MQA is Vaporware

[Miska]

30 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

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.

 

I fail to understand why they would go with MQA instead of standard FLAC. It doesn't save any bandwidth - in fact it consumes more. Unless they wish it as a DRM vehicle...

 

But MP3/AAC don't contain DRM aspects by the spec, anybody can write a decoder. And now MP3 is patent license free too, so quite a bit cheaper than it used to be.

 

[Ralf11]

You are forgetting about the next version.  DRM 2.0 will allow a compressed stream-size equal to mp3, so you can stream it to your Apple Watch and ear buds.  Once you get home, the full Hi-Res will continue on your home stereo without a break or gap in playback.

[Ralf11]

oops - I meant MQA 2.0

 

hahaha

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

 

I fail to understand why they would go with MQA instead of standard FLAC. It doesn't save any bandwidth - in fact it consumes more. Unless they wish it as a DRM vehicle...

 

But MP3/AAC don't contain DRM aspects by the spec, anybody can write a decoder. And now MP3 is patent license free too, so quite a bit cheaper than it used to be.

 

 

I don’t think it works for the labels as DRM, because then they limit their market to people with MQA hardware.  I think what works best for them financially is to say MQA sounds great without special hardware, and even better with.

 

Two possibilities occur to me as to why MQA instead of FLAC: they won’t be selling anything that can be converted to a hi res master; and to their ears it may sound good.

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

I don’t think it works for the labels as DRM, because....

 

..... they won’t be selling anything that can be converted to a hi res master.....

 

So it really is about DRM...except that it is not...but in the end....

 

Look, no matter how hard you twist this MQA begins and ends with DRM

[mansr]

7 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

You are forgetting about the next version.  DRM 2.0 will allow a compressed stream-size equal to mp3, so you can stream it to your Apple Watch and ear buds.  Once you get home, the full Hi-Res will continue on your home stereo without a break or gap in playback.

That's impossible. Audio simply can't be compressed that much without losing quality. If it were possible, such a format would already exist.

[Jud]

6 hours ago, crenca said:

 

So it really is about DRM...except that it is not...but in the end....

 

Look, no matter how hard you twist this MQA begins and ends with DRM

 

I’d actually say the reverse.  No matter how much people want to say the DRM piece should be significant to the music industry, it really doesn’t suit their economics *yet*, and quite possibly never will.  It’s the fact that it’s a lossy format that may work out for the industry. (It’s essentially the same as if they offered LPs and needle drops.  No DRM required, but you can’t convert it back to a hi res master.) If the music industry wants the maximum number of people to buy MQA streams and downloads, it can’t be pushing the idea you’re listening to a sonically awful version unless you buy new equipment.  It has to market MQA as “better right now than what you’ve got, even better yet with new equipment.”  (The equipment manufacturers, of course, can be expected to heavily emphasize that last part, so for *them*, the built-in DRM is economically beneficial.) 

 

We’ll see if anyone goes for it.

[Shadders]

14 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I’d actually say the reverse.  No matter how much people want to say the DRM piece should be significant to the music industry, it really doesn’t suit their economics *yet*, and quite possibly never will.  It’s the fact that it’s a lossy format that may work out for the industry. (It’s essentially the same as if they offered LPs and needle drops.  No DRM required, but you can’t convert it back to a hi res master.) If the music industry wants the maximum number of people to buy MQA streams and downloads, it can’t be pushing the idea you’re listening to a sonically awful version unless you buy new equipment.  It has to market MQA as “better right now than what you’ve got, even better yet with new equipment.”  (The equipment manufacturers, of course, can be expected to heavily emphasize that last part, so for *them*, the built-in DRM is economically beneficial.) 

 

We’ll see if anyone goes for it.

Hi Jud,

I am not sure i understand why you are referring to MQA marketing. Of course, this is required to make it popular.

What we do know is that MQA is lossy, BUT, as others have stated, FLAC which is not lossy, has similar compression ratios.

Is MQA better - even when unfolded ??? Who knows (well, we do, as per this thread) - but we do know it sounds different.

MP3 provides a lossy capable stream - and it is now licence free ?

 

So, we have a new format which is lossy, same file size as FLAC, is no better than existing (although we are told it is better), and requires licencing (MQA Ltd).

 

So why even push it ?. We have perfectly capable existing methods now, MQA offers nothing better (aliasing...).

 

If you like lossy - then MP3. If you like high resolution - then use existing.

 

Comparing to existing - there is no need for MQA. So why would the record companies be promoting it ?

 

What's in it for them ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Nikhil]

41 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I’d actually say the reverse.  No matter how much people want to say the DRM piece should be significant to the music industry, it really doesn’t suit their economics *yet*, and quite possibly never will.  It’s the fact that it’s a lossy format that may work out for the industry. (It’s essentially the same as if they offered LPs and needle drops.  No DRM required, but you can’t convert it back to a hi res master.) If the music industry wants the maximum number of people to buy MQA streams and downloads, it can’t be pushing the idea you’re listening to a sonically awful version unless you buy new equipment.  It has to market MQA as “better right now than what you’ve got, even better yet with new equipment.”  (The equipment manufacturers, of course, can be expected to heavily emphasize that last part, so for *them*, the built-in DRM is economically beneficial.) 

 

We’ll see if anyone goes for it.

 

 

On some of the other forums I'm on people are going for it hook line and sinker ...

 

[Jud]

3 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi Jud,

I am not sure i understand why you are referring to MQA marketing. Of course, this is required to make it popular.

What we do know is that MQA is lossy, BUT, as others have stated, FLAC which is not lossy, has similar compression ratios.

Is MQA better - even when unfolded ??? Who knows (well, we do, as per this thread) - but we do know it sounds different.

MP3 provides a lossy capable stream - and it is now licence free ?

 

So, we have a new format which is lossy, same file size as FLAC, is no better than existing (although we are told it is better), and requires licencing (MQA Ltd).

 

So why even push it ?. We have perfectly capable existing methods now, MQA offers nothing better (aliasing...).

 

If you like lossy - then MP3. If you like high resolution - then use existing.

 

Comparing to existing - there is no need for MQA. So why would the record companies be promoting it ?

 

What's in it for them ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

People are very familiar with FLAC, so it’s got no marketing pizazz.  FLAC is lossless, so labels would be concerned about bootleg copies if they issued their highest resolution files widely.  MQA not only isn’t convertible to the original file, it can be marketed as something New! and Shiny! and a species of this Hi Res! a few of the kids may have heard Neil Young talking about.  “Diet Hi Res, tastes like real Hi Res!”

[Shadders]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

People are very familiar with FLAC, so it’s got no marketing pizazz.  FLAC is lossless, so labels would be concerned about bootleg copies if they issued their highest resolution files widely.  MQA not only isn’t convertible to the original file, it can be marketed as something New! and Shiny! and a species of this Hi Res! a few of the kids may have heard Neil Young talking about.  So “Diet Hi Res, tastes like real Hi Res!”

Hi Jud,

I think you agree with me.

You only get to hear MQA unfolded if you have an MQA DAC.

If you download an MQA file, you can give it to someone else who has an MQA DAC.

So, there is no copy protection.

Therefore, why not just let people have the FLAC version without the MQA tax.

 

Or are you saying, that MQA nobbles the sound file such that MQA High resolution is no where near the quality LPCM high resolution file ?. (so who would want to buy that.....)

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Jud]

14 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi Jud,

I think you agree with me.

You only get to hear MQA unfolded if you have an MQA DAC.

If you download an MQA file, you can give it to someone else who has an MQA DAC.

So, there is no copy protection.

Therefore, why not just let people have the FLAC version without the MQA tax.

 

Or are you saying, that MQA nobbles the sound file such that MQA High resolution is no where near the quality LPCM high resolution file ?. (so who would want to buy that.....)

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

The music companies will want to sell MQA to everyone they can, meaning 99% of the target market are kids listening to mp3 and AAC through earbuds, or Beats if they’re kewl.  Who among these folks wants to hear anything about “unfolding”?  Nope, the music companies want to sell them something shiny and new that they can say is hi res and sounds great, period.  It will be left to equipment manufacturers to try to tell the kids they have to spend another hundred or couple hundred for even better sound than “regular” MQA.

[asdf1000]

57 minutes ago, Jud said:

99% of the target market are kids listening to mp3 and AAC through earbuds, or Beats if they’re kewl.  

 

Exactly. And because of this, none of us matter (here on this thread, including myself) in the big picture, sadly. We are the 1%.

 

[Rt66indierock]

5 hours ago, Nikhil said:

 

 

On some of the other forums I'm on people are going for it hook line and sinker ...

 

 

But they have low numbers of viewers and posters. And it is pretty easy to fool most people. 

[Charles Hansen]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

The music companies will want to sell MQA to everyone they can, meaning 99% of the target market are kids listening to mp3 and AAC through earbuds, or Beats if they’re kewl.  Who among these folks wants to hear anything about “unfolding”?  Nope, the music companies want to sell them something shiny and new that they can say is hi res and sounds great, period.  It will be left to equipment manufacturers to try to tell the kids they have to spend another hundred or couple hundred for even better sound than “regular” MQA.

 

Hi Jud,

 

As far as I can tell, the main plan for the record labels is to find some way to convince people to spend $20 per month for streaming instead of $10 per month. Simply offering CD resolution has been a spectacular failure The numbers I have heard is that Tidal Hi-Fi is only around 100,000  subscribers - a literal drop in the bucket compared with Apple's 20 million subscribers and Spotify's 70 million (I think) paid subscribers. (Please feel free to correct number that may be wildly off, although it doesn't change my point.)

 

Best,

Charles Hansen

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

The music companies will want to sell MQA to everyone they can, meaning 99% of the target market are kids listening to mp3 and AAC through earbuds, or Beats if they’re kewl.  Who among these folks wants to hear anything about “unfolding”?  Nope, the music companies want to sell them something shiny and new that they can say is hi res and sounds great, period.  It will be left to equipment manufacturers to try to tell the kids they have to spend another hundred or couple hundred for even better sound than “regular” MQA.

Hi Jud,

You seem to have changed your opinion ?

You original post stated "FLAC is lossless, so labels would be concerned about bootleg copies if they issued their highest resolution files widely.  MQA not only isn’t convertible to the original file".

So, either you are now saying they just want to resell something old as new, or that they don't want bootlegging to occur.

In either case, MQA is not master quality as per the analysis of the MQA system, and your statement - MQA is not convertible to the original file.

For streaming, then why use MQA ?. MP3 is adequate.

For high res - why use MQA ? As you have indicated - and the studies on this forum, it is not Master Quality.

Bootlegging of MQA will occur as there is no DRM......

Regards,

Shadders.

[jhwalker]

12 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi Jud,

You seem to have changed your opinion ?

You original post stated "FLAC is lossless, so labels would be concerned about bootleg copies if they issued their highest resolution files widely.  MQA not only isn’t convertible to the original file".

So, either you are now saying they just want to resell something old as new, or that they don't want bootlegging to occur.

In either case, MQA is not master quality as per the analysis of the MQA system, and your statement - MQA is not convertible to the original file.

For streaming, then why use MQA ?. MP3 is adequate.

For high res - why use MQA ? As you have indicated - and the studies on this forum, it is not Master Quality.

Bootlegging of MQA will occur as there is no DRM......

Regards,

Shadders.

 

I'm not Jud, but I think you're talking past each other.

 

1) MQA is not lossless, so there is no possibility to get perfect / master copies and, thus, no way to distribute the "crown jewels" - win for the record companies

2) MQA™ is "cool", shiny / new - easy to market, and attractive - win for the record companies

3) FLAC (in whatever form) is lossless, so it is possible to get and distribute perfect copies - loss for the record companies

4) FLAC is not shiny and new, everyone who's anyone already knows about it - loss for the record companies

 

So the record companies have EVERY incentive to push MQA and no incentive to push FLAC / lossless.

[Shadders]

2 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

 

I'm not Jud, but I think you're talking past each other.

 

1) MQA is not lossless, so there is no possibility to get perfect / master copies and, thus, no way to distribute the "crown jewels" - win for the record companies

2) MQA™ is "cool", shiny / new - easy to market and attract - win for the record companies

3) FLAC (in whatever form) is lossless, so it is possible to get and distribute perfect copies - loss for the record companies

4) FLAC is not shiny and new, everyone who's anyone already knows about it - loss for the record companies

 

So the record companies have EVERY incentive to push MQA and no incentive to push FLAC / lossless.

Hi,

For streaming - possibly, but for downloads - i will not want a lossy format.

We already have a lossy format as in MP3.

I do take your point that it is new and shiny though.

If we the 1% know that MQA is utter shite/con, then why would someone want to buy something lossy and has aliasing ?

The issue, as has been posted here - is that they may remove high res files and offer MQA only.

Regards,

Shadders.

[lucretius]

28 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

For streaming - possibly, but for downloads - i will not want a lossy format.

We already have a lossy format as in MP3.

I do take your point that it is new and shiny though.

If we the 1% know that MQA is utter shite/con, then why would someone want to buy something lossy and has aliasing ?

The issue, as has been posted here - is that they may remove high res files and offer MQA only.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

MQA is lossy but not that lossy. The idea is that you can get something that sounds similar to 16/44.1 or 24/96, etc. without actually having possession of the master.  Also, the MQA file contains a digital signature, to allow tracing the file back to its origin.

 

As to why someone would want to purchase/stream MQA files -- maybe it will be the only alternative.

[Shadders]

11 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

MQA is lossy but not that lossy. The idea is that you can get something that sounds similar to 16/44.1 or 24/96, etc. without actually having possession of the master.  Also, the MQA file contains a digital signature, to allow tracing the file back to its origin.

 

As to why someone would want to purchase/stream MQA files -- maybe it will be the only alternative.

Hi,

Yes - lossy - so i will still purchase CD's.

It certainly is not master quality - i wonder if the UK Advertising Standards Authority could assist here - false claims ?

I think people will purchase as they are told it is better - and hifi is really, populated by subjectivists.

Regards,

Shadders.

[lucretius]

10 minutes ago, Shadders said:

i will still purchase CD's.

 

So long as they are available!

[Jud]

1 hour ago, jhwalker said:

 

I'm not Jud, but I think you're talking past each other.

 

1) MQA is not lossless, so there is no possibility to get perfect / master copies and, thus, no way to distribute the "crown jewels" - win for the record companies

2) MQA™ is "cool", shiny / new - easy to market, and attractive - win for the record companies

3) FLAC (in whatever form) is lossless, so it is possible to get and distribute perfect copies - loss for the record companies

4) FLAC is not shiny and new, everyone who's anyone already knows about it - loss for the record companies

 

So the record companies have EVERY incentive to push MQA and no incentive to push FLAC / lossless.

 

Yep.  I would suggest shiny and new is far more important to the bottom line than the “crown jewels” aspect.  If they just wanted to avoid distributing master quality stuff, all they have to do is what they’ve done for decades to produce CDs - run it through a decimation filter to reduce the resolution.  Bingo you’re done, and no MQA contracted fee to pay.  So I would guess the lossy thing plays a distinct second fiddle to the new and shiny thing.

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Yep.  I would suggest shiny and new is far more important to the bottom line than the “crown jewels” aspect.  If they just wanted to avoid distributing master quality stuff, all they have to do is what they’ve done for decades to produce CDs - run it through a decimation filter to reduce the resolution.  Bingo you’re done, and no MQA contracted fee to pay.  So I would guess the lossy thing plays a distinct second fiddle to the new and shiny thing.

Hi,

For the consumer - lossy is second fiddle for most people, but for audiophiles it is the key aspect.

As you have said, they could decimate the 24bit/96kHz file, or reduce the bit depth.

The system is lossy, yet it is stated it is lossless, so the consumers are being lied to - is this an action for the UK Advertising Standards Authority ?.

I do not see the 99% going out and buying the same albums in MQA as audiophiles do with every new version, remaster etc.

So i do not see revenue increasing based on this action of the 1%.

It may be shiny and new, and for 99% it is an option. Unless they stop other streaming options and downloads.

In reality - only the 1% will complain.

Again, no extra revenue (assuming the 1% aren't sufficient to create a vast extra revenue) - so why offer MQA and pay MQA Ltd for no return ?

Ooooh, then there is DRM...... i suppose, but to lock everyone in, everyone must have a MQA DAC.

The only way to force people to purchase a MQA DAC is to remove all other forms of format, and to degrade MQA such that for the average person the degradation is so bad, they want an MQA DAC.

I don't see this happening, so why then offer MQA, if it costs the record industry more money to offer ?, and MQA (as per your statement) is there to stop the record industry offering the crown jewels ?

Regards,

Shadders.

[Ralf11]

11 hours ago, mansr said:

That's impossible. Audio simply can't be compressed that much without losing quality. If it were possible, such a format would already exist.

 

you know that was a joke, right??

[mansr]

16 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

you know that was a joke, right??

It's hard to be sure with MQA.