MQA and DRM

[crenca]

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

 

Jud,

 

I would be interested in your thoughts as to the relevance between the "lossy" modulators and filters when compared to lossy codecs such as mp3 and MQA. If I understand correctly, whereas those modulators/filters are "lossy" only as a point of mathematical precision (analogous to rounding errors more or less), mp3 (obviously) and MQA (similarly, but perhaps to a much less degree) are technical design decisions meant to be lossy based on the opinion of this or that psychoacustic theory. In other words, if I am understanding it correctly, it is a whole different ball game...

 

Update: another analogy: If you I tell you I am 6ft 1 inch tall, it would be a "lossy" statement because I am really 6ft, 1inch and 1/16th. This is me going through sox or Miska's "lossy" filters. Now, if I take a picture of myself and put it on a poster board that is 2x3 feet and say "this is me" then that would be me from an mp3 perspective. What would I look like going through MQA?

[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

 

 

OK, now to continue...

 

 

How can we usefully categorize MQA in discussing whether it's good or bad for high end audio? Lossless and lossy are way too broad, because a huge majority of the filters in the world, including those **used at the recording studios,** produce lossy output. Every dang recorded piece of music you ever heard was lossy, get it?

 

 

What I personally think is far more helpful is to consider the number and quality of conversions. It may surprise you, but technically "lossless" conversions can produce poorer sound quality than "lossy" ones. (Ask Miska about his lossy filters versus his lossless ones.)

 

 

So: MQA adds a couple of conversions, folding and unfolding. These are unnecessary for purposes of streaming high res, even compressed high res, as there are means of compression that very very likely don't affect the signal quality at all, and if they do, certainly affect it far, far less than the manipulations of MQA. I'm speaking of FLAC and ALAC compression, which when decompressed result in a signal mathematically identical to the one that existed prior to compression. So if you think compression is even necessary in the first place (maybe if you're stuck in a spot with very bad Internet?), that would be the way to go to leave the signal untouched as far as possible.

 

 

MQA doesn't do that. As we've said, they use filtering that is neither more nor less mathematically lossy than the vast majority of other filters and modulators out there. But what's the *quality*? Technical measurements of the MQA output show problems getting the frequency domain right, which MQA will say is because they want to get the time domain right. Unfortunately, the types of measurements usually done to assess time domain response are so far unavailable from MQA. I will say that in my listening (which has not been with full MQA decoding, but just with "unfolding"), I haven't heard wonders in the time domain compared to regular hi res versions of the same music. And I do believe I hear some distortions like those one would expect from MQA's performance in the frequency domain. (Of course this could just be the power of suggestion - as we know, non-blinded listening is famously subject to such stuff.)

 

 

What I've heard that I've liked are those instances where the MQA version uses the better master. To the extent it helps the music industry understand we like good mastering, I suppose that's a good thing. But streaming the plain old hi res version, either uncompressed or streamed with FLAC/ALAC compression and decompressed in the player, would be even better (and we should let the music industry understand that, too).

[mansr]

Update: another analogy: If you I tell you I am 6ft 1 inch tall, it would be a "lossy" statement because I am really 6ft, 1inch and 1/16th. This is me going through sox or Miska's "lossy" filters. Now, if I take a picture of myself and put it on a poster board that is 2x3 feet and say "this is me" then that would be me from an mp3 perspective. What would I look like going through MQA?

 

Like this:

 

Or possibly like this:

[Jud]

Like this:

 

Or possibly like this:

 

 

I've seen Pilobolus. Some of their stuff looks a lot like that.

 

[crenca]

Like this:

 

Or possibly like this:

 

Damn, I've been hacked again

 

Those selfies were meant for my wife...

[scintilla]

Stop fucking around and get back to work.

[rickca]

But streaming the plain old hi res version, either uncompressed or streamed with FLAC/ALAC compression and decompressed in the player, would be even better (and we should let the music industry understand that, too).

Well, the train left the station some time ago. Today, we have the formal MQA announcement from UMG.

 

RIAA announced extension of its Hi-Res Music Initiative to streaming services back on May 11, 2016.

https://www.riaa.com/hi-res-music-initiative-expands-to-include-music-streaming-services/

 

Then on January 5, 2017 we had the following announcement published in BillBoard:

A large swath of the music business, including all three major labels (Universal Music Group, Sony Music and the Warner Music Group), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and music platforms such as Pandora, Rhapsody/Napster and HD Tracks, all in concert with the Digital Entertainment Group (DEG), today announced their support for studio-quality hi-res audio for music streaming.

 

Although the focus of these announcements is on streaming, the labels may well decide to lobby for legislation that makes it illegal to distribute anything other than MQA in the future.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Although the focus of these announcements is on streaming, the labels may well decide to lobby for legislation that makes it illegal to distribute anything other than MQA in the future.

 

 

The labels could also lobby to force all men, women, and children to purchase one MQA album per month. It ain't gonna happen and neither is congress going to do anything about forcing a format down the American peoples' throats.

[realhifi]

The labels could also lobby to force all men, women, and children to purchase one MQA album per month. It ain't gonna happen and neither is congress going to do anything about forcing a format down the American peoples' throats.

 

Congress has a couple of other things on their plate at the moment.

[rickca]

The legislation would be an anti-piracy measure. It's not about forcing adoption of a format.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Congress has a couple of other things on their plate at the moment.

 

exactly

[The Computer Audiophile]

The legislation would be an anti-piracy measure. It's not about forcing adoption of a format.

 

No industry wants this type of government intrusion. Mandating MQA would eventually tie the industry's own hands until other legislation could be passed. It's a nightmare for everyone.

[rickca]

OK Chris, I will chill. Seems the US healthcare industry welcomed government intrusion that they themselves helped design. I really hope you are right.

[realhifi]

 

Although the focus of these announcements is on streaming, the labels may well decide to lobby for legislation that makes it illegal to distribute anything other than MQA in the future.

 

[/font][/color]

 

Certainly MQA was mentioned in that article but it was not the only one sited. The other one sited, MPEG4 Audio SLS may be the one that needs to be worried about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4_SLS

I have yet to see an MQA mastered recording for sale.

[mansr]

No industry wants this type of government intrusion. Mandating MQA would eventually tie the industry's own hands until other legislation could be passed. It's a nightmare for everyone.

 

Stupid legislation is hardly unheard of. This particular stupidity is probably unlikely, but not because it's stupid. The labels don't need legislation to pull the non-DRM formats from the distributors should they want to.

[The Computer Audiophile]

OK Chris, I will chill. Seems the US healthcare industry welcomed government intrusion that they themselves helped design. I really hope you are right.

 

No worries. It's an interesting topic.

[mansr]

Certainly MQA was mentioned in that article but it was not the only one sited. The other one sited, MPEG4 Audio SLS may be the one that needs to be worried about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4_SLS

 

That's a silly format, but it's an open standard that anyone can implement. Depending on your jurisdiction, it may be covered by patents, but licences must be available to anyone per ISO rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing). Nothing to worry about there.

[The Computer Audiophile]

That's a silly format, but it's an open standard that anyone can implement. Depending on your jurisdiction, it may be covered by patents, but licences must be available to anyone per ISO rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing). Nothing to worry about there.

 

Oh the irony. You say, "Nothing to worry about there" for a format described as, "With DRM, ripping of the lossless data or playback on non DRM-enabled devices could be disabled."

[church_mouse]

There is so much of the technical debate which I do not understand, but is it not simple logic for the major labels to only provide MQA files for streaming/download in due course?

[Jud]

Also, if anyone actually intends to implement MPEG-4 SLS, I would hope the following statement is simply outdated:

 

Lossy compression of files is necessary for files that need to be streamed to the Internet or played in devices with limited storage.

[The Computer Audiophile]

There is so much of the technical debate which I do not understand, but is it not simple logic for the major labels to only provide MQA files for streaming/download in due course?

 

Yes, from a label's perspective it likely makes sense to offer MQA only.

[Jud]

There is so much of the technical debate which I do not understand, but is it not simple logic for the major labels to only provide MQA files for streaming/download in due course?

 

If few enough customers decide to upgrade to the premium level streaming with MQA, and/or hi res streaming services without MQA do better in the market, it is pretty simple logic for the major labels only to offer non-MQA files.

[mansr]

Oh the irony. You say, "Nothing to worry about there" for a format described as, "With DRM, ripping of the lossless data or playback on non DRM-enabled devices could be disabled."

 

MPEG4-SLS in itself has nothing to do with DRM. Any format can be wrapped in a DRM container.

[The Computer Audiophile]

MPEG4-SLS in itself has nothing to do with DRM. Any format can be wrapped in a DRM container.

 

I'm starting my crusade against FLAC right now.

 

I couldn't resist. :~)

[labjr]

No industry wants this type of government intrusion. Mandating MQA would eventually tie the industry's own hands until other legislation could be passed. It's a nightmare for everyone.

 

It's Congress that has passed all the current copyright laws and DMCA. And remember Don Henley in Senate hearings over DRM and digital distribution. It's not beyond the realm of possibility.