Another major look at MQA by another pro.

[soxr]

https://www.infosecurityeurope.com/en/Exhibitors/2174484/Utimaco-IS-GmbH

 

Quote

Utimaco is a leading manufacturer of hardware security modules that provide the Root of Trust to the IoT. We keep your cryptographic keys and digital identities safe to protect critical digital infrastructures and high value data assets. Utimaco delivers a general purpose HSM as a customizable platform to easily integrate into existing and new software solutions.

Files are encrypted & signed by MQA (not by the artist, not by the studio):

 

Studio's don't have an encoder, even with the new tools that can do a preview, the real studiomaster PCM file still has to be sent to MQA, so MQA can do the encode. So authentication is all related to cryptographic authentication.

[Jud]

3 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

I think the answer to the second question should be self-evident. - As you almost correctly noted -- "nobody wants it". I think it is safe to say that this is true for all consumers of music. But MQA's work with Utimaco in Germany to add DRM was not free, so clearly someone wants it. I could speculate all day long, but I think that is more of a job for the audio press, and not the manufacturers.

 

I personally think it was a move by MQA to obtain maximum protection for IP under the DMCA.

[Shadders]

Hi,

 

The Utimaco link indicates that they provide a hardware solution for crypto key and digital identity storage, but later the quote the hardware storage module (HSM) can integrate with new and existing software solutions.

 

For this to be of any issue to audio in general with regards to DRM, then every device that fully converts MQA to audio will need the HSM. I expect this to be a slow process, unless there is a way of ensuring that every solution that provides audio has this HSM installed. This is not feasible for every audio device that currently exists.

 

Perhaps the long term strategy is to move every audio stream provision to MQA only, then the DRM can be implemented as a very slow process - but so many people will not have the required hardware. Unless every phone/tablet/DAC etc provider incorporates the HSM or an equivalent software solution ???

 

So, it may be a long term strategy - slow migration so we are aware, and then will be prepared. Since MQA is backwards compatible, then no one can object. Then DRM can be implemented once there is a captive market. People interested in audio per se are a minority.

 

If we examine Windows 10 issues - the vast majority accept update reboots when Microsoft decides, accept telemetry etc. etc. etc., and adverts in the menu. Will Microsoft implement a subscription for Windows 10 ??? Who knows. If you read the Windows 10 licence - you don't own the software.

 

MQA can be implemented stealthily -  so a subscription for all audio is a possible future.

 

Regards,

 

Shadders.

[soxr]

The authentication part can be done in software, and is in the first unfold.
The decryption key is probably static.

The second unfold does not even check authentication. Proof is mansr's work, which includes GPL tools so existing PCM files can be modified to include the 1 bit LSB bitstream so the renderer part applies the weird filters. So anyone can hack PCM to include MQA renderer instructions.

Only the first unfold is protected.

 

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, soxr said:

The authentication part can be done in software, and is in the first unfold.

The decoder computes a hash of data stream between specified points. This is checked against a 3072-bit cryptographic signature included in the control stream.

 

4 minutes ago, soxr said:

The decryption key is probably static.

If encryption is used, the key is included in the control bitstream. As with all forms of software DRM, the key has to be accessible to the player, you just need to know where to look. It's security by obscurity.

 

4 minutes ago, soxr said:

The second unfold does not even check authentication. Proof is mansr's work, which includes GPL tools so existing PCM files can be modified to include the 1 bit LSB bitstream so the renderer part applies the weird filters. So anyone can hack PCM to include MQA renderer instructions.

Only the first unfold is protected.

And this is why DACs like the Mytek Brooklyn indicate this differently from full MQA decoding.

[Jud]

My thinking is that the PR saying "Listen to it undecoded and it sounds fine!" indicates a lack of emphasis on *content* DRM and more of an emphasis on protecting IP.  (Imagine Sony having developed a method of SACD encoding that allowed listening to DSD streams without decoding, and publicizing the *lack* of necessity for hardware decoding in order to get great sound.)

 

Yes, it's possible to develop more conspiratorial theories that what they're really trying to do is snare us in their ecosystem, but Apple and iTunes downloads have already shown multibillion dollar music businesses can be built on that with no necessity for content DRM whatsoever.

[soxr]

36 minutes ago, mansr said:

If encryption is used, the key is included in the control bitstream. As with all forms of software DRM, the key has to be accessible to the player, you just need to know where to look. It's security by obscurity.

The key could also be a static key in the firmware. It starts to be problematic when you have encrypted content + symmetric key inside the same stream. Security through obscurity can be deblurred, this is how I deblurred a firmware of a well known player.

 

 

 

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, soxr said:

The key could also be a static key in the firmware. It starts to be problematic when you have encrypted content + symmetric key inside the same stream.

In the case of MQA, the key is sent with the stream while the decryption algorithm is "hidden" in the firmware. At least they had the sense to use a well-known cipher rather than inventing their own, badly.

[Shadders]

55 minutes ago, Jud said:

My thinking is that the PR saying "Listen to it undecoded and it sounds fine!" indicates a lack of emphasis on *content* DRM and more of an emphasis on protecting IP.  (Imagine Sony having developed a method of SACD encoding that allowed listening to DSD streams without decoding, and publicizing the *lack* of necessity for hardware decoding in order to get great sound.)

 

Yes, it's possible to develop more conspiratorial theories that what they're really trying to do is snare us in their ecosystem, but Apple and iTunes downloads have already shown multibillion dollar music businesses can be built on that with no necessity for content DRM whatsoever.

Hi Jud,

It is not conspiracy theory, as quite a few software vendors (Adobe, Autodesk, MS Office etc) have moved, or implemented in part a subscription based licence. The two models (subscription, owned) can live side by side, but the masses are already used to subscription services.

There will always be competition - hopefully, as smaller labels will provide purchased content ? (CD's, DRM free downloads)

Regards,

Shadders.

[soxr]

34 minutes ago, mansr said:

In the case of MQA, the key is sent with the stream while the decryption algorithm is "hidden" in the firmware. At least they had the sense to use a well-known cipher rather than inventing their own, badly.

DeMQA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS

[Charles Hansen]

If you all remember SACD, one of Sony's big selling points to the record labels is that no computer would ever be even able to read the disc, let alone copy it. Concomitant with that was a promise to the labels that never would the unencrypted data stream be available to the user.

 

Please note that the second part of SACD's promise to the labels is already present in MQA. Their excuse is that the "flaws" of the D/A converter require correction, but the end game actually appears to be to never let unencrypted data be available. While this makes copying much more difficult, it also makes other uses such as room EQ or speaker EQ impossible, which is one reason that many are rejecting MQA.

While a computer can read (or copy) an MQA file or "CD", I think the record labels have largely resigned themselves to the fact that 100% of their current catalog has already been released in Redbook format with no DRM. MQA appears to be an attempt to "protect" the high-resolution "master files" - the "crown jewels". One can only decode the "high res" portion with licensed products with royalties paid, and even then all one gets is a "dumbed-down" version of the original high-res file - basically an MP3 of the high-res file.

 

All of the noise about MQA sounding "better" than the original is highly suspect, as no fair comparisons have ever been conducted. To the degree that the sound is changed by MQA, it is self evident that the reduction of bit depth and the discarding of musical content above 48kHz cannot improve the sound quality. If there are any sonic gains to be made by way of the digital filters, there is no reason to tie better sounding digital filters to a closed, proprietary system that charges license fees and royalties at every step.

[rickca]

2 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

If there are any sonic gains to be made by way of the digital filters, there is no reason to tie better sounding digital filters to a closed, proprietary system that charges license fees and royalties at every step.

So Ayre products are not going to support MQA, is that right?

[mansr]

19 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

If you all remember SACD, one of Sony's big selling points to the record labels is that no computer would ever be even able to read the disc, let alone copy it. Concomitant with that was a promise to the labels that never would the unencrypted data stream be available to the user.

And this was true for a very long time. It only changed when someone found a flaw in the PS3 firmware allowing unfettered access to the hardware, and it was still a rather convoluted process limited to old models no longer for sale. Later, a more easily exploited flaw in the firmware if some Pioneer and Oppo players made ripping possible on those. This too has no doubt been patched in currently sold units.

 

As DRM goes, SACD is one of the most successful schemes. The price of this success was a huge inconvenience to both producers and consumers, and this is probably what limited its commercial success.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

The price of this success was a huge inconvenience to both producers and consumers, and this is probably what limited its commercial success.

As folks have pointed out from time to time,  “carrot” has beat the heck out of “stick” as far as new music marketing schemes go.

[Charles Hansen]

17 minutes ago, Jud said:

As folks have pointed out from time to time,  “carrot” has beat the heck out of “stick” as far as new music marketing schemes go.

 

Bingo! Exactly why MQA is being marketed as a "carrot" (first "smaller file size" and then "sounds better than the original file") rather than the DRM stick that it actually is.

 

As far as the "free" part on Tidal Hi-Fi - that is just for now. MQA is not a charity. As with all "free" things (think e-mail services, search engines, social networks, and the like), when the cost to you is "free" that simply means that you are the product that is being sold.  All of those companies make money knowing about you, your interests, your buying habits, and so on. They can either sell that information (the US congress just passed a law so that your ISP can legally sell information about you to the highest bidder) or use it themselves to profit directly.

[Charles Hansen]

Adding on to the above post, I would either expect that Tidal will sooner or later raise their rates for MQA. If that does not happen and the "better sounding" files remain "free" (same price as Redbook), then there must be some other benefit to someone who is paying for the re-mastering and file distribution. The old saying is still true - "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

[Charles Hansen]

19 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

 I could speculate all day long, but I think that is more of a job for the audio press, and not the manufacturers.

 

The reason that this a job for the audio press is that the general readership of any print magazine, webzine, forum, or whatever naturally assumes that all manufacturers have a vested interest and will only say things that boost the sales of their own products. On the other hand, there is a natural tendency to believe a "journalist", who presumably has no dog in the fight. (Whether the latter is true or not is at the very least open to debate and often demonstrably false. Still that is the general perception.)

[mansr]

43 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

Bingo! Exactly why MQA is being marketed as a "carrot" (first "smaller file size" and then "sounds better than the original file") rather than the DRM stick that it actually is.

I'm sure MQA's pitch to the labels is all about the size of their stick.

[Jud]

48 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

the US congress just passed a law so that your ISP can legally sell information about you to the highest bidder

 

In fact what Congress did was even more activist for corporate interests than your (correct) summary implies.  A regulation prohibiting ISPs from selling your personal information was put into effect in the last months of the Obama administration.  There is a law that allows Congress to roll back recently enacted regulations of a previous administration.  That’s what they used to get rid of this existing regulation.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Would be nice if this brought on more ISP competition and people flocked to the ISP that didn't sell info. However, Congress granted mini monopolies to cable companies who have the wires into every house. 

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Would be nice if this brought on more ISP competition and people flocked to the ISP that didn't sell info. However, Congress granted mini monopolies to cable companies who have the wires into every house. 

 

That may happen. One of the highest costs for cable is the last mile. Soon that will be wireless and maybe more competition. 

 

Sorry to be hard on you the last couple of days but the information needed to get out so I have it in my database to respond to your fellow audio journalists. They are trying some creative ways to keep the conversation going about MQA.

[Charles Hansen]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

I'm sure MQA's pitch to the labels is all about the size of their stick.

 

If you have Netflix, there is a "made for Netflix" movie called "Pirates of Silicon Valley". It is a super-fascinating look at how both Apple and Microsoft made their money and well worth searching out. It is not flattering, but it is all true. (Otherwise they would have been successfully sued for libel/slander.) And you can pretty much bet that there are some much uglier details that were left out. One of the quotes from Bill Gates is:

 

" You know how you survive? You make people need you. You survive because you make them need what you have. And then they have no where else to go."

 

I suspect that is a lesson that MQA took to heart.

[The Computer Audiophile]

54 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

That may happen. One of the highest costs for cable is the last mile. Soon that will be wireless and maybe more competition. 

 

Sorry to be hard on you the last couple of days but the information needed to get out so I have it in my database to respond to your fellow audio journalists. They are trying some creative ways to keep the conversation going about MQA.

 

No worries. All in the spirit of seeking answers, listening to others, and hopefully learning something. And, having fun with like minded individuals. 

[soxr]

6 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

All of the noise about MQA sounding "better" than the original is highly suspect, as no fair comparisons have ever been conducted. To the degree that the sound is changed by MQA, it is self evident that the reduction of bit depth and the discarding of musical content above 48kHz cannot improve the sound quality. If there are any sonic gains to be made by way of the digital filters, there is no reason to tie better sounding digital filters to a closed, proprietary system that charges license fees and royalties at every step.

Without this argument, they would have nothing left to sell to "audiophiles".

Demand for internet bandwidth doubles every 18 months, and supply follows. I soon will have gigabit from our national ISP, which in 1998 delivered 1 mbit ADSL. So a factor 1000 in just 20 years.

Just look at Qobuz:

http://blogsv2.qobuz.com/qobuz-blog-en/2017/04/03/march-29-2017-our-new-announcements-qobuzisback/

 

Quote

 

We think that:

• 4G data subscriptions are increasingly widespread
• 4G coverage and flow is improving
• 5G will be coming next
• Domestic broadband has seen a great deal of development

All this allows us today, to offer our subscribers the highest sound quality, without compromise, whatever the environment.

 

 

The MQA compression benefit has a very short shelf life.

Remains:

- approximated lossy format with DRM & crypto + higher noise floor: no access to real masters
- weird filters and deblur blah blah to give illusion of better sound from a lossy format

If the studio's would really hammer on not giving the customer access to studiomasters, why did Qobuz manage to offer 60.000 lossless 24 bit real studiomaster albums without alterations, and full access to the nyquist data?

[PeterV]

On 6-8-2017 at 9:10 AM, firedog said:

And the above posts are why even though I use Tidal extensively, I still buy albums (either disc or download) that I know I am going to listen to repeatedly. That way, if only MQA versions are available or if Tidal disappears, I will still have copies of music that I have more than a passing interest in and will be able to listen to it as I please. 

 

Why do you expect only MQA files will be available in Tidal? Both 16/44 and MQA are available right now. My expectation is that MQA will remain to be an 'add-on' feature for all types of PCM encoded files and it is nothing more than a neat way of decreasing the bit-rate and density of HD files in order to enable distribution of (better than) HD content via streaming services