unpaid copying of the originals, but then so does the decimation to lower resolutions that is ubiquitous today.  It doesn’t at all prevent copying of MQA files (or, with a little more trouble, streams).

As used today, no. It has optional features providing much more restrictions.