Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

MQA may or may not offer better SQ. Let's assume it does and that the SQ is better than a given current std. by a certain increment (for a certain bit rate).

 

The next question would then be, whether there is a form of DRM encapsulated by MQA or linked (i.e. separable) -- the easier prong to deal with is that the DRM is not separable from the increment in improved SQ.

 

That then resolves into whether the increment in improved SQ is worth the onus of DRM.

 

And BTW, only the ignorant will claim there is no onus to DRM. They can enjoy their music and video on the failed formats provided by the DMCA.

 

I have been thinking along these lines as well.

 

First, there is the issue of the use of cryptographic functions in MQA. I would assert that the mere presence of these functions is not evidence of DRM. Could it be used in the future for real, "hard" DRM? Probably.

 

I have been using the term DRM to characterize the Spencer Christlu's comment about "crown jewels". Setting the term DRM aside for a moment, it's clear that MQA is using FUD with the major record labels ("MQA protects your crown jewels from piracy") because it wasn't able to get traction otherwise. The labels have no real commitment to high quality mastering, save for a handful of titles and/or artists that always get remastered every time a new consumer format becomes available. Witness all the dynamically compressed material in the Warner MQA dump.

 

We have no idea what kind of psychological fear tactics (if any) MQA is using to motivate other labels to use their process. MQA has a great audiophile story that a certain predictable segment of the gear buying public (a segment that is getting smaller, not larger) is enamored of. But I see this as just a trojan horse for two reasons: 1) I'm not convinced the process makes an 88.2kHz or higher sample rate file sound objectively better. I readily concede this is controversial and others might disagree. 2) That segment that is rabidly pro-vendor will blindly accept the hype and drive some (but probably small) demand for MQA encoded material. That increase in demand will, at least temporarily, reassure those record company executives who where nervous about spending remastering money.

 

I can easily envision the market driven audiophile press embracing MQA with something like, "real audiophiles choose MQA" when it reaches a certain tipping point. Who knows? Today's MQA holdouts could be the next Michael "CDs suck" Fremer of tomorrow :-)

Link to comment
I didn't comment on Michael, but on you. Maybe I will get to that later, if I still want to spend the energy. BTW: he certainly was right about one thing. You are annoying to discuss with.

 

I think your apparent adoration of Mr. Lavorgna might be coloring your objectivity a little. He was pretty annoying as well.

Link to comment
Audio reviewers cannot engage in conversation with the consumers because if they are discredited they'll be of no use to the manufacturers.

That means no more toys and no more paycheck.

 

I am surprised that people who take audio seriously still read them...

Even the measurements page in stereophile is full of excuses for ill-performing equipment.

 

I know that there's also a lot of misinformation in forums, and very polarised opinions, but as far as I know those that I participate in are hardly ever manipulated by the manufacturers.

 

I won't name the forum I'm thinking of, but there's no shortage of stealth marketing by forum posters getting free or highly discounted stuff (especially cables!) from manufacturers. No doubt some would think that's a great situation if you can swing it. Personally, it always strikes me as "ewww".

Link to comment
Of course, that's not actually a problem. Netflix couldn't exist if it were.

 

Not really the same issue. There's not an equivalent constituency for "high fidelity video".

 

I'm still liking the theory that the original concept for the Pono Player was the original MQA rollout plan. There's even a legacy blue light on the top of the Pono. Hopefully, some time in the future, someone will spill the beans about what went south between Neil Young and Meridian.

Link to comment
LOL! "2017 Audiostream Media Kit" indeed!! The "coincidence" is almost too much to bear...There is an "Audio God" and there is the proof!!...LOL!!!

 

Below the Meridian Explorer prominently displayed in the "media kit" is something like a mission statement:

 

AUDIOSTREAM.COM exists to educate the consumer on the benefits and advantages of computer-based audio and entertainment.

That sure sounds like the opposite of consumer advocacy to me.

 

And then, this:

 

MALE: 94.7%

8.1% 18-24 / 14.1% 25-34 / 21.0% 35-44 / 23.9% 45-54

AVG. AGE: 42.4

AVG. HHI: $76,269

ANY COLLEGE: 79%

 

This media "network" exists purely for advertisers. I don't see how that can be disputed.

Link to comment
Rt66indrock,

 

Perhaps you have already clarified it (point me to the post) but I am no clear as to your view of what the Utimco encryption means. In our opening post you say that Utimico believes DRM is DRM (naturally, they are in the business of providing technical implementations of DRM), but I get the sense you are hedging - that MQA is not DRM even though the Utimoco encryption is embedded in it. What is your view?

 

To go one step further: Does the mere presence of cryptographic functions guarantee the presence of DRM?

Link to comment
Something more on-topic: please tell us about your first experiences with playing MQA streams on your Meridian DAC? I'm really curious! [emoji4]

 

Sure. After he's gone.

 

Why..?

 

Because he's trolling and I don't want to give him the opportunity to bury my MQA feedback under an avalanche of narcissistic chest beating.

Link to comment
I'll recap what I consider valid points re. MQA that were brought up today:

 

1. Pandora and Rhapsody will be streaming hi-res content this year and they will not be using MQA.

2. Since this is the case and Pandora and Rhapsody have agreements with the record labels to do so,

3. This means that non-MQA hi-res streaming will be available.

4. There are other non-MQA hi-res streaming offings in the works, e.g. Pono/OraStream

5. Warner is on record saying they will continue to provide non-MQA hi-res downloads

 

If we add all of this up, I think it's safe to say that consumers will continue to have non-MQA hi-res content for the foreseeable future.

 

I view this as good news, but it comes as no surprise. To me.

Pure unadulterated pro-MQA propaganda. Bravo sir, you've earned your pay for the week!

Link to comment
I'm not trying to be being argumentative, but these are not opinions about MQA.

 

I am stating some facts that illustrate consumers will continue to have a choice. It seems to me that some amount of the concern here is that MQA will be the *only* choice. I am saying, based on what I know to be true, this is not the case.

 

You are here at the behest of MQA to attempt to quell unrest and tamp down valid concerns about what MQA means to the future of music for consumers. You are literally doing your day job here.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...