HIGHRESAUDIO to stop offering MQA......

[ElviaCaprice]

Lol! I kind of like being dopey once in awhile. I honestly don't care what format that the streaming services use as long as there is a solid move towards streaming hires of some sort. I love streaming and hope everyone gets what they want / need out of it, including the artists. I really don't see a handful of "dopes" upsetting your Apple cart.

If MQA was to allow total software unfolding, instead of DAC completion, I wouldn't give a hoot about it. Knock themselves out. Besides, if the product is as good as they(MQA) claim, they should succeed well without trying to corner the entire market by a form of DRM licensing.

[sphinxsix]

Supposed to be the new "thing".

Fake news.

[EuroChamp]

What is MQA?

 

I think there's an article or two on the web about it. Supposed to be the new "thing".

 

Fake news.

 

Thank you for clearing up the situation

[Fokus]

Purely in terms of sales, why should HRA care what format they sell as long as they sell?

 

A couple of years ago hi-res sellers got into trouble because of standard-res content masquerading as hi-res.

 

This they solved by installing incoming inspection on the files they received from the labels. For this you subject the digital file to static and/or dynamic spectral analysis. There are plenty of tools available for this.

 

With MQA the signal is hidden, and remains hidden until decoded by a compliant device. Analysis in the digital domain is not possible. Low-res content can easily be hidden in an MQA container and no-one would be the wiser. The 'A' of MQA does not guarantee anything about the provenance of the actual source.

[firedog]

A couple of years ago hi-res sellers got into trouble because of standard-res content masquerading as hi-res.

 

This they solved by installing incoming inspection on the files they received from the labels. For this you subject the digital file to static and/or dynamic spectral analysis. There are plenty of tools available for this.

 

With MQA the signal is hidden, and remains hidden until decoded by a compliant device. Analysis in the digital domain is not possible. Low-res content can easily be hidden in an MQA container and no-one would be the wiser. The 'A' of MQA does not guarantee anything about the provenance of the actual source.

 

Yes, but this has nothing to do with the point I was responding to, which was about MQA taking away sales of DSD.

[sphinxsix]

Thank you for clearing up the situation

You're welcome. I think we've cleared up the situation in the same way MQA has been making it clear with regard to itself.

[oneway23]

A couple of years ago hi-res sellers got into trouble because of standard-res content masquerading as hi-res.

 

This they solved by installing incoming inspection on the files they received from the labels. For this you subject the digital file to static and/or dynamic spectral analysis. There are plenty of tools available for this.

 

With MQA the signal is hidden, and remains hidden until decoded by a compliant device. Analysis in the digital domain is not possible. Low-res content can easily be hidden in an MQA container and no-one would be the wiser. The 'A' of MQA does not guarantee anything about the provenance of the actual source.

The hi-res vendors may have inspection tools, and they all seem more than willing to put a section on their websites touting integrity, yet, all of them sell nothing more than what's provided to them by the labels. In that case, what good are all the analytical tools?

 

In regard to MQA, specifically, what percentage of DACs in most music-lovers' homes are genuinely giving you more than 16-17 bits of resolution anyhow? Not speaking in a confrontational tone, just want answers, thanks.

[CatManDo]

The hi-res vendors may have inspection tools, and they all may be more than willing to put a section on their websites touting integrity, yet, they all sell nothing more than what's provided to them. In that case, what good are all the analytical tools?

 

They try to be a store where the customer can have faith in the quality of the downloads. At least to the extent that fake (upsampled) hi-rez files will not be offered, as this is perceived as misleading.

 

It's like the difference between Amazon and Acoustic Sounds or Music Direct. Amazon sells anything, without checking the quality, while the audiophile stores try only to offer high quality releases.

[oneway23]

They try to be a store where the customer can have faith in the quality of the downloads. At least to the extent that fake (upsampled) hi-rez files will not be offered, as this is perceived as misleading.

 

It's like the difference between Amazon and Acoustic Sounds or Music Direct. Amazon sells anything, without checking the quality, while the audiophile stores try only to offer high quality releases.

 

That's the idea, in theory....In practice? What quality control do they really have?

[CatManDo]

They can discover upsampled files.

 

This is easily done with spectrum analysis tools that read the files. If a 24/96 file has all frequencies above 22kHz cut off, it's clearly from a 44kHz source.

 

It's more difficult to check the bit depth, to see if the source was a 24/44 file or a CD rip (16/44).

 

Upsampling is the most frequent cheat that happened with hi-rez downloads, since it allowed to sell music at a significantly higher price, while most buyers wouldn't be able to easily hear the difference. Hence the need to verify this.

[rbbert]

Now once again nothing on their Facebook page about MQA except that it is one of the formats they sell? I guess we wait until Mar 1 to see what happens

[sedest]

As usual to anything MQA related... "very obscure"...

[Nikon Nutter]

The Drm licensing is something that annoys me. MQA should less and stop trying to indirect get the customer to pay from other suppliers.

[bogi]

Yes, but this has nothing to do with the point I was responding to, which was about MQA taking away sales of DSD.

IMO witchdoctor wrote a nonsense.

Or ... @witchdoctor, can you explain?

[mordante]

True, but if it turns out that new remasters are ONLY available on MQA, then that is, in effect, DRM. Then it will be the dopey users of MQA who end up messing over hires in general. Again MQA is not needed. It solves a problem that does not exist.

 

QFT,

 

There is no reason why Tidal or any other streaming service would not stream 24/192 directly without added MQA sauce.

[ron spencer]

Lol! I kind of like being dopey once in awhile. I honestly don't care what format that the streaming services use as long as there is a solid move towards streaming hires of some sort. I love streaming and hope everyone gets what they want / need out of it, including the artists. I really don't see a handful of "dopes" upsetting your Apple cart.

 

HAHA...I'm glad you have a sense of humour.

 

I do not stream. I have a music server (CD rips, MP3 and hi-res), so I don't care about streaming. If MQA is good for streaming great (it is not at all clear it is). HOWEVER, and as I said before, if MQA is used as a way to obfuscate hi-res titles or to somehow reduce offerings, then this is DRM and NOBODY, not even the Tidal people, should support it. This will only hurt the music industry even more. But we'll see. People can talk about MQA filters all they want and whether or not "unfolding" of music is good. I don't care about that. What I care about is equal availability of titles across all formats. If one needs special software and DACs to "unfold", then this is pure DRM and under no circumstances should it be accepted.

[VenturaRV]

Thank you for clearing up the situation

Is there a bit of sarcasm, or is it just my evil imagination? [emoji41]

 

VenturaRV

[VenturaRV]

They can discover upsampled files.

 

This is easily done with spectrum analysis tools that read the files. If a 24/96 file has all frequencies above 22kHz cut off, it's clearly from a 44kHz source.

 

It's more difficult to check the bit depth, to see if the source was a 24/44 file or a CD rip (16/44).

 

Upsampling is the most frequent cheat that happened with hi-rez downloads, since it allowed to sell music at a significantly higher price, while most buyers wouldn't be able to easily hear the difference. Hence the need to verify this.

Yes, your appreciations concerning verification of sampling rate (easy) and bit depth (difficult) are right, indeed.

 

What worries me (because I suspect the same, sometimes even about myself) is your comment on how many buyers of hi-res audio will notice the difference.

 

At the end of the day, that is an all important point: the ratio between those who really HEAR an improvement in hi-res, and those who just BELEAVE they hear such difference (or simply don't hear any difference at all). It is a bad symptom needing to analyze a music file to be sure if it is true hi-res or a fake...

 

VenturaRV

[witchdoctor]

I don't think it makes any sense. Purely in terms of sales, why should HRA care what format they sell as long as they sell? What makes DSD their "dog in the race" any more than PCM or MQA? They've never sold themselves as a "format" based site, unlike a site like nativedsd.com

 

In general, giving consumers more choice of formats and prices enables more sales, not less.

So highly unlikely that is the reason they are dropping MQA.

 

Good questions. I suspect it is all hirez sales will go down due to MQA streaming. Universal will convert their entire catalog!! To get hirez all you will need is a phone and ear buds. People will still buy hirez but MQA streaming will surely siphon off some sales just like red book streaming siphoned off CD and itune sales.

[witchdoctor]

IMO witchdoctor wrote a nonsense.

Or ... @witchdoctor, can you explain?

 

see post #69

[Rt66indierock]

Good questions. I suspect it is all hirez sales will go down due to MQA streaming. Universal will convert their entire catalog!! To get hirez all you will need is a phone and ear buds. People will still buy hirez but MQA streaming will surely siphon off some sales just like red book streaming siphoned off CD and itune sales.

 

Universal isn't going convert anything they don't have signed contracts with the artists to distribute. And then we get back to the question of just how much hi-res stuff they have to convert to MQA.

[EuroChamp]

Is there a bit of sarcasm, or is it just my evil imagination? [emoji41]

 

VenturaRV

 

the former ...

[VenturaRV]

the former ...

Ha, Ha! Great! [emoji2]

 

VenturaRV

[CatManDo]

What worries me (because I suspect the same, sometimes even about myself) is your comment on how many buyers of hi-res audio will notice the difference.

 

What I meant is that people aren't able to reliably verify by hearing if the source is hi-rez or not. And without objective analysis tools, they couldn't complain to the store if they suspect a file has been upsampled, as they have no proof.

[realhifi]

 

What I care about is equal availability of titles across all formats. If one needs special software and DACs to "unfold", then this is pure DRM and under no circumstances should it be accepted.

 

So back when DSD became the rage and everyone needed to purchase a new "DSD ready" Dac it was ok. That was back in 2011 and now nearly every A/V receiver has the ability to not only play and decode DSD but stream it.

 

Was that a form of DRM also?