The Computer Audiophile Posted February 8, 2017 Author Share Posted February 8, 2017 Not to get too technical, but all DRM schemes that I know of use crypto keys, certificates, etc. This includes Microsoft's, Adobe's, OMA's and Apple's schemes. Has Meridian published their DRM spec or say they have one that compliant vendors must implement? (Maybe also be called "License Management" spec). MQA says there is zero DRM in the product(s). Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
mansr Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 MQA says there is zero DRM in the product(s). That's what they say. They lie. Link to comment
Jay-dub Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Here is an example of what I consider to be a benign form of DRM. I have an ebook that I downloaded as a PDF with a notice at the bottom of every page giving my email and a transaction number, and indicating that it was created for my exclusive use. It is viewable on Adobe and non-Adobe PDF readers alike, but I will assume that Adobe's authentication system is strong enough that I would not be able to strip all identifying information and create another PDF of comparable quality and file size untraceable to me. If I were to distribute the file online, it could get back to the publisher, and they would know that the unauthorized distribution was from me. Thus, this use of digital technology strongly discourages me from distributing the PDF online. If I really wanted to do that, I'd probably create an untraceable email address and financial account to buy these ebooks. How does MQA compare? I'm sure that every valid MQA file can be traced to its creation. It is likely that download or streaming sites have the capability to create uniquely identifiable MQA files for each customer. It may or may not be possible right now to take an MQA file and create a high-res file from it that has equal quality and is not traceable to it. If this were all that MQA were about, I would not be bothered by it. If its capabilities for compression of high-res content were clearly outstanding, I would recognize the value. But it is increasingly clear that MQA forces its end-users to listen to the output of mediocre digital filtering and makes various legitimate uses of an audio download difficult or impossible. Link to comment
christopher3393 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 No, not really. Think of a 3rd thing - a thing that synergizes #1 and #2 in a way that leads to #3 - a fundamental change in your digital (in this case, musical) ecosystem from the bottom up. It's not just a contract/legal agreement, and it is not just a technological circumstance/limitation, it is this 3rd thing that is more like putting active, living policeman (or overbearing teacher) in your life who follows you around everywhere you go telling you what to do. It changes your digital music chain from "open" to "closed" - this is a larger concept than "restriction"... Yes, this is what Prodigy was getting at in his latest release: "Hegelian Dialectic: The Book Of Revelations." Link to comment
mansr Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Here is an example of what I consider to be a benign form of DRM. I have an ebook that I downloaded as a PDF with a notice at the bottom of every page giving my email and a transaction number, and indicating that it was created for my exclusive use. It is viewable on Adobe and non-Adobe PDF readers alike, but I will assume that Adobe's authentication system is strong enough that I would not be able to strip all identifying information and create another PDF of comparable quality and file size untraceable to me. Those watermarks are usually trivial to remove with no effect on the actual content. I've often done this when the watermark has interfered with reading of the main document (think large banners covering most of the page). All you need is some freely available tools and a very basic understanding of the format. That said, I agree that a non-intrusive watermark would be acceptable even if it couldn't be easily removed. Link to comment
jmudrick Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 But it is increasingly clear that MQA forces its end-users to listen to the output of mediocre digital filtering and makes various legitimate uses of an audio download difficult or impossible. Except in Mansr's Blade Runner nightmare world nothing forces anybody to purchase MQA or to listen to to it. For most all choosing to do so, including rational audiophiles, most via streaming, the judgement will be whether it sounds better than 320 mp3 or Redbook, not whether it is superior to hirez file playback using HQ Player. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk FLAC -> Jplay-> Jkeny Mk3 -> Audio-GD Ref 5->Hornshoppe Truth -> Music Reference EM7-> Hornshoppe Horned Heils Link to comment
mansr Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Except in Mansr's Blade Runner nightmare world nothing forces anybody to purchase MQA or to listen to to it. Of course nobody is forced to listen to MQA. After all, nobody is forced to listen to music. Indeed, there are places where listening to music is forbidden, MQA or otherwise. Link to comment
labjr Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Except in Mansr's Blade Runner nightmare world nothing forces anybody to purchase MQA or to listen to to it. For most all choosing to do so, including rational audiophiles, most via streaming, the judgement will be whether it sounds better than 320 mp3 or Redbook, not whether it is superior to hirez file playback using HQ Player. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk We'll be forced to if there's no other choice. And that's entirely possible. I imagine Bob Stuart is trying his best to make that happen. Link to comment
jmudrick Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 We'll be forced to if there's no other choice. And that's entirely possible. I imagine Bob Stuart is trying his best to make that happen. Of course he is. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk FLAC -> Jplay-> Jkeny Mk3 -> Audio-GD Ref 5->Hornshoppe Truth -> Music Reference EM7-> Hornshoppe Horned Heils Link to comment
labjr Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Of course he is. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk I'm not sure MQA could be successful unless it takes over the market. So now's the time to speak up and hope the record labels are listening, before we have no choice. Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 That's what they say. They lie. Why do you believe they're lying? Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
mansr Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Why do you believe they're lying? Because I have reverse engineered the decoder, and it's full of DRM. Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Because I have reverse engineered the decoder, and it's full of DRM. But the big question is: will those possibilities for DRM be used and to what extent will they be relevant to the end user? Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
mansr Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 But the big question is: will those possibilities for DRM be used and to what extent will they be relevant to the end user? That's impossible to predict, but saying MQA doesn't have DRM features is a blatant lie. Moreover, whatever the future holds, MQA as deployed today prevents digital manipulations like DSP room correction. That alone qualifies it as DRM. Link to comment
duxservit Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 MQA says there is zero DRM in the product(s). Thx Chris. Assuming this is true (i.e. no DRM) then it's just a matter of time for their scheme to be broken/reverse-engineered. The question becomes one of value/cost -- is there any benefit (any market) for reverse-engineered MQA content/music files? Let every eye ear negotiate for itself and trust no agent. (Shakespeare) The things that we love tell us what we are. (Aquinas) Link to comment
duxservit Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 That's impossible to predict, but saying MQA doesn't have DRM features is a blatant lie. Moreover, whatever the future holds, MQA as deployed today prevents digital manipulations like DSP room correction. That alone qualifies it as DRM. Running a DRM license/key infrastructure is operationally a huge undertaking. Somehow I can't see Meridian doing this. It may outsource to another provider. Let every eye ear negotiate for itself and trust no agent. (Shakespeare) The things that we love tell us what we are. (Aquinas) Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted February 9, 2017 Author Share Posted February 9, 2017 Thx Chris. Assuming this is true (i.e. no DRM) then it's just a matter of time for their scheme to be broken/reverse-engineered. The question becomes one of value/cost -- is there any benefit (any market) for reverse-engineered MQA content/music files? Good points and question. Who knows. I've long thought that once MQA studio tools (encoding / decoding) become popular in the wild, everything will be cracked / hacked etc...If for no other purpose than to do it. Perhaps there isn't a market for reverse engineered content, but for playback software and hardware there will be a market. Small market, but still a market. 99.999% of music listeners don't have enough interest in a pirated version of anything because the legal methods are too convenient. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Running a DRM license/key infrastructure is operationally a huge undertaking. Somehow I can't see Meridian doing this. It may outsource to another provider. I discussed who did the encryption in my original post MQA is Vaporware. That company has the resources to do this. Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted February 9, 2017 Author Share Posted February 9, 2017 Running a DRM license/key infrastructure is operationally a huge undertaking. Somehow I can't see Meridian doing this. It may outsource to another provider. MQA - Utimaco enables revolutionary step in digital sound quality and authenticity - Find Exhibitors 2016 - Infosecurity Europe Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
duxservit Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 MQA - Utimaco enables revolutionary step in digital sound quality and authenticity - Find Exhibitors 2016 - Infosecurity Europe I know Utimaco. These guys definitely can provide DRM technology. Would be curious to see who actually runs the infrastructure. Let every eye ear negotiate for itself and trust no agent. (Shakespeare) The things that we love tell us what we are. (Aquinas) Link to comment
duxservit Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 I discussed who did the encryption in my original post MQA is Vaporware. That company has the resources to do this. Apologies - too many threads on MQA :-) Let every eye ear negotiate for itself and trust no agent. (Shakespeare) The things that we love tell us what we are. (Aquinas) Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Apologies - too many threads on MQA :-) No apologies needed. I’m not curious as to who runs the infrastructure because I’m satisfied there is digital rights management in MQA. Bob Stuart can’t say that because DRM will kill the product in the United States. What I’m curious about is who signed off on the Foghat MQA files and of course did Lizzie Hale sign off on the Halestorm Live MQA? Link to comment
jmudrick Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 No apologies needed. I’m not curious as to who runs the infrastructure because I’m satisfied there is digital rights management in MQA. Bob Stuart can’t say that because DRM will kill the product in the United States. So it's double secret DRM that consumers will never find out about because it doesn't actually do anything? That Stuart -- IF that is his name -- is clever. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk FLAC -> Jplay-> Jkeny Mk3 -> Audio-GD Ref 5->Hornshoppe Truth -> Music Reference EM7-> Hornshoppe Horned Heils Link to comment
PeterSt Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Moreover, whatever the future holds, MQA as deployed today prevents digital manipulations like DSP room correction. That alone qualifies it as DRM. I think you are not correct on this. Lush^3-e Lush^2 Blaxius^2.5 Ethernet^3 HDMI^2 XLR^2 XXHighEnd (developer) Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer) Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer) Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier) Link to comment
Fokus Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 I think you are not correct on this. How that? Can you show how one could perform equalisation at full hi-res rate on an MQA signal, outside of a completely MQA-controlled system? Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now