MQA is Vaporware

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

I see it's time for the daily Lavorgna assault.

 

He hasn't attacked any Asian cultures yet - PLEASE give him time.

 

BTW, You are smart to not want your good name associated with his blog.

[Jud]

4 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

Not sure what you mean by "recorded".??  When an MQA file download becomes available to me, first thing I'll do is copy it and play it on MQA and non-MQA dacs. 

 

When I referred to recording I was talking about streams, not downloadable files.

[lucretius]

26 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

When I referred to recording I was talking about streams, not downloadable files.

 

In that case --

 

For MQA streams, I can use my Tidal account from any computer, sending the file to any (connected) DAC. When it's a non-MQA DAC, it will play the MQA file like a 16/44 file with no MQA (or like a 24/96 file with no MQA if you use the Tidal App setup properly to do the 1st unfold).

 

Also, I have logged onto computers at dealers with my Tidal account through a web browser and the MQA streams played just fine (like 16/44 files with no MQA).

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

In that case --

 

For MQA streams, I can use my Tidal account from any computer, sending the file to any (connected) DAC. When it's a non-MQA DAC, it will play the MQA file like a 16/44 file with no MQA (or like a 24/96 file with no MQA if you use the Tidal App setup properly to do the 1st unfold). In fact, I have logged onto computers at dealers with my Tidal account and the MQA streams played just fine (like 16/44 files, since the DACs in these cases were non-MQA).

 

Wonder if Tidal streams can be played simultaneously on two computers using one account.

[realhifi]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Wonder if Tidal streams can be played simultaneously on two computers using one account.

Can't speak to two desktops but I have streamed on iPad and desktop simultaneous. 

[mansr]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

Wonder if Tidal streams can be played simultaneously on two computers using one account.

Many streaming services allow slightly more than one simultaneous streams.

[Ralf11]

Id think about IP addresses before I thought about computers.  If they IP addresses are similar they may well allow it.

[lucretius]

6 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Wonder if Tidal streams can be played simultaneously on two computers using one account.

 

Just tried this at home.

 

Using Tidal app on two computers, logged on Tidal using the same account and simultaneously streamed the MQA version of the Eagles, Take It Easy. The first computer was connected to an MQA DAC and the second to a non-MQA DAC. From the first system, the file played as 24/192 and the MQA indicator lit up. From the second system, the file played as 24/96. However, note that both systems are on the same network connected to one router, one modem and one ISP.

[Fokus]

14 hours ago, Jud said:

Can pre-decryption streams be recorded/copied and shared in this way?

 

Yes. You can record from the Tidal desktop app. It is a bit laborious.

[wdw]

....

[FredericV]

4 hours ago, Fokus said:

 

Yes. You can record from the Tidal desktop app. It is a bit laborious.

The desktop version of Tidal uses encrypted flac files. So you can't intercept the flac files over http, as the file looks like garbage.
But Tidal also has non-encrypted versions for devices that don't support encryption. These files are protected with a token system.

Tidal files played via the desktop app and chrome are already encrypted. Add MQA to the mix, and we have:

- encryption of the flac file without using HTTPS
- ecnryption / obfuscation of the pseudo highres part of the MQA file used for the unfold
- authentication via MQA
- DRM with degrading up to MP3 levels (see the patent) for those without an MQA decoder

MQA hardware decoding modules have the possibility to add an ID number, which increments for every module sold. Phone home DRM based on the ID of the MQA decoder is technically possible looking at their patent, but impractical for now.

It would require a lot of middleware to be added to Tidal to have per customer locked MQA files. It would also imply modifying some flags in the files, or use an out of band system to check if the customer has the right to play the file, which will add a lot of complexity and break current implementations.



 

[Fokus]

13 minutes ago, FredericV said:

The desktop version of Tidal uses encrypted flac files. So you can't intercept the flac files over http,

 

With ASIO Bridge you can intercept the stream to the DAC.

 

[Jud]

Right, so the point of these questions is: At least in the current state, MQA seems equally as subject to unauthorized distribution in digital format as non-MQA discs and streams.  And it’s doubtful the music industry will try to push the idea that MQA on non-MQA hardware is awful, since that would restrict their market.  (Equipment manufacturers might.) So rights restrictions are very unlikely to be a reason for the music industry to like MQA.  Marketing it as a better listening experience to folks who grew up on mp3 seems a much more likely reason for the music industry to push MQA.  We’ll see how successful that is.

[mansr]

52 minutes ago, Jud said:

Right, so the point of these questions is: At least in the current state, MQA seems equally as subject to unauthorized distribution in digital format as non-MQA discs and streams.

This is correct.

 

52 minutes ago, Jud said:

And it’s doubtful the music industry will try to push the idea that MQA on non-MQA hardware is awful, since that would restrict their market.

If MQA DACs become sufficiently widespread, they might start pushing harder in this direction. Or rather, they'll push the idea that anything but MQA music on MQA hardware is awful.

 

52 minutes ago, Jud said:

(Equipment manufacturers might.) So rights restrictions are very unlikely to be a reason for the music industry to like MQA. Marketing it as a better listening experience to folks who grew up on mp3 seems a much more likely reason for the music industry to push MQA.  We’ll see how successful that is.

It would be relatively easy to embed a unique ID in each download, so if the file turns up on a pirate site, they'll immediately know who did it. As there's no upside to the buyer from this, they have to be baited by something else, such as a promise of better sound.

[lucretius]

On 9/6/2017 at 4:07 AM, Miska said:

Even if a format is "extinct" the content is not. So if I ever purchase content I want to have the freedom to losslessly transcode it to a new container without having to purchase the same content over and over again. Standard FLAC, ALAC and such allow this. MQA is breaking this possibility, on purpose. Since I use primarily Linux, I won't be able to use that software.

 

Apparently, this is not the case. I downloaded a MQA file from www.2l.no, which came in a flac container. Played it on my MQA DAC and it unfolded to 24/352 (and the MQA indicator lit up). Then, using dBpoweramp, I converted the file to AIFF, ALAC, and WAV. All three of these files played on my MQA DAC and unfolded to 24/352 (with the MQA indicator lit up). Also a quick check revealed that all four files played fine on a non-MQA DAC like 16/44.1. [Used JRiver Media Center for this test.]

 

[Fokus]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

Apparently, this is not the case. 

 

 

Of course it worked. But what Miska probably meant is that, after MQA fails and MQA DACs are extinct, there will be no possibility anymore to access the folded content of an MQA file.

[daverich4]

On 9/7/2017 at 9:04 AM, Jud said:

 

Of course most interesting of all will be seeing how the big streaming companies, Apple, and the music buying public react.

 

Well, Warner Music for one isn't all in on MQA. They just signed up for a price cut with Apple. 

 

https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/7/16265856/apple-music-warner-music-streaming-spotify-liscensing-deal

[tmtomh]

13 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

Apparently, this is not the case. I downloaded a MQA file from www.2l.no, which came in a flac container. Played it on my MQA DAC and it unfolded to 24/352 (and the MQA indicator lit up). Then, using dBpoweramp, I converted the file to AIFF, ALAC, and WAV. All three of these files played on my MQA DAC and unfolded to 24/352 (with the MQA indicator lit up). Also a quick check revealed that all four files played fine on a non-MQA DAC like 16/44.1. [Used JRiver Media Center for this test.]

 

 

Is there any way to fully unfold an MQA file and convert/preserve the unfolded version to a conventional PCM-based file (e.g. WAV, AIFF, FLAC, ALAC)? If not, then I would say @Miska's concern is quite valid.

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

Is there any way to fully unfold an MQA file and convert/preserve the unfolded version to a conventional PCM-based file (e.g. WAV, AIFF, FLAC, ALAC)?

Not officially.

[tmtomh]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

Not officially.

 

Thanks. That's what I thought. And is neatly encapsulates why MQA is nothing but trouble IMHO.

[FredericV]

It seems MQA has their own loudness war on unaware players

 

While reading [0025] ... [0027] of the patent, which describe the deliberate degrading of the sound by messing with the gain,

https://www.google.com/patents/US20160005411

 

it mentions Peter Craven's patent:

 

Quote

The representation is deliberately degraded in a reversible manner, for example by applying a time-varying gain as described in published International patent application WO2013/061062, incorporated herein by reference, so as to provide a lower sound quality when the song is played by an unaware player as if it were a standard PCM signal.

So which artist would allow the deliberate degrading of their work, as mentioned in 26?

 

Quote

The first purpose is to allow the degradation to be reversed on playback; the second is to allow the degradation to be selected on artistic, aesthetic or commercial grounds by the artist or his representative and to be consistent for all account-holders who may purchase the song.

The real issue is their artificial loudness war. Let's look at their gain manipulation:

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2013061062

Abstract:

 

Quote

Some methods employ complimentary amplification and attenuation, while others employ gain redistribution. Pre-emphasis and soft clipping techniques are described as methods of losslessly reducing the peak excursion of the PCM audio signal.

The above & claim 32 basically describes compression:

 

Quote

32. A method according to any of claims 26 to 31 , further comprising the step of:

losslessly pre-emphasising (70) the digital audio signal in order to reduce the amplitude of frequency components that have high energy.

So it seems MQA has their own version of the loudness war (=dynamic range compression / gain manipulation) as a feature, to cripple playback on non-licensed or MQA unaware players, in order to make the difference with decoded MQA bigger.

Please convince me how this is not bad for music.

[Shadders]

2 hours ago, FredericV said:

It seems MQA has their own loudness war on unaware players

 

While reading [0025] ... [0027] of the patent, which describe the deliberate degrading of the sound by messing with the gain,

https://www.google.com/patents/US20160005411

 

it mentions Peter Craven's patent:

So which artist would allow the deliberate degrading of their work, as mentioned in 26?

The real issue is their artificial loudness war. Let's look at their gain manipulation:

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2013061062

Abstract:

The above & claim 32 basically describes compression:

So it seems MQA has their own version of the loudness war (=dynamic range compression / gain manipulation) as a feature, to cripple playback on non-licensed or MQA unaware players, in order to make the difference with decoded MQA bigger.

Please convince me how this is not bad for music.

Hi,

It may be bad for music, but will be good for the artists and music companies.

Artists will be guided to believe that assigning music to a single or multiple devices will increase revenues (as it will be stated to stop illegal copying), so the artist will believe that they will get more money.

The same for the record companies.

If good music engineering (loudness wars ?, copycode protection ? etc), was the record companies main focus, then none of the copy prevention ideas or loudness wars would have happened.

These designs/implementation occur, as the music companies want money.

It is the same for MQA. It is the route to the complete control of music (in their heads) leading to more money. Luverly money.

As we all know, copy prevention will always be broken.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Jud]

On 9/6/2017 at 3:54 AM, Miska said:

 

CD pressings are much cheaper too than SACD. Because SACDs can be manufactured only at very few locations controlled by Sony.

 

Downloads allow record companies to sell much more directly to the end customers, without long chains of companies each adding 30% profit margin on top of the previous step...

 

 

That’s the way one would think it ought to work, but in actuality the music companies have much more economic control over contractual arrangements and profit margins with the disc distribution system than they do with a download market where the price and profit margins for the vast majority of downloads are set by contract with Apple.

[Miska]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

That’s the way one would think it ought to work, but in actuality the music companies have much more economic control over contractual arrangements and profit margins with the disc distribution system than they do with a download market where the price and profit margins for the vast majority of downloads are set by contract with Apple.

 

Hmmh, but Apple is not selling DSD downloads? I doubt selling SACD discs through Amazon is much more profitable than selling downloads through nativedsd.com or HDtracks...

 

At least if I would sell my software on CDs in a cardboard box that old way, it would at least double the price or more... Almost nobody sells boxed software anymore. It is hard for me to imagine selling music would be much different from selling software.

 

[Jud]

9 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Hmmh, but Apple is not selling DSD downloads? I doubt selling SACD discs through Amazon is much more profitable than selling downloads through nativedsd.com or HDtracks...

 

At least if I would sell my software on CDs in a cardboard box that old way, it would at least double the price or more... Almost nobody sells boxed software anymore. It is hard for me to imagine selling music would be much different from selling software.

 

 

Yep, agreed.  But something the size of the DSD download market is not why some labels and streaming services are trying out MQA.  I would guess they must want MQA as a better quality alternative for streaming and download markets that are now built around mp3/AAC.