MQA is Vaporware

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

As consumers we have the ultimate power when it comes to life's non-essential goods. We don't purchase them. The product goes away. The company goes away.

 

 

 

 

True, but there is a caveat (well, many).  We can be "herded" so to speak.  This is done mostly by the force of law - and those with the money, willingness, or organization get to define what the law is and where they want the herd to go to.  

 

If "the industry" wants to move in the direction of a single digital format that is DRM (as I think is rather obvious) then they get what they want and consumers don't have the organization to counter (and often the foresight - they are not "students" of the market normally).

 

Ideally, those in power would be "neutral" more or less, but that is not the case (and never has been).  So there is a real distance between the ideal of "rights" that fung0 talks about and the reality.

[The Computer Audiophile]

If I don't like something I don't buy it. If I don't like MQA and it's the only format, I consider the pros and cons, and decide if the negatives outweigh the benefits. 

 

I don't need new versions of music to stay alive. 

[Albrecht]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If I don't like something I don't buy it. If I don't like MQA and it's the only format, I consider the pros and cons, and decide if the negatives outweigh the benefits. 

 

I don't need new versions of music to stay alive. 

I am not wise: I learned the hard way: not to buy great recordings of music that I do not like. Just my opinion on what is good music, - but it'll be a long time before I buy another Chesky recording.

[Don Hills]

4 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

If I can copy an MQA file and give it to 100 friends and they can play it fine, including the unfolding on their MQA enabled DAC, then where is the DRM?

 

If you knew that the metadata embedded in the MQA bitstream could be used to trace the copies back to you, would you still do it?

[mansr]

Master Quality Authenticated — “high-resolution” audio with … lossy compression.

Someone's unimpressed.

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, mansr said:

Master Quality Authenticated — “high-resolution” audio with … lossy compression.

Someone's unimpressed.

 

Someone is smoking something as well ... "anyone trying to sell it to end consumers is committing fraud. The only advantage of hi-res audio is that it tends not to have LOUDNESS WARS mixes."

 

Both totally incorrect. It's not fraud to sell high resolution audio and the loudness wars are alive and well in high resolution. In fact, the high resolution is worse than the CD often. 

[Sal1950]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If I don't like something I don't buy it. If I don't like MQA and it's the only format, I consider the pros and cons, and decide if the negatives outweigh the benefits. 

 

I don't need new versions of music to stay alive. 

Is that a position you really want to find yourself in, take it or leave it as there's no other choice?  That's the whole point of trying to stop this before that can happen.

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Is that a position you really want to find yourself in, take it or leave it as there's no other choice?  That's the whole point of trying to stop this before that can happen.

 

HI Sal - Absolutely not. I always want choice. Choice is best for consumers, hence the Sherman Act of 1890 etc...

[mansr]

20 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Someone is smoking something as well ... "anyone trying to sell it to end consumers is committing fraud. The only advantage of hi-res audio is that it tends not to have LOUDNESS WARS mixes."

 

Both totally incorrect. It's not fraud to sell high resolution audio and the loudness wars are alive and well in high resolution. In fact, the high resolution is worse than the CD often. 

Yes, he misses the mark a few times. He still makes some valid points, IMO.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, mansr said:

Yes, he misses the mark a few times. He still makes some valid points, IMO.

 

Yeah, he has some good mixed in with the sensationalism. 

[Sal1950]

19 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

HI Sal - Absolutely not. I always want choice. Choice is best for consumers, hence the Sherman Act of 1890 etc...

Then why do you continue to take a strong pro MQA position?

[Fitzcaraldo215]

1 hour ago, Don Hills said:

 

If you knew that the metadata embedded in the MQA bitstream could be used to trace the copies back to you, would you still do it?

Claimed here like a lot of things, but unproven.  I very seriously doubt it.  Unless independently proven, I think it is "fake news".

 

If Stuart and Craven can cram enough information into those low order 8 bits to do that plus pull up to 356/382k resolution from a 44/48k-24bit file, it will be one of the greatest technical feats of all time.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Claimed here like a lot of things, but unproven.  I very seriously doubt it.  Unless independently proven, I think it is "fake news".

I don't think it is currently being done, but it is absolutely possible.

[The Computer Audiophile]

23 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Then why do you continue to take a strong pro MQA position?

 

I'm bummed that my position is deemed pro MQA. All I'm trying to do is balance the discussion. When one person (not you) says MQA's jack-booted thugs are coming for all of us, I like to argue the other side for the sake of getting the whole story out there.

 

One-sided discussions tend not to help people. They lead to echo chambers like the current news media catering to political sides like constituents. Try learning about what's going on in the world by only reading / watching one news outlet. It's not possible. 

[Rt66indierock]

11 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Claimed here like a lot of things, but unproven.  I very seriously doubt it.  Unless independently proven, I think it is "fake news".

 

If Stuart and Craven can cram enough information into those low order 8 bits to do that plus pull up to 356/382k resolution from a 44/48k-24bit file, it will be one of the greatest technical feats of all time.

 

I'm not doubt MQA does this because the DRM at both ends and the encryption seems to be sufficient in their eyes. But I can say my 2016 Tax software does this. 

[Rt66indierock]

6 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

When I bought my first CD player in 1983, there were royalties included in the price of that player that its maker paid to Sony/Philips.  Each time I bought a CD to play in it, there were royalties included in the cost of that.  Also, for a very long time, there was no way for an average consumer to copy or "back up" his CD collection to other media, such as a PC.  

 

There were licensing and royalty agreements across the industry covering the use of CD technology.  As a consumer, I paid a price to use the technology of CD.  If I wanted to use the technology, I paid the price, including bundled in licensing fees.  But, was there DRM?  No.  How does this differ from MQA?  You seem to be saying that these agreements and fee payments alone are evidence of DRM.  But, the above example would indicate that is not true.  

 

The point is I think arguments about what is or is not DRM are not simple, as is the unfounded claim that I am "violating the law". They are complicated and legalistic and beyond anyone's expertise in this forum, including me.  So, the simple-minded claim  MQA  = DRM is not as clear cut as many here want to make it, in my view.

 

My agenda?  I have no personal plans for MQA at the current time.  I am just watching the technology to see if it develops into something I want.  In the mean time, I just hate to see a mob that does not have all the facts, is speculating and rushing to judgement clog the airwaves of this forum with stuff that may not be true.  My agenda is let's see what MQA can do when we have more information and it gets wider market exposure.  In other words, I support Chris's view, and I question factual inaccuracy when I think I see it.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said consumers don’t pay license fees in a prior post for MQA, I corrected you.

 

DRM is not as complicated as you want to make the discussion. I’ve personally been around the issue since 1982 and there are simple types of DRM like copy detection of software (you need a different serial number for each computer on a network) or not allowing you to alter a digital book. There are more complicated types that require the expertise of companies like Utimaco to implement like MQA. In any case Gordon Rankin disclosed that the software to decode MQA has a library of known MQA devices. So just as I’ve stated an MQA ADC encodes a file as MQA with information about it and the music. An MQA decoder accesses a library, pulls information and in his words “they match the interface to each device so it correct and aligns everything going to that particular DAC.” Hardware DACs that fully decode an MQA file must perform the same functions to fully decode the MQA file. That is managing digital rights.

 

Back to that agenda of yours, you fill your posts with inaccuracies. Take for example; “also, for a very long time, there was no way for an average consumer to copy or "back up" his CD collection to other media, such as a PC.” Of course there wasn’t any way to backup CDs onto a PC. A CD is 700 MB. The 528 MB barrier for hard drives on a PC wasn’t broken until 1994 so you couldn’t put a CD it. Did you not know this or was your comment just clogging this forum with statements intended to misrepresent well known facts?

 

This post calling MQA is Vaporware is not a mob. Mobs don’t have lists of information to be discussed this post does. The only time it even approached being a mob was on an unrelated topic that I can’t comment on. I posted fairly regularly on that topic and stopped a year and a half ago. NDAs will do that.

 

In my case MQA lost the benefit of the doubt at RMAF 2016 when I was told information similar to what Srajan Ebaen at 6moons just posted about MQA.

[Don Hills]

33 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Claimed here like a lot of things, but unproven.  I very seriously doubt it.  Unless independently proven, I think it is "fake news".

 

If Stuart and Craven can cram enough information into those low order 8 bits to do that plus pull up to 356/382k resolution from a 44/48k-24bit file, it will be one of the greatest technical feats of all time.

 

It's not being done now as far as I know. The point is that it has the capability.

 

(The metadata is in the control bitstream, not the "low order 8 bits". One of the bits in every sample is dedicated to metadata. Plenty of room.)

[Sal1950]

40 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I'm bummed that my position is deemed pro MQA. All I'm trying to do is balance the discussion. When one person (not you) says MQA's jack-booted thugs are coming for all of us, I like to argue the other side for the sake of getting the whole story out there.

 

One-sided discussions tend not to help people. They lead to echo chambers like the current news media catering to political sides like constituents. Try learning about what's going on in the world by only reading / watching one news outlet. It's not possible. 

There's a number of guys here arguing the other side.

Nuff said I guess

[mansr]

23 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm bummed that my position is deemed pro MQA. All I'm trying to do is balance the discussion.

Do you also want a "balanced" discussion about climate change or evolution vs creationism? You are more and more, as facts about MQA emerge, resembling the science deniers on those topics.

[mansr]

18 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

It's not being done now as far as I know. The point is that it has the capability.

 

(The metadata is in the control bitstream, not the "low order 8 bits". One of the bits in every sample is dedicated to metadata. Plenty of room.)

There's so much room, in fact, that much of it is completely unused, filled with zeroes.

[esldude]

The thing that bothers me besides possible DRM like characteristics of MQA is what it really is.

 

The name was Master Quality Authenticated.  It was supposed to tell us when we are getting the actual bits fully decoded to best possible effect under the MQA system.  Instead you have variations and layers of decoding, and filter adjustment.  Though there are two possible indicator lights that is nowhere near enough to tell the whole story.  Quite often I suspect you will simply get an MQA encoded file that other than being wrapped in that container is little different in quality or provenance.  So on the face of it MQA mostly fails to live up to its name.  All that is left is some file size reduction, and the fact if you don't decode at some level your undecoded file is a slightly adulterated version of a redbook quality file. That is not something I see as a step forward. 

 

Stewart et al have been slow to dribble out details of what is really being done in MQA and are at fault for the rocky reception it has had in some circles.  Promises were made that seemed unlikely and in fact turned out not to be so just as suspected.  Something of a minor bait and switch with a promise to just trust us it will be good.

[lucretius]

35 minutes ago, mansr said:

There's so much room, in fact, that much of it is completely unused, filled with zeroes.

 

Why should the consumer care if the ADC (or other) encoder the producer used leaves a fingerprint within the MQA file? Is anyone suggesting that a (legitimate) seller of MQA files would encode unique information into each MQA file for each individual consumer, before the consumer downloads it, etc.? It seems absurd, but maybe I'm missing something? 

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, lucretius said:

Why should the consumer care if the ADC (or other) encoder the producer used leaves a fingerprint within the MQA file? Is anyone suggesting that a (legitimate) seller of MQA files would encode unique information into each MQA file for each individual consumer, before the consumer downloads it, etc.? It seems absurd, but maybe I'm missing something? 

Not absurd at all. Such things have been done before.

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

Do you also want a "balanced" discussion about climate change or evolution vs creationism? You are more and more, as facts about MQA emerge, resembling the science deniers on those topics.

 

Balanced discussions are always good and shouldn't intimidate those who believe strongly in their opinions. It's the only way to get to the real story. 

 

When the majority of Americans were pro slavery, a balanced discussions was the only was out of the terrible situation. 

 

Climate science and evolution have and continue to be discussed by all sides in balanced, open debates and peer reviewed studies. It's the best way to get information out to those interested. 

 

Selecting a side and quashing all discussion from the other side doesn't help anyone, even those quashing the discussion. If something is so absurd, it's actually helpful to most people to see it debated openly rather than a minister of information saying one side is absurd and we should stop discussing it. 

 

MQA is far from a peer reviewed and publicly debated topic that leads 99% of engineers to a single position. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

By the way, MQA doesn't require the use of its own filters. Some DAC manufacturers will benefit from MQA's filter while others do it better themselves.