MQA is Vaporware

[mansr]

I wonder if you are going to have the debate of the likes of FLAC vs WAV where the decoder is blamed for the degradation in SQ?

 

If FLAC is bad, FLAC+MQA has got to be worse, right?

[mansr]

Trading physical CDs for each other, buying them, or selling them used is perfectly legal. Ripping then selling is questionable in the US and AIUI illegal in the U.K. Selling rips is illegal in the US.

 

Ripping is illegal in the UK even if you still have the CD. Obviously, it's impossible to enforce, and I don't think anyone actually cares.

[mansr]

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to use cryptography to verify that a music file is exactly the same as the original version released by the record label. If it helps check the provenance of music files, then as far as I'm concerned it is a feature, not a bug. DRM (aka Digital Restrictions Management) is about preventing copying, and not aimed at doing something useful to the end user in verifying provenance.

 

To me it is just the same as using using an md5 checksum to verify that my installed Free Software Debian packages are the ones built by Debian and haven't been interfered with. Yet nobody would accuse Debian of using DRM and as a consequence the content of the packages isn't Free Software.

 

You could easily add a standard cryptographic signature (e.g. PGP) to a FLAC file. The format allows arbitrary fields in the header that will simply be ignored by decoders that don't recognise them.

 

Since you make the analogy with software distribution, let's take that one step further. Many devices, for instance most phones, will refuse to run software that doesn't pass the signature verification, meaning you can't replace the vendor's software with something else. This is something free software advocates strongly object to. Would you like a DAC that will only play music with a valid signature? I can easily see MQA making it a licensing condition that DACs be limited to CD quality if no signature is found. Obviously, they'll have to wait for the format to catch on first.

 

If you think this seems far-fetched, look no further than to HD video. To produce a Blu-ray player, you must agree to limit the picture to DVD resolution if the display connection doesn't have HDCP encryption. MQA could become the music industry's equivalent of HDCP.

[mansr]

I think it's pretty far-fetched indeed. First off, it would mean a severe restriction of their current policy to only allow CD quality (for non-MQA users) in a later stage.

 

They already restrict playback to "CD" quality for non-MQA DACs.

 

You shouldn't underestimate the market response if this would be the case. People would get mad and rightfully so. It could simply mean the end of you.

 

Not if they get to a point where the bulk of music is distributed as MQA.

 

As far as I can recall it would be a first in history for any sound format if such a restriction would happen later on and again, it would go completely against the technology trend of the last years. Standards are regularly set right from the off. Changing them later doesn't give you much credit.

Secondly: I have never heard anyone here complain about the fact that you also need to pay now for your dts and Dolby Digital decoders in your Blu-Ray and DVD players. Why is everybody mad about a standard that acts similarly, but at least doesn't FORCE you to buy it..?

 

Dolby Digital and DTS didn't replace anything that existed before. They provided something new: surround sound. Some form of compression was necessary to provide this feature within the physical bitrate limitations of the DVD medium (~10 Mbps).

 

As for nobody complaining about the locked-down nature of the DVD format, that's flat-out wrong. The creators of the DeCSS program were even put on trial (and acquitted) in Norway.

[mansr]

One of the more interesting announcements at CES came from Rhapsody/Napster and Pandora - they will both stream hi-res content this year. Part 2 of that news is they will not be using MQA.

 

That's interesting. Do you know what they will be using?

[mansr]

No, and I think you know very well this is not correct, unless you missed a lot of the previous discussions. It's 24/96 max based on the current (partial) Tidal MQA software decoding. That's far beyond CD quality. It's actually called hi-res. And you don't need an MQA DAC for that at all. You do however for resolutions above that.

 

It's limited to somewhat less than CD quality if you don't have a licensed decoder, either hardware or software.

 

As discussed here earlier that's not very likely at all. Again a lot of if's here.

 

It's important to recognise possible bad developments before they happen. Once they do, there's no going back.

 

I'm not talking about hacking DVD encryption here. That's illegal, whether you like it or not.

 

In some countries it is legal so long as you only do it in order to watch DVDs you've legally purchased.

 

My comment is about lots of people here pointing at MQA for its proprietary nature while it doesn't even force you to buy it. Dolby Digital and dts do. You are already paying for it for many, many years with each player you own or have owned in the past.

 

The introduction of DVDs didn't take away my ability to do something I could previously. If MQA has its way, I will no longer be able to obtain lossless high-res music in a non-proprietary format.

[mansr]

Don't feign stupidity.

 

Are you sure he's feigning it?

[mansr]

How's your scope exercise with MQA progressing? Any news based on facts already?

 

I'm reverse engineering the decoder.

[mansr]

This post right here is why plissken is right - your deep deep in the pit of denial. You "shoot the messenger" (as you did here). Your protected for now, in that your advertisers still have an upside with your site, but that does not change the fact that you are fundamentally anti-consumer and that forums such as this one are real, viable alternatives to what you serve up. In any case, you asked so I told you. Don't ask if you don't want the truth...

 

Everything ML says makes a lot more sense if you assume he's talking about himself, as narcissists are wont to do.

[mansr]

Thank you.

 

In terms of "accurate or truthful", how would you gauge what I've written in these terms?

Pants on fire.

[mansr]

I think it is a bit over concerned that MQA dacs will go off market completely.

 

How much support do you see for ATRAC or RealAudio these days?

[mansr]

This reminds me a little of the Dr. Carl Sagan quote: "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

 

Yep, some folks here who like to *disagree with* (as opposed to harangue - there's a difference) so-called "experts" are experts themselves. And some are bozos.

 

If you're not sure which you are, it's the latter.

[mansr]

Hi Jud

 

This is fair. I've been on the internet since the early 80s. What you're engaging in here is what we used to call, "trolling the troll trollers".

Trolls trolls troll troll trolls.

[mansr]

Oops. Ayn Rand fan?

 

Lookup Vint Cerf (not me) and educate yourself a bit.

Your sarcasm detector is broken.

[mansr]

Perhaps. I was involved in the very early days of the public internet. That whole "Al Gore invented the internet" business comes from Rush Limbaugh. It is a shibboleth of the right.

It's also a running joke in tech circles.

[mansr]

I guess if you know the people who actually invented it, perhaps it's not so funny.

That's exactly why it's funny.

[mansr]

One more question - do you think that Pandora and Rhapsody know less about this subject than you?

 

What matters is not how much they know, but how much they care.

[mansr]

Which had better video quality - Beta or VHS?

 

VHS had porn. Betamax didn't.

[mansr]

Care about what? You? Me? Us? Sound quality?

 

I can answer those questions - they don't.

 

Anything other than their profit. Obviously, they don't. Apparently, neither do you.

[mansr]

Since you have no idea why he was banned, your basis for "buying" anything is all in your imagination.

 

Archimago repeadely made the false claim that the content on AudioStream was written to support our advertisers. I asked him, in emails, to refrain from making this fasle claim and simply stick to the facts at hand.

 

He was unable to follow this simple request so he was banned.

 

Are you implying it's not? The website of The Enthusiast Network, conveniently not linked to from its brand sites, makes it blatantly obvious that it exists to sell ad space. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but insisting it ain't so looks rather dishonest.

[mansr]

I do. He took my work, plain and simple, and used it to promote his work. It's called copyright infringement. "Fair Use" is another matter altogether and no one in their right mind thinks that "Fair Use" allows for the full re-print of someone's work in its entirety.

 

Are you talking about that sponsored piece by iFi that Archimago quoted in large part so he could reply to it in context? That kind of copying is often considered fair use.

[mansr]

Fair use is contextually sensitive. I don't have enough information with which to do any assessment.

 

Mansr: Can this be located with the internet wayback machine?

 

I'm not aware of any archive with a copy.

 

Now I'm certain copyright was just the hammer they used to have it taken down. If he's praised the piece, I don't think they would have cared nearly as much.

[mansr]

If I lived on planet Archimago, I would agree with that re-telling of reality.

 

I read it before you censored it. The only re-telling here is yours.

 

You believe Fair Use allows for a complete re-print?

 

Depending on context, it can. US copyright law is quite clear on that.

[mansr]

You really do like to make things up. The "hammer". That sounds so ominous. The Big guy taking on the Little guy.

 

Of course, your story telling has no basis in reality but what fun would that be. Ask Archimago why he took the post down and get back to me.

 

These are his words from a later post:

 

I see that Blogger took down my April 1st post on "USB Audio Gremlins" and the FUD they're perpetuating referring to my take on the iFi sponsored post on AudioStream yet again despite changes I made to not directly quote much from the ridiculous article..

[mansr]

While we're at it - explain what "sponsored content" means, explicitly, in this case.

 

It means an advertisement masquerading as a regular article. Why does it matter to this discussion?