Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA Software / Hardware Decode Etc... Questions


Recommended Posts

Are you concerned that you can only purchase Dolby or DTS encoded movies, and heavily DRM'd Blu-ray discs?

 

Dolby and DTS are open specifications, so that comparison is flawed. DRM'd Blu-ray really is a terrible annoyance. However, HD movies were never available without DRM, so the introduction of Blu-ray didn't take anything away from the market. Your repeated trotting out of this line is one example of what I call ridicule.

Link to comment
Hi Chris,

 

Those are fair questions.

 

Clearly Dolby and DTS encoded movies enhance sound quality with the delivery of multi channel surround sound. By comparison, the SQ benefit of MQA is at best arguable and I certainly could hear no benefit comparing MQA decoded music with high resolution versions of the same tracks on my Brooklyn DAC. I believe there are many others here that have made the same claim. I purchased that DAC based on my belief that MQA was the future, and I was disappointed and later sold that DAC without any remorse.

 

If MQA encoded tracks played back at the same sound quality level as Redbook, I may be less concerned. However this always has seemed a dubious claim, and I am grateful to the others here who have confirmed through their research that the quality level produced from non-MQA DACs is indeed reduced from Redbook levels.

 

As for heavily DRMed Blu-ray discs, I only own a handful that were received as gifts from friends and family. Honestly I never watch them as I have been exclusively streaming movies for many years now. Indeed I recently took my working 200 disc Sony DVD jukebox to the Goodwill as it was never used and took to much space to hang on to.

 

So I am happy with purchasing either redbook or paying more for high resolution music downloads for those albums where it is desirable. Given my experience I don't need MQA and see no need for it except from streaming sources.

 

Like Blu-ray if my only choice is to purchase MQA encoded music, DRMed or not, my music listening will shift to streaming sources from my personal library. If the music industry wants to kill physical delivery of purchased music just MQA encode everything. That would be a sad day, but may be where we are headed.

Hi Larry - Thanks for the response.

 

I don't want to get too far into the weeds, but the exact same thing that Doby and DTS do, could be done without the need for a special hardware decoder. If this technology was only free and open source, we could use FLAC files for it :~)

 

I'm not being serious with that statement above, but it's the same argument people are using against MQA. I believe that because we've been fortunate enough to have high quality versions of our favorite music without the need for a decoder, people have come to expect this forever. If the movie industry would have started out by giving us the raw uncompressed versions of its movies, then switched to lossy Blu-ray, people may have been upset as well.

 

I think MQA is trying to please both the consumer and record industry. MQA claims to give the consumer some benefit with debluring and smaller file size (beneficial for limited data plans of substandard networks) etc..., and benefit the industry by letting it keep the crown jewels, have a single deliverable, etc...

 

As a consumer I'd love to have the crown jewels. I want the raw FLAC files right from the digital audio workstation. However, as a business owner I understand the desire to sell the product that you want to sell and keep future business viability in mind.

 

Perhaps MQA is a balance. I'm not sure.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Dolby and DTS are open specifications, so that comparison is flawed. DRM'd Blu-ray really is a terrible annoyance. However, HD movies were never available without DRM, so the introduction of Blu-ray didn't take anything away from the market. Your repeated trotting out of this line is one example of what I call ridicule.

 

No worries, you're free to consider this ridicule. I don't see it that way at all. It's bad for business for me to ridicule those contributing to CA. I don't intend my comments to be ridicule (or should I say ridiculous).

 

Regardless of the spec being open or closed, the end result to the consumer is the same. This is the angle I'm taking. The consumer needs a decoder to play Dolby or DTS.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment

I agree with @mansr that as far as MQA is concerned there are probably more unanswered questions that the answered ones. This (dis)information fog surrounding the format's intrododuction certainly doesn't help to dissolve suspicions. More 'glasnost' and less understatements gentlemen please. Otherwise simply more people will come to the conclusion that the whole thing is just about nothing more but..

 

 

With no special benefit for a consumer (I have heard myself nondecoded MQA being inferior to 16-44 and more and more paople confirm they cannot hear the difference between 24bit/DSD and decoded MQA or its superiority..).

 

And BTW does DRMing Blu-rays stop pirates from ripping and distributing them on the net.?

Will DRMing MQA stop them from doing the same.?

For how long is probably a better question..

Link to comment
And BTW does DRMing Blu-rays stop pirates from ripping and distributing them on the net.?

Will DRMing MQA stop them from doing the same.?

For how long is probably a better question..

 

Nothing stops pirates. DRM is like a door lock, it's just a delay device. Piracy is too hard and risky for most people. The costs outweigh the benefits.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Regardless of the spec being open or closed, the end result to the consumer is the same. This is the angle I'm taking. The consumer needs a decoder to play Dolby or DTS.

 

I can write my own Dolby or DTS decoder simply be following the published spec. In fact, I have been involved in doing exactly that.

 

Now if MQA isn't some form of DRM, why does it contain cryptography code?

Link to comment
Hi Larry - Thanks for the response.

 

I don't want to get too far into the weeds, but the exact same thing that Doby and DTS do, could be done without the need for a special hardware decoder. If this technology was only free and open source, we could use FLAC files for it :~)

 

I'm not being serious with that statement above, but it's the same argument people are using against MQA. I believe that because we've been fortunate enough to have high quality versions of our favorite music without the need for a decoder, people have come to expect this forever. If the movie industry would have started out by giving us the raw uncompressed versions of its movies, then switched to lossy Blu-ray, people may have been upset as well.

 

I think MQA is trying to please both the consumer and record industry. MQA claims to give the consumer some benefit with debluring and smaller file size (beneficial for limited data plans of substandard networks) etc..., and benefit the industry by letting it keep the crown jewels, have a single deliverable, etc...

 

As a consumer I'd love to have the crown jewels. I want the raw FLAC files right from the digital audio workstation. However, as a business owner I understand the desire to sell the product that you want to sell and keep future business viability in mind.

 

Perhaps MQA is a balance. I'm not sure.

Hi Chris,

 

Yes indeed, I have heard the argument that many record labels want to withhold raw high resolution master files from distribution so that they can re-sell their libraries again and again as technologies improve. They have been sold on MQA as a way to once again re-sell their existing libraries to the public without distributing the raw master files which are the highest possible quality sources.

 

Hmmm, this suggests we are once again getting less then the best available quality from the MQA encoded sources.

 

Also, this business model seems flawed to me on several levels. First, I now own, or could choose to own, almost every album in my collection in high res format. Secondly if I only have a Redbook copy, I can take HQplayer and create a high resolution version at playtime from either a local copy or a streaming source.

 

Given this, why would I buy an MQA version of the same album? I suggest the horse has left the barn and MQA is not putting it back in. I am certainly not going to pay money for MQA encoded tracks.

 

In the meantime if I can stream higher then Redbook resolutions via MQA, I'll take it, otherwise count me out.

 

If the music industry wants to grow revenue I would suggest they recreate the star system and invest in artists that merit wide scale distribution. Where are the John Hammond's of today?

 

Larry

Pareto Audio aka nuckleheadaudio

Link to comment
Hi Chris,

 

Yes indeed, I have heard the argument that many record labels want to withhold raw high resolution master files from distribution so that they can re-sell their libraries again and again as technologies improve. They have been sold on MQA as a way to once again re-sell their existing libraries to the public without distributing the raw master files which are the highest possible quality sources.

 

Hmmm, this suggests we are once again getting less then the best available quality from the MQA encoded sources.

 

Also, this business model seems flawed to me on several levels. First, I now own, or could choose to own, almost every album in my collection in high res format. Secondly if I only have a Redbook copy, I can take HQplayer and create a high resolution version at playtime from either a local copy or a streaming source.

 

Given this, why would I buy an MQA version of the same album? I suggest the horse has left the barn and MQA is not putting it back in. I am certainly not going to pay money for MQA encoded tracks.

 

In the meantime if I can stream higher then Redbook resolutions via MQA, I'll take it, otherwise count me out.

 

If the music industry wants to grow revenue I would suggest they recreate the star system and invest in artists that merit wide scale distribution. Where are the John Hammond's of today?

 

Larry

 

I certainly hear you. I just don't think the industry cares whether we'll purchase MQA downloads or not. It's all about streaming. If the average music buyer used to spend $10-15 per year on music, and now they spend $10 per month on streaming, this is huge for the industry. It's all about getting people to stream.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
I certainly hear you. I just don't think the industry cares whether we'll purchase MQA downloads or not. It's all about streaming. If the average music buyer used to spend $10-15 per year on music, and now they spend $10 per month on streaming, this is huge for the industry. It's all about getting people to stream.

 

And at the same time they're complaining that streaming revenues are too low. Something doesn't add up.

Link to comment
I can write my own Dolby or DTS decoder simply be following the published spec. In fact, I have been involved in doing exactly that.

 

Now if MQA isn't some form of DRM, why does it contain cryptography code?

 

That's a great question. I will send it on to Bob Stuart.

 

A pretty completely uninformed guess:

 

There are a few ways to protect intellectual property - trade secret, patent, and copyright are among them. ("Protect" may not be the right word for patent and copyright. "Give you the right to sue someone" might be a more accurate term.)

 

Trade secrets in the area of filtering/DSP for digital audio are very unlikely to stay secret for long. That leaves patent and copyright.

 

MQA has patents. It seems to me patents may go over better with some courts if they involve firmware and physical embodiment as opposed to "pure" software. There has been some criticism of these court decisions, but they do exist. So for those wondering why we don't see "full" MQA in software, I speculate (that's all it is, complete speculation) this may be a reason.

 

Now regarding crypto: the DMCA made "breaking" cryptography associated with copyrighted property (as software can be) a copyright violation. So, especially if it isn't particularly strong, employing crypto may be a means of essentially forcing people to legally violate your copyright in order to figure out precisely what you're doing. Again, this is completely uninformed speculation and no one should rely on this to start any rumors about what MQA is actually doing.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Who is complaining?

 

The industry doesn't like the fact that streaming revenues are not higher, certainly; the artists are complaining they don't get nearly enough of a cut to survive. Even so, it isn't certain how many if any of the current streaming companies will survive and thrive. And I don't hear consumers saying they'd be happy to pay a lot more.

 

So it seems to me we can say that although streaming seems to be the way of the future, how to make it a going proposition for streaming companies, the music industry, and especially artists at prices consumers want to pay is by no means a solved problem.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Let's hope (just) one more question answered.

 

I could try to answer this myself, we already know from info in public domain there are two reasons:

 

1) Authentication require crypto code. You surely can't "sign" a file without using some sort of encryption.

 

2) I read Bob somewhere talking about how music files are often leaked from the studio itself prior to final release. So MQA has an option to lock the file down while it is being worked on in the studio. That "lock down" will again require some sort of crypto. Attempting to play back the file using anything other than some special Meridian DAC would cause the output to be unplayable (perhaps truncated to a very small bit-depth?)

Link to comment
A pretty completely uninformed guess:

 

There are a few ways to protect intellectual property - trade secret, patent, and copyright are among them. ("Protect" may not be the right word for patent and copyright. "Give you the right to sue someone" might be a more accurate term.)

 

Trade secrets in the area of filtering/DSP for digital audio is very unlikely to stay secret for long. That leaves patent and copyright.

 

MQA has patents. It seems to me patents may go over better with some courts if they involve firmware and physical embodiment as opposed to "pure" software. There has been some criticism of these court decisions, but they do exist. So for those wondering why we don't see "full" MQA in software, I speculate (that's all it is, complete speculation) this may be a reason.

 

Now regarding crypto: the DMCA made "breaking" cryptography associated with copyrighted property (as software can be) a copyright violation. So, especially if it isn't particularly strong, employing crypto may be a means of essentially forcing people to legally violate your copyright in order to figure out precisely what you're doing. Again, this is completely uninformed speculation and no one should rely on this to start any rumors about what MQA is actually doing.

 

Seems quite plausible to me. Making sure you can sue people who don't comply with your demands could be considered a form of DRM.

Link to comment
I certainly hear you. I just don't think the industry cares whether we'll purchase MQA downloads or not. It's all about streaming. If the average music buyer used to spend $10-15 per year on music, and now they spend $10 per month on streaming, this is huge for the industry. It's all about getting people to stream.

Chris, you are probably right, it's all about streaming, and of course that also explains why the software MQA decoders have arrived, at least for one streaming company.

Pareto Audio aka nuckleheadaudio

Link to comment
I could try to answer this myself, we already know from info in public domain there are two reasons:

 

1) Authentication require crypto code. You surely can't "sign" a file without using some sort of encryption.

 

You don't need to encrypt a file to sign it. The usual way to sign a file is to compute a secure hash (such as SHA-256) of the contents and sign this using a private key. Then anyone can verify the signature by computing the hash of the file they got and checking that it matches the hash in the signature. All this could be done using open specs (in fact, one should never trust closed security protocols), e.g. by placing a PGP signature in the FLAC header (the FLAC format is quite extensible like this).

 

2) I read Bob somewhere talking about how music files are often leaked from the studio itself prior to final release. So MQA has an option to lock the file down while it is being worked on in the studio. That "lock down" will again require some sort of crypto. Attempting to play back the file using anything other than some special Meridian DAC would cause the output to be unplayable (perhaps truncated to a very small bit-depth?)

 

If it were just for studio use, there would be no reason to put that code in consumer products.

Link to comment
You don't need to encrypt a file to sign it. The usual way to sign a file is to compute a secure hash (such as SHA-256) of the contents and sign this using a private key. Then anyone can verify the signature by computing the hash of the file they got and checking that it matches the hash in the signature. All this could be done using open specs (in fact, one should never trust closed security protocols), e.g. by placing a PGP signature in the FLAC header (the FLAC format is quite extensible like this).

 

 

 

If it were just for studio use, there would be no reason to put that code in consumer products.

 

You've proposed one way to do it and I think it's a good way. MQA has elected to use a different method. Where's the story here?

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Seems quite plausible to me. Making sure you can sue people who don't comply with your demands could be considered a form of DRM.

It isn't so much DRM I'm thinking of. DRM is generally aimed at protecting content. This would be aimed more at protecting knowledge (i.e., intellectual property) about a certain way of processing content.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
You've proposed one way to do it and I think it's a good way. MQA has elected to use a different method. Where's the story here?

 

The MQA way makes no sense from an engineering point of view if their actual goals are the stated ones. If the real goal is a tighter form of DRM, it all makes every bit of sense.

Link to comment
The music labels and artists.

 

The industry doesn't like the fact that streaming revenues are not higher, certainly; the artists are complaining they don't get nearly enough of a cut to survive. Even so, it isn't certain how many if any of the current streaming companies will survive and thrive. And I don't hear consumers saying they'd be happy to pay a lot more.

 

So it seems to me we can say that although streaming seems to be the way of the future, how to make it a going proposition for streaming companies, the music industry, and especially artists at prices consumers want to pay is by no means a solved problem.

 

Be very careful equating complaining to something of substance that's reality.

 

Major labels are making money and like to pass off the "problems" on to the streaming service. Why point the finger at yourself when you can point it at someone else and the public takes it hook, line, and sinker.

 

Artists signed deals that gave away revenue. Now they blame streaming services. That doesn't add up.

 

Anyway, a topic for another discussion.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
The MQA way makes no sense from an engineering point of view if their actual goals are the stated ones. If the real goal is a tighter form of DRM, it all makes every bit of sense.

 

I'm not going to defend MQA. You make valid points. I just don't think either of us have the full story. The view is always clearer from the top. Only MQA knows why it makes the decisions it makes.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Be very careful equating complaining to something of substance that's reality.

 

Major labels are making money and like to pass off the "problems" on to the streaming service. Why point the finger at yourself when you can point it at someone else and the public takes it hook, line, and sinker.

 

Artists signed deals that gave away revenue. Now they blame streaming services. That doesn't add up.

 

Anyway, a topic for another discussion.

 

I never said they were right to be blaming each other the way they do. But you're right, that's getting off-topic.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...