MQA is Vaporware

[bogi]

MQA doesn't prevent copying or distribution of the copies. It just prevents creation of content and "full resolution playback" on anything else than hardware that has been approved and licensed by the MQA company to perform playback the way they want.

 

So technically it is much similar to SACD, but with a twist that you could freely and easily copy SACD discs. But you could play the DSD layer only on Sony-approved hardware, otherwise you'd get only the CD-layer. Also the content creation side is similarly controlled, you pay MQA every time a song is encoded for you. Or you purchase ~$20k encoding machine.

 

If manufacturing of hardware with MQA decoder ceases to exist, soon you cannot anymore play the content in full and you are left with less than CD resolution.

 

Very good explanation, thanks. That's the answer to Musicophiles question about MQA's impact to end customer.

 

People behind MQA were saying MQA is not DRM. They operate with the word 'master' ambiguously. They were not explaining clearly what and why they are doing and what's real impact to end customer.

 

I don't like DRM because it means practical complications like limited music content and HW supporting it, troubles when DRM schemes change ... Impacts would be always on side of customers. In principle I understand the intention behind the attempts to introduce DRM. But what I don't like is that with MQA type of DRM no real hires (MQA format is not that!) and no DSP like simple equalization, digital room correction, crossfeed etc. is possible!

 

IMO what people behind MQA are not saying is: Digital downloads are growing, internet access is faster, cheaper and easier available than before. Digital downloads are future, so they see the chance to implement DRM scheme on that basis and catch significant market with that scheme. I think even if MQA will fail (I think and I wish it will), some other attempt to introduce new DRM scheme to digital downloads will be introduced soon. Maybe without that stupid restriction which disallows true hires and DSP.

 

I have feeling that attempts like MQA mean 'beginning of end' of physical medias. When some digital download DRM scheme would succeed (today we are far from that), content owners could restrict any other distribution channels (physical medias and unprotected downloads).

 

I have bad feeling that all the MQA and maybe future DRM schemes go against audiophiles. We are taken as some crazy animals who don't fit to their scheme.

[bogi]

About MQA vs. DSD being vaporware. DSD is not waporware for me because many DACs support DSD. I am sending all PCM content as DSD to my DAC, because it sounds better with my DAC to me. One could consider SACD media (not DSD) being vaporware. I'm rock oriented and I find quite lot of interesting content on SACD's ... although it's far from all I like. But DSD content typically sounds better on my DAC than PCM content, so I am preferring it if it is available.

[bogi]

Stereophile raved about the SQ - if true, that would be a big benefit

I did some listening comparisons using HQPlayer MQA filter and 2L recordings. I don't know how close is Miskas filter to MQA decoding in MQA certified devices, but my result was: HQPlayer MQA filter with MQA recording may sound better than CD quality non MQA recording, but in comparison with hires FLAC I felt 'missing air', missing resolution.

 

Both Miskas blog and Jim Lesurfs article shows that better resolution and thus better signal quality could be reached with the same bandwith by using hires in ordinary FLAC container.

 

MQA applies some DSP on music content but disallows user to use any other DSP. With MQA you have no change to listen to hires recordings created from real masters and no chance to apply DSP of your choice.

 

MQA is not targeted to audiophiles. MQA is targeted to mainstream audience, which doesn't care about hires audio. MQA streamed content (with $300 Meridian DAC) may sound better than typical streamed content on average gear of that audience. But most probably not in comparison with real hires, mastered from production result and listened on higher quality gear.

[bogi]

Perhaps it is time to buy more music before it is too late...

 

If MQA will accelerate sales of ordinary music content then I found something positive on MQA.

[bogi]

I would strongly advise anyone 'throwing bits around' here and claiming MQA must be sounding really bad to read this article thoroughly first. MQA is not easy to understand from a technical PoV. But if you take the time it's certainly doable and there's a lot of very clever maths behind it. It's clear to me that a lot of technical allegations here are simply incorrect and based on lack of knowledge, which doesn't help the discussion.

 

Could you please explain where is John Siau incorrect?

 

"The MQA encoder shown in Fig. 7A accepts a 96 kHz 24-bit input. This 24-bit input is immediately reduced to 17 bits ...

...

... Note that the original 24-bit signal is never recovered. MQA does not losslessly preserve the original 24-bit signal. For this reason MQA is not truly a lossless system. At best, the MQA system losslessly conveys 17-bits at 96 kHz. Unfortunately this very complicated process is less efficient than lossless FLAC compression of the 17-bit file. It is also only slightly smaller than a FLAC version of the original 24-bit signal. MQA does not make it easier to stream 96 kHz files. With a 96 kHz 18-bit input, FLAC compressed MQA requires higher data rates than FLAC compressed PCM while delivering lower quality than 18-bit losslessly compressed PCM. MQA also requires special mastering and special playback hardware. Conventional FLAC compression requires neither."

[bogi]

No I myself cannot, since I'm not technically savvy enough to be able to point out the correctness or incorrectness of his exact technical reasoning.

Having said that: can you yourself indicate if John Siau is technically more correct or less correct than Stereophile is in their analyses of MQA's working?

 

Furthermore: please allow me to be much more sceptical towards the VP of a DAC brand that's clearly not willing to embrace MQA for their own personal (and no doubt business/financial) reasons. For this exact reason I tend to trust Stereophile's opinion more, as they are not paid purely to represent a specific brand's own financial interest. Don't you think John (although being a digital expert) just might be a little bit biased on this topic..?

 

To me John's opinion on MQA is just as much worth as Bob's. Both are likely to be taken with a nice grain of salt.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

My understanding is that MQA really reduces 24bit resolution to 17bit, that makes the 1st block on Siau's diagram. When anyone speaks about higher 'apparent' resolution, it may be caused by some DSP, but such a 'resolution' cannot return information which was lost by reducing resolution from 24 to 17 bits. It's similar like when you reduce resolution of some picture and then you perform some sharpening algorithm on it. You may improve something for your eyes, but the low level detail is not reconstructed. Now it's important how much resolution has the technical gear you are using to look at the picture and how much resolution have your eyes. But we are not using the same gear and we have not the same eyes, ears and brain.

[bogi]

Vincent1234, correct me if I am wrong but are not John Siao, Mike Moffat, Jason Stoddard, Miska, etc actual electrical/audio engineers or otherwise with technical degrees that required them to actually pass (let alone take) calculus? And are not the "writers" you cite from Sterophile and elsewhere just that - journalists and writers who have a good bit of practical experience in "the industry" but nothing more and so really are simply regurgitating what Bob/MQA tells them?

+1 So it is ...

[bogi]

What happens when they find out that the Rossini doesn't have any "time blur" because of its design?

An example of adressing the issue are HQPlayer apodizing filters. They are able to correct the ADC time domain performance.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/upsampling-anything-other-your-digital-analogue-converter-s-internal-conversion-rate-30240/index3.html#post594773

With suitable apodizing filter you can get "de-blur" effect.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/async-universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-24-768-phasure-nos1-digital-analogue-converter-8278/index10.html#post179375

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/what-makes-good-filtering-21216/index2.html#post339130

[bogi]

Oh really? A cable with a high bit error rate might "sound" great?

 

It's not about digital cables not being bitperfect. Different digital cables can have different effect on noise and jitter, which could be generated anywhere in the chain. That noise and jitter, arriving to DAC, can cause audible differences on DAC analog output. We have here tons of posts in many topics here about how lowering computer noise or improving isolation helped.

 

But ... please why not to stay on MQA topic?? Why ethernet again and again here?

[bogi]

If I want to hear files in their native resolution which are greater than 24/88.2, I then have to buy an MQA-enabled DAC.

 

Today we don't need MQA enabled DAC to listen to hires content (any resolution, any format PCM/DSD). We are free in DAC choice, format choice, digital filter choice etc. People worry about the possibility that the music business will be in future MQA-ized and there will be no other way how to listen to hires music. That we will lost the freedom we have today.

 

Michael, Jim Collinson's post contains many points you could consider to reflect and answer.

 

"It’s an attempt to control and extract revenue from every part of the supply chain, and not just over content that they hold the rights for.

...

For you, you’ll pay a higher price for the same music, and you’ll pay more for your hi-fi system too. And even if you don’t buy into MQA, everyone will get less innovation, creativity

...

In addition, by monopolising the supply chain, it aims to cut out indie labels and self-producing/releasing artists—or at the very least it demands a tax on their creativity."

 

But I'm not sure you want to discuss these points. If you would, reaction to Jim's contribution could be here one of your first posts. If that would happen, you could expect warmer welcome here today. Just my opinion.

[bogi]

Of course we could argue that all of these things are real possibilities. That is not my job.

 

People may easily loose their freedom if they will not worry about it ... that's valid very generally. IMO it is reasonable to discuss the possible risks and motivations behind the MQA topic and that discussion is ongoing here in more threads. Of course, it is on you if you want to share and reflect some concerns of audiophile community or not.

[bogi]

@plissken please continue in some other thread with that.

[bogi]

Not sure where so much angst is coming from on the subject of MQA. If the main beef is DRM I'm not sure why (as Mike said) "

Do I believe that record labels should be able to limit piracy? Yes." which I happen to agree with.

It's about the way how they want to reach it.

 

Here's a question:

"Do we consumers want to pay for the use of media that limits our ability to choose our playback hardware and software?"

[bogi]

??? Just clicked that link, highest post # is 21.

 

He meant #505 in this thread

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/mqa-vaporware-31115/index21.html#post623836

[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.

[bogi]

If this actually holds up, this would be very welcome and of course would be an honest option to DRMed MQA...

 

Actually, it could beat the DRMed MQA, if there will be no restriction in DAC and software usage.

[bogi]

Just wondering do you have any actual proof ( coding data or written data not from this site) that there is DRM in a current MQA file.

 

According to the above cited Wikipedia DRM definition: If you cannot play hires content of MQA file or stream with any software or hardware, this is DRM.

[bogi]

@plissken: Could you please stop the ethernet discussion here? Use some other place please.

[bogi]

How is this different from a FLAC high resolution (say, 24/192) file? You cannot play the hi-res content of such a FLAC file or stream without specific hardware or software - is this *also* DRM?

 

Playing 24/192 FLAC on 24/192 capable DAC does not require the DAC to be certified by the 'FLAC company'. You can play 24/192 FLAC content on any 24/192 capable DAC.

[bogi]

Ok. Are you able to provide technical detail that supports this?

DRM isn't only copy protection. DRM definition on Wikipedia - the first paragraph:

Digital rights management (DRM) schemes are various access control technologies that are used to restrict usage of proprietary hardware and copyrighted works.^[1]DRM technologies try to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyrighted works (such as software and multimedia content), as well as systems within devices that enforce these policies

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/mqa-vaporware-31115/index30.html#post624342

MQA is Vaporware - Page 32

[bogi]

No, that is all about stopping people from copying stuff.

 

No. DRM is not restricted to stopping people copying stuff. DRM is about any form of management what people can do and what they cannot do. Look at wikipedia definition.

 

Only licensed software players can do the first unfold.

Only MQA certified DACs can fully unfold 24/192k hires in a MQA file.

MQA file is for purpose modified FLAC file, the intention for this modification was to control access to the hires extension of the file. MQA is managing access to hires content via licenses for software (players) and hardware (DACs).

 

24/192k FLAC is playable in any 24/192k capable PCM DAC, no need for any license to do that. Don't you see a difference?

[bogi]

The other streaming services may be willing to renegotiate their agreements with the content providers if they think that MQA would save them on bandwidth, or perhaps if the MQA brand would bring them more customers.

 

I am late in the party because we Europeans need also to sleep.

IMO the big players Pandora and Rhapsody will not use MQA for streaming hires content because MQA requires specific hardware to fully access the hires content. That's IMO the weakest point of MQA.

 

I found somehow missing in this thread (I wrote it on the beginning) that usual DSP like room acoustic treatment, headphone crossfeed or simple equalization is not possible with hires MQA content above 24/96. Once DSP is done, resulting digital stream will not be 'authenticated' and no further unfolding occurs in MQA capable DAC. People who are inetrested in hires > 96k are those who own dedicated DACs and who possible use room equalization DSP etc. I see that as weak point of the MQA concept.

 

So ... IMO MQA company did their hires solution too complicated and IMO that's the reason why the big streaming players are coming to stream pure hires.

 

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes with a different DRM scheme which will not restrict hires to dedicated HW and which will allow DSP on hires content.

 

The question is: How much are audiophiles important for the market to get special treatment for hires? That's the point where I am feeling myself uncertain.

[bogi]

Meridian Audio prohibits digital output of unpacked MQA in any digital format, only allowing the unpacked data to be fed to an on-board MQA-compatible DAC and output in analog form.

 

Some members were complaining my opinion regarding DRM with false argument that DRM is only copy protection.

 

I will cite for the 3rd time from wikipedia

Digital rights management (DRM) schemes are various access control technologies that are used to restrict usage of proprietary hardware and copyrighted works.^[1] DRM technologies try to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyrighted works (such as software and multimedia content), as well as systems within devices that enforce these policies.^[2]

[bogi]

- what about room correction?

- why did miniDSP get denied a MQA licence?

 

Fully applied MQA processing for sample rates > 96k doesn't allow to use any custom DSP.

 

I cannot consider MQA as format for high end system... IMO MQA want to address an average customer and we audiophiles are not important in the MQA business plan. MQA is about music content, not about audiophiles.

[bogi]

I have several very high end systems and I would never dream of using DSP (other than upsampling and filters like HQPlayer where I can choose exactly what I want). And yes, it does look like that will be an issue for HQPlayer. I use HQPlayer now in some instances, but it doesn't bother me a bit that MQA will not provide that capability.

I'm using headphone crossfeed via Matrix Pipeline and WAV response impulses in HQPlayer. That's a quite rare type of DSP usage, but much more people are using room acoustic correction DSP. Those are now 'out of MQA'. Currently they have no possibility to play fully unfolded/processed 192k MQA content with their room correction DSP. I didn't read any mention elsewhere that this could be possible with MQA in future.

 

My further objections:

 

MQA doesn't support free software platforms because no free decoder exists. MQA goes against the ecosystem of free software.

 

User's freedom to choice a DAC is restricted to MQA certified DACs, if one wants to fully utilize MQA capablilties. MQA could be fully decoded in software (even for a concrete DAC ... that could be a configuration option), then MQA could be used with any DSP and any DAC, but the MQA company doesn't want to allow that. Their DRM goals go against freedom of using any DSP and any DAC. MQA goes against user's freedom and creativity, it restricts what we can do with music content. That DRM restrictions exist because of piracy, but DSP and DAC choice are not about piracy...