MQA is Vaporware

[esldude]

Interesting the way they count 'album' sales since 2014.  A CD purchase or a downloaded album purchase is one album sale.  10 single track purchases is one album sale.  1500 streams is one album sale.  I think there was only one title that actually sold 1 million CDs and full album downloads last year.  That was Adele's album which she didn't let anyone stream initially.  Drake had the highest total 'album sale units' at 4 million.  In 1999 several musical groups sold 15 million actual CDs. 

 

So for inflation adjusted income the top artists make about 1/4th or 1/5th the money they once did on recordings.  The industry as a whole might be down to around 50% for recording income inflation adjusted.  It was lower a few years ago as music recording income has been rising a bit.  All this is not as bad as it sounds.  Both in 1999 and 2016 artists made more money doing tours and endorsement deals.  The recordings are really just part of the marketing.

 

Drake made about $60 million last year and Adele $80 million.

[esldude]

25 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Wonder what the contracts look like for tour dollars vs. music sales.

Looking at a few sources and for say the top ten acts of recent years it appears touring money is 80-95% of an artist's income.  The line can be blurry for artists with endorsements as endorsing companies are sometimes involved in the tours.  Clearly from data available touring is overwhelmingly where the money is.

 

Here is one page with it clearly laid out though I can't know they are the most accurate.  It fits with other sources in general. 

 

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/list/7356755/billboard-top-40-money-makers-rich-list

 

Taylor Swift is listed with $61.7 million touring.  $4.1 million publishing.  $7.2 million in sales and $564k for streaming.

 

Adele is unusual as she made $16 million in sales and $0 touring in 2015.  But she started off the following year with a tour which netted most of her $60 million. 

[esldude]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Sorry I wasn't more clear - what I was wondering was what the contract provisions with a label might be for money made from tours.  The top acts may get sponsorship, but I'm wondering about middle and lower tier folks.  I'm curious whether it's a common arrangement for the labels to put up money for these acts to tour and get paid back from a cut of the proceeds, or are the contracts more commonly between the artists and promoters who run the venues?

Now I am not in the business.  So might be wrong.  Reading about it the tour was probably mostly going to the artist.  In recent years record labels have wanted to use what is called a 360 contract.  In a positive light it means the label and artist become more like business partners sharing expenses and profits.  In less kind terms it means some touring money, TV appearance money and right on down to the Tshirt sales and concession sales the artist mostly got to keep goes partly to the label.   360 means everything and anything related the music the label has its hand out for cut.

[esldude]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

"360 deal" does sound better than "comprehensively screwed."

How to avoid getting completely screwed by a 360 degree deal.

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2013/07/02/threesixty/

[esldude]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

our?

 

I'm not the owner of any masters, just a consumer.  I think your question may be: "why shouldn't consumers be up in arms about this and riot in the streets"

 

 

How odd a choice.  A good bit of that song was recorded to an early Philips cassette machine.  Like in mono.  We are talking 1968 and cassette was mostly dictation stuff at the time.  Not much frequency response or speed stability.  SNR was probably pushing it to reach 40 db since Dolby hadn't been invented yet. I still have one of those machines from that same year.  I purchased it with money from returning recycled bottles as a kid.  My greatest recordings unfortunately were of my sister's cat going "meow".  Then interspersed with some extended purring. Much more thrilling when extremely close miked. 

[esldude]

Maybe MQA is more akin to watermarking though for different purposes.

[esldude]

35 minutes ago, new_media said:

If I buy a track from iTunes, I can convert it to 16/44 FLAC with no loss of quality. Converting to lossless doesn't add anything, but there is no loss of quality in the process, and that FLAC file will sound as good as the original M4A file on anything I choose to play it on.

 

If I were to buy a track in MQA, there is no way I could convert it to 24/96 FLAC without a loss of quality. There is no way I could save the "unfolded" audio to another format that would sound as good as the original "unfolded" MQA file. And if in 10 years MQA has gone belly up and there are no longer DACs on the market that can decode it, there would be no way to ever listen to those files in full resolution.

 

You can call that DRM or not, but that is why I do not want MQA to replace FLAC as the standard for hi-res downloads. An no, I have no proof that that is there plan, but such a plan would certainly benefit MQA AND would satisfy the labels' desires to lock down the "crown jewels."

 

I would rather buy a CD than an MQA download.

Sort of like all those HDCD DACs and discs that were available and now that company, Pacific Microsonics are no more.  Bought up by Microsoft and shut down.

[esldude]

14 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Well to be accurate bought up by Microsoft who tried to make a go of HDCD then shut it down. About 5,000 albums were released. 

Actually they cared nothing about HDCD music discs.  They wanted the licensing of chips and some other encoding tech.  The HDCD was part of the deal, and they didn't try much.

 

At the time of purchase by MS, it was said 5000 CD that were HDCD had been released.  When it was shut down it was said over 5000 HDCD discs had been released.  So basically they didn't try to make a go of it. It was irrelevant for their purposes.  They shut that part of it down, and absorbed some tech, some licensing fees and some personal with the company. 

[esldude]

14 minutes ago, mrvco said:

 

At least you can rip an HDCD disc to a 24-bit / 44.1 KHz file using dBpoweramp and the appropriate DSP filter to get the benefits.

Just like if MQA eventually fails some software might decode it too.  Or Meridian, who already protected themselves by spinning this off into its own company, may shut it down one day without making the code available.  The two systems are very similar in many ways.  HDCD gave you 15 bit instead of 16 bit performance on CD undecoded while MQA gives either 13 or 15 bits of performance undecoded.

[esldude]

I am perplexed. 

 

Do we need an MQA sub-forum?

 

Do we need a DRM sub-forum?

 

Do we need a legal copyright/DRM sub-forum and anyone not an attorney can only ask questions of members that are attorneys?

 

 

[esldude]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Do we need attorneys who are foolish enough to try to answer?

I don't believe I am qualified to answer that question itself. 

[esldude]

The thing that bothers me besides possible DRM like characteristics of MQA is what it really is.

 

The name was Master Quality Authenticated.  It was supposed to tell us when we are getting the actual bits fully decoded to best possible effect under the MQA system.  Instead you have variations and layers of decoding, and filter adjustment.  Though there are two possible indicator lights that is nowhere near enough to tell the whole story.  Quite often I suspect you will simply get an MQA encoded file that other than being wrapped in that container is little different in quality or provenance.  So on the face of it MQA mostly fails to live up to its name.  All that is left is some file size reduction, and the fact if you don't decode at some level your undecoded file is a slightly adulterated version of a redbook quality file. That is not something I see as a step forward. 

 

Stewart et al have been slow to dribble out details of what is really being done in MQA and are at fault for the rocky reception it has had in some circles.  Promises were made that seemed unlikely and in fact turned out not to be so just as suspected.  Something of a minor bait and switch with a promise to just trust us it will be good.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

By the way, MQA doesn't require the use of its own filters. Some DAC manufacturers will benefit from MQA's filter while others do it better themselves. 

Would that not automatically mean it fails as Authenticating anything if you don't use their filtering? 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

 

From MQA:

 

"The increasing evidence of acute sensitivity to time/frequency balance and practical experiments showing deterioration in sound quality from steep filters have led Stuart and Craven to conclude that the most appropriate benchmark against which to judge the blurring in a sound reproducing system is air itself. [2]

 

"Air attenuates high frequencies and disperses transients, but in a way that is completely familiar. Can we therefore mimic this behavior to give a 'more natural' system response whose only effect would be to effectively move the listener a short but familiar distance from the source?"

 

They're saying air as a medium produces "temporal blurring," and that it's most appropriate to limit digital filters to this same amount of blurring.

 

I'm not familiar with scientific or engineering proofs of either proposition.  I'm not even sure either proposition is well formulated, i.e., sensible.  It's some scientific or engineering evidence of either that's being asked for.

For closer miking wouldn't the appropriate familiar distance be 3 inches of air?

[esldude]

13 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

different frequencies are attenuated to different degrees by air - but it is not something over short distances; more like fractions of a mile or so

About .5 dB per meter at 20 khz.

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I'm happy to read you've separated my opinion from me personally. All to often people get caught up in combining the two. 

 

Anyway, as an example of what I'm talking about - I was listening to some MQA recordings with the recording engineer who recorded the tracks. He asked for my opinion about the sound when we A/B'd the tracks (MQA and non-MQA). I said I loved the sound, but I had no clue if one was closer to the original live performance. He suggested that everyone knows what a Steinway sounds like and the MQA version was clearly closer to the original performance. 

 

I'm certain that everyone doesn't know what a Steinway sounds like and I'm certain not all Steinways sound alike. I'm also certain that every concert hall is different. Thus, there's no way for me to know if the MQA or non-MQA version is more accurate. I also don't believe there is any objective way to know which one is more accurate. 

 

If we are going back to the original performance a the gold standard, does anyone know how we can tell which version is more accurate? 

I would lay real money down the recording engineer couldn't tell either without the labels. 

 

Though not in touch with them recently I knew two people with Steinways.  Not the exact same model, but both were the same size.  One in a huge room below ground.  One in a small suspended floor room barely large enough for the instrument.  The sound of the rooms made identification of which piano by sound alone a joke. 

 

As for picking accurate recordings, that is one of those myths about two channel.  It has limitations.  The closest to fully objective on that front I have seen were tests where different miking techniques were used and listeners asked to rate them, and draw where musicians were.  Most of the differences were left-right position and depth.  The most accurate compared to reality was crossed figure 8s (the Blumlein alignment). 

 

Now if you get away from 2 channel recordings you really are in the wilderness.  Even people like 2L almost always use no less than 4 microphones and blend in room sound to taste. Usually 2L is doing surround recordings and convert to stereo. 

 

Similar tests of miking with surround vs placement accuracy seem to all come to slightly different conclusions. 

 

Think about reproduced sound vs genuine accuracy.  You can provide reasonable illusions under various constraints.  You won't ever be able to fully be accurate as long as the only sources of real sound originate from two or five places in space. 

 

MQA could according to its goals provide you with whatever they wanted the master to sound like accurately.  The idea it is somehow better and sounds more accurate to real life is a fool's errand or a con job. 

[esldude]

21 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

Yep, fewer and fewer people are experiencing a Steinway.  Nevertheless, a Steinway is real and our common humanity is real.  IF we could get "everybody" an appropriate amount of Steinway experience, a strong consensus would develop about which recording is more "accurate", and more importantly this consensus would be real and not merely "subjective" in a radical way...

Do you think people have an appropriate amount of hand clap or human voice experience? 

 

Time to post this again I think:  (I am sure if this was MQA'd it would help....right?)

 

 

[esldude]

Yes pattern recognition rather than accurate retrieval.  Our brains work off patterns and fit things close enough to make the pattern.  Not fail something because it was 3% distorted and not accurate enough. 

[esldude]

All this speculation and no talk of subtractive dither?

[esldude]

16 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Evidenced by its absence?

Well subtractive dither is supposed to be part of MQA.  It is a genuine improvement in accuracy if done properly.  Whether audible or not it is better than additive dither.  Yet no talk of it.  I doubt things like the AQ DACs are able to handle their end of subtractive dither (but I don't know for sure).  Or is it always part of MQA? 

 

The best evidence about how audible the blurring is comes from Meridian.  The answer is not very.  Subtractive dither could be much bigger than this blur/deblur effect and completely non-controversial.  If it is really being done in MQA.  Certainly at least for new recordings it could be.

[esldude]

From the Q&A here on CA:

 

Q61. Is the generation of subtractive dithering on playback only possible with MQA hardware?

 

A61. It is a requirement of all decoders.

 

 

Elsewhere Mr. Stuart says subtractive dither is important because it allows zero noise floor modulation.  Noise floor modulation is frequently happening with common digital formats.

 

Subtractive dither is also how the information for unfolding is coded below the noise floor of MQA recordings.

[esldude]

18 minutes ago, #Yoda# said:

I don't know if anyone mentioned it before, but the labels have started a two-tier strategy for new releases as I expected in an other forum about a year ago. HiRes downloads are available only at basic HiRes recommendations 24/44.1 or 24/48. The MQA version is released based on a master in double or full resolution. I've noticed it at Kraftwerk 3-D The Catalogue that is available as download only in 24/44.1, using the TIDAL app, the Masters version shows with my DAC a resolution of 88.2 kHz. I think there are a lot more examples. Today the new Roger Waters albumIs "This The Life We Really Want" has been released as HiRes download to my great disappointment only in 24/48, for sure not the masters original resolution. I bet, we will see this album with better numbers as MQA on TIDAL, soon. 

But remember no DRM or anything like that in MQA. Where's that sarcasm emoji?

[esldude]

If this is the route taken, it means you will not ever have available to you a lossless copy of the high resolution master.  MQA is incapable of it by design.  It claims to be lossless audibly, but is incapable of true bit perfect lossless transfer.   There goes any chance to get the real master bit perfectly.  Getting the lossless version will cost extra just to rub salt into the wound. 

[esldude]

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6013

 

So at least one Grammy award winning mastering engineer does not Authenticate MQA.

[esldude]

6 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

First, before I get to Brian Lucey: The recent news does seem rather depressing from the lack of anything (at least in @Rt66indierock's report) about movement in regular hi-res, streaming or download.  Wonder how many (few?) of the Pepper purchases on Amazon had anything to do with the 24/96 versions?

 

Now, re Brian Lucey: This quote from him didn't fill me with confidence in his knowledge or musical judgment (though I could as always be wrong):

 

 

Maybe it's worse or better with "higher math" - he doesn't know - than 24/44.1, which he likes for "density."  He then throws in a swipe at one of his colleagues (always charming).

 

Then he says "the math is solid" after just remarking he doesn't know about it.  OK, a really solid source. 

I agree, but find this no worse than the accolades sometimes heaped upon MQA by those who know just as little and aren't recording engineers.