MQA is Vaporware

[Paul R]

2 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

I guess what you get is still DRM protected? You can store and copy the file as much as you like, but if you want to play it, you need the decoding key... Try to play the file with VLC on Linux for example...

 

This is just like the MQA files.

 

Sure, you can download unprotected, illegal versions of the movies anyway.

 

But what purpose does the MQA serve? I only see it serving purpose of license money for the encoders and decoders.

 

I agree. I was just pointing out that copy protection on BluRay discs does not really present a problem today for most people. It has zero impact, except perhaps on some cinema-philes. I am sure they are up in arms over any visible or audible imperfections added by copy protection.  

 

And BRPs play unprotected unserialized disks just fine, which are largely sold to the high end enthusiast market at astronomical prices. A lot of indie content, just like audiophile 45rpm vinyl! 

 

[Paul R]

10 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Not sure what you are trying to achieve. MQA Ltd made claims that were proven false.

 

Copy protection - it has always something that the audio and video industry will pursue, from LP's in the 1980's, CD copybit, watermarking, rootkits etc. Same for DVD and Blu-ray. Copy protection schemes will never stop being designed or introduced.

 

Not sure about the personal attack, people names who got MQA to recant their claims etc. The evidence of the lies stated by MQA supporter is what has been refuted and proven wrong - lossless, special glove treatment of every album, signed off by the artists, deblurring when in fact it causes blur, the claimed ADC errors causing blur, when in fact it does not actually exist, the aliasing which is quite simply extremely bad audio engineering - all this purported to be High Resolution and a A New World Order.

 

Self proclaimed experts - again, not sure what you are referring to here. Either dispute the evidence presented, or accept it.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Shrug. - the only point I have really disputed is  that the current  MQA implementation is as good as it can be. It can be better. 

 

You are are simply being disingenuous with the rest of your comment however. 

 

 

[Paul R]

9 minutes ago, firedog said:

"The discussion" is not just here; it's also in the rest of the audiophile press/universe. Other than here, little "real discussion" has taken place. There are a few examples, but they are exceptions that prove the rule. The more general phenomenon has been one of articles just echoing MQA marketing speak and taking whatever MQA Ltd., or it's representatives say at face value. In fact, even when politely challenging "non-factual" assertations in many of these articles, the response is just further regurgitation of what "Bob" says, with little or no critical analysis.

 

I can see that.

 

But what little discussion remains here only happens in between rants, and intensive “shout downs.”  And from a broader viewpoint, the points that the most strident here engage upon may simply be wrong. MQA taking over the world and such rat droppings. 

 

The facts were, in general, presented very reasonably, if not welcomed with open arms by a MQA. The hateful personal attacks simply detract from them. 

 

[Paul R]

Just now, firedog said:

Not sure what you are referring to here.

Archimago and the you tube source that got him started. @Jud ,s summary, Chris’ presentation, a lot of posts from you, Miska, and others. 

[Paul R]

19 minutes ago, firedog said:

Again, the unstated assumption in what you are saying is that the real reason for MQA is to prevent us from access to the unadulterated masters/hi-res versions. Only in that scenario does what you are claiming make sense. And that is btw, exactly what Robert Hartley was referring to when he said the purpose of MQA was to keep the "crown jewels" - aka actual hi-res versions/masters - away from the public.

 

It seems like that is a well and often stated assumption, and one that is probably true, no? 

 

The trade off was that we would get more and better quality music from the labels. While MQA cannot exactly control that, it is certainly one promise that has not come true. Unless you count Tidal masters I suppose. 

 

FLAC is difficult to impose DRM upon, so it probably cannot be used to protect the “Crown Jewels” - But you already knew that of course?

[Paul R]

26 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Well stated.  The truth is not democratic.  Depending on the context, it can be downright anti-democratic.  The Old Guard like @ARQuintand @John_Atkinson believe that the truth of consumer electronics and digital/computational software (such as MQA) is somehow related to or can be found in a subjective debate.   The neat thing about the truth is that it simply is.  When it is in the middle, it's in the middle and when its not, it's not.  In the case of MQA, the truth is not anywhere near the Old Guard who bleat the marketing speak of MQA like the herd of industry insider sheep they are.

 

Interesting choice of words @ARQuint, you "feel cheated".  You don't have the character and skills (or if you do, you don't use them) to discern the truth of MQA, so you look to the herd and try to listen to what they are bleating and go with that.  You look to folks like @Paul Rwho literally just bleat out stream-of-consciousness-speculations that add up to exactly nothing, to support your notion that the truth is democratic.  It all is quite silly, and supposed authorities like @John_Atkinsonsupport you in your silliness.  There is only one word for all this:  Pathetic

 

Edit: It's time for a visual reminder as to where men such as JA really stand:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh goody- here is a great example of a set of nasty personal attacks for you @Shadders!!  

 

Just put any set of generic names in there and you could take this most un-clever posting right out of a PR smear playbook for MQA!

 

If the poster really wanted to be clever, he could probably copy some witticism from Shakespeare. The Taming of the Shrew perhaps? 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

30 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

MQA taking over the world is the only real concern when you boil everything down. When would be a more appropriate time to take a stance in opposition to MQA's adaptation?

 

At the checkout? 

 

I agree it is the only real concern, but I do not consider it a very big one. Just vote with your credit card. 

 

Qobuz instead of a Tidal, for example. 

[Paul R]

31 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

And why can't they just sell us the high quality music anyway? They are charging a huge premium for hi-res, so clearly they are making money on it.

 

That my friend, is the best question asked here. Audiophiles are the only ones who would buy them anyway. 

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

No, it just means they are not yet in a market position with MQA to make that work. If, as you keep claiming, MQA is adopted by some of the significant streaming services (Tidal and Qobuz are minor players), then we will see what they really intend.
I also find it interesting as MQA Ltd., themselves have said that their goal is to be the default streaming format (other than free mp3 streams), and to accrue profits from the MQA licensed HW that will then necessarily follow.

 

Just a thought - so what are they going to do about the truly enormous library of non DRM hi-res music out there that already exists? Those lirbaries are not going to just disappear from the disks of hobbyists all over the world. Not to mention the even more enormous number of needle drops out there. 

 

-Paul

 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I still do not get this "Crown Jewels" aspect. It is all in the record companies head.

 

It is an audiophile/music lover thing I suppose. It all comes back to the age old question of, is there better sound than CD? 

 

If the answer is yes, then what is the best possible sound?  The answer is the actual master, be it tape or digital, or even if the only version left if on vinyl. 

 

The audiophile take? I want a copy of that master. It's the best that can possible be, and will be so no matter how I improve my system in the future. 

 

Audiophile / Music Lover vs. Labels.   MQA to the rescue, in theory. Deliver the best sound, same as the master tape, without giving out the master tape. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

When i purchase a CD i don't think "ha ha ha ha ha, i got the master of the music, and there is nothing the record label can do", whilst rubbing my hands together, grinning and squinting my eyes in gleeful admiration of my success.

 

It might surprise you, but some audiophiles  music lovers do exactly that - squinty gaze and all. 

 

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

What actually happens is i play the CD, listen to the music, and crown jewels don't come into it. I get to listen, and the record label gets their money from the purchase.

 

What MQA is offering is, as presented to the record companies, high resolution without giving away the master. They love it. But if listening to MQA is no different from the master, and is what the artist heard in the studio etc., then by obvious logic, we have the master. But in the record companies heads, they have pulled one over us - we haven't got the master. It is this twisted logic that causes them to back MQA.

 

MQA appeals to the record companies desires, which is greed and control of the music. Look at the patents owned by MQA Ltd and Meridian Audio - they can be used for full DRM control. It is possible for one file can only be played on one device. You want to play the same song on another device - you need to purchase again.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Sure, and that is the part of MQA I really detest, and have for years. 

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

OK - take it up with the person - not all people who disagree with MQA respond as per your disagreement. If what is said is in error - then do challenge them.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

 Why bother? There is an exclusive little clique here that feels they can say anything without repercussion. Also, I like Proverbs 26:4 . 

 

None of that nonsense I referenced to you to was addressing actual issues or facts, it was merely ill considered sniping.  Challenging it is a fool's errand. However, you had indicated you had not seen any personal attacks or hateful speech - so now you have. 

 

-Paul

 

 

[Paul R]

39 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

You may not be aware, but there are bands releasing new material all the time. If it is an MQA only future, then the future of music could be quite restrictive.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 I just spent 20 years in Austin, the live music capital of the world. I am pretty sure there are more releases from bands there than much of any other place in the country. Some good, some bad, a few excellent. 

 

Just how do you expect MQA to take over these cowboys, punkers, metal, showtunes, and classical artists? Ain't gonna happen... 

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

256 Kbps AAC took them over. 

(grin)

Actually, a lot of them are cutting vinyl now - selling to the hipster crowd. 

 

Most of them will stream from Apple, but their own music is pretty much CD at a minimum, and most are recording in 24/96 now. Think the PreSonus stuff from Baton Rouge, which enables amazingly good high quality recording even just using Garageband. Most will kick in the bucks to get Logic Pro X or a full Copy of Studio 1 Pro though. Pro gear sounds almost as good as higher end audiophile stuff, and is a whole lot cheaper.

 

Partly because of that, those folks are an absolute bastion of high res audio these days. iPhone, Androids, whatever they can get their hands on, hacked up to play back high res as cleanly as possible. 

[Paul R]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Most audio is streamed at 320 Kbps or lower. The artist who records in high resolution and painstakingly works for a certain sound, still uploads that lossy crap to Apple, Spotify, Pandora, etc...

 

Let's say MQA takes over, "The artist who records in high resolution and painstakingly works for a certain sound, still uploads that lossy crap to Apple, Spotify, Pandora, etc..."

At least to Apple, they have to upload the highest quality file they have, up to 24/96k. 

 

I am also not entirely sure most people, particularly on a mobile setup, can tell the difference between 320mbs MP3s or 256AAC files and CD quality. I am pretty sure I can, but only if I am in a quiet listening environment.

 

Why would you consider it bad that people are listening to - and paying for-  the artist's music in any format?  Even MQA will get them paid and let them keep making music. 

 

Most of these artists live on the edge of bankruptcy, only a few break through, like Shakey Graves. Honestly, I would support MQA if it means those folks get more plays where plays = pays. I do not believe it will though. 

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

14 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Except for a few megastars and unsigned artists who release their own music, the decision on how to release an album is made by the label, not by the artist.

 

Most artists do not have a label, they record, master, and release their own music.  

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I never said or insinuated such a thing. 

 

 

Sorry, I was reacting to "lossy crap."  

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

4 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

But to be fair, this thread is not about them.

 

Umm- if you are talking about MQA taking over the world, then I think this thread certainly must include them. Also, I do not think that J Lo or Kayne, or The Rolling Stones or Coldplay or Maroon 5, or whomever, care one bit whether you buy their music in hi-res, CD, or in MQA.  Just so long as you buy it.

 

 

[Paul R]

9 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

And their sales represent a drop in the bucket whe

in it comes to total music sales.

 

Just in Austin alone, the music industry has a  $1.8 billion impact, locally.  There are a lot of little Austins in the country, and all added together, the impact is enormous. 

Here is a link to the 2016 impact statement. I am sure there is a newer one, if anyone cares to search it out. 

 

http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/EGRSO/TXP-Austin-Music-Impact-Update-2016-Final.pdf

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

I don't see the relevance to this discussion. 

 

What am I doing, saying, or not doing that is causing confusion? Let me try this way, and if you disagree, please explain why a little more. Concrete between the ears today, apparently. 

 

• MQA wants to be universal.
• They will never convince the local musicians to join MQA unless there is a strong financial incentive to do so. 
• They number in the thousands, and have billions of dollars of impact on the local community. 
• How is MQA ever going to "take over" the world with those kinds of people out there?   

That's just one group. You have audiophiles on a different hand, and while we represent a much smaller market segment and economic impact, we certainly do carry some clout. People targeting the audiophile market will build equipment that does not contain MQA is audiophiles will buy it.  The same is actually true in the pro market. 

 

Yours,

-Paul 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

One, they don’t care about needle drops.

The “truly enormous” library isn’t - only a small number of audiophiles even own any or know that it exists. A hires download that sells a few thousand copies is a top seller. 

They will continue doing what they’ve been doing with old music since the 80’s: bring out new formats and new remixes, box sets,  and remasters and get the public to buy it again.
There’s still an enormous amount of music that hasn’t been released in hires they can release. Notice just in the last few months: Lennon, Beatles, Hendrix, Buffalo Springfield. AFAIK, all sold well and many  also sold in expensive deluxe or boxed editions. 

 

Oops, my bad. I was including Redbook resolution in the "hi-res" comment, confusingly and erroneously. I was thinking of the premium tiers on the streaming services, and included the rather extensive CD libraries most people have. It isn't uncommon for even non-audiophiles to have a couple hundred CDs. 

 

Audiophiles, as usual, tend to go a bit overboard with our libraries, having thousands of CD's, usually ripped to spinning disk storage, thank goodness. 

[Paul R]

2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I'm not totally sure, but I think "take over the world" was your characterization.  Unsigned and indie artists aren't relevant.  During SACDs heyday, how many unsigned artists do you think were releasing on SACD?  And I seriously doubt anyone was pinning their hopes on unsigned artists to transform SACD into a market juggernaut. 

 

For me, MQA is about what's happening with the major labels back catalogs.  I really could care less about contemporary artists.

 

I can see that.

 

On the other hand, everyone has some of the back catalog, at least on CD resolution. Those files are not going to stop working even if MQA takes over all music distribution in the world.  If it becomes available for sale only in MQA, who is going to buy it? And Why?  

 

If they drop the price and release a lot of the unreleased music, assuming they can find the tapes of course, then- maybe...

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

Local musicians are irrelevant to this discussion.

 

If you look at the hard drives of the folks here on this site, you will find that the vast majority of the music they own comes from a label owned by one of the Big Three.

 

All MQA needs to do is lock down the big three and everyone else will come in line.

 

Sure there will still be sources of non-MQA music out there but it will be music that few people are interested in.

 

Oh, perhaps so.

 

My library is not dominated nearly so much by the big three, as I have thousands of hours of recordings I made, and a lot of those are local groups. Also I have well over a thousand needle drops, some of which desperately need to be redone. Only a few thousand albums from the big three. 

 

My viewpoint may be a little biased there. 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Tapes?  If they were mastered before around 1985, maybe.  HDTracks has many titles where the 80s and 90s era 16/44 masters are captured to analog tape (for preservation and future readability) then that tape is in turn captured digitally again at a higher sample rate.  Those output files, even in "naked" PCM format are not worth the disc space that they consume.  And lots of those files have been made into MQA.  "Master Quality" is a lie.

 

I agree - think of recordings similar to the the Mercury recordings. Some if the original broadway recordings. Definitely older stuff. 

 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

 

 

If I was a dick I’d give them the same treatment they gave me. But, I won’t stoop to that level. I’ll try to attend though. 

 

 

 

Bet you a whole nickel they politely apologize to you. 

 

-Paul 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

 

I'm going to go out on a bit of limb here and say I have a positive reaction to much (though not all) of what @ARQuint writes in this comment.

 

I do think that some participants in this thread are unwilling to make a distinction between (A) strongly and forcefully defending important points, and (B) making repeated ad hominem and uncivil attacks.

 

There's a bit of irony - one could even say hypocrisy - in posts here that insist that "facts are facts" and then immediately proceed to pepper their criticism of pro-MQA folks and "old guard" audiophile press members with snark, sarcasm, unproven insinuations, and so on. 

 

Let me be clear - I am not in any way saying or implying that facts are not facts. As I hope folks know, I am 100% dead-set against MQA for the reasons @mansr, @Jud, and many many others have stated (and the reasons I've repeatedly articulated myself in response to @Lee Scoggins' comments).

 

But at some point, discussion becomes pointless without civility - not because we all have to be nice to each other or gloss over real disagreements, but rather because the entire point of discussion is to impact others' perspective: to educate and hopefully to persuade. And if you simply insult those who disagree with you, you're just preening for those who already agree. You might as well shout into a mirror for all the change your comments will make.

 

That said, while I do appreciate and agree with Andrew Quint's emphasis on baseline civility, I do take exception to the equivalency he sets up between Jud and Lee Scoggins. The evaluation of arguments cannot be objective to the extent that mathematical principles are, but I think by any reasonable standard Jud's arguments here are more substantive, more internally consistent, and more attentive to the technical facts of MQA than Lee's are.

Moreover, everyone should note that immediately after pairing Jud and Lee, Andrew Quint then pairs Lee and the more shall-we-say rhetorical anti-MQA folks here - a group of which Jud is most decidedly not a part. I mention this because it highlights the flaw in Andrew's both-sides framing of this discussion. Lee certainly is not as nasty or biting as many of his detractors - but the quality of his arguments are no better than those of the folks Andrew is upset about here. By contrast, Jud's arguments - not to mention mansr's and many others' - are far superior. And there is no equivalent pro-MQA voice here with substantive, compelling, fact-based arguments.

 

This is why I think @The Computer Audiophile's good-faith investigation into MQA inevitably led him away from the hoped-for middle ground and into anti-MQA territory. The facts simply don't support MQA's value or its claims - and if the repetitiveness of this 400-page thread has any value, it is that it demonstrates that even with virtually infinite time and opportunities, MQA cannot make its case.

 

So civility, yes. But false equivalence in the name of civility? No thank you.

 

What an excellent and well thought out post. I would complement you on it, but it would probably just open you to being snarked at. 

 

Yours,

Paul