Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA Software / Hardware Decode Etc... Questions


Recommended Posts

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.

 

Actually this way you proposed wouldn't work because the hash would have to be delivered with the bitstream, not separately as the Dac has to see it from spdif data sent to it. Also, it can't be computed from the whole file but has to be something that with any segment of the file can compute and verify parts of it within fractions of a second to verify authenticity. So probably the crypto code is necessary to do unfolding and authentication in this fashion.

Link to comment
Actually this way you proposed wouldn't work because the hash would have to be delivered with the bitstream, not separately as the Dac has to see it from spdif data sent to it. Also, it can't be computed from the whole file but has to be something that with any segment of the file can compute and verify parts of it within fractions of a second to verify authenticity. So probably the crypto code is necessary to do unfolding and authentication in this fashion.

 

Why does the DAC have to do it? I thought the selling point was to provide assurance against tampering by middlemen along the distribution chain. Do you not trust your own system to provide accurate playback? I know getting bit-perfect output from some systems can require a bit of configuration effort, but there are simpler ways of verifying a correct setup than encrypting all music.

Link to comment

I have expressed my thoughts on how you are going about this operation. Openly making people nervous and excited instead of privately conducting honest research with the aim of releasing your findings should they prove worthwhile for others to be concerned about. Without constantly scanning a handful of threads that lose content daily it's become impossible to tell if anything of note or concern has been uncovered.

 

So I'd like to ask for a status, mansr. Since a summation seems far off in the distance. Not only for myself. As I'm sure others would appreciate a single post to examine.

Link to comment
Why does the DAC have to do it? I thought the selling point was to provide assurance against tampering by middlemen along the distribution chain. Do you not trust your own system to provide accurate playback? I know getting bit-perfect output from some systems can require a bit of configuration effort, but there are simpler ways of verifying a correct setup than encrypting all music.

 

Now you're really going backwards. Streaming MQA on a phone, you suggest the end user should find an app that can verify a PGP key rather than just play it with the info in the playback app?

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

Link to comment
Now you're really going backwards. Streaming MQA on a phone, you suggest the end user should find an app that can verify a PGP key rather than just play it with the info in the playback app?

 

The playback app could do the verification. That's certainly much less of a burden that what MQA places on the system.

Link to comment
Now you're really going backwards. Streaming MQA on a phone, you suggest the end user should find an app that can verify a PGP key rather than just play it with the info in the playback app?

Isn't this the "Authentication" part of Master Qualified Authenticated (MQA)? I understand it's about message (music file) authentication not encryption.

Pareto Audio aka nuckleheadaudio

Link to comment

When has the music consumer ever needed "authentication"? Consider this: boutique remasters as they have been produced up to this point would fall outside of this whole authentication scheme.

 

As I said in a previous thread, the only thing "authentication" means to the consumer is that the record label intended to master the catalog title with atrocious dynamic compression. And that is the antithesis of audiophilia. I believe a case can be made that MQA, in its present form, is anti-audiophile. MQA is a three letter acronym, and Warner's MQA dump does not contain much in the way of "Quality". The emperor wears no clothes.

Link to comment
OK, so we can tell if the music track is authentic, or not. How is this a threat to our music enjoyment, SQ issues aside?

 

I have a better one : authentic to what ??!

If that were only authentic to the original master ... but it isn't.

So sadly this is all based on Remasters to begin with. Or was it faked Hires ? I forgot a bit.

OK, it was both. So the main pain of Tidal is that it contains mainly Remasters. This is of course because the Warners et al don't provide anything else. And now ? now we're again confronted with the Hires sh*t which isn't that but it is exactly *that* what MQA provides.

 

So I see a threat alright.

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
When has the music consumer ever needed "authentication"? Consider this: boutique remasters as they have been produced up to this point would fall outside of this whole authentication scheme.

 

As I said in a previous thread, the only thing "authentication" means to the consumer is that the record label intended to master the catalog title with atrocious dynamic compression. And that is the antithesis of audiophilia. I believe a case can be made that MQA, in its present form, is anti-audiophile. MQA is a three letter acronym, and Warner's MQA dump does not contain much in the way of "Quality". The emperor wears no clothes.

 

I have a better one : authentic to what ??!

If that were only authentic to the original master ... but it isn't.

So sadly this is all based on Remasters to begin with. Or was it faked Hires ? I forgot a bit.

OK, it was both. So the main pain of Tidal is that it contains mainly Remasters. This is of course because the Warners et al don't provide anything else. And now ? now we're again confronted with the Hires sh*t which isn't that but it is exactly *that* what MQA provides.

 

So I see a threat alright.

 

I don't blame you guys for not having all the information. I was arguing your exact points not that long ago.

 

Authentication has no guarantee about how an album should sound or how it was mastered etc... Those are creator decisions. It does however, guarantee that the music we receive is the official music that was released by the label. There are cases of online stores selling lossless music that originated from lossy iTunes downloads.

 

People are taking the authentication thing way too far. They want authentication to equal good sound. That's telling an artist, mastering engineer, or label what to create, produce, and sell rather than giving them the freedom to sell what they want. If we don't like it we don't have to purchase it.

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

Link to comment
They want authentication to equal good sound. That's telling an artist, mastering engineer, or label what to create, produce, and sell rather than giving them the freedom to sell what they want.

 

This is not entirely true because what we want is the original master. This has been produced all right. Only the part about what they want to sell is true, sadly.

Artists don't have a voice anyway, do they ?

Or is it about what they have created in digital format already ? and that this coincidentally was part of the loudness war ?

Maybe we should all be allowed to upload our rips to Tidal so Warner can redistribute those. ;)

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
I don't blame you guys for not having all the information. I was arguing your exact points not that long ago.

 

Authentication has no guarantee about how an album should sound or how it was mastered etc... Those are creator decisions. It does however, guarantee that the music we receive is the official music that was released by the label. There are cases of online stores selling lossless music that originated from lossy iTunes downloads.

 

People are taking the authentication thing way too far. They want authentication to equal good sound. That's telling an artist, mastering engineer, or label what to create, produce, and sell rather than giving them the freedom to sell what they want. If we don't like it we don't have to purchase it.

 

+1

Again, my only problem with MQA is IF MQA files sound worse than non-MQA files on non-MQA hardware, and we end up only with access to the MQA version. As long as we have a choice of versions, I don't have an issue with it.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
+1

Again, my only problem with MQA is IF MQA files sound worse than non-MQA files on non-MQA hardware, and we end up only with access to the MQA version. As long as we have a choice of versions, I don't have an issue with it.

I pretty much agree. If MQA sounds worse than non-MQA in that scenario, it's a major concern.

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

Link to comment
This is not entirely true because what we want is the original master. This has been produced all right. Only the part about what they want to sell is true, sadly.

Artists don't have a voice anyway, do they ?

Or is it about what they have created in digital format already ? and that this coincidentally was part of the loudness war ?

Maybe we should all be allowed to upload our rips to Tidal so Warner can redistribute those. ;)

 

But Peter, even without MQA that access isn't available to us. Note all of the legacy albums recorded to tape that are now available only (or mostly) in "remastered" versions that sound worse than the original - mostly because of excessive volume compression.

 

Chris is right that in a broad sense that this is a creative decision by the "artist"; but in reality that "artist" is often someone at a record company that doesn't give a whit about SQ and is only producing with the goal of a result made for cheap earbuds being listened to on a loud city street.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
This is not entirely true because what we want is the original master. This has been produced all right. Only the part about what they want to sell is true, sadly.

Artists don't have a voice anyway, do they ?

Or is it about what they have created in digital format already ? and that this coincidentally was part of the loudness war ?

Maybe we should all be allowed to upload our rips to Tidal so Warner can redistribute those. ;)

 

Good point. It looks like what we want, the original master, isn't what all labels want to sell us. It's not what movie studios have ever sold us. The music industry is probably moving toward that model.

 

I'd much rather have the original master of all things I purchase, but I can accept whatever the people who own the content want to sell me.

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

Link to comment
As long as we have a choice of versions, I don't have an issue with it.

 

Already today you have not. But it depends on the player. So if you have rights for Tidal "Masters" (which implies the subscription for lossless today) then you can not choose which one is MQA and which one is not. Mind you, this is today and this will change in the (hopefully) near future. So look :

 

 

MQA09.png

 

 

Which one is the MQA ? you can't tell. Of course this is outside of the Tidal Desktop App, but there's more around than that alone. Anyway, you make your choice out of these and in this case you have 50% chance to pick the MQA one, WHILE you don't own a decoder.

Bad luck ...

 

Btw, the MQA one is the right hand one. But a week ago it was complete another one ...

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
Already today you have not. But it depends on the player. So if you have rights for Tidal "Masters" (which implies the subscription for lossless today) then you can not choose which one is MQA and which one is not. Mind you, this is today and this will change in the (hopefully) near future. So look :

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]33118[/ATTACH]

 

 

Which one is the MQA ? you can't tell. Of course this is outside of the Tidal Desktop App, but there's more around than that alone. Anyway, you make your choice out of these and in this case you have 50% chance to pick the MQA one, WHILE you don't own a decoder.

Bad luck ...

 

Btw, the MQA one is the right hand one. But a week ago it was complete another one ...

 

Currently it's impossible to know which version is MQA. Fortunately this isn't like tasting the cool aide laced with cyanide. Play one of the albums and see if it streams at 24 bit, or 48 kHz or whatever.

 

Even cooler, how about we play the albums and listen to which ever version sounds best to us? Now that's a heck of a concept.

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

Link to comment
But Peter, even without MQA that access isn't available to us. Note all of the legacy albums recorded to tape that are now available only (or mostly) in "remastered" versions that sound worse than the original - mostly because of excessive volume compression.

 

Chris is right that in a broad sense that this is a creative decision by the "artist"; but in reality that "artist" is often someone at a record company that doesn't give a whit about SQ and is only producing with the goal of a result made for cheap earbuds being listened to on a loud city street.

 

This is all correct of course. But one thing s*cks, and that is that MQA wasn't made for those earbud kids. Or do we have that one wrong maybe ?

 

Here's a new one for you (maybe) :

If I ask MQA whether they are also going to MQA Redbook, the answer is : Yes !

So what we don't must underestimate is that currently MQA is somehow hooked to Hires and Hires alone, which automatically forces us in first the Remasters corner and next the flawed Hires corner. But there's really no reason not to apply it to Redbook which really would allow to apply it to your rips (so to speak). And don't say too quickly that this won't be optimal because so far Redbook is more optimal in not squashed form than any Remaster and thus also Hires. For me it is.

So the easy roll off part will not be applicable (no frequency headroom), but the "anti ringing" (deblur) of MQA will be. FWTW of course ...

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
Already today you have not. But it depends on the player. So if you have rights for Tidal "Masters" (which implies the subscription for lossless today) then you can not choose which one is MQA and which one is not. Mind you, this is today and this will change in the (hopefully) near future. So look :

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]33118[/ATTACH]

 

 

Which one is the MQA ? you can't tell. Of course this is outside of the Tidal Desktop App, but there's more around than that alone. Anyway, you make your choice out of these and in this case you have 50% chance to pick the MQA one, WHILE you don't own a decoder.

Bad luck ...

 

Btw, the MQA one is the right hand one. But a week ago it was complete another one ...

 

It's still new. I assume at some point Tidal will give us some way to tell them apart. Or Roon will - for those that play Tidal via Roon. When they have many thousands of MQA and non MQA versions of the same albums in their database, I assume enough users will ask for them to label the 2 versions in some way that they can be differentiated.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
I don't blame you guys for not having all the information. I was arguing your exact points not that long ago.

 

Authentication has no guarantee about how an album should sound or how it was mastered etc... Those are creator decisions. It does however, guarantee that the music we receive is the official music that was released by the label. There are cases of online stores selling lossless music that originated from lossy iTunes downloads.

 

People are taking the authentication thing way too far. They want authentication to equal good sound. That's telling an artist, mastering engineer, or label what to create, produce, and sell rather than giving them the freedom to sell what they want. If we don't like it we don't have to purchase it.

 

C'mon Chris, that's a little condescending. Up-rezed lossy files are easy to spot. We don't need MQA for that. What about Madonna's "Like A Virgin"? The "hi-rez" version was sampled from a tape that captured a lower than Redbook quality digital master years ago, when that digital version could still be played back on that old equipment. That same tape gets sampled decades later at 192kHz and MQA gets slapped on at the end, and Voila! Audiophile Nirvana! How is MQA protecting us from that? Hint: It's not.

 

Can you explain why you and other apparent MQA enthusiasts seem so willing to give the record labels a pass on willfully producing non-audiophile product? We have early digital examples of catalog titles (Fleetwood Mac "target" CDs are a great example) where the original dynamic range was preserved. It's quite disingenuous to dismiss valid complaints of willful dynamic range compression as some kind of "artistic decision". It's antithetical to audiophilla and yet, you seem quite happy that the "Q" is "MQA" is a deserved moniker.

Link to comment
I'd much rather have the original master of all things I purchase, but I can accept whatever the people who own the content want to sell me.

Chris,

You sound like there is no choice, but I (naively?) want to believe that we (the demand side) can somewhat influence the industry (the supply side)...

Link to comment
Chris,

You sound like there is no choice, but I (naively?) want to believe that we (the demand side) can somewhat influence the industry (the supply side)...

 

I don't believe the supply side demand from a small group of us will make a difference. The movie industry delivers what it wants. The music industry will deliver what it wants.

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

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...