MQA and DRM

[labjr]

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.

 

 

 

I like this part:

 

“We are looking forward to the Hi-Res MUSIC logo being associated with services that adopt MQA,” said Bob Stuart, Chairman of MQA. “MQA is a revolutionary new technology which enables the sound quality of hi-res music with the convenience of efficient streaming, something that wasn’t possible even a few short years ago.”

 

How about we label MQA as Fake-Hi-Res or Pseudo-Hi-Res or Pretending-to-be-Hi-Res?

[mansr]

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.

 

They could probably get a law passed banning (digital) distribution of copyrighted works without some form of protection. This would of course kill CDs, so they might be reluctant to do that just yet. There's also not much reason for the labels to insist on such legislation since they already decide which formats they release their content in, and they can stop further sales by distributors of already released non-DRM formats at any time too.

[mansr]

I like this part:

 

“We are looking forward to the Hi-Res MUSIC logo being associated with services that adopt MQA,” said Bob Stuart, Chairman of MQA. “MQA is a revolutionary new technology which enables the sound quality of hi-res music with the convenience of efficient streaming, something that wasn’t possible even a few short years ago.”

 

How about we label MQA as Fake-Hi-Res or Pseudo-Hi-Res or Pretending-to-be-Hi-Res?

 

Remember those TVs labelled as "HD ready"?

[rickca]

Ironically, the only guys standing in front of this train may be Apple. Apple is powerful enough to insist on its own hi res streaming format if it wants to develop one. I sure can't see Apple paying MQA royalties. Their style is more like demanding a piece of the action to distribute your product.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Ironically, the only guys standing in front of this train may be Apple. Apple is powerful enough to insist on its own hi res streaming format if it wants to develop one. I sure can't see Apple paying MQA royalties. Their style is more like demanding a piece of the action to distribute your product.

 

Hi Rick - I once thought the same, but no longer. The labels are ready to take control back from Apple. Apple is no longer the only game in town. If the majors say MQA or the highway, there's no way Apple is going to fold its streaming service. Customers can easily switch to Spotify or Tidal and get the exact same thing. Back in the day it was iTunes or piracy. Not so much anymore.

 

The labels hold the goods that everyone wants.

[church_mouse]

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.

 

Forgive my ignorance, but does this mean MQA are paid by the record companies to create MQA files?

 

If not, then surely the record company is quid's in? Hi-Res files are locked up in an MQA format whilst MQA and the record companies do what they can to ensure its success. Any files supplied for "lossless" streaming or download get supplied as MQA. If it fails, the companies can go back to supplying the files in another format.

[labjr]

I wonder if the contract with MQA forbids the labels from streaming Hi-res without MQA?

[mansr]

I wonder if the contract with MQA forbids the labels from streaming Hi-res without MQA?

 

That is certainly a possibility.

[crenca]

I wonder if the contract with MQA forbids the labels from streaming Hi-res without MQA?

 

That is certainly a possibility.

 

I am sure we are in a transition stage now (contractually and otherwise). Streaming is rapidly moving towards a MQA/DRM only point at least for anything called "hi res". I would be surprised if in 2 years you can even stream 16/44 or higher outside of niche (a few classical/jazz focused labels/services, etc.).

 

IMO downloads are next (or along with) this transition - maybe 3 years left of non DRMed sales left. CD's appear to be a bulwark against an MQA only access (rather hard copy, download, or streaming) but when I walk down the CD isle it is obvious to me this format is in the ICU, so the MQA/equivalent only digital future is closer than most want to admit. Where such efforts have failed in the past, I agree with Chris that the labels have the market leverage currently and they are going to use it...

[Jud]

Forgive my ignorance, but does this mean MQA are paid by the record companies to create MQA files?

 

If not, then surely the record company is quid's in? Hi-Res files are locked up in an MQA format whilst MQA and the record companies do what they can to ensure its success. Any files supplied for "lossless" streaming or download get supplied as MQA. If it fails, the companies can go back to supplying the files in another format.

 

Nothing that complicated.

 

Let me take you back to the reason you have an iPhone and Apple has been the most highly valued company on the planet for the past several years. It's called Rhapsody. Not the rebranding of Napster (extremely ironic, as you'll see), but the original version.

 

Back when the music industry was wringing its hands about piracy (because it couldn't be that people just didn't want to pay $15 for one song on a CD, it all had to be the pirates' doing), a grand plan was brought to them by some folks calling themselves Rhapsody. They'd license their music to a service that charged you $20 a month and you could listen online to any songs you wanted, from first four, then all five of the existing biggest music companies.

 

So they had the entire music industry cornered, and they were about to rule the world.

 

Except nobody bought it. The music industry made no money from Rhapsody subscriptions, and continued to see CD sales falter. They were having such a huge problem figuring out where their next revenue stream was coming from that when Steve Jobs proposed the iTunes Store to them, they jumped for it like a life raft. So Apple sold a zillion iTunes songs, but more importantly and more profitably, a zillion iPods, and this cash infusion allowed them to modernize their computer line, and more importantly and more profitably, make the iPhone. And Apple lived happily ever after, while the music industry who'd had their bacon saved by iTunes swore they'd never make such a bad mistake as to let someone else rescue them from their own stupidity (and not incidentally, profit from it more than they had) ever again. Rhapsody was such a dog that it eventually acquired and rebranded itself as Napster to try to gain back some street cachet, which is quite funny when you recall it was Napster that sent the industry into such paroxysms about piracy in the first place.

 

MQA (which doesn't nearly have all the music industry signed up yet - in fact a good part of the music and streaming industry is thinking about how best to compete with MQA) is subject to the same inexorable market logic as Rhapsody was. If people don't buy it, it's not going to take over the world, it will be nothing more than another music industry business idea that flopped.

[Jud]

I wonder if the contract with MQA forbids the labels from streaming Hi-res without MQA?

 

That is certainly a possibility.

 

I seriously doubt the labels or streaming services would be eager to give a market exclusive to MQA for any length of time (if at all) at this early stage. Why should they give up such a plum to MQA, which has absolutely no market leverage at this point?

[labjr]

I am sure we are in a transition stage now (contractually and otherwise). Streaming is rapidly moving towards a MQA/DRM only point at least for anything called "hi res". I would be surprised if in 2 years you can even stream 16/44 or higher outside of niche (a few classical/jazz focused labels/services, etc.).

 

IMO downloads are next (or along with) this transition - maybe 3 years left of non DRMed sales left. CD's appear to be a bulwark against an MQA only access (rather hard copy, download, or streaming) but when I walk down the CD isle it is obvious to me this format is in the ICU, so the MQA/equivalent only digital future is closer than most want to admit. Where such efforts have failed in the past, I agree with Chris that the labels have the market leverage currently and they are going to use it...

 

 

I hope it flops big time. The industry is dreaming if they think MQA is going to bring Hi-Res to the average person therefore expanding their market. So that leaves audiophiles. Some will buy it but I think most don't like the idea of DRM. Thus I see their market shrinking more.

 

You can guarantee MQA promised DRM to the labels to get them to bite. Labels don't care about quality. Why else would they try this new scheme?

 

And what are they gonna do when some 14 year old kid writes a utility with two lines of code that rips the Tidal stream and it turns into an all-you-can-eat buffet?

[mansr]

in fact a good part of the music and streaming industry is thinking about how best to compete with MQA

 

What is your source for this?

[abrxx]

Well it looks like MQA are winning. Universal is now on board and no doubt we will have an announcement from Sony soon enough.

 

Its likely CD quality streaming will quietly disappear and be replaced with MQA. Hi-rez streaming will almost exclusively be MQA.

 

For audiophiles who might lament the loss of pure downloads, I expect Bob Stuart has a few more tricks up his sleeves. If you recall there are many varieties of MQA files, or streams. Go back to the Stereophile Q&A and find that table with all the different versions of MQA. I expect once the mainstream labels and public have all signed up, MQA 2x will be released to appease the audiophiles, with a kernel rate of 96 kHz, almost lossless to 192 kHz, and folding into the Mhz. You saw it here first . I have no idea if the current MQA decoders can decode such files, perhaps mansr can answer us that. Or perhaps firmware upgrades will be required.

 

Right now Bob is keeping it simple with one file format for all. But I think once the dust has settled he will come back to woo the audiophile doubters....

[mansr]

I hope it flops big time. The industry is dreaming if they think MQA is going to bring Hi-Res to the average person therefore expanding their market. So that leaves audiophiles. Some will buy it but I think most don't like the idea of DRM. Thus I see their market shrinking more.

 

Why do you think they've been so careful about covering up the fact that MQA in fact has DRM? They know that if they can only hide the DRM for long enough, audiophiles will gladly swallow anything handed to them with a promise of better sound. There's an entire industry built around selling scams to audiophiles, after all.

[crenca]

Why do you think they've been so careful about covering up the fact that MQA in fact has DRM? They know that if they can only hide the DRM for long enough, audiophiles will gladly swallow anything handed to them with a promise of better sound. There's an entire industry built around selling scams to audiophiles, after all.

 

My favorites are the little thimbles filled with "nano technology", and of course rocks taped to cables. I just have to figure out how to get in on scams like those. MQA is way too much trouble and effort - Bob must be (among other things) a masochist...

[Jud]

What is your source for this?

 

Various public relations releases from CES, such as the following:

 

 

 

At CES today, all three major labels and streaming music services Pandora, Napster/Rhapsody and HD Tracks endorsed the the Hi-Res Audio streaming format. Today's announcement marks a major expansion of the format into the growing streaming market.

 

 

But notably absent from today's announcement were Apple Music (who is reportedly developing its own hi-res format) and streaming music leader Spotify. Tidal, which already offers a hi-res music streaming tier. announced today at CES that it would support a new competing format Master Quality Authenticated (MQA).

 

But the major labels, which must provide the hi res files, are focused on the hiRes Audio format. "Universal Music has been laser-focused on Hi-Res Audio, across all of our label groups," says Ty Roberts, CTO of Universal Music Group. "But without the involvement of our technology and distribution partners, all of this would be in vain. Today we’re pleased to acknowledge the support of a number of leading digital providers for this new streaming concept.”

The RIAA also endorsed the Hi Res Audio format today.

 

 

Edit: We also know Spotify is thinking about this, since they're doing a listener survey. Whether they're thinking about MQA or something else, I certainly don't know.

[mansr]

Well it looks like MQA are winning. Universal is now on board and no doubt we will have an announcement from Sony soon enough.

 

Its likely CD quality streaming will quietly disappear and be replaced with MQA. Hi-rez streaming will almost exclusively be MQA.

 

For audiophiles who might lament the loss of pure downloads, I expect Bob Stuart has a few more tricks up his sleeves. If you recall there are many varieties of MQA files, or streams. Go back to the Stereophile Q&A and find that table with all the different versions of MQA. I expect once the mainstream labels and public have all signed up, MQA 2x will be released to appease the audiophiles, with a kernel rate of 96 kHz, almost lossless to 192 kHz, and folding into the Mhz. You saw it here first . I have no idea if the current MQA decoders can decode such files, perhaps mansr can answer us that. Or perhaps firmware upgrades will be required.

 

Right now Bob is keeping it simple with one file format for all. But I think once the dust has settled he will come back to woo the audiophile doubters....

 

The decoder I'm looking at can handle input rates up to 8x a base rate of 44.1, 48, or (oddly) 64 kHz. The file format permits even higher rates (up to 128x). Obviously, higher rates require correspondingly more computing power to decode, so some DACs might not manage all of them.

[church_mouse]

@Jud

 

#385. You may be right, though I must have missed any major label briefing against MQA.

 

Perhaps they just think they have learned their lesson and this time will be the winners - who knows what terms MQA are agreeing to in order to get the companies to sign up?

 

{Oh, I have never owned an iPhone }

[mansr]

Various public relations releases from CES, such as the following:

 

Which "the hi res audio format" are they talking about?

[Jud]

Hi Rick - I once thought the same, but no longer. The labels are ready to take control back from Apple. Apple is no longer the only game in town. If the majors say MQA or the highway, there's no way Apple is going to fold its streaming service. Customers can easily switch to Spotify or Tidal and get the exact same thing. Back in the day it was iTunes or piracy. Not so much anymore.

 

The labels hold the goods that everyone wants.

 

 

Everyone (meaning consumers) may want them, but not necessarily in the particular MQA format, and not at any price the labels and streaming companies care to charge. (See Rhapsody example upthread, which is what created the opening for Apple in the first place.) So I'd guess the labels are going to try various things around hi-res streaming to see which if any of them succeed in the marketplace. And I seriously doubt, having made themselves beholden to Apple and seen what happened there, that they will tie themselves irrevocably to MQA.

 

 

So before MQA can dominate the world, it must achieve success in the marketplace by having enough folks decide they want to pay double the regular streaming price for it, versus any other competing hi-res streaming offerings.

[labjr]

As more labels sign on with MQA, possibly with exclusive deals, it will become harder to imagine labels allowing competing standards by Apple or Pandora etc. And definitely not without DRM.

[Jud]

Which "the hi res audio format" are they talking about?

 

 

Evidently something other than MQA. Re-quoting:

 

 

 

Tidal, which already offers a hi-res music streaming tier, announced today at CES that it would support a new competing format Master Quality Authenticated (MQA).

[Jud]

As more labels sign on with MQA, possibly with exclusive deals, it will become harder to imagine labels allowing competing standards by Apple or Pandora etc. And definitely not without DRM.

 

 

Again: Why would any label grant MQA an *exclusive*, which is a major concession?

 

 

As for DRM, it depends. Since the labels are allowing sales of hi res *downloads* without DRM, why would they gin up DRM for *streams*, which are more bother for the basically lazy consumer to copy?

[crenca]

...As for DRM, it depends. Since the labels are allowing sales of hi res *downloads* without DRM, why would they gin up DRM for *streams*, which are more bother for the basically lazy consumer to copy?

 

Strategery, and the fact that they have not had a (good) opportunity yet to soak the market with DRM and get enough penetration. Streaming is simply the front door...