MQA is Vaporware

[Paul R]

5 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I appreciate the conviction, and I hope you're right, but the future of "audiophile streaming" is far from certain and I don't share your confidence.

 

Your caution is a good thing, IMNSHO of course.  Still, every time corporate culture has tried to put a lock on the wild and woolly internet culture, corporate interests have lost big time. Everything from trying to keep commercial interests off the internet, to "You have Mail" as the preferred email carrier, to peer to peer file sharing, to... well, *anything*. The internet is probably one of the true phase changes in human history. Society was one thing, slowly changing and evolving. Along came the internet, and golly gee whiz bang - everything  changed almost overnight. 

 

Should the worst happen, my money would be on a vast new peer to peer file sharing network, but one designed from the get go to frustrate the record labels and make it near impossible to track down who did what. Distributed on a vast scale and impossible to shut down. That would truly be the labels worst fear I think.  

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

It would be nice if MQA has zero chance of creating a corporate lock on our music, but that is merely speculation.

 

As is the idea that MQA could create such a lock on our music. Purest speculation. 

 

-Paul

 

I meant that a little differently than it sounded - I meant it is *all* speculation, and what "side" one falls on is purely a matter of perspective. First world problem.   -PR

[Paul R]

15 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Sometimes metaphors do not work.  IMHO, "barbarians" is not a good moniker for MQA shills.

 

I had to think about that. To me they resemble the Vandals and Goths, so I would still go with barbarians, or at least, barbaric behavior. 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

I don't bother locking my door any more. The last burglar couldn't get in, so the lock seems unnecessary.

 

LOL!  I just live in a place where one has no real need to lock one's door. Besides, I do not think there are any locks that can keep a burglar out. 

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

MQA is trying hard to do so, and I prefer to NOT downplay such attempts.

 

I just want to point out, most audiophiles don't need saving, from anyone or anything. And the vast majority of audiophiles do not feel strongly about MQA at all. Any more than they do about Dolby.

 

If you have made it your mission to convince them otherwise, I suspect you will make much more headway with civility, calm reasoning, and allowing people to disagree with you. You certainly are not going to frighten most audiophiles into thinking all their music will be locked up by MQA. 

 

And a sizable chunk of those audiophiles probably would not care anyway. Let's see what MQA can do with their LPs and millions upon millions of existing AIFF (or other lossless)  files. Get MQA in all DACs? I guarantee some enterprising audio guy will just design a DAC without MQA.  (Miska already did, as have other CA folks.) 

 

These really are "first world" problems. Nothing that a company can do that someone will not find their way around, over, under, or, by application of sufficient ingenuity, straight thru. Nothing they can do that is going to make you go bankrupt or get jailed. 

 

[Paul R]

36 minutes ago, rickca said:

Is there a race between @Ralf11 and @Paul R for the most prolific poster award?

 

I always do a year-end MVP award thread for AS contributors, but hey ... we could open up a new category. 🙄

 

 

Howdy?  Where were you in 2010 or so?

 

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

If you examine Kim Dot Com and Megaupload - this business was closed down and the person responsible was prosecuted.

 

Any such system such as a peer to peer file sharing will be disrupted at least, by the authorities.

 

If you look at streaming - i do not see the artists getting a lot of money per stream or track played. Was it not the case that the artists complained about not getting the revenue they perceived that they should receive.

 

Also, see :

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/how-spotify-apple-music-can-pay-musicians-more-commentary.html

 

Only the very big artists get a significant revenue, and payments to the artist per stream is exceedingly low at $0.006 to $0.0084 per stream to the holder of music rights. So the artist gets a cut of this. 

 

So, unless streaming raises their prices significantly (Spotify, for example, is still losing money, despite growing 40 percent a year.) then the streaming and artists are still not making much money.

 

Why the record labels sell the catalogue so cheaply is unknown - if Spotify cannot make money at the current costs, then the labels are not really making money from streaming. Unless the costs increase significantly - which would kill the streaming business model ?

 

In regards to MQA - the major labels are all shareholders. There are patents owned by MQA Ltd and Meridian (just under 50% owned by Reinet Investments) which could be used to restrict MQA files to specific devices (streaming, downloads)

 

Streaming seems to be killing the purchase of CD's. Which means that if streaming/downloads are the main music playback source, then the patents could restrict the number of devices people could playback music on. Such control means that one file can only be played on one device. If you want to play the song on another device you need to purchase the song again.

 

In the UK, the law was changed to allow you to rip CD's etc., for your own purposes - to play on portable music players as an example. The Music Union campaigned and had the law overturned.

 

So, the point is, streaming means that the labels/artists get less revenue, MQA offers a DRM technology to allow strict control by the record labels, and any large scale alternative method to subvert this would be met with legal action and the closure of such a method.

 

Streaming may be cheap now, but when such a mechanism is in place (MQA DRM), then i expect the price to increase significantly as total control will be possible.

 

Maybe everyone is shooting themselves in the foot by subscribing to streaming, at such a low cost. I do not see the record labels losing money so graciously - once MQA is embedded in most devices, they can switch on DRM. Maybe this will create a renaissance for CD's as per LP's ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

Well thought out, with lots of good points.

 

My thought is that in the unlikely case of MQA being embedded in most devices *and* DRM is universally switched on, someone will put a reverse engineered MQA decoder in front of the device and stream non MQA data to it.  

 

Until enough home brew devices without MQA get out there again. Or a converter to strip out the MQA. And the thriving indie market will flourish even more. 

 

Oh, maybe one of the guys here will become the Al Capone of audiophiles, with MQA being equivalent to Prohibition? Bathtubs full of illegal flash drives, and cement boots for record company execs? 🤪

[Paul R]

Just now, mansr said:

That would be illegal without a patent licence, which you wouldn't get.

Quite so, as was gin in the 30’s, and lots of other things people want and manage to obtain.  

 

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

So you're saying it's OK since we have the option of becoming criminals.

 

No, I am saying that it would be resisted for the same reasons, and with the same result that Prohibition was so fiercely resisted and supported, albeit on a much smaller scale. Instead of Black Ships from Europe carrying smuggled booze, we would have Black Ships from Asia carrying smuggled DACs. And in the 21st century, VPN's flying all around the globe downloading and streaming music from whatever places it is legal. 

 

It would also be a fantastical over reach for the labels and MQA. The lawyers would have so much fun... 

 

 

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Paul, this is an excellent post,  I am here simply expressing an opinion in favor of MQA based on listening sessions of non-MQA and MQA files on my own system.  I am not paid or otherwise remunerated by the MQA.  I just think there is some value to the format both in terms of sound quality and the possibility of getting even more hirez files out of the labels.

 

My "megaphone" in the market is too small to influence a large number of people to be either for MQA or against it.

 

The future of MQA is more likely to be decided by participants in their ecosystem, such as streaming services and automotive firms.

 

One observation, though, is that personal attacks against me are not only unnecessary but take away from any valid points you are making in the argument.

 

I do think the personal attacks are excessive and inappropriate, speaking of all the personal attacks in here against *anyone*. 

 

On the other paw, you are a journalist - and journalists have to have very thick skin indeed. Passion, and all the inner stuff that fuels good work, but still, very thick skin.  

It will be interesting to see your commentary on Chris's slides. 

 

Yours,

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

...

 

IP encumbered data formats cannot be resisted too strongly. MQA doesn’t provide access to its format without NDA — that’s unacceptable.

Philosophically, I agree with you. But I also have IP out there that I want to get paid for. Mercenary of me, but still

 

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Since you might not have been following this too closely, it’s significantly @mansr who has published his own reverse engineering (if that’s the proper term) which has enabled a significant degree of technical analysis. 

 

I was aware of that, but as a policy, I neither confirm nor deny that I might have done something a wee bit similar. He is quite brave to come forward with his findings, as are others. and he definitely went further than I might or might not have done. MQA had such promise, but it appears that it may have false promise, or at least, implemented in such as way those promises never came to be. 

 

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

SACD and DVD were IP encumbered and I remember when I couldn’t play the content I purchased on my Mac — thankfully folks like @ted_b and others have allowed us to convert our SACD disks to files on hard drives — and for this reason alone I’ve purchased lots of SACDs. Otherwise I download. 

 

MQA is something we as customers need to resist in the strongest of terms.

 

 

MQA?  We don't need no stinking MQA? Okay, how far are you willing to go in your resistance... 

 

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

@The Computer Audiophile was treated in a shockingly rude fashion by a rabid pack of MQA  supporters pounding their fists on tables. @Lee Scoggins has been trying to defend MQA and it’s supporters as nauseum, and frankly the way he is treated is what he has brought about by months of posts. At some point rude behavior begets rude reaction and we are beyond that point. 

 

Just some context. I enjoy having no skin in the game and being able to call it purely as I see it  

 

This was intolerable. Chris must have more patience than Job. I can' believe that wasn't somehow a setup. Either they are total, appalling, assholes, or... someone pulled their chain before the presentation and had them all riled up. Either way, this incident is utterly unacceptable behavior.  Whether it has anything to do with MQA or not. 

 

-Paul

 

Aw now you gone and done it, I have to listen to some of this later tonight.  There is a best of AlCapone on Qobuz...

https://open.qobuz.com/album/fp2v1dbecolfc

 

 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, Shadders said:

 

 

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

I have done nothing unlawful, so I fail to see how reporting what I've seen is in any way brave.

 

If you reverse engineered the software, you probably did something that is actionable. I do not know, and I am not a lawyer or giving any legal advice. 

 

Brave anyway, to oppose something you do not like.

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

58 minutes ago, mansr said:

I very much doubt that. I never agreed, even by clicking a web link, to any restrictions. Nothing I have published is a derivative of anything subject to copyright or patent.

Good.

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

IANAL either, but interestingly MQA explicitly claims NOT to contain DRM, so AFAIK the DMCA doesn't apply. I think that if MQA claimed to be DRM then DMCA might apply ... 

 

I'd assume that if there were any real IP (again "temporal" deblurring is not a new concept ... see wavelets etc) then IP infringement might be an issue

 I am not sure that DRM has anything at all to do with whether something is covered under the DMCA or not...

 

 

[Paul R]

Slightly off topic, but this is the angriest forum on the system. This article is perhaps, appropriate. Not willing to discuss it here, but my friends, take  a couple mins to read it and think about it please.

 

 

Anger can be contagious — here's how to stop the spread
NPR

Emotions circulate through social networks — the good, bad and ugly. And these days, the feeling that seems most viral is anger. Sometimes it takes just one act of kindness to stop the vicious cycle. Read the full story

 

Shared from Apple News

 

Sent from my iPad

[Paul R]

58 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

The MQA solution has finally found its problem to address. Oh wait, just kidding. 

 

 

 

What really stuck out to me is that the media companies are following in the footsteps of big pharmaceutical companies. The billion people in India pay significantly less than we do to stream the same music, and once again, we are subsidizing the rest of the world. 

 

That is a DRM application that MQA could address, I suppose. Had not thought of that aspect in quite that way, even though I know you were joking. 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Quint, like the MQA executives, and Scoggins, is still trying to shoot the messenger.  Archimago's meatspace identity is utterly irrelevant to the technical issues he has highlighted.

 

I did not read it like that. Seemed to me there is still a lot of trauma from RMAF, and he was trying to address what he sees as an important point. Which is in fact an important point. Do you think that things would have gone better if the table pounding had not happened and the facts in Chris' presentation had been calmly addressed by the pro MQA team? Whether or not those facts were resolved, proved true, explained, or proven false? 

 

Sometimes you have to give people a second chance. Or even a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, or 999th chance. . 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

Maybe because it's not truthful.

It’s opinion. Just exactly as truthful as any other opinion. 

 

I do not agree with a lot of it, and I think some of it is just wrong - but so what? 

 

 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

 

l'opinion , not l'avis. 

 

Yep, I know exactly what I mean.  Just as your funny post is your opinion.

[Paul R]

3 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

Will be interesting to see where this all is, 3 years from now.

 

Never a truer word spoken written!

 

[Paul R]

5 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I speak as someone who has seen the revenue numbers and can compute average revenue per paid subscriber. Rob Darling is someone with something to sell. Roon isn't a value proposition with Mp3s.

 

For my analysis to be wrong average revenue per paid subscriber would have to grow at rate people would be talking about on the cable business channels. 

 

 

 

So what do those numbers break down to in terms of Audiophiles, who are interested in higher quality, and just plain everyday music lovers, who are more interested in content than in quality?

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

Lee, the point is you are getting paid, small amount or not. You cannot say you not getting paid, that is false. Just because it is not your full time job, is besides the point. You do get money from your articles. Where do you think the money comes from? Off of a tree? Come on Lee, be realistic. Ads pay for your space to publish and your small pay.

 

'nuff said on that topic......

 

This is just plain silly. Asinine even. If you don't like the guy's writing or the opinions he expresses in those writings, that's cool. But the continual attacks on the guy are just gang mentality. It's fun to pick on the guy because everyone else is too... bleh bleh bleh. 

 

Based upon the looney-goosey logic you posted above, the man is not getting paid to shill for MQA. It is just a stupid accusation used to try and "shut people up."  More gang mentality. 

 

It is not only stupid behavior, it isn't even clever. 

 

-Paul

 

 

 

[Paul R]

7 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Understanding that I'm kind of fond of Rt66indierock, having met him at a couple of RMAFs, I'm a little amused by the automatic response that he and a few other forum participants have to anything that they perceive as an unwarranted manifestation of  "authority" in our hobby. They dismiss, a priori, reviews in "Old Guard" magazines and now Steve adds audio salespeople to the list of those who can't possibly have anything of value to add to his appreciation of a product—even one that they have heard and he hasn't. I sensed this dynamic as well with the shabby treatment Jim Smith received here from the usual suspects: Bravo to those who called the mean girls out on that.

 

I'll make this point again, if only because it (the "e-word") seems to annoy a few prolific posters at AS who seem to view journalists, retailers, and even some manufacturers, as being involved in a kind of class warfare. We are all part of the same audiophile ecosystem, one that includes the consumer, and have lots we can learn from one another. Audio salesmen are audiophiles with (hopefully) better-than-average people skills who can sell; audio writers are audiophiles who can write. It's our passion for technology serving music that defines us as being on the same team.

 

My, it's gotten late. I'll pack it in for now.

 

Well said! 

 

I am glad you mentioned that this rtindierock66 person is a nice guy in person. I was being to wonder if he was that table pounding bald headed rude dude that was in Chris' RMAF presentation. 

 

[Paul R]

2 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I was in the front of the room and said nothing because I got the visual I wanted. I consider Derek a friend he just got carried away.

 

Nice to know - I consider Chris a friend and I think that "Derek" should have been carried away - right out of the presentation by security would have been appropriate.  Not joking about that either. 

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

25 minutes ago, crenca said:

@ARQuint

Not that it matters much, these Old Lions are increasingly seen for what they are.  😉

 

Sure - smart, savvy, successful, willing to help with pretty much anything, and with opinions seasoned by experience. Also willing to give their time to talking with and listening to young people. Pretty much all of the young  ones believe they know it all, and many of whom want instant success and recognition for their brilliance. Just ask those young folks, they will tell you exactly what they they think they deserve.

 

Of course, there are a few jerks in that "Old Lion" crowd, though not many. Some people never grow up. 

-Paul