MQA and DRM

[audiventory]

By 1989, almost all new release vinyl was digitally sourced.

 

Digital recording is easy in achieving higher quality and processing/editing.

 

I don't sure that is was so cool in 1989 as now, but currently digital recording almost have no disadvantages comparing any alternatives, in my opinion.

 

Now tape and vinyl are tools for achieving of certain emotions.

 

Analog synthesizers is same things. Modeling of these instruments in digits is hard work. Using of analog instrument is easier thing.

 

Using tape for recording is easier (for exact effect) thing than stylish digital record by plugin.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Digital recording is easy in achieving higher quality and processing/editing.

 

I don't sure that is was so cool in 1989 as now, but currently digital recording almost have no disadvantages comparing any alternatives, in my opinion.

 

Now tape and vinyl are tools for achieving of certain emotions.

 

Analog synthesizers is same things. Modeling of these instruments in digits is hard work. Using of analog instrument is easier thing.

 

Using tape for recording is easier (for exact effect) thing than stylish digital record by plugin.

 

I think we agree. Given the choice between the vinyl and the digital source that created it, I'll always take the digital source.

[Fokus]

Optionally present are setup parameters (key, IV) for the Salsa20 cipher. If these elements are provided, they are used to decrypt 6 of the top 8 bits of the input. The two very topmost bits are not included in this; I don't know why. None of the MQA files available today use this feature. ...

If these features are enabled in an MQA file, it cannot be legitimately played back without MQA-certified hardware.

 

Don't you think this could be part of a scheme to protect preview files distributed to the production stakeholders, prior to full/final MQA encoding and release?

 

The MQA website mentions limited-capability MQA DAW plugins and the need for MQA hardware to monitor or review the results.

[audiventory]

Don't you think this could be part of a scheme to protect preview files distributed to the production stakeholders, prior to full/final MQA encoding and release?

 

Does you mean distribution to online music stores?

[Fokus]

Does you mean distribution to online music stores?

 

No. Distribution from the mastering engineer to the production team: mix engineer, artist (insofar not dead and interested in sonic quality), label suits, ... for review prior to release.

 

We know that the actual MQA encoding happens at MQA premises. Can't expect the stakeholders to fly over there just to have a listen. And anyway, MQA themselves will only engage on the final master, not any intermediates. So the team must be provided with preview files while mastering is on-going. These have to be protected, because they tend to leak.

 

Please go to the MQA site and read their proposed production flow, if you can make much sense of it.

[audiventory]

No. Distribution from the mastering engineer to the production team: mix engineer, artist (insofar not dead and interested in sonic quality), label suits, ... for review prior to release.

 

We know that the actual MQA encoding happens at MQA premises. Can't expect the stakeholders to fly over there just to have a listen. And anyway, MQA themselves will only engage on the final master, not any intermediates. So the team must be provided with preview files while mastering is on-going. These have to be protected, because they tend to leak.

 

Please go to the MQA site and read their proposed production flow, if you can make much sense of it.

 

For that case (demo) more suitable sound watermark(s), me seems: quality is fully kept, and the record protected.

 

Me seems MQA is not considered as music production format, because it is coded (need additional processing) and, as far as I know, MQA is lossy in decoded form even.