MQA is Vaporware

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Sal1950 said:

If it looks like a highly profitable path, a thousand veils are lifted and soundstages gain dimensionality.

Yea, right.

 

"a thousand veils are lifted" = no bass

"soundstages gain dimensionality" = boosted treble

[lucretius]

16 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

Specifically, a chassis machined from solid billet instead of bent sheet metal ...

 

A solid billet chassis inspires confidence.

[lucretius]

6 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

I would be extremely wary of any web site advertising INTELLIGENT DESIGN

 

Ouch! You cannot take anything written on that website seriously.

[lucretius]

21 hours ago, fung0 said:

It's a lot like herding sheep.

 

Excellent post.  The follow the herd mentality seems especially pervasive for those reviewers that do not do blind tests or perform measurements.

[lucretius]

20 hours ago, mav52 said:

From Audiostream,  Michaels position  https://www.audiostream.com/content/against-mqa-unfolded

 

Apparently, Rotel is on the list of new MQA Hardware Devices and Partners. This is a company that wouldn't pay licencing fees for SACD, yet they are willing to for MQA. I wonder what the thinking was here.

[lucretius]

19 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

For a format to succeed people have to do one of two things. Buy music in the format or stream music in the format. There are no other ways for a format to be successful. ...

 

Actually, at my location, I still cannot purchase MQA music.

[lucretius]

55 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

Hi Michael,

 

Why would you take the words of a known liar at face  value, especially when there is independent proof from Utimaco (the company that worked with MQA to put the DRM into it)?

 

Thanks,

Charles Hansen

 

EDIT: PS - You may as well as asked Richard Nixon if he was a crook.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Ultimaco case study about embedding digital signatures within MQA files?  I do not remember anything about controlling how a end-user is allowed to use the file.

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Miska said:

 

I personally consider MQA a DRM system very similar to how dual-layer SACDs worked. Without certified and pre-approved decoder you can only listen severely quality degraded version. Just like RedBook layer of SACD. Only with the certified and pre-approved decoder you can fully utilize the content.

 

Also SACD player digital output was limited to allow only the RedBook quality, so the hires version could only be listened through analog outputs, or sent to another decoder over protected, certified and pre-approved digital link.

 

I'm seeing the same approach pattern still. Even though MQA claims that "you can still listen to the content without decoder" is only the quality degraded version. On purpose. That doesn't remove the DRM aspect. MQA encoding doesn't save bandwidth compared to comparable quality standard FLAC either, in fact it increases bandwidth usage because for the FLAC encoder, large portion of the data becomes just plain noise due to the embedded encrypted (DRM protected) stream.

 

And DSD really only took off after it was freed from SACD's DRM. I'm quite sure record companies make more by selling plain DSD downloads instead of SACDs.

 

 

P.S. Meridian has long history on audio content DRM, starting with MLP for DVD-Audio and continuing to Blu-ray audio... There's probably still not much on the market to rip MLP encoded multichannel audio from old DVD-A discs.

 

But you can copy MQA files, assuming you can purchase them. The DSD file on an SACD was never intended to be copied.

Also, the "quality degraded version" you speak of does not really seem that "degraded" as far as I can tell listening to tracks from Tidal.

 

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

The difference is I actually wanted to hear what was on the DSD layer of the SACD.

 

 I would not be certain record companies make more by selling downloads, although it is not unlikely.  There has been a long time to attain cost efficiencies with the distribution system for discs, not so long for downloads.  (I recall reading an analysis of the music business’s 2015 or 2016 figures that showed how much more the industry made per unit from discs vs. the equivalent amount - a dozen or so - downloads.  That of course is dealing with companies like Apple, which isn’t a factor in DSD downloads.)

 

I find it hard to believe that there's any serious money to be made in either SACD's or DSD downloads.

[lucretius]

5 hours ago, Miska said:

I don't evaluate quality degradation by listening, but through objective analysis of the data. And in fact both the undecoded and decoded versions of the MQA are quality degraded compared to the original.

 

Do you mean "degraded" as in measurements show a difference vs actually being able to hear the difference?

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, 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.

 

4 hours ago, Miska said:

If the single vendor companies, like MQA, go extinct, possibility to purchase new devices with MQA decoding capability will likely also cease. And it will be very hard to keep the MQA encoded content usable.

 

 

This is a reasonable argument against MQA -- more specifically, against purchasing MQA files vs streaming MQA. I agree that one should be able to transcode the MQA file without loss to any container without having to repurchase the same content over again.

[lucretius]

11 hours ago, mansr said:

The format allows for much more degradation, including to the point of uselessness, without a decoder. They're just not using those features yet.

 

I'd like to ponder this thought a little more.  Perhaps a streaming provider like Tidal would have motivation to do this (e.g. different price tiers). But what motivation would there be for doing this when it comes to the sale of MQA downloads?  Who in their right mind would by such downloads (that are severely degraded without the use of a decoder) ?

[lucretius]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

Too bad the loss is baked into the format, even if you had a decoder.

 

There's "loss" baked into all digital formats. In the case of MQA, can you hear the "loss"? Vis-a-vis redbook and or 24/96, 24/192, DSD, etc.? 

[lucretius]

10 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

Especially since we don't know how key-managment is implemented. Is MQA controlling the PKI and handling root-keys + signing processes?

 

Anybody shed some light on this? Michael can you ask Bob if you get the chance?

 

Great question!

[lucretius]

23 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Possible that you purchase the standard version with red book compatibility, and then pay for an unlock to experience the unfolding.

 

But if the "standard" version is severely degraded, why buy it?

 

 

23 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Similar, if they can implement this for MP3 quality, pay to unlock to CD quality, or pay further to unlock to full MQA based quality.

If many are not too bothered about quality, then they can download MP3 level quality, which would be cheaper.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Do you really think this is plausible?

[lucretius]

8 hours ago, Hifi Bob said:

They could, if they wanted, render copies of the file decodeable only on your own devices. E.g. you would go to the MQA web-site, create an account, and register the serial numbers of up to (say) five MQA devices. Then when you purchase an MQA file, you would supply your MQA account ID and you'd receive the file encrypted with your own personal devices key. (This would be much harder to achieve with MQA on CD, of course.)

 

Who in there right mind would purchase either an MQA CD or MQA download as described above?  I just don't see a business case for it.

[lucretius]

33 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Good show guys, a very clear and precise presentation on the negative aspects of MQA.

 

Sadly the Boys Club of High End Dollar$ will never allow anyone under their umbrella of influence
to publish anything anti-MQA in a manner that wouldn't be dismissive and discrediting.

What a sad situation that the High End print media and many websites pursue a policy of subverting the

truth in preference to lies that make money. 

 

Who's to say that the anti-MQA folks don't have their own "Boys Club of High End Dollar$"?

[lucretius]

delete

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Where is it?  I want to join.

 

"I dont want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member".

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, mav52 said:

" Formats like MQA make it more portable, so it’s easier to have it yourself, in your car and outside the home. So I think that’s a great opportunity,” said Morvan Boury, VP of global digital development for Sony Music.   Yep they drank the cool aid and didn't ask to see the little fine print..

 

And this too:

 

“We don’t really have to educate the 40, 50 and 60-year-olds because they already know. They have CD collections at home, they already know the benefit."

 

So where the heck are redbook CDs going? Are they insinuating that the production of redbook CDs will come to a halt?

[lucretius]

39 minutes ago, Jud said:

By the way - anything at all preventing me from sending you a copy of an MQA file, and you decrypting it on your MQA DAC?

 

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

 

Just trying to get a notion for what exactly the DRM would restrict.

 

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. 

[lucretius]

17 minutes ago, mansr said:

MQA files available today aren't encrypted at all, only signed.

 

I suspected as much.

[lucretius]

35 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Every DAC/Device will have a private key - so one MQA file for one device only.

 

Surely, that would be the death of MQA file downloads.

[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).

[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.