MQA is Vaporware

[Michael Lavorgna]

As a consumer and subscriver of Tidal HIFI, I want to have a choice. I want to remain having a choice between the CD level subscribed and the new MQA option. I have addressed TIDAL support and they have failed to properly inform if I can be guaranteed that the stream track does not come from MQA.

I take only from my own experience, than Tidal is keeping 2 separated files for the moment.

 

I am not interested in physically attach a computer to the system. In my experience the potential benefits of the mqa software decoding and unwrapping were not enough to offset the fact that the streamer is quieter than the laptop and simply a better source. The fact that 2L tracks sounded better to me in native high-rez does not help me using the tidal desktop for the most serious listening.

 

So I already have a streamer in place and would prefer that route. I wait for Tidal to better organize their metadata and communicate clearly what is the original track and what is mqa.

 

I suspect the future way to go is simply to stream at the native high-res...

 

 

Understod. That's why I raised the point that we will have other non-MQA options for streaming hi-res.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I have posted some comments today on this thread to the effect that just because a music service uses cryptographic technology it doesn't mean that it involves DRM (Digital Restrictions Management), and that cryptographic signing can be a good thing to ensure the end user isn't getting some kind of bootleg recording instead of what they thought they were getting.

 

The 'A' in MQA is about authentication and I think that hints at a real problem with the current hi-res download market and the lack of provenance info. It feels to me like the music files that the record labels provide to HD Tracks and other download sites are just 'amateur hour' stuff where they routinely screw up the meta data, sell upsampled 16/44.1 tracks as hi-res without even appearing to know and so on.

 

I think we essentially agree. However, we never needed "authentication" before and I believe it's at a minimum superfluous and could very well be a pretext for "hard" DRM in the future. To me, all "authentication" really means is, "yes, we meant to compress the dynamic range so atrociously". I don't need that. "Authentication", in this context, is a solution in search of a problem.

[crenca]

I have posted some comments today on this thread to the effect that just because a music service uses cryptographic technology it doesn't mean that it involves DRM (Digital Restrictions Management), and that cryptographic signing can be a good thing to ensure the end user isn't getting some kind of bootleg recording instead of what they thought they were getting.

 

The 'A' in MQA is about authentication and I think that hints at a real problem with the current hi-res download market and the lack of provenance info. It feels to me like the music files that the record labels provide to HD Tracks and other download sites are just 'amateur hour' stuff where they routinely screw up the meta data, sell upsampled 16/44.1 tracks as hi-res without even appearing to know and so on.

 

If only MQA actually solved the Provence problem. So far, all the evidence from Tidal is that it does not and even adds to the confusion. Some here have posted that it is because of this very "mastering" reason that we can not now judge MQA as a SQ tweak. If you think about it, cryptographic signing does not do anything substantial because the Provence problem is a not a "man in the middle" problem but rather a problem at the source(s) itself and the willingness of labels to pretend they care about SQ when they don't. The "authenticated" part of MQA is a theory at best - really it is just marketing speak...

[Richard Dale]

I think we essentially agree. However, we never needed "authentication" before and I believe it's at a minimum superfluous and could very well be a pretext for "hard" DRM in the future. To me, all "authentication" really means is, "yes, we meant to compress the dynamic range so atrociously". I don't need that. "Authentication", in this context, is a solution in search of a problem.

 

Good to hear we have some common ground.

 

I personally feel the record labels have got themselves into a complete mess, and it isn't the fault of audiophiles of whatever viewpoint. A telling quote from the recent CES was a record company executive, somebody like the head of Atlantic records, saying that the recording industry is the only industry that has spent the last 30 years lowering the quality of its product. They said that 16/44.1 music was perfect, and implied that any digital recording at any resolution was also 'perfect'. Then they spent huge sums of money suing people who had only copied crap MP3 files from music sharing sites, as though they were something incredibly valuable, when actually they sounded shit and were only useful to a consumer to give and indication of what music they liked and might want to buy in higher resolution. So why not just give MP3 files away, in order to sell the high quality stuff? Of course they never bothered to provide hi-res until quite recently because they don't even appear to understand that a high quality music recording product is ruined if you compress it to death.

[bogi]

Ok. Are you able to provide technical detail that supports this?

DRM isn't only copy protection. DRM definition on Wikipedia - the first paragraph:

Digital rights management (DRM) schemes are various access control technologies that are used to restrict usage of proprietary hardware and copyrighted works.^[1]DRM technologies try to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyrighted works (such as software and multimedia content), as well as systems within devices that enforce these policies

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/mqa-vaporware-31115/index30.html#post624342

MQA is Vaporware - Page 32

[bobbmd]

STC: what a great way of putting it!

[jbwhite]

I haven't been following every post made to this thread, but I did read every post from around page 25. Everything I remember seeing was either an attack or defense of Mr. Lavorgna's integrity. That lack of integrity was always attributed to the fact he worked for an advertiser sponsored site. Maybe I'm missing something, but that's all took away from my time reading this stuff today. This is the first time I've visited the thread, and I don't see any reason for returning. Just the opinion of a disinterested third party, but not what I was expecting from the topic "Is MQA Vaporware."

 

Sorry, my mistake. The topic of this thread is not "Is MQA Vaporware?" The topic is "MQA is Vaporware". Now it all makes sense.

 

I hope that doesn't mean I'm trolling and shouldn't be allowed on the site.

[Richard Dale]

If only MQA actually solved the Provence problem. So far, all the evidence from Tidal is that it does not and even adds to the confusion. Some here have posted that it is because of this very "mastering" reason that we can not now judge MQA as a SQ tweak. If you think about it, cryptographic signing does not do anything substantial because the Provence problem is a not a "man in the middle" problem but rather a problem at the source(s) itself and the willingness of labels to pretend they care about SQ when they don't. The "authenticated" part of MQA is a theory at best - really it is just marketing speak...

 

If someone selling you a music recording doesn't have a clue, then a cryptographically signed recording will only confirm that you have indeed received a product from an entity that doesn't have a clue. Even so, it isn't DRM because it isn't trying to stop you copying the recording, and i feel it is trying to do something useful. Most of the record labels don't have much audiophile credibility because their recordings a overly compressed rubbish. If I get a recording from Chesky or whoever I expect the best, and the crypto might confirm that, and with MQA I might get blue lights lighting up to make it more obvious to someone who is less clued up than the average person posting on this site.

[bobbmd]

new_media: WOW- almost as good as my dvd-a disc ('bloated' or not as someone else remarked about dvd-a American Beauty). And I don't have a MQA DAC yet-thanks

[witchdoctor]

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.

 

So what? who are you, the thread moderator?

[Richard Dale]

DRM isn't only copy protection. DRM definition on Wikipedia - the first paragraph:

Digital rights management (DRM) schemes are various access control technologies that are used to restrict usage of proprietary hardware and copyrighted works.^[1]DRM technologies try to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyrighted works (such as software and multimedia content), as well as systems within devices that enforce these policies

 

 

No, that is all about stopping people from copying stuff.

[plissken]

If someone selling you a music recording doesn't have a clue, then a cryptographically signed recording will only confirm that you have indeed received a product from an entity that doesn't have a clue. Even so, it isn't DRM because it isn't trying to stop you copying the recording, and i feel it is trying to do something useful. Most of the record labels don't have much audiophile credibility because their recordings a overly compressed rubbish. If I get a recording from Chesky or whoever I expect the best, and the crypto might confirm that, and with MQA I might get blue lights lighting up to make it more obvious to someone who is less clued up than the average person posting on this site.

 

I think of the Authentication portion of MQA like ISO standards.

 

ISO standards don't guarantee quality. It guarantees consistency. So if you work at an ISO accredited plant turning out shit product, it's just a guarantee that you are churning out a consistently shitty product.

[crenca]

If someone selling you a music recording doesn't have a clue, then a cryptographically signed recording will only confirm that you have indeed received a product from an entity that doesn't have a clue. Even so, it isn't DRM because it isn't trying to stop you copying the recording, and i feel it is trying to do something useful. Most of the record labels don't have much audiophile credibility because their recordings a overly compressed rubbish. If I get a recording from Chesky or whoever I expect the best, and the crypto might confirm that, and with MQA I might get blue lights lighting up to make it more obvious to someone who is less clued up than the average person posting on this site.

 

I can't disagree with you that a cypto signature would do this, but I don't see it solving anything. When you get that Chesky recording, it is what it is because of the label. Same with the crappy recordings. In both cases, they would be the source of the signature so we are back in exactly the same place we are today.

 

Am I wrong? Is there a significant "man in the middle" problem - someone (say, HDTracks or a delivery boy or fill_in_the_blank) who are substituting what the labels/artists are giving them for something else (and where a crypto sig would be useful)? I know HDTracks had some issues early on but I am sketchy as to the details but I am under the impression that what we get today from all sources is what it is - and digital signature would simply be a pro forma exercise...

[witchdoctor]

Good to hear we have some common ground.

 

I personally feel the record labels have got themselves into a complete mess, and it isn't the fault of audiophiles of whatever viewpoint. A telling quote from the recent CES was a record company executive, somebody like the head of Atlantic records, saying that the recording industry is the only industry that has spent the last 30 years lowering the quality of its product. They said that 16/44.1 music was perfect, and implied that any digital recording at any resolution was also 'perfect'. Then they spent huge sums of money suing people who had only copied crap MP3 files from music sharing sites, as though they were something incredibly valuable, when actually they sounded shit and were only useful to a consumer to give and indication of what music they liked and might want to buy in higher resolution. So why not just give MP3 files away, in order to sell the high quality stuff? Of course they never bothered to provide hi-res until quite recently because they don't even appear to understand that a high quality music recording product is ruined if you compress it to death.

 

I am not defending the record companies but don't think they are 100% responsible for the complete mess. record sales will never come back to pre MP3 levels. Thriller will never be topped in temrs of sales. Illegal downloads did as much damage to the industry as the execs did to themselves. They are now playing the cards they were dealt in the best way possible to make a profit.

[crenca]

No, that is all about stopping people from copying stuff.

 

No, it is not simply about "copying stuff". DRM casts a much wider net then any single implementation of copy protection/thwarting. DRM is not even at root a technical issue, but a legal one...see my blog entry.

[crenca]

Illegal downloads did as much damage to the industry as the execs did to themselves.

 

I think this is the myth the industry tells themselves. Screens (computer, gaming, everywhere TV, and of course phone) did the real damage - peoples behavior switched from consuming music to consuming video/screen, particularly the young.

[plissken]

FYI several PM's from Michael to myself. I detect a hint of a threat:

 

1> I'm not sure that last message sent - Buttercup

 

Here's my home address:

 

XXXXXXXXXX (removed by editor)

Glen Gardner, NJ 08826

 

You are welcome any time to share your thoughts face-to-face. Bitch.

 

2> I have a better idea.

 

Send me your full name and address and I'll come visit you.

 

We can "talk".

 

3> I have to run but let me know...

 

...if you're interested in that face-to-face. My guess is you'll back down like a little puppy and we'll get along just fine.

 

I'll buy the first round.

 

Since you also said you won't be at Axpona, I could switch up to RMAF to tell you to your face. I've never seen anyone self-dox... how odd.

[Ralf11]

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.

 

I think I'll start a new thread for this interesting IP issue

 

ok, done:

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/who-owns-what-31300/#post624494

[christopher3393]

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.

 

[video=youtube;nqjQG-Tw9FY]

[Michael Lavorgna]

FYI several PM's from Michael to myself. I detect a hint of a threat:

 

1> I'm not sure that last message sent - Buttercup

 

Here's my home address:

 

XXXXXXXXXX (removed by editor)

Glen Gardner, NJ 08826

 

You are welcome any time to share your thoughts face-to-face. Bitch.

 

2> I have a better idea.

 

Send me your full name and address and I'll come visit you.

 

We can "talk".

 

3> I have to run but let me know...

 

...if you're interested in that face-to-face. My guess is you'll back down like a little puppy and we'll get along just fine.

 

I'll buy the first round.

 

Since you also said you won't be at Axpona, I could switch up to RMAF to tell you to your face. I've never seen anyone self-dox...

 

I've offered two options to make that happen.

 

How odd? My home address is in the signature line of my AudioStream email. As is my cell phone.

[Richard Dale]

No, it is not simply about "copying stuff". DRM casts a much wider net then any single implementation of copy protection/thwarting. DRM is not even at root a technical issue, but a legal one...see my blog entry.

 

You have defined DRM as not being about copy protection, but I haven't understood your arguments.

 

You say: 'but DRM can in no way be reduced to just copy protection, any more than all dogs can be reduced to Chihuahuas' and 'DRM turns your software/hardware into a legal mechanism to control your behavior.' What behaviour is it controlling other than copying behaviour? If I listen to an MQA recording with earplugs, will they get back to me on the grounds that I wasn't giving MQA its best shot? Or what?

[crenca]

You have defined DRM as not being about copy protection, but I haven't understood your arguments.

 

You say: 'but DRM can in no way be reduced to just copy protection, any more than all dogs can be reduced to Chihuahuas' and 'DRM turns your software/hardware into a legal mechanism to control your behavior.' What behaviour is it controlling other than copying behaviour? If I listen to an MQA recording with earplugs, will they get back to me on the grounds that I wasn't giving MQA its best shot? Or what?

 

LOL! No, but MQA right now, today - "manages" what your allowed to hear (your "rights") "digitally". If you play an MQA software file through a "legacy" DAC, what do you hear? A: 24/48 PCM or 17/48 butchered PCM depending on who you ask. What do you hear if you behave a certain way (legally) and have licensed a software/hardware decoder (perhaps through a third party like Tidal)? A: You hear the previous as well as the "hi res" lossy content. Thus, MQA is actually a good example of DRM - the consumer is being "managed" digitally (really, legally). PCM, DSD, etc. have no such ability to manage what you hear...either legally or technically - any DRM in their context is added from another source from the outside...

[bogi]

No, that is all about stopping people from copying stuff.

 

No. DRM is not restricted to stopping people copying stuff. DRM is about any form of management what people can do and what they cannot do. Look at wikipedia definition.

 

Only licensed software players can do the first unfold.

Only MQA certified DACs can fully unfold 24/192k hires in a MQA file.

MQA file is for purpose modified FLAC file, the intention for this modification was to control access to the hires extension of the file. MQA is managing access to hires content via licenses for software (players) and hardware (DACs).

 

24/192k FLAC is playable in any 24/192k capable PCM DAC, no need for any license to do that. Don't you see a difference?

[Abtr]

Workingman's Dead is also showing up as a MASTER recording for me.

Thanks! That MQA/Master version sounds amazing; much better than the original (?) lossless file or CD. Which is not to say that at least some of the MQA/Master (and remastered) stuff on Tidal sounds notably worse than the corresponding lossless 16/44 version..

[Richard Dale]

LOL! No, but MQA right now, today - "manages" what your allowed to hear (your "rights") "digitally". If you play an MQA software file through a "legacy" DAC, what do you hear? A: 24/48 PCM or 17/48 butchered PCM depending on who you ask. What do you hear if you behave a certain way (legally) and have licensed a software/hardware decoder (perhaps through a third party like Tidal)? A: You hear the previous as well as the "hi res" lossy content. Thus, MQA is actually a good example of DRM - the consumer is being "managed" digitally (really, legally). PCM, DSD, etc. have no such ability to manage what you hear...either legally or technically - any DRM in their context is added from another source from the outside...

 

None of the above problems you describe are to do with either encryption or DRM. If you have an old music player that doesn't work with Apple Lossless ALAC for instance, and try to play and ALAC track it won't work. But that problem is nothing to do with DRM. Certain devices can play certain formats, and that isn't to do with 'DRM'. Maybe I can't play DSD on my DAC because I doesn't have the firmware to decode the various hard to understand DSD over USB formats, but that doesn't make this problem a 'DRM problem' either.