MQA and DRM

[mansr]

I agree.

 

Well, aren't you funny. Firedog and I are saying the same thing, yet you insist I'm wrong while agreeing with him.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Well, aren't you funny. Firedog and I are saying the same thing, yet you insist I'm wrong while agreeing with him.

 

I've concluded you are trying hard to not understand me.

[mansr]

I'm not in a hole.

 

This is about much more than a static definition. The apple cart has been upset. People want to put things into categories that make them easier to understand for themselves and to push their own agenda. I'm pretty sure you all can see the difference between MQA and MP3. They aren't even close. Yet, you like to inject the word lossy whenever someone says anything positive about MQA. It's your effort to persuade people into your way of thinking. I get it. Do what you want.

 

However, it seems a bit obtuse to group MP3 and MQA in the same bucket. Thus, why I don't think the traditional terms lossy and lossless apply. You are using old school terminology to describe something that's a bit different. MQA is a combination of lossless and lossy, and it should be discussed with nuance.

 

In addition, it seems like people railing against MQA don't actually think any of this matters, they just want to see it fail. The same people who argue that high resolution can't be distinguished from redbook, are the same people saying MQA is terrible because it measures a certain way. In essence you are asking for subjective tests when it fits your narrative, but now you want to eschew subjective tests because so far they have refuted your MQA is terrible narrative.

 

MQA isn't lossless, I've said it a number of times. But, it isn't like an old school compression scheme. Grouping the two together is digging a deeper hole that goes against your crusade.

 

Do you know anything whatsoever about how audio compression actually works?

[mansr]

I've concluded you are trying hard to not understand me.

 

Funny. I was just thinking the same thing about you.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Do you know anything whatsoever about how audio compression actually works?

 

Again, you are trying your best to not understand anything I'm saying. As you said in your PM, you've baited people on CA before and I think you are at it again.

[mansr]

Again, you are trying your best to not understand anything I'm saying. As you said in your PM, you've baited people on CA before and I think you are at it again.

 

I'm not baiting you. Why would I? You're already in a hole.

 

The PM referred to concerned Michael Lavorgna's uncivil behaviour, and I said that "I admit I deliberately provoked him a little, but only after he started insulting everybody." Please do not misrepresent what I've said. I have never wittingly initiated an argument with anyone on CA.

 

Can we now stop bickering? You seem to have conceded that MQA is fact not lossless according to the usual definition, so let's leave it at that.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I'm not baiting you. Why would I? You're already in a hole.

 

The PM referred to concerned Michael Lavorgna's uncivil behaviour, and I said that "I admit I deliberately provoked him a little, but only after he started insulting everybody." Please do not misrepresent what I've said. I have never wittingly initiated an argument with anyone on CA.

 

Can we now stop bickering? You seem to have conceded that MQA is fact not lossless according to the usual definition, so let's leave it at that.

 

The crusaders would love to leave it at that. But, it's misleading.

[mansr]

The crusaders would love to leave it at that. But, it's misleading.

 

I really hoped you would take the chance to cease the attacks on me. You didn't. Nevertheless, I'm done. I'll let others be the judges of your character.

[crenca]

I'm not in a hole.

 

This is about much more than a static definition. The apple cart has been upset. People want to put things into categories that make them easier to understand for themselves and to push their own agenda. I'm pretty sure you all can see the difference between MQA and MP3. They aren't even close. Yet, you like to inject the word lossy whenever someone says anything positive about MQA. It's your effort to persuade people into your way of thinking. I get it. Do what you want.

 

However, it seems a bit obtuse to group MP3 and MQA in the same bucket. Thus, why I don't think the traditional terms lossy and lossless apply. You are using old school terminology to describe something that's a bit different. MQA is a combination of lossless and lossy, and it should be discussed with nuance.

 

In addition, it seems like people railing against MQA don't actually think any of this matters, they just want to see it fail. The same people who argue that high resolution can't be distinguished from redbook, are the same people saying MQA is terrible because it measures a certain way. In essence you are asking for subjective tests when it fits your narrative, but now you want to eschew subjective tests because so far they have refuted your MQA is terrible narrative.

 

MQA isn't lossless, I've said it a number of times. But, it isn't like an old school compression scheme. Grouping the two together is digging a deeper hole that goes against your crusade.

 

Your post Chris is a very good illustration as to why MQA/DRM is as much a political phenomenon as it is technical, SQ, or even "market" product/play.

 

It is you my friend who are trying to redefine terms ("nuance" and all that). Perhaps it is the radical subjectivist tendency in audio. You accuse certain of us of not grasping the nuance but we do - we just know what the terms mean and realize neither you (or Bob) or we ourselves get to redefine "lossless" to suit some goal of the moment. Your also getting lost in the details, as in:

 

"The same people who argue that high resolution can't be distinguished from redbook, are the same people saying MQA is terrible because it measures a certain way. "

 

This only reveals that your not understanding, in particular the relationship between certain kinds of measurements, certain theories of ultra sonic information and how it relates to the audible band, etc. What they are saying is that Bob is saying one thing (and relying on one assertion) and then doing something else in his product. They are pointing out something incoherent and hypocritical on Bob's part. This is something he understands quite well himself (it is not a simple mistake on his part) because as you have pointed out more than once he is a well respected audio engineer and even an "audio savant" (your words). I can't follow the details either (I started out as an engineering student but realized I did not want to work that hard and switched my sophomore year) but I get the overall meaning - you don't.

 

As far as a bland, one to one "lossless = mp3 = MQA" no one is doing that (or perhaps they are - I, Mansr, etc. are not) and I don't understand why you keep asserting this. I agree, MQA is not the same as MP3 SQ wise, and they do not belong in the same container SQ wise. This does not negate the fact that they are in fact in the same lossy container as far as a digital design (by definition).

 

Finally, you can use the word "crusade" all you want but it adds nothing. The terms of the MQA 'debate' (such as it is) were set not by myself, mansr, etc. They were set by Bob, JA, and an Audiophile press (propaganda?) machine that characterized MQA as "a birth of a new world". Jason Serinus accused me on the Stereophile blog of "waging a war" on MQA a few months back. This is sort of like Germany invading Poland and when they find a few Poles who actually shoot back complaining that the Poles are "waging war". It is the very definition of hypocritical and for some reason you are joining that party. If you want to MQA to be fairly evaluated you going to have to tolerate a bit of ambiguity, emotion, and even bias (but more than this, you are going to have to understand what the technical stuff actually means - like someone said upstream go back to basics). We all are - MQA is not like other products as it is a legal and political entity in ways that others aren't...

[The Computer Audiophile]

Your post Chris is a very good illustration as to why MQA/DRM is as much a political phenomenon as it is technical, SQ, or even "market" product/play.

 

It is you my friend who are trying to redefine terms ("nuance" and all that). Perhaps it is the radical subjectivist tendency in audio. You accuse certain of us of not grasping the nuance but we do - we just know what the terms mean and realize neither you (or Bob) or we ourselves get to redefine "lossless" to suit some goal of the moment. Your also getting lost in the details, as in:

 

"The same people who argue that high resolution can't be distinguished from redbook, are the same people saying MQA is terrible because it measures a certain way. "

 

This only reveals that your not understanding, in particular the relationship between certain kinds of measurements, certain theories of ultra sonic information and how it relates to the audible band, etc. What they are saying is that Bob is saying one thing (and relying on one assertion) and then doing something else in his product. They are pointing out something incoherent and hypocritical on Bob's part. This is something he understands quite well himself (it is not a simple mistake on his part) because as you have pointed out more than once he is a well respected audio engineer and even an "audio savant" (your words). I can't follow the details either (I started out as an engineering student but realized I did not want to work that hard and switched my sophomore year) but I get the overall meaning - you don't.

 

As far as a bland, one to one "lossless = mp3 = MQA" no one is doing that (or perhaps they are - I, Mansr, etc. are not) and I don't understand why you keep asserting this. I agree, MQA is not the same as MP3 SQ wise, and they do not belong in the same container SQ wise. This does not negate the fact that they are in fact in the same lossy container as far as a digital design (by definition).

 

Finally, you can use the word "crusade" all you want but it adds nothing. The terms of the MQA 'debate' (such as it is) were set not by myself, mansr, etc. They were set by Bob, JA, and an Audiophile press (propaganda?) machine that characterized MQA as "a birth of a new world". Jason Serinus accused me on the Stereophile blog of "waging a war" on MQA a few months back. This is sort of like Germany invading Poland and when they find a few Poles who actually shoot back complaining that the Poles are "waging war". It is the very definition of hypocritical and for some reason you are joining that party. If you want to MQA to be fairly evaluated you going to have to tolerate a bit of ambiguity, emotion, and even bias (but more than this, you are going to have to understand what the technical stuff actually means - like someone said upstream go back to basics). We all are - MQA is not like other products as it is a legal and political entity in ways that others aren't...

Paint me into whatever corner you want. I've argued both sides of MQA, directly to Bob's face on camera and here on CA.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I really hoped you would take the chance to cease the attacks on me. You didn't. Nevertheless, I'm done. I'll let others be the judges of your character.

 

That's on you if you think I attacked you.

[crenca]

Paint me into whatever corner you want. I've argued both sides of MQA, directly to Bob's face on camera and here on CA.

 

No corner painting is necessary I think as long as we remember the "hot button" nature of MQA. While I appreciate you asking certain hard questions of Bob on camera, you do realize that it is of limited value. Your just the questioner, the "press", and he is the "expert" and the respected one. In other words he is the one (and not you) with the technical and political authority (authority not in a bland sense - authority as in "wisdom"). He holds all the cards including the trump card of:

 

"Trust us - we can't talk about the details because of IP and the threat of our competitors copying us, but everyone who is anyone (i.e. respected recording engineers, etc.) agrees that we really have come up with something fantastic here"

 

So when folks "on the forums" (who are always denigrated as know nothing internet warriors) actually look at the technical details to the extant they can (as mansr and others are doing here) and point out things are not as they seem (remember, that appearances have been defined by Bob and the other above mentioned authorities) then consider it is not a "crusade", not simply the other side of a political dialectic. Consider the possibility that it might be reality itself, and Bob's "birth of a new world" is not that at all...

[The Computer Audiophile]

No corner painting is necessary I think as long as we remember the "hot button" nature of MQA. While I appreciate you asking certain hard questions of Bob on camera, you do realize that it is of limited value. Your just the questioner, the "press", and he is the "expert" and the respected one. In other words he is the one (and not you) with the technical and political authority (authority not in a bland sense - authority as in "wisdom"). He holds all the cards including the trump card of:

 

"Trust us - we can't talk about the details because of IP and the threat of our competitors copying us, but everyone who is anyone (i.e. respected recording engineers, etc.) agrees that we really have come up with something fantastic here"

 

So when folks "on the forums" (who are always denigrated as know nothing internet warriors) actually look at the technical details to the extant they can (as mansr and others are doing here) and point out things are not as they seem (remember, that appearances have been defined by Bob and the other above mentioned authorities) then consider it is not a "crusade", not simply the other side of a political dialectic. Consider the possibility that it might be reality itself, and Bob's "birth of a new world" is not that at all...

I'm with you 100%. Seriously. Bob could be full of it. Mansr could be completely correct. The thing is, nobody knows. I actually think mansr has some very good points that cause me concern about MQA. I like many of your points as well. I just get put off by what seems like a crusade and the unwillingness to discuss both sides. I wouldn't even be involved in this thread if both sides were argued.

[crenca]

I'm with you 100%. Seriously. Bob could be full of it. Mansr could be completely correct. The thing is, nobody knows. I actually think mansr has some very good points that cause me concern about MQA. I like many of your points as well. I just get put off by what seems like a crusade and the unwillingness to discuss both sides. I wouldn't even be involved in this thread if both sides were argued.

 

I think it was scintila who defended MQA as having as being a REAL lossless container in the 16/44 "area", but then I think he admits that because of noise shaping it in fact might not be (I am probably butchering his assertion). But I have wondered the same thing, where is the "other side" of the technical/digital facts (that's the thing about mansr graphs - they are measurements and not mere assertions - for someone to disgree they have prove that they are either incorrect in of themselves, or irrelevant to the thesis)?

 

Perhaps the other side is a no show because the other side would have to come out from behind the curtain of IP (in other words it would have to be an engineer at MQA)? Perhaps this is not necessary, it just takes someone willing to defend it on a technical level?

[Samuel T Cogley]

I'm with you 100%. Seriously. Bob could be full of it. Mansr could be completely correct. The thing is, nobody knows. I actually think mansr has some very good points that cause me concern about MQA. I like many of your points as well. I just get put off by what seems like a crusade and the unwillingness to discuss both sides. I wouldn't even be involved in this thread if both sides were argued.

 

As I've argued several times, the playing field is not level. "Citizen skeptics" just don't get the same amount of de facto respect that someone like Bob will engender with audiophile consumers. I've certainly been on other forums where this discussion would be seen as an unmitigated attack on MQA/Bob and would be purged and the authors all get banned.

 

The other side *IS* being argued, in the form of your MQA "information" as a service to your readers (one example, your interview with Bob is another). You don't see it that way? Must there also be a keystroke-for-keystroke rebuttal to everything the skeptics post?

[The Computer Audiophile]

As I've argued several times, the playing field is not level. "Citizen skeptics" just don't get the same amount of de facto respect that someone like Bob will engender with audiophile consumers. I've certainly been on other forums where this discussion would be seen as an unmitigated attack on MQA/Bob and would be purged and the authors all get banned.

 

The other side *IS* being argued, in the form of your MQA "information" as a service to your readers (one example, your interview with Bob is another). You don't see it that way? Must there also be a keystroke-for-keystroke rebuttal to everything the skeptics post?

Anonymous skeptics have proven themselves both good and bad. I think it's fair to be skeptical about anonymous skeptics. It's also fair to be skeptical about MQA.

 

I'm not arguing the other side when I publish an article explaining how to play MQA on one's audio system. That article was for the CA community, who by and large, don't understand how to get the best out of MQA or even what happens during playback. If you look at all the questions in the forum, you'll see my article was an attempt to answer those questions, not argue for MQA.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Anonymous skeptics have proven themselves both good and bad. I think it's fair to be skeptical about anonymous skeptics. It's also fair to be skeptical about MQA.

 

I'm not arguing the other side when I publish an article explaining how to play MQA on one's audio system. That article was for the CA community, who by and large, don't understand how to get the best out of MQA or even what happens during playback. If you look at all the questions in the forum, you'll see my article was an attempt to answer those questions, not argue for MQA.

 

We agree. My point is your only source of information for those articles is MQA. And your professed (possible?) skepticism about MQA did not come across in those articles. The information you got from MQA was passed right through to your readers. Not saying this is in any way untoward, just pointing out context. You can't really argue your point about balance without those articles being in the mix.

[mansr]

Anonymous skeptics have proven themselves both good and bad. I think it's fair to be skeptical about anonymous skeptics.

 

Is anonymity the problem here? My real name is Mans Rullgard. Go on, Google me. I'm not trying to hide.

[jmudrick]

.The same people who argue that high resolution can't be distinguished from redbook, are the same people saying MQA is terrible because it measures a certain way. In essence you are asking for subjective tests when it fits your narrative, but now you want to eschew subjective tests because so far they have refuted your MQA is terrible narrative.

 

.

 

Nail meet head.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[patagent]

Yes. In a spec, you usually do not provide much detail as to implementation, since you want to cover as much under the "doctrine of equivalents" as possible. I might have written using methods well-known in the art as will be appreciated by the skilled practitioner.

Relying on DOE is full of potholes (e.g., prosecution estoppel) and may not be available during litigation. Literal infringement is almost always better. Putting in a specific implementation or two shouldn't preclude you from relying DOE in worst case scenarios.

[patagent]

I've been away a few days and all this verbosity! I've read the claims of the patent application so far. So, you've been a solid all the way through this discussion, but two points: 1. A patentee can be her own lexicographer, even when the definition goes against plain-meaning or well-understood practice when the definition is explicitly defined in the spec. 2. Lossless includes also a channel-capacity definition, not just a perceptual coding equivalent. Here, they make explicit that the 'lossless' portion is the baseband 24/44 or 24/48 signal, but that it is obtained by noise-shaping and dithering to a 16/44 or 16/48 signal that supplementally includes a secondary signal in the bottom 8 bits of the channel; it's all about the definition.

 

Also, claim 14 explicitly claims a reversible watermark but the spec is silent as to application. So, I stand corrected. There is a clear DRM-element contemplated here. I still think it is used just for the authentication of the hardware element for end-to-end authentication. But I fully accept that it is not a conspiracy theory. No reason to claim it if it doesn't have economic value. And you know what that means... Cheers, people. Doing well. Now get back to reverse engineering.��

 

The way they describe "watermarking" doesn't sound like DRM as I normally think of it. There's not a lot of details but it sounds like the watermarking is intended to provide signal information that helps with the decoding process. The spec states that they can put configurational parameters (which includes bit depth information claim 19) in the watermarking to be used by the decoder. They don't seem to hint anything beyond that.

 

Disclaimer: I haven't read the application in full. I am definitely not an expert in audio science.

[The Computer Audiophile]

We agree. My point is your only source of information for those articles is MQA. And your professed (possible?) skepticism about MQA did not come across in those articles. The information you got from MQA was passed right through to your readers. Not saying this is in any way untoward, just pointing out context. You can't really argue your point about balance without those articles being in the mix.

 

Totally right, I shared no skepticism in my latest MQA for Civilians article. It was an article where I accepted people's desire to play MQA and I educated them about the how and what.

[hmartin]

I think it was scintila who defended MQA as having as being a REAL lossless container in the 16/44 "area", but then I think he admits that because of noise shaping it in fact might not be (I am probably butchering his assertion). But I have wondered the same thing, where is the "other side" of the technical/digital facts (that's the thing about mansr graphs - they are measurements and not mere assertions - for someone to disgree they have prove that they are either incorrect in of themselves, or irrelevant to the thesis)?

 

Perhaps the other side is a no show because the other side would have to come out from behind the curtain of IP (in other words it would have to be an engineer at MQA)? Perhaps this is not necessary, it just takes someone willing to defend it on a technical level?

Remember also that even if those are "lossless" bits, you still need the correct upsampling filter, hence unless you "pay the price" you don't know how to render these bits correctly. This is also part of the DRM to my understanding, i.e. if you render these bits assuming that it is regular PCM you get a lower quality version. Some DACs like the Meridian Explorer 1 already has a similar upsampling filter so on those DACs an undecoded MQA sounds good, some do not like the Chord Mojo and there the undecoded files sound quite bad, worse than MP3, at least to my ears.

 

Please give it a listen if you have a chance.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Totally right, I shared no skepticism in my latest MQA for Civilians article. It was an article where I accepted people's desire to play MQA and I educated them about the how and what.

 

And rightly so. It's one of the primary missions of your web site, which I believe is unique and an extremely valuable resource to audiophiles.

 

But I think the rub is again the desire to give vendors (hardware, software, etc.) the benefit of the doubt by default. Consumerism once again raises its ugly head. I believe there is a deep psychological need with most consumers to believe the things they're being marketed are Good Things and that only Good People make Good Things. So there is a tendency to give the vendors a pass on their claims because to do otherwise would cause consumers to question their own motives, and perhaps not consume so much. And that would be antithetical to the kind of consumerism that ultimately drives audiophilia. This is why skeptics are often greeted with such contempt and derision by the Audiophile Faithful (not saying that's you).

 

It's the Audiophile Faithful that drive most of the sales and it's absolutely who most (again, not you necessarily) of the audiophile press and social media cater to. To move this forward quickly, I would suggest a metaphor of heresy. I'm just grateful you haven't banished or punished us (metaphorically speaking of course) for heresy. :-)

 

 

I'm sure you agree there is a faction here who would love to see the skeptics vanish.

[Jud]

Hoo boy, this much discussion about "lossless" and "lossy"? MQA is definitely not mathematically lossless. But then neither are the SD modulators mansr coded for sox, or the filters in sox itself, or most of the filters in HQPlayer, or the filters in 99% of the world's DACs. And of course neither is mp3.

 

Does this start to make you think lossless vs. lossy is much too broad a categorization to be really useful here? It certainly seems that way to me.

 

More in my next comment from a real keyboard.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile