MQA is Vaporware

[fung0]

After reading many long threads, it strikes me that something very important is not being said (or said clearly enough): MQA isn't wrong because it could potentially contain DRM. Or because its acoustic benefits are, at best, subtle. It's dangerous because it's proprietary.

 

This concern is obvious and undeniable. MQA attempts to replace well-accepted open data formats with a proprietary format - to replace lossless formats with a lossy one - mainly so that one company can grow rich by charging everyone a lucrative toll, forever. Presented as a total replacement for existing formats at both high- and low-end, MQA isn't simply a technical innovation. It's a cancer that becomes valuable only to the extent that it can take over the market.

 

Closed ecosystems are beneficial to the profit picture, but always anti-consumer. Open formats give consumers the control they deserve. And open formats are the only protection against a corporate ratchet effect, that slowly erodes consumer benefits. (Examples are endless. Look at UHD Blu-ray - a worthwhile evolution, in theory, it's being used to roll out always-on Internet copy-protection. But it's not just about DRM. You can't effectively embed advertising in an open format, for example. For industry, the ideal format is one that breaks when you try to edit out the ads.)

 

As consumers and music fans, we need to realize that whatever the up-front benefits of MQA, we are not the target customers. MQA lives or dies according to its acceptance by the recording and distribution industry. This handful of large companies can arbitrarily decide to make MQA the standard. They have massive long-term motivation to do so, absent any strong signs that the consuming public would rebel. In other words, we don't have to sound thrilled about MQA; all we have to do is fail to actively oppose it. The industry is just starting to realize what a wonderful thing MQA would be - for them.

 

High bitrates and low noise are all very well, but, next to the air between a musician and audience, it's open formats that present the lowest barrier to transmission.

 

Happy listening.

[fung0]

Be prepared to be tagged as "a hater" who is simply arguing out of your irrational "feelings"

I'm prepared to be flamed any time I post anything. Rare that I'm disappointed...

I would be interested in your thoughts as to why the "Audiophile Press" has been so pro "recording and distribution industry" and anti-consumer. My working theory is that they are too close to the industry in an effort to gain "access" and too distant from actual consumers - not a conspiracy just a broken system with consequences...

 

You're definitely on the right track. I've worked in the tech press for a lot of years, and I know how easy it is to become absorbed in the point of view of the industries you cover. It's the water you swim in. Always easier and safer to go with the flow, agree what everyone else is saying.

 

With MQA, I think the problem is deeper: an Orwellian conditioning against looking at things from the perspective of consumer rights. We hear endless sermons about 'creators' rights' - and how these must extend to the entire content industry - until it seems sacrilegious to suggest that consumers have rights too.

 

Of course, the goal should be to balance the needs of creators and consumers. Open standards inherently tend to do that - but the corporate worldview isn't about balance, it's about control. The tech press has accepted the industry perspective so completely that the most obvious criticism of MQA never comes up.

 

Many people want to excuse MQA by comparing it to a new product, which consumers can buy or not buy. But MQA isn't a product. It's trying to be a standard - working very hard to win over major players across the entire audio ecosystem. (A year from now, says the company, "major and independent music label groups in Japan, Europe and the USA will be using MQA as an integral part of their business. This is the key...")

 

If it's to have that kind of clout, MQA shouldn't be proprietary any more than Ethernet, USB or 802.11.

[fung0]

I understand your concerns but MQA will never be the sole standard in the music industry.

 

Having "multiple standards" is much the same as having no standards at all.

[fung0]

I agree with you on this, but as stated in a previous post I think it's highly unlikely that any music company will choose MQA as their sole format. Business-wise that would be a very stupid decision.

 

Let's hope you're right. But suppose it's not just "any" music company that decides to choose MQA. Suppose it's all of them at once. They already work pretty tightly together. And they'd have lots of good reasons to agree that MQA is better - for them. MQA has been announcing deals with various companies, so they may be on a roll.

 

Which is why strongly opposing MQA right now might our last chance to affect the outcome. If a lot of music fans (like yourself, I presume) are "sort of okay" with MQA, that might be all the encouragement the industry will need.

 

We can hope for the best, but we ought to prepare for the worst. It's not like the music industry has gone out of its way to build up our trust.

[fung0]

The question of "why?" is the key to this whole MQA movement. Why would publishers and distributors rush to climb aboard with an upstart new technology, which requires licensing fees and a complete rebuild of all audio hardware, when there are lots of existing systems and formats that are far more convenient? It's not like consumers were clamoring for MQA.

 

The answer, unfortunately, is obvious. The content industry views any shift in technology as an opportunity to tighten its grip on the ecosystem. Look at the example of UHD Blu-ray. It introduces a relatively minor upgrade in quality (which no one was clamoring for, and which needs all new hardware), but is eagerly embraced by the movie industry because it allows the adoption of something they've dreamed of for many years (ever since the original Divx): consumer players that won't work unless they have a connection to the company's servers. Meanwhile, open and far more convenient formats such as h.264 and h.265, plus MKV, are ignored.

 

MQA offers the same kind of 'advancement.' Marginally better quality is, for no particular technical reason, coupled with decoders that can 'validate' the entire delivery chain. MQA allows the music-delivery system to be locked down. Would this system 'leak'? Of course. But it would certainly put up new barriers that MP3 and FLAC do not. (Especially for the average non-geeky consumer.)

 

The counter-arguments are purely on the practical side. For example: MQA affects HD audio only. True. But the industry's dream, as with Blu-ray and now UHD Blu-ray, is always to move in the direction of tighter control. As each new format gains ground, the grip tightens. Or: MQA affects streaming only. Again, true (so far). But the dream is to move in the direction of streaming. (It's significant that video services like Netflix never let the consumer have control of the content at all. A 'Netflix VCR' can never exist.) Truly worthwhile increments in technology are getting scarce, so there's a bit of a rush. "We failed to lock down CD, MP3 and FLAC; this may be our last chance!"

 

Yes, it's possible that neither HD audio nor streaming will dominate audio in the future. But there's a good chance that they will - especially if the music industry gets behind them with a remarkably unified push. We all know that's exactly the logic that's applied in industry boardrooms.

[fung0]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Glad "we all" have telepathic or precognitive powers to know this, since public announcements from other companies at CES this year appeared to indicate hi-res streaming competition for MQA rather than unification behind it.

There's very little telepathy required. Part of it is direct observation: I've been working in and around this field for a lot of years; I've met quite a few execs and visited a fair number of boardrooms. Part of it is just paying attention: reading the relevant press. None of my examples are secret, nor are the industry attitudes behind them.

 

[fung0]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Here's another MQA press release. This one about content from the indie labels. 

MQA_Merlin_15_05_17_FINAL.pdf

Coming from a group that calls itself a "global digital rights agency." this should put to rest all those doubts about MQA being a form of "digital rights management." From the press release:
 

Quote

 

Merlin acts to ensure these companies have effective access to new and emerging revenue streams and that their rights are appropriately valued and protected.

...

Merlin has reached a number of high value copyright infringement settlements on behalf of its members with, amongst others, Limewire, XM Satellite Radio and Grooveshark.

 

 

[fung0]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Copyright enforcement in this case is working with streaming companies to license material. A different side of a different coin. 

 

Merlin goes out of its way to mention both sides of that coin in the release.

[fung0]

52 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm going to stop debating this one with you guys. If I continue I will be seen as a shill for MQA.

 

Nobody is calling anybody names. And I don't think shilling is the problem in any case. It's that a large chunk of the audiophile (with and without the capital A) community hears "better sound quality" and is too ready to stop reckoning up any other concerns. I'm a long-time consumer-electronics journalist myself, and I've been amazed at the eagerness among my colleagues to accept MQA uncritically. When, to my mind, simple logic raises extremely troubling issues.

 

20 minutes ago, mansr said:

How is it "bias" to consider sound quality and copyright licensing/enforcement separate issues?

 

MQA bundles them tightly - and needlessly - together. This raises two obvious concerns for me:

1. Why apply supposedly bleeding-edge sound enhancements to a lossy format? Surely audiophiles would have been more eager to accept this wonderful new technology as an adjunct to lossless PCM, while average consumers simply won't care. (Bandwidth is no explanation, at a time when the Internet is rapidly gearing up for 4K video streaming.)
2. What does 'authentication' have to do with sound quality? It brings negligible benefit to consumers, and can only be seen as a cash-grab by MQA and a means of increasing control over the distribution chain by the big music labels. Not to mention a way of preferentially disadvantaging smaller companies.

[fung0]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Hi fung0 - I've taken serious heat for arguing the "other" side of MQA when people were arguing against it. I want all sides to be discussed openly and fairly. I think that's the only way to really get to the bottom of anything. However, rather than risk losing reputation points, I'm bowing out of the arguments. I'll just provide a neutral platform for the discussions and hope that people will argue both sides. 

 

Good approach. This has been a great thread - it's influenced my own thinking a great deal, both pro and con, and incidentally provided me with some new bands to track down.

[fung0]

12 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Everything is lossy compared the original performance. What matters is how much loss people find acceptable.

 

The only relevant definition of "lossy" in the current discussion is: that loss in fidelity relative to the working studio master which is inflicted purely for the purposes of reducing data size of the recording delivered to the consumer.

 

Why is this particular type of 'loss' so significant?

 

Ever since Thomas Edison, audiophiles have been demanding access to recordings of higher and higher fidelity. Music labels have delivered technological improvements in numerous lucrative stages - LP, tape, cassette, CD, SACD, FLAC, high-res FLAC...But we are now reaching a limit. There is very little further improvement that music publishers can offer. The next logical step, already underway, is delivering to consumers the actual studio master copy. That is, allowing them to purchase the highest-quality digital representation that exists of the original analog (real-world) performance.

 

Music publishers would rather cut off an appendage than do this. Not just because it means they'll never be able to sell us the same content yet another time. But, more fundamentally, because it means relinquishing their control, their position of superiority. Once consumers have the masters, the publishers are no longer the custodians of the one true Holy Grail.

 

Hence their eager adoption of MQA. In the nick of time, someone has developed a format that lets publishers proclaim that they're releasing something that "Sounds Just as Good!!" as the original studio master - but which is definitively not the original studio master. The distinction is very real, even if the human ear is incapable of distinguishing the 'lossy' MQA file from the original master. It's the only conceivable reason for MQA to be a 'lossy' format, and not simply an enhancement to 'lossless' PCM. The master remains the master, and the MQA file is emphatically not a bit-for-bit copy of it.

 

Once you see this logic, you can't help but realize that MQA is being embraced not as a parallel delivery format to high-resolution PCM, but as a replacement for it. An entirely needless replacement. There are no technical impediments any more. So why would a true audiophile choose a somewhat more-compact recording over one that is absolutely unequivocally guaranteed to contain every possible bit of the original studio recording? The only plausible reason for the adoption of MQA is to avoid giving us that choice.

 

People keep saying "Don't worry, our high-res PCM-FLAC files won't go away." But they will. That's the whole point.

[fung0]

8 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

The problem is solved? You and I both know that pirating is still a major problem. Artists lose, labels, and actually consumers lose too IMO. Today they even have new ways to pirate via mobile:

 

1. Depends what you mean by "problem." In a global economy that has been stalled for decades, entertainment content is one of the few industries that somehow continues to grow its very healthy profits from year to year. So it's rather odd to suggest that publishers are losing huge amounts of revenue to 'piracy.' However, it's rather easy to understand why they'd want us to think so, and why they'd continue to build up the terrifying chimera of piracy using every means at their disposal.

 

2. When we speak of DRM in relation to MQA, we're not talking about classic "copy protection." What is clear is that the rigorous hardware-based authentication (needlessly) built into MQA will allow for all sorts of shenanigans.

 

For example, we can envision buying an MQA recording and applying some sort of digital processing during playback (i.e. without making even a personal copy) - then finding that the altered recording fails 'authentication' and our expensive, legally-owned DAC refuses to play it. This would not only be classic DRM, it would be a particularly egregious application of DRM to rob us of our legal rights. (A form of, er... 'piracy,' if you will.)

 

3. A recent comment raised the question of consumers' rights. It's worth a reminder that copyright law traditionally assumes the 'public domain' to be the default state of all content. That is, it takes as its first axiom that the rights of the public are fundamental.

 

The content industry has been talking endlessly about "protecting creators' rights," until we've forgotten that consumers are meant to have still greater rights - and failed to notice that nobody is doing much to protect those rights. Maybe what we need is some form of, for lack of a better term, 'digital rights management' technology, that would let us protect our rights. A good start might be mandating open formats that let us use content in all the ways the law allows.

[fung0]

7 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

The ultimate answer will, of course, not come from the speculative opinions or beliefs from this or any other internet thread.  It will come from the greater marketplace, as it should in a free society.

 

If you think we're living in a free society, I can only envy your blissful naivete...

 

Regarding MQA, one of the major concerns is exactly that it continues to advance even though "the greater marketplace" remains indifferent at best. To be sure, MQA has found a small number of vocal supporters. But prior to the spontaneous appearance of MQA, I don't recall even these enthusiasts clamoring for a new lossy, proprietary, royalty-encumbered audio format. MQA is the answer to a question "the greater marketplace" did not ask.

 

Given that MQA clearly didn't come into existence in response to demand from "the greater marketplace," it's hard to be confident that lack of demand would kill it.

[fung0]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Unsuccessful is relative. Relative to some of the other rockers of their era 9.9 million is pocket change. Maybe the point is that wth the same music and a different business model a lot more money could have been made. 

 

The Grateful Dead's per-tour gross in the late 1980s hit $45 to $50 million. Total touring revenue in the 1990s was $285 million, second only to the Rolling Stones. Solo tours would be on top of that. They toured ever-larger venues for 30 years before Jerry Garcia died, and sold out 70,000-seat stadiums for five nights on their 50th anniversary.

 

That's pretty successful. Maybe Garcia and Co. found uses for the loot other than just piling it up for their heirs. They certainly reinvested a lot of it, in state-of-the-art gear, in their own record label, in numerous charities and side-projects. (They also charged a lot less for tickets than most mainstream bands.)

 

It is true that with a different business model, a lot more money undoubtedly could have been made - by the recording industry. The Dead proved there was a better way.

[fung0]

24 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

I’ll get my shot at the Grateful Dead archive later this year. I wanted to write a fun type accounting article and get some information to spice up my tax presentations (they are a little dry). I’m getting some pressure to write a scholarly article so various professors can go to their Deans and say see CPA profession considers this important so you should too. One of the questions I hope to answer is did the Dead get out of the record business because it was unsuccessful or did they get out because it was messing up the chemistry of the band?

 

From biographical accounts, it seems certain that they got out of the business side simply because they didn't enjoy it, and had no talent for it. Grateful Dead Records was a worthwhile early experiment, but like the Wall of Sound, proved to be more trouble than it was worth. I suspect that by the late 1970s, with Arista and Ryko, among others, they finally found business partnerships that worked well enough to let them focus on just making music. They may also have gained enough clout by that point to get better terms.

 

One thing the Dead did do successfully was to run their own ticket agency. Driven not by profit, but by a desire to curb scalping. I'm not sure if other bands tried this at the time, or how many might do it today. (I did try interviewing Grateful Dead Productions once or twice, but they weren't overly communicative. Probably get badgered by fans...)

 

Should be an interesting article, anyway - I hope I get to see it. The Dead broke a lot of new ground on the business side of music. It would be great to see a scholarly analysis of what they accomplished, and what other acts may have learned from them.

[fung0]

48 minutes ago, crenca said:

I wonder, what percentage of folks around here now see MQA as a market share play/DRM delivery mechanism and on the whole discount it's alleged SQ "innovation".  Even if you grant it is legitamate past Meridian work repackaged for IP protectio, you have to admit that MQA in its current form is in the main "snake oil".

 

A poll perhaps?

 

After 112 pages, and many digressions, it seems like time for a recap.

 

1. On the plus side, two main points:

• MQA undoubtedly sounds 'pretty darn good.' However, based on the most glowing reports, it's extremely doubtful that MQA sounds significantly better than 24/192 PCM.
• MQA makes fairly small files. But with terabytes of storage getting very cheap, and the Internet gearing up to deliver 4K video, size reduction isn't going to matter much to either audiophiles or the average consumer.

2. On the minus side, some very significant baggage:

• 'lossy' encoding purely for the sake of smaller data size;
• an 'authentication' scheme that is clearly a type of 'digital rights management,' and which could easily be tightened into the worst kind of 'copy protection' should MQA gain wide acceptance;
• proprietary technology that promises to poison an audio world that is finally enjoying the ascendancy of open standards, especially at the high end; and
• new royalty payments (not to mention outright demands for control) at every stage of the delivery chain.

None of these points is subject to much doubt. Spin them as optimistically as you like, it's near impossible to make much of a case in favor of MQA.

[fung0]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

if you fear DRM you will not buy a Kaby Lake CPU

 

Alas, Intel's baked-in DRM pre-dates Kaby Lake. There was a hope that AMD would offer an alternative, but they seem to have their own, similar scheme. Maybe there's a future in some open ARM implementation. For now, I'm sticking with Windows 7 and Linux, which hopefully don't do too much to expose the hardware backdoor. (And will therefore never support things like Netflix streaming.)

 

The overall lesson is that corporations have realized they no longer need to be responsive to their supposed 'customers.' Either because (as with Microsoft, or the music-publishing cartel) they have no meaningful competition, or because we, the general public are no longer their real customers (as with Microsoft and Intel, who are obviously catering to advertisers, content industries and increasingly intrusive governments). We can reverse this trend only if we increase our opposition beyond anything we've previously contemplated.

 

"Please, I'd like a hidden backdoor in my CPU and un-stoppable 'telemetry' in my OS"... said no computer user, ever.

[fung0]

5 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I don't think this is correct. It might be if my speakers had only digital inputs, because the proprietary nature of the MQA signal might not work with the internal DSP processors. That would certainly be an issue.

 

I may be dense, but I can't for the life of me see anything "tricky" here.

• If you make a product that is entirely unaffected by MQA, one way or the other, you're basically just another consumer. No reason to hold back. Other than perhaps 'professional courtesy' -- which only goes as far as you want it to. (This sounds like the actual situation.)
• If you make a product that might need to work with MQA, you're more entitled to an opinion than a mere consumer. You've got technical concerns, and you need to make it all pay. And you're probably more knowledgeable than the rest of us. True, you might run a risk of alienating MQA, which could be awkward if you eventually needed to work with them. But that would be on your own head. And even then, not likely to be a problem if you politely voiced valid concerns.
• If you made a product that competed with MQA, your comments might be suspected of bias. But assuming you really hoped to convince anyone of anything, they'd probably also include some interesting technical detail to substantiate your position. And you'd certainly have a perfect right to blow your own horn, as long as you were presenting useful information and not just vague hype.

I'm hanged if I can see a fourth possibility, or any circumstance under which you would not be entitled to voice an opinion. Oh, wait:

• If you secretly worked for MQA, or held stock in the company, or in a competing company, you would be downright sneaky and deceitful not to admit it up front. But it's the lack of disclosure that would be the problem, not whatever you might want to say.

What have I missed?

[fung0]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

Good analysis, but I think you missed an important aspect of the audiophile industry in particular and to a lessor extant, the wider "music industry".  This is the culture that is to significant degree tolerant of fraud and voodoo, and is incestuous.  It is a small(ish) community, composed to a large degree of boutique companies.  It is filled with players who have no real engineering experience/background at all, and even those who do dip their toes into the "subjective" all too often.  It is an industry that really truly has "quantum" cables, quartz crystals taped onto them, and thimbles of "nano technology" tacked onto the walls of the room - all of which literally sell for $10k or more.

 

In such an environment you simply are not supposed to push the "science" angle too hard, or even say much at all about "competitors" because the culture is built on a kind of "hey, we are all here to make money - let's not screw with a good thing" see no speak no evil.

 

Of course, it is the consumer who shafted in the end.  Heck, even here there is a culture/attitude among some of these consumers who are aware of all the above but justify it and willingly participate in it!  I find it all surreal...

 

Thanks! Not often I get a smile and an education from the same post.

 

Those  "quantum" cables must sound amazing...

[fung0]

11 hours ago, rickca said:

Some have speculated that ultimately MQA may introduce some form of DRM.

 

Once again: we need to remember that 'DRM' is not synonymous with 'copy protection.' The term 'digital rights management' exists exactly because it is more inclusive. 'Authentication' is by definition a form of 'DRM,' and it's specified right in the MQA acronym. So there's no need to speculate: MQA definitely includes "some form of DRM."

 

3 hours ago, mansr said:

One possibility, and I'm speculating here, is that they'd start enabling the scrambling whenever a compatible renderer is detected. Once this feature is in place, they could also start tagging certain tracks with an instruction to refuse decoding unless a descramble-capable renderer is used. Broadcast TV works much this way with respect to HDCP, so the concept is not new.

 

This is very interesting. It underlines why any DRM is too much DRM - because the slope is so slippery.

 

DRM typically represents the use of technology to create entirely new extra-legal 'rights' for the publisher. For example, MQA, at minimum, gives publishers the new 'right' to 'authenticate' the audio stream and the DAC, without further permission or approval from the consumer. There's nothing in copyright law to support this.

 

And, by the way, there's also nothing about 'audio origami' that necessitates it.

[fung0]

23 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Yes, thank you.  I have understood this hypothetical scenario for quite some time.  I do note that there are a number of "if ... then"s and "may"s in it, as is appropriate, since there is no hard evidence that is the game plan.

 

So... your argument is... we shouldn't worry until after it's already happened? Even though there are many good reasons to fear the worst. (These have been explained ad nauseam in this thread; it should not be necessary to repeat them.)

 

Quote

I think there are many holes in the logic of this case you have presented, but many of the themes throughout this thread seem to have a common speculative, conspiracy to monopolize by fiat theme.  Namely, that a little company, probably not yet a profitable one, in conjunction with big media publishers, streamers, downloaders, etc. can simply impose their will on us - all of us - with the insidious knowledge that this product is actually inferior soundIng.  But, they like it because it does offer the possibility of a sneaky DRM, which would only be sprung on us unsuspecting idiots at a later date.  And, of course, I am not even beginning to discuss government laws and regulations to prevent precisely the sort of conspiratorial monopoly being suggested here.

 

First you dismiss this "little company," then in the next breath acknowledge that it's working with "big media publishers, streamers, downloaders, etc." I think that group (essentially the entire audio industry) certainly does have the ability to "simply impose their will on us - all of us." And to re-write government regulations, if need be.

 

I suppose you're trying to be ironic in your mention of "sneaky DRM," but this is not a trivial concern, nor one without historical precedent. We know that big media publishers love DRM, and it is not at all unreasonable to fear that they'd take any opportunity to "sneak" it into the ecosystem.

 

Quote

 

Meanwhile, we as consumers would not protest.  We would just blindly, like sheep, continue to buy this stuff as if our life depended on it, making the fat cats at the top of the chain, including MQA, ever richer and richer.

 

 

Obviously, we are protesting. Are you speaking for or against our freedom to do that? Or are you simply reiterating that it's only okay to protest once the battle is over?

 

Quote

 

Meanwhile, no other suppliers would dare start an alternative, competitive venture offering a different or a traditional non-MQA format or technology, even though that would allegedly sound much better to consumers and be highly preferred.  After all, consumers  (except us real smart ones here in this thread, of course) are all so easily brainwashed.  So, MQA would prevail no matter what, and quite easily. It is a no-brainer, as we used to say.

 

 

The size and profitability of today's advertising and marketing industries is solid proof that consumers are indeed "easily brainwashed" - especially when those who have any understanding of esoteric technological and market factors keep silent. As you seem to feel we should do.

 

Quote

 

Look, I have had a long business and technology career.  I have degrees in Economics and Business Administration from a top tier US school.  I have studied market dynamics and structure, including consumer markets involving technological products.  I think the theories here just do not understand how capitalism and markets work, what is feasible and what is not.

 

 

You clearly have a wonderful understanding of how classic capitalism is supposed to work. But you have apparently failed to notice that almost none of that theory applies any more, in zero-sum markets that no longer have any room for expansion, and which are dominated by at most a handful of companies, all of which have a strong vested interest in collaborating as opposed to competing. (They openly speak of 'co-opetition,' when they're in a jocular mood.)

 

It's simply inconceivable that any upstart competitor could create a viable alternative to, say, the audio CD. And this is exactly what's so worrying about MQA: it seems to be making headway that can only be accounted for by strong support from the music industry. MQA is a format that's tailor-made to please the music industry, unnecessary (at best!) from the point of view of both audiophiles and average consumers. But if the big music publishers unanimously decide that all CDs shall be MQA-encoded, there's no market force that could stop them.

 

Under today's distorted form of capitalism, it makes perfect sense to argue early and loudly against use of technology in such a clearly anti-consumer way. If we don't speak up, right now, then who will... and when?

[fung0]

1 hour ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Yes, you have your MQA business scenarios, I have mine, which disagree.  Your "perfect sense" does not concur with my view.  My point is, and has been, that each of our constructs, both yours and mine, are based on assumptions rather than actual facts.  Neither of us can prove conclusively that our own forecast of future outcomes will come to pass.  And, we could argue ad infinitum without getting anywhere.

 

The prevailing dire and gloomy scenarios so pervasive here are purely matters of belief, not matters of fact, though many may be "dead certain" of the cataclysm that will ensue if MQA, God protect us, were to gain a sustainable foothold in the market.  But, it is all a house of cards not built on fact, and to my mind hardly worth the anger, harangues, insults and the jihad so pervasive through this entire thread, given the real uncertainties.

 

Sorry to be so out of step with everyone else here.  But, I just don't see enough credible evidence to fear the doom and gloom so many others here are confidently, glibly in many cases,  so certain of.  Trying to be fair and objective, I also fail to see conclusive proof of the alleged lies or fraud on the part of Stuart and MQA.  I remain myself a believer in neither the goodness or badness of MQA at this point, though I remain curious and as open minded as I am able to be about it

 

My own objections to MQA have nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of the company's assertions. My concern is simply that proprietary 'standards' (an oxymoron if ever there was one) are a horribly bad idea, and must be forcefully resisted at all times.

 

Unfortunately, your optimistic "business scenarios" in this regard are not supported by historical information. Here are just a few examples of bad standards that have been implemented by corporate will-power, at great expense to both consumers and markets:

• Sony literally killed digital recording and distribution by incorporating DRM in the DAT standard, which would otherwise have been eagerly adopted by legions of musicians and concert-tapers.
• Sony pushed Blu-ray as the video-disc standard by monopolistically low-balling its PlayStation 3. BD displaced the arguably superior (and far less DRM-infested) HD DVD standard. Many early adopters got burned. Disc sales never recovered.
• Standalone media boxes like the Apple TV, WDTV and newer Kodi players use superior, open-standard formats such as h.264 and h.265. But even now they're being held back from market success by intense opposition from the content industry, even though both engineering and common sense make it clear that this is how home entertainment ought to work.
• Microsoft adopted eternal updates, added a loony 'tiled' interface, replaced Toolbars with 'Ribbons,' and added privacy-destroying 'telemetry' to Windows. User protests (very similar to the one now tackling MQA) were ignored, because (like the music-publishing cartel), Microsoft has a hammerlock on its market.
• For similar reasons, Microsoft has refused to adopt open document standards. Many people and organizations have protested, to no avail. Microsoft continues to change ("upgrade") its proprietary standards, inconveniencing billions of users in order to drive software sales.
• W3C recently inserted DRM into the Word Wide Web standard, against vast opposition from users and advocacy groups, and with support only from corporate participants, including Google, Microsoft and Netflix. This is a clear case in which we didn't yell loudly enough.

On the other hand, there are also numerous examples of public will - or competition, where it has existed - overcoming potentially devastating mis-steps:

• ARC tried to lock up file-compression. Zip triumphed, purely by virtue of the willingness of the personal computing world to make a huge shift in established habits. (PC users were a very rational, focused bunch back then. Unlike, say, today's audio enthusiasts...)
• Adobe gained de facto control over digital fonts, with PostScript Type 1. This became a huge roadblock to the evolution of desktop publishing. Microsoft (yes, the same Microsoft) fought back with TrueType, and today we have OpenType.
• Adobe voluntarily released its PDF standard royalty-free, enabling the creation of endless software tools, and ensuring universal acceptance of the format.
• Sony released a consumer video recorder. The content industry was outraged, and fought a massive legal battle against it. Sony (yes, the same Sony) dug in its heels and won, opening a vast new market for home video.
• When Sony refused to license its Beta technology on reasonable terms, everyone else - consumers included - adopted the more-open VHS standard. Eventually, even Sony was forced to go with the flow. (I still own an excellent Sony VHS machine.) To this day, many fans claim Beta was superior. But openness won.
• Digital recording eventually recovered from the DAT (and DCC) debacle, owing purely to an upsurge in illicit MP3 distribution, driven entirely by users with zero corporate input or support. (Apple rode that wave rather shrewdly.) Fraunhofer imposed only very modest royalties, ensuring that MP3 could become a universal standard, and allowing evolution of projects like LAME, a user-driven encoder far superior to Fraunhofer's own.
• Recently, the emerging medium of virtual reality was headed for a nightmarish future of multiple standards. Valve Software and groups like Khronos pushed for open standards, and front-runner Oculus was at last persuaded to sign on. (Microsoft, unfortunately, remains a stubborn outlier, and could still end up needlessly fragmenting the market.)

There are many other tales that could be told, from various markets related to media and digital technology.

 

At this point in history, it's been well-demonstrated that open standards are vital, enabling maximum progress for consumers and maximum profit for businesses. It is also obvious that open standards don't always materialize by the grace of the market's 'invisible hand.' Or survive in the face of corporate onslaught. Sometimes, consumers and experts need to speak up.

[fung0]

10 hours ago, Jud said:

In the case of VHS, it was lower price and longer playing time, rather than anything to do with openness.

 

I'd say VHS won mainly because every manufacturer except Sony supported it. But it's open to debate, of course.

[fung0]

8 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Well, you have your version of history and your opinion of what has been "well demonstrated". Others have their own.

 

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion - but not their own facts. And I can't help noticing that you've rebutted none of mine.

 

Quote

 

As a former venture capital executive, I would not waste my time talking to someone who had an investment idea based on developing an open technology standard.

 

 

What an odd thing to say. I can't imagine anyone coming to a "venture capital executive" with an investment idea based on developing a standard - open, closed or halfway ajar. Surely, most investment ideas would be based on developing products or services? And it's not at all difficult to cite products and services that have done extremely well, even though wholly dependent on open standards. (Every Internet business, for a start...)

 

More importantly, markets based on open standards do far better (especially in the long run) than even the most successful proprietary monocultures. Which is why big corporations continually invest in open standards, as IBM and Microsoft do with Linux, or JVC did with VHS, or Fraunhofer did with MP3. Clearly, standards do pay for themselves.

[fung0]

11 hours ago, Jud said:

Specifics?

 

Try searching "W3C" and "EME." Add "Tim Berners-Lee" if you need to. You should get a few hits...