MQA and DRM

[mansr]

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...

 

What he said.

[Samuel T Cogley]

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.

 

Hi Chris. If I'm following you here, you're suggesting that "customers" here are consumers who have become aware of MQA through MQA's marketing efforts. These efforts (perhaps arguably) include the Warner MQA dump.

 

So I think some might take issue with your implication that interest in MQA is some kind of organic phenomenon independent of the marketing which, to some extent, you have participated in as well. With the best intentions I'm sure.

[realhifi]

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.

 

Good point. Wouldn't be surprised if Tidal is free to manufacturers also, not sure how MQA will fit into that. Tidal, Spotify, Pandora and Sirius XM are not free if you want to stream them through those A/V receivers though. All need premium versions of their subscriptions in order to work on an A/V receiver or through something like Sonos for that matter. I happen to think that's a good thing and that people should get used to having to pay a monthly fee for those music services. So what they are doing is yes, giving the licensing away to the manufacturers but in return they get a captive audience that pays to have them stream content. I'm betting that both Tidal and MQA are fully aware of this model and are pushing to get this into more of the mainstream manufacturers such as Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Sony, etc. This is (and mobile) is where they will make the most inroads into mainstream usage.

[MikeJazz]

There are two incentives for the download industry to accept MQA.

 

1) It allows them to distribute hires files, without giving customers access to the true original files. Protection of the crown jewels.

 

This would be stupid from their part. If this is true it would imply some process to somehow make the "copy" different from the "crown jewels"...It makes no sense...

 

2) The audiophool community has been made to drool over MQA's alleged deblurring magic and as-the-artist-heard-it nonsense. This includes the less-technically minded consumers as well as the specialist press. This will drive the demand for MQA downloads, and God forbid, MQA discs.

 

Hopefully not. Never seen the blurring questioned by the folks who purchased uber-expensive dCS's or Trinity's...and played the normal cd to great effect... The blurring was never an issue until the arrival of MQA. Suddenly the folks who suffer from audiophilia nervosa start to think that there might be something wrong on their 1.000.000$ Playback system...

[realhifi]

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...

 

I'd argue that a lot of good has come from a number of those technologies that I mentioned. Having them all available to a consumer in one package doesn't feel like a bad thing necessarily but more like a convenience and then it's up to the consumer to pick and choose which they think serves their needs best. You can bet that Tidal and MQA would like nothing better than to be on that list in front of that many people. Also, I don't see where having Pandora, Tidal, Internet Radio, Spotify, dlna, AirPlay is all that bad for music. More like it's bringing music back into mix with video rather than making it an after thought.

[realhifi]

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.

 

Linn did that with DSD also. Bad DSD....bad.

[Cebolla]

Good point. Wouldn't be surprised if Tidal is free to manufacturers also, not sure how MQA will fit into that. Tidal, Spotify, Pandora and Sirius XM are not free if you want to stream them through those A/V receivers though. All need premium versions of their subscriptions in order to work on an A/V receiver or through something like Sonos for that matter.

Not necessarily, what with those jack of all trades A/V receivers also supporting AirPlay & Bluetooth, so relatively straight forward to get them to stream the free/standard/non-premium versions of those online services indirectly via a web browser or the relevant desktop and mobile device apps. Even UPnP/DLNA can be 'bent' to do similar audio capture/'mirrored' indirect streaming, with appropriate software.

[The Computer Audiophile]

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...

Thanks for the reply crenca. I value all feedback.

 

 

I don't believe I've said most of the criticism is over the top. If someone has a link, I'll be happy to confess and admit it. I believe most criticism is well founded. Some of it is over the top, but the same can be said for those who support MQA without questioning it.

 

My view of DRM is my view regardless of MQA. I see DRM as a separate belief that is applied to MQA. I don't believe my view of DRM should be viewed as supporting MQA, rather it should be viewed as my view of DRM and how that's applied to MQA. Just because I'm not totally on the side of those who view DRM as a larger concept than I do, has nothing to do with MQA. I'm supportive of all sides posting their views of DRM and how it applies to MQA.

 

MQA, and all other products should be given a fair chance. If the market wants MQA or any other product, who am I to tell people they are wrong for wanting something.

 

Any company that opposes something that its customers want, is taking an interesting stance. If you think this is implying something, I don't know what to say other than, it isn't. For example, one of my favorite DAC is the Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC RS2. The company doesn't support DSD. I think it's interesting that it doesn't support DSD and in fact the company has tried to sway its customers' opinions toward DSD as well. This is an interesting tactic. By anyone's standards the high end audio industry has seen much better days. It's interesting when high end companies elect to do things counter to customer desires.

 

I receive information from countless sources. Directly from MQA, manufacturers (both for and against MQA), software developers, engineers, etc... I try to vet all of it and offer comments here when I can. The overwhelming majority of people I talk to want MQA to be given a fair chance. The engineers I talk to have been split about 50/50. Half of them think MQA is technically a really good thing, while the other half says it's bad. When people post here on CA about MQA and offer opinions as fact, and I'm presented with clear evidence that those opinions are wrong, I feel obligated to dig a bit deeper and try to get more information out of people. I'm not a proxy for anybody in the industry, so I don't present evidence about someone being wrong when it comes to MQA. I try to get more information.

 

Let's also consider what I have to gain by being one-sided (either for or against MQA). The bottom line is, not much. I can only lose by being one-sided. MQA has become like a political hot-button issue. It makes zero sense for me to take sides.

 

Last, I always encourage links to specific comments when making accusations.

[labjr]

This would be stupid from their part. If this is true it would imply some process to somehow make the "copy" different from the "crown jewels"...It makes no sense...

 

 

Doesn't make sense to me either. Nonetheless but they are using it as a selling point. Who cares about the crown jewels if MQA is better!

 

 

"It's important, though, to protect the interests of studios. If a studio does their archive at 24-bit/192kHz and then uses that same file as something to sell on a hi-rez site, that is basically giving away the crown jewels upon which their entire business is based.

Read more at Spencer Chrislu: Master Quality Authenticated | Stereophile.com

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Chris. If I'm following you here, you're suggesting that "customers" here are consumers who have become aware of MQA through MQA's marketing efforts. These efforts (perhaps arguably) include the Warner MQA dump.

So I think some might take issue with your implication that interest in MQA is some kind of organic phenomenon independent of the marketing which, to some extent, you have participated in as well. With the best intentions I'm sure.

 

I don't imply anything in my posts. I use explicit language.

 

I'd never suggest any interest is organic or otherwise. It really doesn't matter to me why someone wants something. I give adults credit to read something and decide for themselves. If MQA used subliminal messaging on these adults, then I'd take issue with how people came to know about MQA.

[Cebolla]

Linn did that with DSD also. Bad DSD....bad.

Linn hardware might not support DSD, but software designed around the Open systems they actively support and (non-Linn) hardware that use it, certainly do!

[mansr]

I don't imply anything in my posts. I use explicit language.

 

I'd never suggest any interest is organic or otherwise. It really doesn't matter to me why someone wants something. I give adults credit to read something and decide for themselves. If MQA used subliminal messaging on these adults, then I'd take issue with how people came to know about MQA.

 

I'm not aware of subliminal messaging being, but they definitely use misleading language ("MQA is lossless") if not blatant lies ("MQA doesn't have DRM"). They forfeited their "fair chance" the moment they started with these shenanigans.

[labjr]

 

Let's also consider what I have to gain by being one-sided (either for or against MQA). The bottom line is, not much. I can only lose by being one-sided. MQA has become like a political hot-button issue. It makes zero sense for me to take sides.

 

 

I think audio journalists like change and new stuff, good or bad, because traffic is increased on the sites and magazines and it makes ad revenue go up.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I don't imply anything in my posts. I use explicit language.

 

I'd never suggest any interest is organic or otherwise. It really doesn't matter to me why someone wants something. I give adults credit to read something and decide for themselves. If MQA used subliminal messaging on these adults, then I'd take issue with how people came to know about MQA.

 

Perhaps where we don't see eye-to-eye is the gray area between the neutral dissemination of information and willfully participating in a marketing campaign? And as I said previously, some (not saying you necessarily) are willing to give manufacturers the benefit of the doubt by default. That philosophy chooses to be on the "pro-vendor" side of the "neutral" line IMHO.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I'm not aware of subliminal messaging being, but they definitely use misleading language ("MQA is lossless") if not blatant lies ("MQA doesn't have DRM"). They forfeited their "fair chance" the moment they started with these shenanigans.

Each of your points is still debatable.

 

Lossless in the MQA context is a bit different. If you want to stick to a strict black & white definition of lossless, then we must also say that all music not released in the original format of its recording is lossy. CD must be lossy unless the music was recorded at 44.1/16, etc... I used to talk about MQA being lossy, but because it's so different than traditional lossy formats like MP3, I think it requires much more nuance.

 

The DRM issue will never be resolved. MQA still says it has zero DRM. You say it has DRM. I think each person will have to decide for themselves. Could one side be using alternative facts? Who knows.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Perhaps where we don't see eye-to-eye is the gray area between the neutral dissemination of information and willfully participating in a marketing campaign? And as I said previously, some (not saying you necessarily) are willing to give manufacturers the benefit of the doubt by default. That philosophy chooses to be on the "pro-vendor" side of the "neutral" line IMHO.

 

I certainly hear you. The last thing I ever want is to be a participant in a marketing campaign. All of this makes me want to step away from the MQA discussions. The only reason I hesitate is the fact that a very vocal minority talking about one side of an issue doesn't make their side correct and may mislead people. The very vocal minority could be 100% correct, but it's still best to get both sides.

 

Perhaps I'm not the best person to assist in getting both sides of the issue because of my position.

[mansr]

Lossless in the MQA context is a bit different.

 

No it's not. The term lossless has a very well-defined meaning. Redefining established words to suit your marketing spin is the very definition of misleading.

[crenca]

... MQA has become like a political hot-button issue. It makes zero sense for me to take sides....

Last, I always encourage links to specific comments when making accusations.

 

MQA is different from all other products because it is political in a way that those other products are not - it is a legal entity and a standard (this is due to it's proprietary black box and DRM implementation) in a way that PCM, DSD, cables, speakers, etc. are not. This is obvious by the fact that you have already felt compelled to censor information about it. You did not do this out of your own personal scruples (say, against NSFW language or petty personal attacks, etc.) but because of very real legal (i.e. political) ramifications (even if the specifics are speculative).

 

Berkeley's Audio relationship with DSD, or my relationship with a cable is not equivalent to my relationship or Linn's relationship to MQA because the latter is a legal and political entity (which is trying to be a standard) in a way that the former relationships are not. MQA "solves" political problems (e.g. piracy) that are not related to audio SQ as such. Berkeley's position is not a political one as the only problem it is trying to solve is strictly within the "sounds like" domain.

 

When it comes to things political "not taking sides" is practically very very difficult. There really is no way to do it because of the "if you are not with us, you are against us" aspect of the political. None of us really have this luxury I am afraid.

 

As far as what you said, it is true I was going from memory - I retract the "over the top" attribution!

[Samuel T Cogley]

I certainly hear you. The last thing I ever want is to be a participant in a marketing campaign. All of this makes me want to step away from the MQA discussions. The only reason I hesitate is the fact that a very vocal minority talking about one side of an issue doesn't make their side correct and may mislead people. The very vocal minority could be 100% correct, but it's still best to get both sides.

 

Perhaps I'm not the best person to assist in getting both sides of the issue because of my position.

 

I would say this as you don't want your web site / forum to be known as Anti-MQA Central. And I completely sympathize with this. I thank you again for allowing the discussion/debate/venting to happen pretty much unencumbered.

[crenca]

I certainly hear you. The last thing I ever want is to be a participant in a marketing campaign. All of this makes me want to step away from the MQA discussions. The only reason I hesitate is the fact that a very vocal minority talking about one side of an issue doesn't make their side correct and may mislead people. The very vocal minority could be 100% correct, but it's still best to get both sides.

 

Perhaps I'm not the best person to assist in getting both sides of the issue because of my position.

 

I would suggest that the "very vocal minority" characterization appears this way because of the state of the audiophile press. IF they had come to MQA from the beginning with even a small amount of critical thinking and something resembling a journalistic distance and consideration for the consumer, then we would have had a balance conversation/evaluation from the beginning. However, that did not happen - what happened is rather a "marketing campaign", willfully participated (MQA as a birth of a new world and all that) and propagated by these so called "journalists".

 

Where does the consumer get real, balanced information about MQA? Where does he hear a "con"? Why is MQA given a free pass - indeed a boast (up into the "birth of a new world" heights)? When some push back occurs on the forums, why is it denigrated as "a very vocal minority"? Why is Bob given the benefit of the doubt about his motives and what he says about MQA and "very vocal minority" have to prove their positions and are assumed to be bad actors with nefarious and ignorant ideas?

 

Just questions...

[The Computer Audiophile]

I would suggest that the "very vocal minority" characterization appears this way because of the state of the audiophile press. IF they had come to MQA from the beginning with even a small amount of critical thinking and something resembling a journalistic distance and consideration for the consumer, then we would have had a balance conversation/evaluation from the beginning. However, that did not happen - what happened is rather a "marketing campaign", willfully participated (MQA as a birth of a new world and all that) and propagated by these so called "journalists".

 

Where does the consumer get real, balanced information about MQA? Where does he hear a "con"? Why is MQA given a free pass - indeed a boast (up into the "birth of a new world" heights)? When some push back occurs on the forums, why is it denigrated as "a very vocal minority"? Why is Bob given the benefit of the doubt about his motives and what he says about MQA and "very vocal minority" have to prove their positions and are assumed to be bad actors with nefarious and ignorant ideas?

 

Just questions...

 

I used the term very vocal minority because out of the 1.5 million people reading CA, I can probably count on one or two hands the number of people who are very vocal about the negative attributes of MQA. Not meant to denigrate. I believe it's a fact.

 

Lots of good questions though.

[The Computer Audiophile]

No it's not. The term lossless has a very well-defined meaning. Redefining established words to suit your marketing spin is the very definition of misleading.

 

Do you characterize CD as lossless?

[mansr]

Do you characterize CD as lossless?

CD is uncompressed, so the question doesn't make sense.

[The Computer Audiophile]

CD is uncompressed, so the question doesn't make sense.

If you want to get further into the weeds rather than get to the real issues at hand, I'll bow out of this discussion.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I used the term very vocal minority because out of the 1.5 million people reading CA, I can probably count on one or two hands the number of people who are very vocal about the negative attributes of MQA. Not meant to denigrate. I believe it's a fact.

 

Hi Chris. Forgive me, but that looks a bit misleading. Without asking you to give up all your traffic stats, can you say what percentage of that 1.5 million people post? Wouldn't a more useful number be "active posters"? Then I'm thinking the those ten posters don't look like such a minuscule comparative number.