MQA is Vaporware

[Michael Lavorgna]

Which is precisely what Mr. Lavorgna is trying to accomplish.

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.

[Vincent1234]

Things were also on track earlier today, imo.

I will have to read back for that. I do remember my head ache from yesterday specifically well after the train went off the track and into the mud completely. [emoji6]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[crenca]

This seems largely anecdotal based on your own experience, including your own biases. Michael has articulated his often-subjective perspective over the years. John Darko has as well. Also look at how Chris Connaker evaluates gear--- subjective listening is an important part of all of their approaches --not with DBT, and over a good stretch of time. Tyll Hertsens is very interested in objective test and measurement, but in the end subjective listening is very important for him as well, and he cannot always explain differences btw test results and subjective listening. He holds the 2 in tension. Michael does not regularly ignore the technical side of things in his reviews, and digs in to try understand and explain these. Certainly not to everyone's satisfaction how unusual is that?), but he is very clear about his preference for subjectivity. I'm ok with that. I think there may be many others here at CA that are ok with it as well. Obviously there are plenty who are not and plenty of audiophiles who are not. That's fine and strong disagreement is fine with me. But I wish we could stick to the issues rather than making the personalities the issue. I just don't think that will be productive. Just my opinion.

 

Your right, we should stick with the issue. I should have been more clear - it is not Michael's "subjective" leanings I was meaning to highlight. Indeed, more often than not agree with them myself in that I have stated that I find his DAC reviews correlate with my own in the "sounds like" dept. That said, I stand by the above evaluation of the overall character of his (and just about all other "audiophile press") work vis-a-vis methodology, overall releavance and trustworthiness, etc.. Perhaps a poll would go some way to answer what a "majority" vs. a "minority" think? Perhaps I am wrong in that only a minority see it this way and their approval ratings would be significantly higher!

[Samuel T Cogley]

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.

[Michael Lavorgna]

I will have to read back for that. I do remember my head ache from yesterday specifically well after the train went off the track and into the mud completely. [emoji6]

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

This is admittedly a shortcoming of mine, engaging in the back and forth, and I will try to stay on topic. Apologies for your headache ;-)

[plissken]

Your certainty is based on a hunch, not knowledge.

 

This has been a nice distraction - doing laundry has never gone so fast.

 

No, it's based on the understanding, per Siemons, that CAT6 is noise immune to 30Mhz for UTP.

 

It's based on the understanding, per Siemons, that CAT6 shrugs off 18v/meter Electromagnetic interference with no BER creep or packet loss.

 

Its based on the understanding, per Texas Instruments, that the only Achilles heal in structured data cabling is the single ended nature of power supplies.

 

It's based on the understanding, per John Swenson, that a power load of 50 thousands of an amp could be the ceiling for power draw on a lot of PHY's out there. Compared to the other High Speed busses (PCIe, USB, Memory, CPU) that's you have to show me the data that supports your position. Either by measurement at the speaker or by bias controlled evaluation.

 

It's based on the understanding, per Blue Jeans Cable via ArsTechnica.com, that an AQ RJE Vodka cable was marginal in it's 6a rating to the point of potential failure, and is outperformed by my BJC 12 foot CAT6 cable by 200% in it's worst rating.

 

Pretend all you want that my position isn't an informed one.

[Samuel T Cogley]

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!

[crenca]

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

 

Yes...but you have a large portion of the consumer demo who do not understand that DRM is not limited to copy protection, and so they ask "but how does cyrpto/IP/MQA limiting what the consumer hears = DRM. I can still copy the file all I want!"...

[Michael Lavorgna]

No, it's based on the understanding, per Siemons, that CAT6 is noise immune to 30Mhz for UTP.

 

It's based on the understanding, per Siemons, that CAT6 shrugs off 18v/meter Electromagnetic interference with no BER creep or packet loss.

 

Its based on the understanding, per Texas Instruments, that the only Achilles heal in structured data cabling is the single ended nature of power supplies.

 

It's based on the understanding, per John Swenson, that a power load of 50 thousands of an amp could be the ceiling for power draw on a lot of PHY's out there. Compared to the other High Speed busses (PCIe, USB, Memory, CPU) that's you have to show me the data that supports your position. Either by measurement at the speaker or by bias controlled evaluation.

 

It's based on the understanding, per Blue Jeans Cable via ArsTechnica.com, that an AQ RJE Vodka cable was marginal in it's 6a rating to the point of potential failure, and is outperformed by my BJC 12 foot CAT6 cable by 200% in it's worst rating.

 

Pretend all you want that my position isn't an informed one.

 

My interest, and focus, is the analog output, i.e. the music. I make no claims to the contrary.

 

You are focusing on data - the Ars "test" has no relevance to a hi-fi system.

 

Your stance is that I need to "prove" what I experienced with some sort of test. I disagree.

 

You conclude that I'm full of it.

 

Here, I'm like Burger King - have it your way.

 

I conclude that you don't know much about analog/mixed signal systems/hi-fi.

 

Are we done?

[Rt66indierock]

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?

 

Let me be clear then. I am not hedging anything the Utimaco encryption is DRM. You need a license to encrypt and license to decrypt. That is DRM. Tidal acquired either a license to encrypt or acquired the music encrypted. And they acquired a license to distribute software to decrypt MQA. Still DRM in my view just the end user hasn't paid any money for the license directly.

 

Thank you for getting back on track.

[Rt66indierock]

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

 

Yes it does.

[bobbmd]

BACK TO THE FUTURE ie MQA(Vincent1234): I like it, I think the SQ is improved. What i don't like is the still lack of content ie no DEAD except American Beauty( still like the 'bloated' dvd-a disc) no Jerry alone or with others no Sinatra no 'old' Tom Waits etc.

Especially don't like TIDAL's interface search engine or the fact of being unable to do long queues or the ability to shuffle them especially with those 'MASTERS' or having to 'search' for hidden 'MASTERS'.

Has anyone noticed if a song will not play in a particular album you get a long static interlude whereas on Qobuz you get a sample mp3 then it goes on to the next song and shuffles the songs?

I think for now Qobuz just in FLAC is just as superior sounding but will wait until I get an MQA DAC on the cheap ie DF RED. Will still use ROON and A+ when they are MQA imbedded and see how they sound.

[crenca]

Let me be clear then. I am not hedging anything the Utimaco encryption is DRM. You need a license to encrypt and license to decrypt. That is DRM. Tidal acquired either a license to encrypt or acquired the music encrypted. And they acquired a license to distribute software to decrypt MQA. Still DRM in my view just the end user hasn't paid any money for the license directly.

 

Thank you for getting back on track.

 

Ah, but the end user has paid for the DRM "directly" (if indirectly) by paying Tidal. This month, Tidal has already sapped $30 or so from me (i.e. my "HIFI" and now MQA, as well as family add ons) , so I have paid for my use of DRM software through Tidal. Apparently Tidal is not a successful business and supposedly could run out of $funding$ on the whims of its investors who are propping it up, so I suppose one could argue that Tidal's consumers are not really paying for DRM, but that does not really add up IMO...

[bobbmd]

STC: what exactly is he trying to accomplish funny pointless sarcastic or all the above(remember K questions on standardised exam)? All the things I have posted no one except one has said what I posted was even funny/sarcastic or even serious he said it was hilarious-made my day.

[Rt66indierock]

Ah, but the end user has paid for the DRM "directly" (if indirectly) by paying Tidal. This month, Tidal has already sapped $30 or so from me (i.e. my "HIFI" and now MQA, as well as family add ons) , so I have paid for my use of DRM software through Tidal. Apparently Tidal is not a successful business and supposedly could run out of $funding$ on the whims of its investors who are propping it up, so I suppose one could argue that Tidal's consumers are not really paying for DRM, but that does not really add up IMO...

 

What did you pay for Tidal in November and December of 2016? If you paid the same as January and pay the same in February then you have paid indirectly for MQA.

[crenca]

What did you pay for Tidal in November and December of 2016? If you paid the same as January and pay the same in February then you have paid indirectly for MQA.

 

Ok, indirectly. What is the material consequences in your opinion? Do you think the "average" consumer is "ok" with DRM as long as he indirectly (as opposed to seeing a direct cost increase) pays for it?

[Michael Lavorgna]

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

 

Did you forget something? Like an "I'm being sarcastic" emoji?

[witchdoctor]

It directly addresses their credibility.

 

Start a new thread

[witchdoctor]

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

 

 

He is posting an opinion about MQA in an MQA thread, why are you annoyed?

[jbwhite]

That said, I stand by the above evaluation of the overall character of his (and just about all other "audiophile press") work vis-a-vis methodology, overall releavance and trustworthiness, etc.. !

So What's the point? Anyone with half a brain should be able to understand the inherent conflict of interest and interpret the information/opinions accordingly. More importantly, that's true of everything you see on much more important topics than MQA. I know of very few information sources that are not advertiser supported (including Computer Audiophile), and they have little chance of survival. Would you like to block the audiophile press from the internet? Why not block CNN and all the other information sources and instead deliver "unbiased" state sponsored information? Seems to be what Donald wants to do.

[witchdoctor]

Why would I need it to provide a test rig to evaluate your caveman ears.

 

If you don't need a degree in analog circuit design to listen to something for a difference, I don't need one remove your sighted bias from your evaluation technique.

 

The physics at play are going to be there regardless.

 

I have the requisite knowledge to control for your sighted bias.

 

Blah, blah, blah, just start a new thread already... booooring

[jhwalker]

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

 

How is a summary of true statements "propaganda"? You're being ridiculous.

[Richard Dale]

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

 

No. And your point is?

[jhwalker]

Playing 24/192 FLAC on 24/192 capable DAC does not require the DAC to be certified by the 'FLAC company'. You can play 24/192 FLAC content on any 24/192 capable DAC.

OK, so it's not the ability / inability to playback the files or streams without a capable software or DAC, it's the "certification" you object to. Thanks.

[Michael Lavorgna]

He is posting an opinion about MQA in an MQA thread, why are you annoyed?

 

 

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.