MQA is Vaporware

[new_media]

- 'they have a bias in the direction of "the industry" that is anti-consumer.' Proof? Don't they earn their money by serving the consumer and isn't that the public they are writing for?

 

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

[new_media]

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.

 

Very well said.

[new_media]

Glad to see the new Flaming Lips album is out in 24/96 FLAC. Warner hasn't started holding back the crown jewels quite yet.

[new_media]

ie no DEAD except American Beauty

 

Workingman's Dead is also showing up as a MASTER recording for me.

[new_media]

I absolutely consider the restriction on MQA to be a form of DRM.

 

Any audio file that I am unable to convert to another format and play back at full resolution, I consider to have DRM.

 

It's fine for streaming but I wouldn't buy an album in MQA unless it was the only option, and that in and of itself would be a pretty strong deterrent.

 

I would definitely buy straight up redbook before I would buy MQA.

[new_media]

So you consider *any* lossy format (e.g., MP3, AAC, WMA) or lossy transform (e.g., PCM <> DSD) to be a form of DRM? I think we're getting a bit hysterical about "DRM"

 

Nope, what I meant was the full resolution of the file I'm converting from. I could convert any of those lossy formats to FLAC or ALAC, and I wouldn't lose any resolution.

 

If I buy an album in MQA and then MQA DACs go off the market, I have no way of ever listening to those files at full resolution again.

 

DSD <> PCM is a flawed analogy. MQA is based on PCM, and could be converted to PCM without further loss were it not for their restrictions.

[new_media]

Now can someone explain to me, is there any way to see the DRM restrictions in these MQA files that Tidal is supposed to be offering their paying Hi-Fi users. I understand I can't play a full MQA file on a non certified DAC, but how is it we can still play part of the file. IS it those same restrictions that is preventing a full MQA presence.

 

Sure, you can play the files as long as you are a paid TIDAL Hi-Fi subscriber. The fear is that MQA is angling to replace hi-res PCM, so your only choices for listening to hi-res would be subscribing to a premium streaming service or downloading MQA files and playing them back on a certified DAC.

 

MQA gets paid at least twice in either scenario.

[new_media]

My question - what basis is there for a belief that MQA will be the *only* source for hi-res?

 

Just that I believe that any for-profit corporation would prefer to corner whatever market they are in to maximize their own revenues.

 

I'm sure that MQA would love for people to go gonzo over the sound quality on TIDAL so that they have leverage to sign up the other streaming services and labels.

[new_media]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that MQA wants to corner the market? If so, I would say that current events more than suggest this is not the case.

 

Another question - do you think MQA has more influence than Pandora and Rhapsody with the record labels?

 

What current events? I think they are just getting their foot in the door at this point, but why wouldn't they want to expand their marketshare?

 

Labels and codec providers are two different animals. 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.

[new_media]

I think I understand my disconnect. The concern with MQA is the idea that they may become the de-facto standard for hi-res some day because the big three record labels may eventually realize that MQA offers them more control of downloads.

 

And, if we recognize this eventuality, we can do something about it today.

 

Is this correct? If so, what can *we* do to make sure this will not happen?

 

Yes, this is exactly it, and I think we collectively need to make it clear that while MQA may be a great streaming technology, we would like to have the option of downloading hi-res PCM/DSD. I buy at least 50 albums a year in lossless FLAC, and I will always want to own my favorite albums.

 

As you have already stated, though, the audiophile voice is a shrinking commodity.

[new_media]

I'm curious - are the records you buy in lossless FLAC released by the 3 major labels?

 

Certainly some of them. I buy from a fair number of indie labels as well.

[new_media]

Thanks.

 

Two weeks into this year I have bought new albums from The xx (24/96 FLAC on indie label Young Turks) and The Flaming Lips (24/96 FLAC on Warner.)

[new_media]

I bought The xx too.

 

Good stuff.

[new_media]

7 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

I have now also heard MQA for myself, though in stereo, not Mch, via an Aurender A10.  The MQA and non-MQA versions were compared via Tidal. My views are very much in line with Kal's, and they were shared unanimously by two other listeners in the same session.  One, our host, is a reviewer who will publish his views in a month or so.  I think MQA offers a potential sonic improvement of worthwhile significance.  

Some of the standard vs. MQA albums in TIDAL are from different masters, so you have to be careful that you are comparing apples to apples.

 

I have compared some of my own FLAC files to MQA through TIDAL, which I'm pretty sure are the same masters, both using an ME2 DAC, and frankly I don't hear much difference.

[new_media]

If MQA has an effective automobile analogy, it's Delorean, not Porsche.

[new_media]

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.

[new_media]

Do millennials even remember DRM?

[new_media]

14 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Still researching but my current understanding is that DRM isn’t being used on MQA 

files presently so I am not sure how any consumer freedoms are being harmed.

 

If I purchased an MQA-encoded album and wanted to listen to it on anything other than an officially licensed MQA device, it would be worse than redbook quality.

 

I don't care if that's DRM by your definition, it is by mine, and I would buy a CD over MQA encoded files every single time.

[new_media]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

That’s a very restrictive view of DRM and would exclude a wide variety of innovative formats including SACD and DVD-Audio.  And MQA is not worse than CD quality.

SACD and DVD-Audio have DRM.

Undecoded MQA is worse than CD quality.

[new_media]

On 8/3/2018 at 10:10 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Yes, their use of facts has been quite Presidential lately. 

 

 

?

 

That word used to mean something entirely different.

[new_media]

I just noticed that Onkyo Music is now offering two MQA versions of the same titles, one high-res and one redbook, and at different price points.

 

 

If the purported purpose of MQA is to deliver "music just as it was recorded in the studio; an audio experience as the artist intended," then why offer a downgraded version?

 

Similarly, why would anyone want to buy a lesser version of "master quality," particularly one with a lossy codec that I assume has essentially the same bitrate as the lossless redbook offering?

[new_media]

19 minutes ago, rickca said:

I bet there are lots of dealers out there just like him, naive and uninformed.

 

 

I bet there are lots of dealers out there who want all of their customers to upgrade to MQA-capable DACs.

 

My local dealer is really a vinyl guy. He sells Brooklyn DACs and I think their ads mention it as a feature, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard him mention MQA in person.

[new_media]

I don’t think any streaming service is using 128 kbps MP3 at this point. Even the free Spotify tier is 160 kbps OGG.

 

At any rate, 2L isn’t replacing their lossy streams with MQA, just the lossless ones.

[new_media]

Gads that logo is awful. Looks like someone designed it in the 1989 version of Print Shop Pro.

 

Much prefer the logo used in Europe.

 

[new_media]

11 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Lee, you have a history (well OK, one example - LHL crowdfunding) of being oblivious to the dangers others point out in the financial machinations of the audio and music industry.  The danger here is the potential to rather easily cut off the supply of non-MQA RedBook and hi res for those of us who prefer it.

 

I still mostly buy the music that I like, either CD or hi-res downloads, but MQA exclusivity would be the nail in the coffin for me. I would just switch to streaming if the titles I wanted were only available in MQA. Perhaps that's what the music labels want, but I'm already paying for Tidal AND buying CDs and downloads.