MQA and DRM

[Samuel T Cogley]

As I see it the entire artist/engineer/ADC correction story was engineered to get audiotypes drooling.

 

+1

 

The marketing strategy is twofold:

 

• Convince the record labels that significant piracy risk exists when providing non-DRM high sample rate files for end user consumption
  
• Convince consumers of high end audio gear that the MQA version is better than the vanilla PCM version.
  

[mansr]

+1

 

The marketing strategy is twofold:

 

• Convince the record labels that significant piracy risk exists when providing non-DRM high sample rate files for end user consumption
  
• Convince consumers of high end audio gear that the MQA version is better than the vanilla PCM version.
  

And both sides are being deceived.

[jmudrick]

The labels are convinced all their woes are due to piracy. .

 

Were not are. This assertion seems years out of date. Labels and consumers have long embraced streaming and care much less about piracy of physical product/downloads than you're suggesting.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[bogi]

From what I have tried so far on Tidal, most MQA corresponds to the existing hires downloads.

 

How otherwise could be so many albums processed so quickly? IMO only from existing hires downloads. That's also the reason why I think no specific 'ADC deblurring' was performed - at least for the current batch processing for Tidal.

[mansr]

Were not are. This assertion seems years out of date. Labels and consumers have long embraced streaming and care much less about piracy of physical product/downloads than you're suggesting.

 

Then why are they constantly seeking court orders to have the torrent sites blocked? Why do they operate aggressive DMCA takedown bots sending removal requests to Google/YouTube and others over anything remotely resembling works they control (sometimes even their own websites; ironic when that happens)?

 

If they're not afraid of piracy, why did they pick MQA, a format packed with DRM features?

[Jud]

So they say. As far as I know, no compelling demonstration of this has been done. Regardless of the veracity of those claims, it has nothing to do with the distribution format. Certainly, whatever "correction" they perform could be done without lossy compression and DRM.

 

This.

 

 

To be completely fair, the "lossy" part, in a mathematical sense, would be introduced by any filtering done on the original SDM bitstream coming from the circuitry at the recording end (usually converted to PCM before it ever gets out of the ADC); but then, it is MQA that chose to make its particular filtering into a compression method as well.

[Jud]

 

If they're not afraid of piracy, why did they pick MQA, a format packed with DRM features?

 

It could easily have been because MQA was ready first and they wanted to make a splash by being first to market. I'm always quite ready to suspect the music industry of overwhelming paranoia, and they will stop shooting themselves in the foot when they run out of feet, but I think your question really doesn't have a slam dunk answer at the moment. (Besides the possibility that they wanted to be first to market, there are various other reasons why I'm not sure this is the correct answer that I've already expressed in other posts, so I won't repeat.)

[Jud]

How otherwise could be so many albums processed so quickly? IMO only from existing hires downloads. That's also the reason why I think no specific 'ADC deblurring' was performed - at least for the current batch processing for Tidal.

 

I think we want to potentially separate the "deblurring" from the "ADC specific," since it is quite possible to have one without the other. However, yes, I do remember the technical analysis discussing the possibility that MQA's filtering may well not be effective in removing ringing - "deblurring" - in any case.

[mansr]

To be completely fair, the "lossy" part, in a mathematical sense, would be introduced by any filtering done on the original SDM bitstream coming from the circuitry at the recording end (usually converted to PCM before it ever gets out of the ADC); but then, it is MQA that chose to make its particular filtering into a compression method as well.

 

The losses in MQA are much greater and of a fundamentally different nature than inaccuracies (mostly rounding errors) in the normal filter chain. Moreover, the MQA losses are completely unnecessary. It is thus misleading to compare MQA with essential processes that unfortunately cannot be performed with infinite precision. All of this is entirely distinct from the rather dubious merits of the MQA resampling filters compared to traditional ones.

[Jud]

Really?

 

What is the most plausible?

 

A label bothering the artists (at least those that are not too busy being dead), and hiring a top notch mastering engineer to go through it all again for/with MQA, or a label shipping off whatever hires files they have, for batch processing on an MQA workstation in a non-descript office. Or a bit of the former and a lot of the latter?

 

From what I have tried so far on Tidal, most MQA corresponds to the existing hires downloads.

 

 

 

Often they don't seem to have bothered to get it right with non-MQA'd hi res that has come out quite slowly (with notable exceptions like Steven Wilson's stuff, some of the Beach Boys' catalog, some of Giles Martin's stuff...), so why would they bother now when they're rushing to get it all out to make a marketing splash before other, larger, streaming companies come out with their competing hi-res products?

[abrxx]

I think we want to potentially separate the "deblurring" from the "ADC specific," since it is quite possible to have one without the other. However, yes, I do remember the technical analysis discussing the possibility that MQA's filtering may well not be effective in removing ringing - "deblurring" - in any case.

Agreed -- deblurring is an intrinsic part of the "MQA process". But there is not just one algorithm, but a suite of tools. Worst case some kind of generic deblurring can be applied to both remove ringing and prevent/dampen further ringing later on in the distribution/playback chain. Best case, the exact ADC used to archive the master is known, and then its exact imperfections in the temporal realm can be accounted for.

[mansr]

It could easily have been because MQA was ready first and they wanted to make a splash by being first to market. I'm always quite ready to suspect the music industry of overwhelming paranoia, and they will stop shooting themselves in the foot when they run out of feet, but I think your question really doesn't have a slam dunk answer at the moment. (Besides the possibility that they wanted to be first to market, there are various other reasons why I'm not sure this is the correct answer that I've already expressed in other posts, so I won't repeat.)

If the labels and streaming companies wanted, they could have offered high-res content using standard FLAC years ago. The only first for MQA is the stealthy combination of DRM with other (alleged) features to use as selling points towards the consumers.

[Jud]

The losses in MQA are much greater and of a fundamentally different nature than inaccuracies (mostly rounding errors) in the normal filter chain. Moreover, the MQA losses are completely unnecessary. It is thus misleading to compare MQA with essential processes that unfortunately cannot be performed with infinite precision. All of this is entirely distinct from the rather dubious merits of the MQA resampling filters compared to traditional ones.

 

Can you help me understand how this fits with the following statement?

 

 

If MQA had characterised their codec as transparent rather than lossless, I'd have no issue. It almost certainly is transparent, at least for the vast majority of real-world inputs.

[labjr]

So they say. As far as I know, no compelling demonstration of this has been done. Regardless of the veracity of those claims, it has nothing to do with the distribution format. Certainly, whatever "correction" they perform could be done without lossy compression and DRM.

 

Exactly. But the package looks so complex, that it has more perceived value. Who would want to pay royalties and licensing fees etc. for just an ADC correction?

 

I imagine if there was an open standard where you use a software utility on your existing files to do the ADC correction? One where everyone shared their results in various forums?

[Jud]

If the labels and streaming companies wanted, they could have offered high-res content using standard FLAC years ago. The only first for MQA is the stealthy combination of DRM with other (alleged) features to use as selling points towards the consumers.

 

Sure, but there are also abundant other marketing reasons for waiting until now. We'll see if the other streaming companies' offerings have DRM or potential DRM when they come out. Meanwhile, the industry hasn't bothered with DRM for the multi-billion dollar streaming market so far, and certainly DRM has been available all this time, too.

[Jud]

Agreed -- deblurring is an intrinsic part of the "MQA process". But there is not just one algorithm, but a suite of tools. Worst case some kind of generic deblurring can be applied to both remove ringing and prevent/dampen further ringing later on in the distribution/playback chain. Best case, the exact ADC used to archive the master is known, and then its exact imperfections in the temporal realm can be accounted for.

 

While the deblurring has been put forward in the patent(s?) and white paper(s?), so far analysis of what's being done at the DAC end hasn't come up with filtering that would actually accomplish this. Is it being done at the encoding end? I have no idea.

[mansr]

Can you help me understand how this fits with the following statement?

If their description of the technology were truthful, I'd have no issue with that particular marketing angle. I'd still think MQA is at best unnecessary and potentially harmful (as any lossy compression is).

[abrxx]

While the deblurring has been put forward in the patent(s?) and white paper(s?), so far analysis of what's being done at the DAC end hasn't come up with filtering that would actually accomplish this. Is it being done at the encoding end? I have no idea.

 

Its being done at the encoding side (99% sure, everything I've read points in that direction).

[Jud]

If their description of the technology were truthful, I'd have no issue with that particular marketing angle. I'd still think MQA is at best unnecessary and potentially harmful (as any lossy compression is).

 

But at least so far, while granting the unnecessary and *potentially* harmful description, transparent? (I and others actually think we've heard differences, but the power of suggestion must be considered a strong candidate explanation.)

[mansr]

Sure, but there are also abundant other marketing reasons for waiting until now. We'll see if the other streaming companies' offerings have DRM or potential DRM when they come out. Meanwhile, the industry hasn't bothered with DRM for the multi-billion dollar streaming market so far, and certainly DRM has been available all this time, too.

All streaming services have always used some form of encryption and authentication, i.e. DRM, between server and client software. That is not a problem. It doesn't prevent DSP in the playback chain or demand specific hardware. You're not supposed to store the streams, so the issue of format obsolescence doesn't exist as it does for downloads.

 

What's new with MQA is that it pushes DRM all the way to DAC level (end to end), thus restricting perfectly legal activities such as applying digital room correction. That is a problem.

[oneway23]

Is the streaming of uncompressed FLAC a feasible scenario considering how many do their listening via mobile data these days? I'm not sure if our European and Asian friends realize just how questionable our relative data speeds are here in the US, at least from what I hear on forums such as this one

 

Ultimately, I guess the question I'm trying to ask is, would streaming uncompressed FLAC come in at a bandwidth cost less than, equal to, or greater than MQA?

[abrxx]

[snip]What's new with MQA is that it pushes DRM all the way to DAC level (end to end), thus restricting perfectly legal activities such as applying digital room correction. That is a problem.

 

Yeah that's frustrating. IF MQA is a new dimension in sound quality, it makes no sense to rule out DSP room correction. I suspect that we'll see some developments here at some point ... perhaps a Meridian stand-alone MQA room correction box. But why was mini-DSP was denied a MQA license? (Go check their forums). An MQA-approved mini DSP solution would have been great.

[mansr]

But at least so far, while granting the unnecessary and *potentially* harmful description, transparent? (I and others actually think we've heard differences, but the power of suggestion must be considered a strong candidate explanation.)

The power of different masters is stronger still. I'll even grant the possibility that their encoding-side processing actually gives an audible improvement. None of that demands a subsequent lossy compression step.

 

When it comes to compression, why settle for probably transparent when you can have mathematically lossless at the same data rate?

[ron spencer]

Actually, no. Plain FLAC compresses better than MQA at the same quality.

 

The labels are convinced all their woes are due to piracy. They are further convinced that the solution is some kind of DRM. In their alternate reality, replacing the current formats with DRM'd MQA makes perfect sense. Of course someone will reverse engineer it (I've already started), but that still leaves you with only the lossy version it decodes to. The unadulterated original remains safely locked away.

 

There's more than a hint of DRM in MQA. I'm convinced the end game is to introduce DRM to all digital music distribution.

 

Hopefully some of the smaller labels (2L has swallowed it hook, line, and sinker) will have the sense to avoid all of this. At least I can't imagine Cookie Marenco embracing MQA, nor any of the other DSD diehards.

 

Thank you for correcting me. So if FLAC is indeed better than MQA for saving bandwidth, then MQA has no argument in that vain. So it comes down to:

 

1. MQA sounds better because it uses better remasters that NOBODY ELSE has access to, hence it would sound better than FLAC. If this type of collusion occurs, why would anyone here, or anywhere, support it? Flac would sound just as good when using the same remasters.

 

2. MQA could have DRM. Again why go back into the stone ages?

 

3. MQA could be able to PROVE the provenance of your audio.

 

 

I would not want 1 or 2 just to get a light that would show up on my DAC (point 3 above). The cost of 1 and 2, in my opinion, are just too high.

 

I don't see any reason why I would want to go close to MQA. Admittedly I am only just learning about it here, in HA, and other forums, but it does smell a bit fishy. I just don't see the point.

[mansr]

Is the streaming of uncompressed FLAC a feasible scenario considering how many do their listening via mobile data these days? I'm not sure if our European and Asian friends realize just how questionable our relative data speeds are here in the US, at least from what I hear on forums such as this one

 

Ultimately, I guess the question I'm trying to ask is, would streaming uncompressed FLAC come in at a bandwidth cost less than, equal to, or greater than MQA?

FLAC at 96 kHz with 18-bit precision matches or exceeds MQA quality at a lower bitrate. The bandwidth argument simply doesn't hold water.