MQA and DRM

[crenca]

Everyone should be free to say what they like, and I should be free to think of it what I like. I never thought much of audio dealers who denigrated their competition, and I don't think much of audio manufacturers who do it either. I haven't read the Linn blog entry, so I don't know to what extent they're doing that, if at all. realhifi (way back in prehistory a number of posts ago) felt that's what Linn was doing and criticized them for it, which it seems to me is a perfectly valid criticism if that is what he feels.

 

MQA is not "competition" for Linn like a competing speaker, amp, etc. from another manufacturer. MQA is a standard - it is what everyone stands on when the compete. This is a critical difference and why MQA demands a different kind of response. I am not saying a "sky is falling" tone is necessary, but I do argue that a kind of realism about what MQA is and a proportional response is called for...

[crenca]

I don't see Linn and MQA as competitors. Far as I can tell, Meridian and MQA are separate entities. Auralic also posted a link to the Linn article on their facebook page earlier today. I had thought Auralic was going to add MQA support to their products. Not sure what happened there.

 

It could be that manufactures are (slowly) coming to the realization that MQA is not like the rest of their competition....

[Jud]

It could be that manufactures are (slowly) coming to the realization that MQA is not like the rest of their competition....

 

It is in the fact that it had better make money or it'll be gone. That's why I think it's perhaps as or more effective to support some of the efforts elsewhere on this forum, like Sal1950's link to a (German, so non-German speakers should use something that has translation capability) Spotify website asking about interest in streaming *non-MQA'd* hi-res.

 

Showing the industry there's money in *un*encumbered hi res may do as much as or more than railing against MQA, particularly in these early days where reactions that anticipate effects out into the future may be dismissed as overwrought.

 

 

Edit: Speaking of "it had better make money or it'll be gone" - that's another reason to support unencumbered hi-res, so the industry doesn't confuse lack of uptake of MQA with lack of interest in hi-res in general.

[mansr]

Do you really have so little that is cogent to contribute in response that you must set up strawmen, or is it just force of habit for you in your discussions to misrepresent what someone else has said?

 

Everyone should be free to say what they like, and I should be free to think of it what I like. I never thought much of audio dealers who denigrated their competition, and I don't think much of audio manufacturers who do it either. I haven't read the Linn blog entry, so I don't know to what extent they're doing that, if at all. realhifi (way back in prehistory a number of posts ago) felt that's what Linn was doing and criticized them for it, which it seems to me is a perfectly valid criticism if that is what he feels.

 

Why don't you go and read it before attempting to discuss it?

[mansr]

You may have skipped a step or two between most DACs starting to incorporate MQA and world domination. If:

 

- Most DACs not only incorporate MQA but make it the only thing they'll play; and

 

- MQA takes over not only the streaming but the download world (or companies no longer sell downloads) and discs go away.

 

If you want to buy a DAC and the only ones fitting your needs and budget have MQA, you end up paying the licence fee whether or not you ever play a single MQA track.

 

You keep saying we're not there yet, so complaints are unjustified. This thinking is flawed. It's just another variant of the old "first they came for ..., and I did not speak" story.

[labjr]

Exactly! If we don't speak up now, don't complain when MQA takes over and there is no untouched hi-res available. Audiophiles are going to remain the largest consumer of high quality music. Now is the time to let them know we won't stand for lack of choice and they'll be losing more than they gain if MQA monopolizes the market.

[The Computer Audiophile]

If you want to buy a DAC and the only ones fitting your needs and budget have MQA, you end up paying the licence fee whether or not you ever play a single MQA track.

 

You keep saying we're not there yet, so complaints are unjustified. This thinking is flawed. It's just another variant of the old "first they came for ..., and I did not speak" story.

 

I don't believe the AudioQuest DragonFly will be more expensive once MQA is enabled. The licensing fee is probably peanuts.

[mansr]

I don't believe the AudioQuest DragonFly will be more expensive once MQA is enabled. The licensing fee is probably peanuts.

 

If the pricing structure is at all typical, there will be a fairly hefty upfront fee as well as a per-unit royalty. The per-unit fees may have an annual cap. This means that for a high-volume product, it is possible to amortise the cost over many units and thus keep the consumer-visible cost low. For a low-volume product, recovering the licensing fees will have a relatively higher cost to the end user. In either case, there is a cost associated, and if it isn't directly incorporated in the price of the product, something else will suffer. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

[realhifi]

If you want to buy a DAC and the only ones fitting your needs and budget have MQA, you end up paying the licence fee whether or not you ever play a single MQA track.

 

 

You mean like when I want to buy a surround sound receiver but I don't really need AirPlay, Atmos, dlna, Bluetooth, Crestron connectivity, dtsX, Spotify Connect, Pandora, Sirius XM, etc.?

[Jud]

If you want to buy a DAC and the only ones fitting your needs and budget have MQA, you end up paying the licence fee whether or not you ever play a single MQA track.

 

You keep saying we're not there yet, so complaints are unjustified. This thinking is flawed. It's just another variant of the old "first they came for ..., and I did not speak" story.

 

 

As someone whose relatives bore concentration camp number tattoos - those being the lucky ones who survived - I could say your language regarding "first they came for..." is once again somewhat overblown. But rather than quibble about semantics, let's talk about substance.

 

I am in fact not saying complaints are unjustified, and if that is your understanding, you have mistaken my meaning. What I am saying is that *in order to best serve the purpose, complaints ought to be credible.* That is why your (and others') graphs in the course of technical analysis of MQA have been far more persuasive to me than anything you (and others) have said.

 

Much of the MQA criticism I have read here has struck me, fairly or not, as hollering "The barbarians are at the gate [MQA is exercising market power to get rid of all other hi res] right now!" Then we see no barbarians are in fact at the gate and discount the entire comment, when there is a clear *potential* danger that is worthy of discussion, but it gets lost in all the sound and fury.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[mansr]

You mean like when I want to buy a surround sound receiver but I don't really need AirPlay, Atmos, dlna, Bluetooth, Crestron connectivity, dtsX, Spotify Connect, Pandora, Sirius XM, etc.?

Exactly like that.

[labjr]

You mean like when I want to buy a surround sound receiver but I don't really need AirPlay, Atmos, dlna, Bluetooth, Crestron connectivity, dtsX, Spotify Connect, Pandora, Sirius XM, etc.?

 

I wonder what Oppo pays? The front of their players look like a standards billboard.

[realhifi]

Exactly like that.

 

The beat goes on.

[Rt66indierock]

I don't believe the AudioQuest DragonFly will be more expensive once MQA is enabled. The licensing fee is probably peanuts.

 

Any idea when MQA will be enabled on the DragonFly?

[oneway23]

I personally prefer local content over streaming, ownership over leasing, etc. Hell, I'm not even that crazy about Roon because I think it's overly intrusive with my files, but, hot damn, there are a few in this thread (and the others) sounding like a bit like absolute looney toons, what with the apocalypto talk and the cataclysmic reckoning. This isn't a third-world coup d'etat, it's an entirely optional avenue for streaming that, at least as of right now, isn't costing Tidal subscribers a penny more than it did last month.

 

I get all the DRM boogey talk, to an extent, and, sure, there's merit in discussing its potentially destructive effects but, look, realistically, every avenue in entertainment is shifting, from tv/movies to software and videogames, to a similar model. Do you truly expect the music industry to sit pat while everyone else in entertainment tries to protect their property? I suppose no one in here uses Netflix? Plays games on Steam? How in Bob Stuart is MQA preventing anyone from continuing to listen to their personally-owned CDs/SACDs/DVD-As/Vinyl/Cassettes? Am I missing something?

 

Even all the talk about land-grab and extortion is a bit much. Again I foresee the potential issues, of which there are many, but, where, exactly, in the press release for MQA did the label suits mention that they were eradicating every other commercially available option? Is it possible, say, five years down the road? Maybe it is. Maybe every link in the industry chain succumbs to the Stuart shakedown, who knows? Maybe I'm naive, but, I'm pretty sure that if physical media disappears one day, it likely won't be because of Bob Stuart. Physical media sure does seem to be fading fast, and, in that regard, I empathize with the fear, but, as of now, my suggestion is to continue freely buying CDs and their ilk. If you're not buying into streaming, or, if you see MQA as nothing more than propaganda, then, you've spent nothing and you've lost nothing. Continue buying whatever medium you listen on. That is all we, as consumers, can be expected to do. Vote with our wallets. I believe, however unfortunate, that none of us music lovers who would even care about these sorts of issues are a big enough demographic anymore to fundamentally shift the market and where it's heading. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I also see a lot of vilification going on here, and I'm not entirely sure why...Is it because Bob Stuart is peddling something to the labels that no one believes is worthwhile? Is it because Bob Stuart wants and expects to make money after recouping all of the R&D? I'm not in the industry, and, I'm sure there are a multitude of things at play, but, I'm having a hard time imagining that the amount of hand-wringing and diabolical cackling currently going on in closed door boardrooms approaches the levels that many seem to be envisioning here.

I greatly appreciate the technical analysis going on. I also appreciate being made aware of potential red flags. All important developments as MQA moves forward within the industry, but, it's also early days. I'm not ready to start railing against the armed occupation just yet...

[crenca]

It is in the fact that it had better make money or it'll be gone. That's why I think it's perhaps as or more effective to support some of the efforts elsewhere on this forum, like Sal1950's link to a (German, so non-German speakers should use something that has translation capability) Spotify website asking about interest in streaming *non-MQA'd* hi-res.

 

Showing the industry there's money in *un*encumbered hi res may do as much as or more than railing against MQA, particularly in these early days where reactions that anticipate effects out into the future may be dismissed as overwrought.

 

 

Edit: Speaking of "it had better make money or it'll be gone" - that's another reason to support unencumbered hi-res, so the industry doesn't confuse lack of uptake of MQA with lack of interest in hi-res in general.

 

I can't disagree with the propriety of your argument here - yes manufacturers need positve reasons to support unencumbered (non DRM/IP software standards) hi res. That said, the negative is usually a more powerful motivation than the positive.

 

Let's say for argument sake that MQA is a wash against hi res, no more or no less money to be made for industry players. Or, let's consider that MQA is a positive as far as sales go - it actually has the real effect of increasing hi res sales, at least a little bit. Even in these scenario's the negative still stands. Everything Linn says about MQA is true. It is still a "land grab", it is still has a real stifling effect all through the industry chain, most especially to consumers and manufactures like Linn. Only MQA really benifits (they extract $ and through control of the entire chain) and labels/artists (who convince themselves that they are getting piracy/DRM protection). In other words you can still make money but decide that the effect of giving control to an end-to-end black box proprietary solution is not in your or your customers interests.

 

MQA is not a product like other products that plays "fair" in the marketplace...

[crenca]

You mean like when I want to buy a surround sound receiver but I don't really need AirPlay, Atmos, dlna, Bluetooth, Crestron connectivity, dtsX, Spotify Connect, Pandora, Sirius XM, etc.?

 

Good illustration - it proves the point that we don't want happened in video (the domain of a "surround sound receiver) occurring to music. No good comes from it...

[Rt66indierock]

As someone whose relatives bore concentration camp number tattoos - those being the lucky ones who survived - I could say your language regarding "first they came for..." is once again somewhat overblown. But rather than quibble about semantics, let's talk about substance.

 

I am in fact not saying complaints are unjustified, and if that is your understanding, you have mistaken my meaning. What I am saying is that *in order to best serve the purpose, complaints ought to be credible.* That is why your (and others') graphs in the course of technical analysis of MQA have been far more persuasive to me than anything you (and others) have said.

 

Much of the MQA criticism I have read here has struck me, fairly or not, as hollering "The barbarians are at the gate [MQA is exercising market power to get rid of all other hi res] right now!" Then we see no barbarians are in fact at the gate and discount the entire comment, when there is a clear *potential* danger that is worthy of discussion, but it gets lost in all the sound and fury.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

That’s why I called MQA vaporware on January 2^nd. There is no music in the greater scheme of things to buy in the United States. When there are 10,001 albums to stream at least then let’s have a discussion about whether MQA is commercially viable. I’ll start to have concerns when the amount of MQA encoded hi-res files is enough to entice a million people to pay a premium to listen to them over a streaming service other than TIDAL.

[smartin]

You mean like when I want to buy a surround sound receiver but I don't really need AirPlay, Atmos, dlna, Bluetooth, Crestron connectivity, dtsX, Spotify Connect, Pandora, Sirius XM, etc.?

 

Exactly like that.

 

Not sure about the others, but Spotify, Pandora and Sirius XM are free (in fact all three have at times offered incentives to hardware manufacturers to incorporate support). That is more the norm than the exception for content delivery services. While MQA is not a content deliverer, their main revenue stream depends on that model, so I'd be very surprised if their hardware licensing is costly (may even be free...). There's a reason Microsoft has sold more than 150million Xbox consoles at a considerable loss/unit.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Linn, and other companies who've come out against MQA, has taken an interesting approach. Customers have shown interest in MQA and possibly like MQA, yet the company says no way and that MQA is bad. In a way it's like telling your customer s/he is wrong.

 

I'm not taking sides, just noting this interesting approach.

[labjr]

Linn, and other companies who've come out against MQA, has taken an interesting approach. Customers have shown interest in MQA and possibly like MQA, yet the company says no way and that MQA is bad. In a way it's like telling your customer s/he is wrong.

 

I'm not taking sides, just noting this interesting approach.

 

Well I sort of see the record labels as the customer. Ultimately the music consumer or equipment manufacturer may have no choice if the labels choose to use MQA exclusively. I don't think those against are wrong for that having that concern. Viability of MQA probably depends on market dominance. I would think the time to speak up is before that happens

[crenca]

Linn, and other companies who've come out against MQA, has taken an interesting approach. Customers have shown interest in MQA and possibly like MQA, yet the company says no way and that MQA is bad. In a way it's like telling your customer s/he is wrong.

 

I'm not taking sides, just noting this interesting approach.

 

Companies make decisions like this all the time. Customers don't get everything, or even most of what they want. Customers want the best for prices that approach the worse for example, and companies have to (gently) explain that the customers don't really want that - because then they would not get the best.

 

I behooves suppliers like Linn to educate the consumer who is being bombarded with what amounts to propaganda from the "audiophile press". It is good (for them and their consumers in the long run) that they are speaking to the real cons of MQA...

[mansr]

Linn, and other companies who've come out against MQA, has taken an interesting approach. Customers have shown interest in MQA and possibly like MQA, yet the company says no way and that MQA is bad. In a way it's like telling your customer s/he is wrong.

 

I'm not taking sides, just noting this interesting approach.

 

Despite your insistence, you are taking sides. You consistently defend MQA while telling anyone suspicious of it they are wrong, stupid, or both. While you permit an open discussion, and I thank you for that, you are clearly on the side of MQA. That is of course your right, but please stop trying to pretend otherwise. It's unbecoming.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Despite your insistence, you are taking sides. You consistently defend MQA while telling anyone suspicious of it they are wrong, stupid, or both. While you permit an open discussion, and I thank you for that, you are clearly on the side of MQA. That is of course your right, but please stop trying to pretend otherwise. It's unbecoming.

 

Give us examples or your lying.

[crenca]

Give us examples or your lying.

 

Well, I think you have said that (correct me if I am wrong) that most of the criticism of MQA is over the top. You have said explicitly you do not find it convincing (you maintain a DRM is-copy-protection view, etc.). You have said explicitly that MQA is a product like any other product and should be given a "fair chance" to be successful. You find it "interesting" when companies oppose it, implying that they are working against the best interests of their customers.

 

Fact is, you have one-in-a-half feet in the door of MQA & "the industry" and about 1/2 a foot in the consumer (and now increasingly, the part of the industry that is realizing that MQA is not in their interests either - Benchmark, Linn, Schiit, JRiver, etc.) side of things.

 

I appreciate balance but this is the way things look at the moment...