MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

Let's try to keep this one on topic people. 

 

 

The ASA thing is on topic and interesting. Thanks for posting.

[Sonicularity]

MP3 can reveal every detail of the original recording, too, by the ASA's assessment standards with regards to how listeners would perceive listening to a file.  Tests can be provided to support this notion and I'm confident there are at least 8 industry professionals that would largely agree with this premise.

 

  

[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? 🤪

[Lee Scoggins]

16 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

I am going to step in to answer this, at least for myself.  

 

Fighting MQA does not f'ing matter, not in the least. MQA has zero chance of creating a corporate lock on the audiophile community, and even less so on the general music loving Apple Music subscribing populace. Zero point zero zero zero for as long as you want to keep repeating zeros. 

 

Which is why the heat, and the hating, and general un-civil behavior is less than useless from the opposition. If anything, it is helping MQA. Any publicity is good publicity, remember? 

 

And when you put it in perspective, it is a first world problem. One that is not worth fighting over. No babies being killed here, no puppies being drowned, not even any Klingon Puppies around to chew on things.  

 

If someone likes MQA, more power to them. If someone does like it, there is again, zero chance that the only music you will be able to buy, stream, or listen to is going to be in MQA format.  That makes it no more important that one person liking Jazz, and another thinking Jazz is going to take over the world, and the only music you will ever be able to listen to is Jazz.  

 

(shrug) 

 

-Paul 

 

 

 

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.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Paul R said:

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. 

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

[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.  

 

[Shadders]

4 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Well thought out, with lots of good points.

 

My thought is that if 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? 🤪

Hi,

The latest £295 Pro-Ject DAC has MQA embedded. I think this is by virtue of the ESS DAC IC's used - but could be wrong.

 

https://www.project-audio.com/en/product/pre-box-s2-digital/

 

ESS have added MQA decode to their DAC IC's - depending on the version.

 

LG added MQA to their phones - not all though.

 

If they switch to MQA only streaming or downloads - people will not have a choice.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, Paul R said:

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

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

[ralphfcooke]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

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

Though technically illegal many people  used MP3 codecs before the patent lapsed, with little or no

thought as to its legality, and with pretty much no likelihood of investigation, leave alone prosecution

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, ralphfcooke said:

Though technically illegal many people  used MP3 codecs before the patent lapsed, with little or no thought as to its legality, and with pretty much no likelihood of investigation, leave alone prosecution

Private individuals could get away with that. If you tried to sell an unlicensed device, you'd be facing legal action very quickly.

[Jud]

The capability of managing your rights to music is either already in MQA or easily added back (it was in MQA material @mansr analyzed, though he was told it was early/preliminary stuff).  All that's keeping it from being switched on is that MQA material lacks the market power at the moment.  The more that the music industry feels it could successfully impose an MQA-only platform, the closer that day comes.  If we don't support MQA material financially, and urge others to follow our lead, we're doing our little part to keep that from happening.

[ralphfcooke]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Private individuals could get away with that. If you tried to sell an unlicensed device, you'd be facing legal action very quickly.

Totally agree, but if the fix can be done in software then it will take very little time to appear, even if some hardware is required

I suspect  some enterprising Chinese company will come up with a low cost solution

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Let's try to keep this one on topic people. 

 

 

The ASA thing is on topic and interesting. Thanks for posting.

 

Chris,

Paul made a valid point about history which looks to be deleted.

 

I can tell quickly if someone is a serious student of American History by asking two questions.

One where did the Civil War end? Two when did slavery end in Oregon?

 

Audio history is similar.  

[daverich4]

17 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

But the post I'm replying to is not in that category? 

 

It is. Neither of you is “discussing” anything. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, daverich4 said:

 

It is. Neither of you is “discussing” anything. 

 

So you understand that the other in your "Neither" is you, right?

[daverich4]

3 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

So you understand that the other in your "Neither" is you, right?

 

I do. 

[kumakuma]

1 hour 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.

 

How's your review of Chris's slides going?

[Lee Scoggins]

16 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

How's your review of Chris's slides going?

 

Almost done.  Worked on it this morning.

[FredericV]

58 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Almost done.  Worked on it this morning.

 

and keep telling us you are not being paid by MQA

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, FredericV said:

 

and keep telling us you are not being paid by MQA

I'll consider the response as MQA ltd's official response to my slide deck, after the official in person response was a disaster.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, FredericV said:

and keep telling us you are not being paid by MQA

Work isn't always paid.

[Sonicularity]

It is possible not to be directly paid by MQA and still have a financial interest to see the format succeed.  That said, I don't believe there has to be an underlying motive other than an opinion to be vehemently for or against anything discussed over the internet.

[Rt66indierock]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'll consider the response as MQA ltd's official response to my slide deck, after the official in person response was a disaster.

 

I agree based on where Lee's feet have been.

[KeenObserver]

2 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.

 

You know every buzzword and talking point from MQA and repeat them over and over again, ad nauseum, everywhere that MQA is being discussed.

Because of your love for music.

You infer that a well respected member of the music community opposed MQA because he was dying at the time and was not thinking clearly.  And he could not explain himself because he had in fact, died.

Because of your love for music.

You inject yourself into every forum that could possibly promote MQA.

Because of your love for music.

[KeenObserver]

Again, are these the people you want to see controlling the distribution of music?