MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

Here's the PDF from Utimaco - http://images.computeraudiophile.com/ca/utimaco_mqa.pdf

[The Computer Audiophile]

MQA was launched on December 2014. It is now January 2, 2017 so let’s see where MQA is at today.

 

Remember all the people who said that MQA was not Digital Rights Management? Well Utimaco disagrees. “MQA turned to Utimaco, a leading manufacturer of hardware-based security solutions that provide the root of trust to keep cryptographic keys safe, secure critical digital infrastructures and protect high value data assets. “ “Critical to the continued success and monetization of the streaming and download services of the entertainment industry, is the ability to secure and safeguard end-to-end transmission of intellectual property. A market leader in hardened encryption, Utimaco is at the forefront of enabling the authenticated delivery needed to drive next-generation entertainment consumption.”

 

Now turn to content. As of today there is no music in the genres 80% of American buy, Rock, R&B/Hip Hop, Pop and Country. Add Latin and EDM and you are at about 9 out of ten people buying music in America have no MQA encoded music to purchase. Don’t wait for licensee Warner Music Group to suddenly turn a switch and their music become available because they told the SEC in their latest financial statements they haven’t figured out how to distribute digital music.

 

There are 10 companies that produce equipment with MQA decoders. None of the products have enough units in the hands of consumers to make any impact. Many companies announced they would not support the format. The view of companies neither producing products nor announcing they would not support the format is indifference. Hardly a must have feature.

 

I said earlier this year that I would need 200 artists producing new music in the genres I regularly buy for MQA to be viable a viable format for me. I don’t see any interest by those artists in recording high resolution much less with MQA encoding. Those genres are rock, alt rock, alt country and bluegrass. And personally I will not test any MQA equipment until eight of the nine albums I use as my reference are available in MQA.

 

The Doors “Riders on the Storm “was used as demo of MQA not realizing there was no master to authenticate. Something that was well known but apparently unknown to the MQA people and audio journalists.

 

As of January 2, 2017 two years after its splashy launch we have a lot of audiophile press about MQA, announcements and demonstrations. But there is a limited supply of equipment to decode MQA files and no music encoded for nine out ten American music buyers, classic vaporware.

A couple of items.

 

Thanks for the Utimaco mention. I linked the PDF above. I like it when we can use facts for the discussion.

 

As I said to you at RMAF, I believe the SEC filings are a red herring. If Warner said it hasn't "figured out how to distribute digital music," that has nothing to do with MQA. Warner is a record label, not a distributor. The company is doing fine providing material to the likes of Spotify and Apple, who are the distributors.

 

Warner may be required to mention items that will majorly effect earnings, in SEC filings, but so is Apple. I'm willing to bet mention of the iPhone 8 won't be in an SEC filing until the last minute. In addition, who knows if there is an immediate return on MQA for the labels. Maybe it's a long game for them.

 

With respect to content, it will help put this into perspective if we compare MQA to DSD. Not technically, but the amount of content. You said, "As of today there is no music in the genres 80% of American buy, Rock, R&B/Hip Hop, Pop and Country. Add Latin and EDM and you are at about 9 out of ten people buying music in America have no MQA encoded music to purchase." I believe we could replace the letters MQA with the letters DSD and end up in the same place.

 

Do you feel the same about DSD as you do MQA, with respect to it being vaporware?

 

Not trying to debate the merits of either, just searching for perspective.

The Doors: There doesn't have to be an original master in order to create an MQA version. The term Master is thrown around a lot and most people have no clue what it really means. In fact, it means different things to people in the industry as well. When remasters are made, are they using the master, running master, safety master, etc... MQA doesn't purport to be using the original master. It's master quality, not copied from the master. I believe labels will shoot for the best quality available for some releases. If that's from a safety master, who cares?

 

I'm not supporting MQA with my statements above. Just trying to get facts out and perspective in place. Based on classic definitions of the term vaporware, MQA is most certainly vaporware.

 

Vaporware - "software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed."

[The Computer Audiophile]

I have asked this before, and to this day haven't seen any satisfactory answer: what, from a music customer perspective, is the problem MQA is trying to solve? Unless I ever get a good answer to this, I'm just going to skip this entire technology.

 

And as pointed out in the OPs post, the requirement for new hardware makes this an "installed base" issue. So even if we eventually see some credible consumer benefit, it needs to be big enough to get enough people to upgrade their equipment. This may well be the next Betamax.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

I can't help with the problem it's trying to solve for end users, but the install base issue is simple. MQA can be decoded in software for mobile phones. An easy update to Tidal, Spotify, and Apple music would increase the install base by 50 million "overnight."

 

I've often thought MQA is a solution looking for a problem, but that problem may not be one the end user is facing. Perhaps it's a solution for content owners first and foremost.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I'm not an advocate for MQA as I'm not interested in streaming services and I can't see that MQA downloads would better existing hi res PCM and DSD formats. But, I can walk to my local HIFi dealer in the UK and buy an MQA DAC today and download MQA music from 2l right now if I wanted to, so it most certainly is not vaporware according to that definition.

 

As I understand it, the consumer is free to make multiple identical copies of an MQA download, the "drm" angle only comes into play in: 1. assuring the provenance of the file and 2. that you need a MQA licensed player/DAC to get the apparent full SQ potential. The former seems a completely benign application of DRM; as for the latter, is there anything wrong in the owner of intellectual and artistic property seeking to protect their work and investment? I don't work for free and judging by the disposable income on display here, neither do/did most members of this forum.

 

If you don't like MQA, don't buy it. I have no plans to, but am open minded enough that if the results vs other formats merited it (which I doubt) I would happily buy into a "closed" system. Just as I did with SACD until the advent of reliable ripping.

 

Also the idea that DSD/SACD is also a failed or non-viable format is nonsense. I buy on average 5-10 recent releases on SACD and download each month; for me it's the default digital format for classical music.

Hi Norton - I think where we differ is determining what number of items for sale equates to vaporware. Sure there are some 2L and other MQA releases, but I'm not yet willing to say it's a real product until a major label starts releasing it. Just my take.

 

I don't look at MQA as DRM in the classic sense, meaning something can't be played without phoning home to authenticate. Perhaps MQA is not as far down the DRM continuum because eventually when the chips to decode MQA disappear, we will be stuck with less than what we purchased.

 

As a champion of free will and free markets, I don't really care what MQA does with respect to DRM. If the company wants to lock it down tight to protect label's rights, that's fine with me. I can always elect to purchase the content or not. As a producer of content myself, written words, I'm sure I would be looking at all angles to protect my content is the situation was different. I'm never against anyone protecting their assets.

 

The other angle to this is that labels could only release MQA music. They could do this for 10 years, then start releasing music in "MQB." It just turns into another format in which people will purchase Kind of Blue. Long term, I don't think customers have any say or sway over whether or not MQA takes off. It's all about the major labels. If they want it, they'll get it.

 

I compare it to the movie industry. Blu-ray is the standard physical release format. Heavily DRM'd by many definitions. Streaming movies is another way to rent or purchase. The movie industry has never sold its crown jewels, original masters. Maybe the music industry is finally moving in that direction. Since the music industry has already sold its crown jewels to its most lucrative assets, it must come up with a reason to purchase them again. Thus, MQA sounds better than the crown jewels :~)

 

Who knows? It's all speculation.

 

One more point, MQA working with Utimaco for cryptographic keys doesn't mean the product is DRM. MQA has always said it uses these keys. The only real news is that it's using a third party company to design them.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Does this change any views?

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/big-mqa-news-really-tidal-and-software-decoding-etc-31151/

[The Computer Audiophile]

Does it change yours?

 

Yes, with 30,000 major label tracks available today, I no longer think MQA is vaporware.

[The Computer Audiophile]

maybe not vaporware but undecided on whether it is any good or not....

 

Healthy skepticism.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Not true. Today's announcement by Tidal states that all current and new Tidal Hifi members will keep paying $/€/£20 while getting the 'Master' files included.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

Given that Tidal didn't have representation at RMAF, I'm skeptical of the original claim.

[The Computer Audiophile]

it's the DRM issue that people are worried about

 

That, and I believe there are many more issues people are worried about. Most people aren't worried about it, but some are. Doesn't make anyone right or wrong. Some will never be happy with MQA regardless of what the company says or does. So be it.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Witch,

 

Vaporware for me is less than 10,000 albums. I nice round number I've used for several decades. Then we get to commercial viability.

 

I think my timing was good. MQA didn't have 10,000 albums as of January 2, 2017 and they still don't. When they do MQA won't be vaporware.

 

3,000 albums so far.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Introducing is hook marketing word. If there is no additional cost then Tidal is absorbing the costs associated MQA or MQA is not getting any royalties. You tell me which one is happening. MQA can license hardware and software collect royalties on unit sales. And they can license content providers and collect royalties. Can you see any other ways to bring in revenue?

 

Perhaps, just perhaps, a company can expect more customers when introducing a product without additional charges.

[The Computer Audiophile]

According to Tidal - "We have music over 30,000 tracks from Warner Music Group, our TIDAL artist owners and key independent labels."

[The Computer Audiophile]

... And all albums are just reconverted from redbook, not recorded as MQA...

 

Huh?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Look Vincent1234, one of these "writers" says today that:

 

"If you're thinking, "Well the DragonFlys are limited to 24/96," you like me, would be wrong." (MQA Blue Is The New Black | AudioStream)

 

Except the (non technical) writer is wrong, and the original thought (and spec) is correct. What one has to believe to get to the point where up is down, wrong is "right" is to believe the MQA marketing claim (which is a Big Fat Lie) that "MQA is PCM". When you believe that, well then magical things happen, like DAC's that can only process PCM 24/96 being able to process higher levels of PCM (say, 24/192) but such a thing is mathematically impossible. What IS possible is for said doc to process a compressed/lossy file that CLAIMS to represent the same data in PCM 24/192. These writers in the Audiophile Press have been duped, willingly as they really want to believe it because they think MQA (or something like it) is necessary (or at least inevitable) for "the industry", or at least inevitable and because they simply do not have the technical background have a responsible critique...

 

Wow. I know for a fact you are wrong. You may not know it, so I won't call you a liar, but you should stop posting misleading and incorrect information.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I don't know the numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me if ad revenue was greater than subscription/sales revenue at this point.

 

I believe this is true of all magazines and always has been.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Really?! Ted Smith? One of the most knowledgeable and innovative DAC designers around? Who probably knew more about digital audio and its implementations 5 years ago than Bob Stuart ever knew?

 

You'll probably want to do some additional homework before publicly admitting to such a comment.

[The Computer Audiophile]

"Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself."

 

Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments | Popular Science

 

Popular Science should have given its readers a bit more credit. It's a copout by Popular Science and ends up looking like an internet safe space.

 

P.S. It won't allow comments for fear peoples' opinions could be swayed, but it will instead place such things as this in place of comments. Strange. I believe those same people being swayed by comments will also be swayed by linked articles with titles such as "Shocking Mysterious Photos That Cannot Be Explained."

 

All in the name of science :~)

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Do you think you're in a better position to know the tone, tenor, content, and impact of the comments that lead Popular Science to make this decision than...Popular Science?

 

Or are you addressing a more general belief/approach in terms of 'moderation'?

 

Of course I know much better than Popular Science :~)

 

Only kidding. I see it as a way for the site to make its job easier by not having to moderate comments. It's also looking at its readers as extremely easily influenced and not able to read opposing or uncivil comments for what they are - just another internet comment. It seems like big brother / popsci knows best, and its readers should not be exposed to anything that may change their minds, because a changed mind would mean PopSci was wrong.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I hope we can agree uncivil comments are some people's style.

 

Without a doubt, some people have an uncivil style / MO.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Digging deeper into this study I found some interesting comments by the authors. If comments sway perception, this is good. It's a two sided story rather than a single minister of information approach.

 

 

"Highly religious readers, the study revealed, were more likely to see nanotechnology as risky when exposed to rude comments compared to less religious readers, Brossard notes.

 

While the tone of blog comments can have an impact, simple disagreement in posts can also sway perception: “Overt disagreement adds another layer. It influences the conversation,” she explains."

[The Computer Audiophile]

That is certainly one interpretation.

 

Are you saying that you welcome uncivil discourse because it changes people's minds in a productive way?

 

There is no absolute here. Uncivil comments about North Korea's dictator, if visible by North Koreans, may be a great thing. Uncivil comments about the color red versus blue, not so good.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Why? It's only opinion, can't be proven or disproven, and I'm quite comfortable with it.

 

If you only knew some of the real stories behind the scenes.

[The Computer Audiophile]

So, if I call you a hack, a coward, and a shill for MQA, we're cool. Right?

 

;-)

 

Damn, you got me.

 

Only kidding.

 

I don't like personal attacks here on CA. However, if someone can prove something, for example that I'm a shill for MQA, and lays out the evidence, it may be OK. Overall, personal attacks aren't allow here.

[The Computer Audiophile]

How would someone prove that you are a shill for MQA (or anyone else)?

 

Perhaps hacked emails :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

What you're citing is references to past research, not the research under discussion. A research review is required to submit an article to a scientific journal article. It in no way suggests that the authors agree or disagree with the previous research cited.

You call this digging deeper?

Trolls win: Rude comments dim the allure of science online