MQA is Vaporware

[Fyper]

My point is, as it usually is, what does this mean in reality for the person listening to music?

If I may, I'm one of those persons listening to music.

The MQA guys are tempering with the original file, whether I find it sounds good or not is not the point. The point is I want to be sure that I'll still have access to the original file and choose whether I want the MQA layer or any other layer on it. For example, I want to be able to apply a convolution tool if I choose to.

The original file is already tempered with in many ways (the art of mastering doesn't seem to be mastered by many, the loudness war is making many victims, etc.).

 

If they had just intended to make music sound better there would have been a better way : an on-line subscription to MQA which would send for each file in the queue the ADC-DAC meta information they are currently putting in the files (at the cost of music info that they judge irrelevant) to a software decoder which would then do its magic. That way they could even feed in the reference of your DAC to get the DAC part of MQA.

If it is as good as they claim many would subscribe and they would make their money.

And the files would remain unspoiled.

 

But making things better never really was the goal, was it?

[Fyper]

Again, I am not a mind reader. I also have no interest in arguing whether or not the MQA *encode* is "good" or "bad" in theory.

That is absolutely not my point.

I'm sorry, I thought you were expecting an answer to your question.

[Fyper]

Maybe the studios see the sun rising on streaming and the sun setting on downloads. Maybe they like the fact that MQA albums they released on tidal can't be downloaded on piratebay

They certainly do. But this creates a number of problems for some customers, even the honest ones:

- For quite a few people, listening to music is still about playing files not streaming them. I see no problem with streaming if the other

options still exists. I'd like to have the possibility to own and play music files without an internet connection, is it too much to ask?

 

- MQA may be a very good idea but if I don't buy the MQA gear (hard/soft), I won't be able to listen to anything but lossy streams. I

don't expect to be able to get the MQA magical sound for free, but I certainly do not expect to be punished if I don't pay. As long as a

DRM free lossless alternative exists I don't mind MQA, I might even consider paying extra for it, but if it is forced on me...

 

- Last but not least, if the studios force MQA down to the customer, you know what will happen : this will boost creativity on the illegal

streaming/download side. I bet it won't be long before ways to neutralize the DRM side and reverse engineer the MQA files

into standard PCM are found. And that is before F(ree)MQAC(odec) is created...

 

Today streaming is about to work as a business model with DRM free files, if I were them, I wouldn't take the risk to go through another crisis because they want to control what they can't. But I feel the industry might easily be blinded by the hope of making again the billions they were making back in the day. Well, if it comes to that, I know on which side I'll be.

[Fyper]

Hi Fyper - You raise some really good points. However, I get a sense of entitlement from the wording of your comments. I could be totally wrong. You seem entitled to have exactly what you want, despite the fact that the owner of the content may not want to sell you what you want. Again, I could be wrong and I mean no disrespect.

Hi,

You're right, there is a sense of entitlement in what I say, I was raised in a world where supply is supposed to match market needs. I may be part of a niche market (as we all are here) but I would expect this market to be addressed properly. This is currently the case, I only hope it'll stay like this.

 

The movie business has already done much of what you say, yet I've never seen anyone complain. Dolby and DTS put their magic sauce into movies and if you don't have a decoder, you're out of luck. Plus, I don't believe I've ever heard of a lossless movie being released. No matter the format, even 4K Blu-ray, is lossy. We get what the owner of the content whats to deliver. This doesn't mean we have to like it or accept it, but I believe people seem a bit entitled to have what they want.

You're right again, the movie industry has gone that way, and is probably an example to follow for the music industry. To further compare the 2 we'll have to say that what matters most in the movie industry is video quality, not sound quality. To be sure no-one complains about the video quality, we'd need to go through a Computer Videophile forum :-). I'm pretty sure that our video counterparts are not satisfied about everything...

It will be interesting to see what happens with the pirating of music if MQA becomes the standard. I honestly don't think pirating will even matter. Streaming is way too easy and downloading torrents is a crapshoot. Those who do it will always do it, those who don't won't.

Again, if we look at the movie business, we'll notice that BluRay and HDCP protections along with high BD costs at the beginning have boosted piracy. Then Netflix and the likes took over because that was easier than piracy for a reasonable price.

 

So streaming music is easy and most people won't care about the file format used. But they won't care if it's MP3 or MQA, so why bother with MQA.

For the premium quality streaming that's a different matter and not every audiophile agree as we can see in this thread and others.

As said what bothers me is the fear of not being able to access non MQA files in the future for the future SQ and HD releases. I also would like to be able to apply some convolution to the files for room correction purposes. I like the idea of oversampling them if I want to, or to convert them in DSD, etc.

[Fyper]

[...]b) MQA will be used also for downloads, but "software libraries, to integrate the MQA technology into these apps" will be NOT provided for software players like JRiver, foobar2000, ... (including portable audio players like FiiO, iBasso, Astel&Kern etc.), which play files and don't depend on internet connection.

 

Seems pretty obvious for me although I'm not a specialist at all:

If they allow the current soft/hard DSPs it means that they'll have to feed PCM to these DSPs engines. If they do that, anyone will be able to record MQAed PCM and the whole DRM aspect will be killed.

 

So the only way to allow DSPs with MQA is to license them and make it close to impossible for a normal users to extract PCM in the process. If they could use some kind of HDCP they would, but it would possible only through HDMI or USB connections.

I wonder who'll end up paying for thoses MQA licenses...

[Fyper]

10 minutes ago, pdickerson said:

I know we would all love to see every album converted to MQA yesterday and Roon developers provide every wish we desire, but is that fair?  

 

 

Not all of us, no... :-)

[Fyper]

12 hours ago, audiventory said:

 

How MQA help in struggling with piracy?

That's interesting, because if MQA have it their way, they'll actually create a new golden era for piracy...

Does this industry ever learn?

[Fyper]

On 31/03/2017 at 6:49 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I don't think so. Meaning, if MQA was the standard and the only music available, piracy wouldn't change. People who pirate will be pirates. When people can purchase music legally and conveniently, they will. If 99% of people don't care about sound quality, they won't care if they purchase an MQA file and they don't have a decoder. It will play back on whatever they have and they'll be totally fine. No reason to pirate.

 

Plus, I'm not sure what would be pirated is MQA became the standard. Why would people pirate something they apparently don't want? Perhaps I'm not seeing the picture you are. 

Hi, sorry for answering so late to this.

If it becomes the standard, the question of wanting it or not is irrelevant, there is no choice, but the DRM and control aspects of it would be challenged.

 

It's a human thing: the more you want to control people the more they want to escape it.

 

- If the access to the original PCM files is no longer possible, the efforts would be directed towards reverse engineering the MQA algorithm so that MQA files could be fully decoded and playable on non MQA licensed software and hardware.

- It would not be impossible that others would want to use that knowledge to create their own algorithm to be applied on files, and possibly even copyright it and sell it

- It would be logical that some would try to deMQA the files to make them as close as possible as the original pcm file on which they apply or not the filters/algorithm of their choice.

- Some would also make sure that the little blue MQA led on the DACs lights up when they play their FreeMQACodec files.

- Finally if MQA became the standard, quite quickly some studios would try to differentiate and sell the original PCM masters...

 

Today, pirates are seen as thieves, that's what the current download/streaming/hirez model make of them. But if the majors are seen as tyrants, pirates will be seen as Robin Hoods (cf Anonymous)

[Fyper]

7 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

 

Some producers have gone back to their original master, and compared the MQA version with it.  They liked the MQA version better, saying it was closer to what happened in the venue than did the "master" that was produced at the time.

Hi,

That indeed would be a good thing for MQA. Is there available documentation on this?

[Fyper]

17 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-mqa#ozsM1KKkjugWzVLv.97

See his comments on "Amazing Grace" and "Water Night"

 

http://www.audiostream.com/content/supplementary-listeners’-notes-2l-test-bench#a2bMl4stLrZh8FOC.97

See "Morten's Notes"

I had read about the Stereophile article: John Atkinson is not a producer and 4 positive identifications out of 7 isn't statistically enough not to be pure chance.

About the Audiostream article, it is clearly stated  : "The following document was provided by MQA"

I'd be happy to read about more independent and professional sources.

[Fyper]

15 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

When I route digital signal from my NAS to PC though a calibrated DSP room correction app to DAC, it achieves a major sonic improvement.  Yes, I want each leg of the transmission to be digitally lossless in the strictest sense, but the DSP process alters the content of the original file in a controlled, but proprietary way using a calibration and EQ tool I have chosen and purchased.  The proprietary inner details of that tool are not fully disclosed, nor do I claim to fully understand them.  But, white papers and commentaries are available suggesting there is much thought and valid theory applied to the process.

 

However, the overall process from the original file to DAC is not lossless. Meanwhile, there is no question that it sounds better to my ears based on careful listening.  Hence, proprietary details, losslessness, etc. are really irrelevant in my listening evaluation of the DSP EQ tool.  Personally, I take the same stance with regard to MQA.

Yes you can apply any DSP to your files and it's not lossless anymore, and yes, it is done for improvement purposes.

But if you change your mind or want to apply another DSP anytime: you still have the lossless original file.

Can you do that with MQA?

By the way, what if MQA improve their "magic", will there be a MQA2 format? And we'll have to buy again the files and the hardware?

[Fyper]

19 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Yep, this is obviously one of many advantages of streaming.  I don't want to give the impression I'm against it.  I do have some concern over whether it might eventually make some of the music I like less available to me.

Isn't that the laws of supply and demand?

Eventually, streaming or no streaming, if there is a market for the music you like (the one difficult to find), then some clever mind will put it back on the market.

If there never was a market for that music, then you benefited from marketing glitches of the record companies back in the day.

They'll do some more in the future and they'll likely stay in the catalog even if streamed by 2 people in the world (because it won't cost them anything to do so and it'll inflate the catalog).

[Fyper]

17 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Is 60 bucks a year for unlimited secure remote storage cheap to you?

 

https://www.amazon.com/b/?_encoding=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0&node=15547130011

Nothing personal Judd :-)

But I kind of like the idea of not subscribing to streaming providers and own your files to then subscribe remote storage and store these files in a place that you don't own => in the end it's the same : you stop paying, you've nothing. :-)

(unless it's a remote back up of your local HDrives...)

[Fyper]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

That's exactly what it is, a remote backup for the three copies of all my music files I have at home (two HDDs in separate locations, and SD cards that double as backup and my music collection when I travel).

Nevermind 

[Fyper]

13 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

The problem is that it doesn't cost "nothing" to have downloadable files *and the infrastructure needed to support them*.  I'm old enough to remember not being able to buy new LPs any more - it was silver discs or nothing.  How much longer do you think the infrastructure for silver discs (including production facilities, sales and distribution networks) will be maintained?  After that, do you think Amazon will suddenly change all its mp3 offerings to RedBook or hi res?  Do you think they will offer everything even in mp3 they had on CD?

No, as said I think it'll disappear, unless there is enough demand for it.

I can imagine someone buying the majors' catalog of unsold "rarities" for a few bucks and put them back on the market to see if there is hunger for it.

I actually I don't see what prevents it from happening today (making those available for download or streaming) a part from the fact that there is not enough demand for it.

I failed to see how streaming influence that.

[Fyper]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

The infrastructure is in place for streaming and is financially favorable to the music industry.  What financial incentive is there for the industry to help the download segment (i.e., Apple, or Amazon if they wished) gear up?  Those companies are so large they would have tremendous negotiating leverage, resulting in less favorable deals for the industry.  Ask yourself how many corporate CEOs want to repeat the experience of giving control of their content to Apple.

 

And of course there is the fact that if you are worried about piracy, copying and distributing a file is trivial, capturing a stream a little less so.

I quite agree with that but I think that wasn't your original point.

If I understood well, your point was that the development of streaming would make the catalog of available titles poorer.

And I'm saying that if there is an identified demand (and therefore profit) for a record, streaming or no streaming, it'll be made available to the market.

[Fyper]

22 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It seems like many are afraid of losing access to the latest Beyonce album in standard PCM, even though they'd never buy the album. 

That is intriguing.

Of course I'll fight for this even though I won't buy the album, I'll fight for all of them whether I like the music or not, whether it sounds good or not.

The (maybe irrational) fear is that there might be a take over of the PCM standard by a private company, which may thus have significant control of much of process, from production to sale. Some players and consumers in that chain may be happy to let go the little influence they have against something more interesting to them, but many are not.

And yes there is no proof that this may happen. May I say that when there is proof it's too late.

And yes it's only music and a hobby. But this pattern has been repeating itself in so many other areas at so many other levels that it's a question of principle, not money, not self-interest.

The same way some feel the need to balance a discussion for the sake of that discussion, I feel the need to fight for some core principles even if it's not related to my personal interest.

Sorry, got carried away....:-)