Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA and DRM


Recommended Posts

No it isn't. Didn't we already do this 12 months ago, where we all got pissy?...Like I said before, chill the fuck out everyone. If its not one conspiracy theory, it's another. None make any sense. Take the simplest answer. Accept it....I do not believe for a second this is about DRM, because it clearly is not.

 

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black when it comes to being "pissy". As to your viewpoint, thanks for proving the point that MQA is DRM wrapped up in marketing nonsense.

 

End to end "assurance" and "guarantee" and "artists intended" = marketing nonsense. The overwhelming evidence being the mastering and EQ free for all that are most MQA titles on Tidal

 

"Authenticated" and the fact that MQA limits what you hear ("managing" the end user rights) through digital design = DRM

 

You put it all quite nicely...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
Good morning Mansr - Do you consider the terms and conditions of purchasing a license to play the music on a CD to be DRM?

 

No, that's a purely legal construct. There are no technical obstacles to accessing the content on a CD. Of course you need a CD player, but the specs and parts needed to build one are readily available.

Link to comment
There's an old guideline for network management (firewalls etc.) that as an administrator you should when at all reasonable provide a safe means for users to do what they want. If you do not, they will find an unsafe way, potentially compromising the entire system (for instance by bridging a mobile device onto the local network). The same thinking applies to restricting usage of digital content. Limit things a little, and people will probably be content with it. Lock it down tightly, and they'll break it completely because you gave them no other choice.

 

I hear you. In the case of entertainment things are a bit different because nobody needs this stuff. We can all elect to not purchase content when we don't agree with it. I believe crenca doesn't purchase Blu-ray discs because he doesn't like the restrictions (hopefully he'll correct me if I'm wrong). Isn't that more sensible than imposing your will upon others? Just a question. I've certainly been in the ripping Blu-ray camp, and even published articles on how to do it.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment

Well, there's the rub. If MQA is the only format available for a given title instead of an unmolested hirez version matching the master, then you could argue it is a form of DRM. So far, it looks only to be a bandwidth reduction scheme and will be offered, when at all as a file, as one option. If Warner takes all other hires versions off the table, then it could fairly be characterized as a way to control the absolute resolution of their content in-the-wild, but it still isn't a DRM in that case, it is just a resolution throttle. The definition of DRM is narrow. If I can play it back or copy it and still play it back, it isn't a DRM scheme. Period.

 

Strange definition - one that requires a consumer (or a competitor) to look out onto the market and if he sees another "hires version" then the MQA as an implementation is not DRM. If however the market changes and MQA is all the consumer can purchase then "poof", MQA is DRM.

 

Nope, DRM is not so esoteric - it is what it does, and MQA in its current form is DRM because it manages what the end user hears digitally (with no reference to the market)...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
No, that's a purely legal construct. There are no technical obstacles to accessing the content on a CD. Of course you need a CD player, but the specs and parts needed to build one are readily available.

 

Chris, I would be interested in your thoughts on this (good) answer. You keep pushing a point of view that blurs the line between DRM and mere technical, technological, and equipment limitations. Why?

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
No, that's a purely legal construct. There are no technical obstacles to accessing the content on a CD. Of course you need a CD player, but the specs and parts needed to build one are readily available.

 

Hmmm. When it's purely legal text or you have the ability to work around the restrictions, then it doesn't fit your definition. Very convenient.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Chris, I would be interested in your thoughts on this (good) answer. You keep pushing a point of view that blurs the line between DRM and mere technical, technological, and equipment limitations. Why?

 

Good question. I see people here really stretching the definition of DRM as far as they can, yet not applying it equally to other technologies. I see people saying that raw FLAC files have no DRM and MQA files have DRM. Using the arguments people have presented, it seems like any time your rights are managed, it's DRM. Thus, the rules governing what you can and can't do with regular FLAC downloads must be DRM, even though there is no technical hand forcing the implementation.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
I hear you. In the case of entertainment things are a bit different because nobody needs this stuff. We can all elect to not purchase content when we don't agree with it. I believe crenca doesn't purchase Blu-ray discs because he doesn't like the restrictions (hopefully he'll correct me if I'm wrong). Isn't that more sensible than imposing your will upon others? Just a question. I've certainly been in the ripping Blu-ray camp, and even published articles on how to do it.

 

It is true I don't..well, I admit I did purchase Blade Runner and Raising Arizona - my favorites. I am annoyed by the effort (however small - though not trivial) to "rip" DRM products such as Blue Ray and then stream them in my network. I am especially annoyed that I can not do this in my vehicles, so my children are forced to watch previews and otherwise be limited to how they control the content. I am annoyed that DRM does so little for the "piracy" issue (really, it does nothing significant) yet hobbles the consumer in obvious and clear ways. I know, let's do this to our music! ;)

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
Good question. I see people here really stretching the definition of DRM as far as they can, yet not applying it equally to other technologies. I see people saying that raw FLAC files have no DRM and MQA files have DRM. Using the arguments people have presented, it seems like any time your rights are managed, it's DRM. Thus, the rules governing what you can and can't do with regular FLAC downloads must be DRM, even though there is no technical hand forcing the implementation.

 

Well, I am not sure who is pushing a purely "if it has legal/copyright restrictions it is DRM" view. It is both (a digital implementation that enforces a legal restriction) - and MQA has both. Obviously, it is protected by IP and obviously it enforces this restriction on the end user through a digital implementation baked into its design...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment

How about Wikipedia for at least a quick and easy starting point?

 

 

Digital rights management (DRM) schemes are various access control technologies that are used to restrict usage of proprietary hardware and copyrighted works. DRM technologies try to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyrighted works (such as software and multimedia content), as well as systems within devices that enforce these policies.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Good question. I see people here really stretching the definition of DRM as far as they can, yet not applying it equally to other technologies. I see people saying that raw FLAC files have no DRM and MQA files have DRM. Using the arguments people have presented, it seems like any time your rights are managed, it's DRM. Thus, the rules governing what you can and can't do with regular FLAC downloads must be DRM, even though there is no technical hand forcing the implementation.

 

Now you're doing it again. FLAC isn't a form of DRM because it is an open specification. If I found myself wanting to play a FLAC file and didn't have a player, I could write one myself simply by following the spec. I estimate it would take me about two days. If I want to play an MQA file and don't have a compatible DAC, there's fuck all I can do about it. Do you really not see the difference?

 

If I download a FLAC file from HDtracks, it is with the understanding that I won't redistribute it, play it in public, etc. However, nothing actually prevents me from doing any of those things. The reason I don't is that it would be dishonest and illegal. That is not DRM but a plain old contract.

Link to comment
How about Wikipedia for at least a quick and easy starting point?

 

Good start Jud. BY "restrict usage" I wonder if that means restriction without a benefit or if it doesn't even matter? For example, if MQA was restricted just to be restricted versus the restriction coming from the need for hardware to get the full benefit because what they want to do isn't possible without hardware.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
That is not DRM but a plain old contract.

 

You'll note the Wikipedia excerpt does speak about limiting access by technological means, and I think this is the general understanding (at least outside these forums! ;) ) of what constitutes DRM.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

I'd agree with that Chris.

 

As to the substance of crenca's comments about: Here is a case where a great deal of the material we are discussing has already been released in several formats. Fleetwood Mac's Rumours has been out on vinyl, cassette, 8-track, possibly DAT and/or minidisc, remastered vinyl, cd, remastered cd, SACD, remastered SACD, a new remastered vinyl, 24/96, 24/192, DSD?

 

And now you want to call a 24/48 file version of Rumours DRM'ed because although it will play back undecoded in better-than-cd quality on a modern dac with a decent noise-floor and possible better pre-ringining correction, but won't unfold to provide a tiny bit of HF extension (and maybe theoretically a bit more dynamic range). But does it even matter sonically? You take a corpus of 40-60 year-old master tapes, remaster them, release them for the umpteenth time and sell them again but none offer much content above 23khz due to limitations of the recording equipment when they were made.

 

Hate the MQA restrictions? Rip an LP at the highest rez you can, that will probably yield the best HF and dynamic range digital file and sound better than 99% of the hirez dowloads available now. Certainly do on my system. An original 1955 copy of Billie Holiday's Torching (Mono) absolutely slays the hirez version I have in 24/192.

 

It isn't marketing-speak when they can actually deliver a better subjective experience through executive choice of matched record/replay filters; if it works it is both brilliant and technically clever. But calling it a DRM is just silly when there is already all that music out there in so many formats. They are not controlling your access to it.

 

image.thumb.jpeg.a4a84e289e35c7e49a6d3042fc9b2a99.jpeg

 

Link to comment
I see people here really stretching the definition of DRM as far as they can

I agree with this view.

 

I don't want to get into the debate of defining DRM, but this is my perspective:

 

- You need a Blu-ray player to play Blu-ray, for those seriously annoying DRM movies the player connects to the internet, do a license check before you can view it - due to software issues or regional issues this can fail even if the disc is legit (e.g.: Customer Support - How do I obtain the access code for playing Fox Blu-ray movies with CyberLink PowerDVD? | CyberLink ). You're not supposed to copy Blu-ray, but it can be done with some tools.

 

- You need a SACD player to play SACD. You can play SACD discs as long as you have a SACD player. No license check. You cannot copy SACD easily, unless you own one of the specific players that allow such cracks.

 

- You need a hardware MQA decoder to get the full benefits of MQA. You can play MQA files with full benefits as long as you have a MQA decoder. No license check - the decoder does NOT require getting a license from the internet to run. (The authentication is a different thing - it helps detect unintended digital processing such as digital volume, OS mixer or resampling, or transfer via inappropriate means such as AirPlay, or file corruption). You *can* copy MQA files easily.

 

- Even without a hardware MQA decoder, people have shown that with only a software MQA decoder such as Tidal desktop app, a large part of the benefits can still be achieved.

 

Based on these comparisons, MQA is significantly less bad than either SACD and Blu-ray.

Peter Lie

LUMIN Firmware Lead

Link to comment
Good start Jud. BY "restrict usage" I wonder if that means restriction without a benefit or if it doesn't even matter? For example, if MQA was restricted just to be restricted versus the restriction coming from the need for hardware to get the full benefit because what they want to do isn't possible without hardware.

 

I would be skeptical myself of a claim that what MQA wants to do isn't possible without hardware. Have the MQA folks made such a claim?

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Now you're doing it again. FLAC isn't a form of DRM because it is an open specification. If I found myself wanting to play a FLAC file and didn't have a player, I could write one myself simply by following the spec. I estimate it would take me about two days. If I want to play an MQA file and don't have a compatible DAC, there's fuck all I can do about it. Do you really not see the difference?

 

If I download a FLAC file from HDtracks, it is with the understanding that I won't redistribute it, play it in public, etc. However, nothing actually prevents me from doing any of those things. The reason I don't is that it would be dishonest and illegal. That is not DRM but a plain old contract.

OK, getting somewhere.

 

The rules shouldn't just apply to engineers capable of creating their own workaround. Joe Sixpack can't make a CD player with parts or create a FLAC decoder.

 

You can play an MQA file on anything without a DAC. You also seem to thing MQA isn't doing anything or what it's doing is wrong, so you should be fine without decoding it.

 

I'm guessing if technology forces you to be honest you don't like it, but the legal contract that asks you to be honest is OK?

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
How about Wikipedia for at least a quick and easy starting point?

 

Digital rights management (DRM) schemes are various access control technologies that are used to restrict usage of proprietary hardware and copyrighted works. DRM technologies try to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyrighted works (such as software and multimedia content), as well as systems within devices that enforce these policies.

 

Jud: The problem with the Wiki definition is that it assumes hardware to be proprietary and software to be freely copyable (except as protected by copyright). MQA makes the software and the hardware proprietary.

 

The main difference to me is that DRM is intended to prevent me from obtaining a copy of someone else's file and playing it on my equipment. With MQA (as long as I have the necessary hardware) I seems can decode an illegal copy as easily as a purchased original.

 

But, by being a proprietary format, MQA creates the same ultimate limitation as DRM does, which is that at some point in the future you may be prevented from being able to beneficially use something you bought and paid for.

Synology NAS>i7-6700/32GB/NVIDIA QUADRO P4000 Win10>Qobuz+Tidal>Roon>HQPlayer>DSD512> Fiber Switch>Ultrarendu (NAA)>Holo Audio May KTE DAC> Bryston SP3 pre>Levinson No. 432 amps>Magnepan (MG20.1x2, CCR and MMC2x6)

Link to comment
I would be skeptical myself of a claim that what MQA wants to do isn't possible without hardware. Have the MQA folks made such a claim?

 

Not sure, but I just want to dig into this one.

 

Because the rendering is tailored to the DAC, it seems implicit that hardware is a requirement to get the full benefit. Whether or not this can be done purely in software seems more like a design decision / business decision.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
How about Wikipedia for at least a quick and easy starting point?

 

This:

 

Digital rights management (DRM) schemes are various access control technologies that are used to restrict usage of proprietary hardware and copyrighted works. DRM technologies try to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyrighted works (such as software and multimedia content), as well as systems within devices that enforce these policies.

 

Is as good a starting point as any and indeed was used by Chris (and myself) at the very beginning of this thread. However, it does not seem to matter much because the DRM = 'hard' implementations of file copy control mechanisms appears to have dug a deep hole in the most folks conception of DRM and things digital.

 

The Wiki quote includes everything you need - the synergism of BOTH legal/proprietary and the digital design. The (painfully obvious to me) fact that DRM is not limited to copy protection, but a much more broad control of the consumer/industry with the language of "restrict usage" (first sentance, 15th and 16th places in), etc.

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
But calling it a DRM is just silly when there is already all that music out there in so many formats. They are not controlling your access to it.

 

 

Currently there is the potential built into MQA for stronger DRM (management/restriction of right to access content) than is being enforced, but I think you're quite correct it probably doesn't matter in some practical sense until there's enough penetration to get marketing leverage and the stronger DRM is turned on. (Pace, friend mansr, as I believe I can express in another comment why you think this does matter right now.)

 

That doesn't mean it's not DRM, it just means it's sitting there potentially awaiting the appropriate moment. :)

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Jud: The problem with the Wiki definition is that it assumes hardware to be proprietary and software to be freely copyable (except as protected by copyright). MQA makes the software and the hardware proprietary.

 

The main difference to me is that DRM is intended to prevent me from obtaining a copy of someone else's file and playing it on my equipment. With MQA (as long as I have the necessary hardware) I seems can decode an illegal copy as easily as a purchased original.

 

But, by being a proprietary format, MQA creates the same ultimate limitation as DRM does, which is that at some point in the future you may be prevented from being able to beneficially use something you bought and paid for.

 

Good points.

 

With respect to your last paragraph. Everything is temporary, given enough time. Isn't your statement true to formats as well? At some point I will not be able to play some of my formats. I have an 8mm video camera that I can't use because the film isn't made anymore. Proprietary or not, the result seems to be the same.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
It isn't marketing-speak when they can actually deliver a better subjective experience through executive choice of matched record/replay filters; if it works it is both brilliant and technically clever. But calling it a DRM is just silly when there is already all that music out there in so many formats. They are not controlling your access to it.

 

Again, strange definition(s) - ones that I think are simply not going to carry the day with anyone excepting perhaps a small group of people. DRM has the word "digital" in it, which pertains to a mathematical/technical implementation as opposed to a purely "market condition" one. Also, a purely subjective (your word) definition of Hi Res is obscure. Normally, it is defined within the context of PCM encoding and means > 16/44. I know subjectivists don't like that, but that is the case...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...