MQA - A clever stealth DRM - Trojan

[Fokus]

3 hours ago, Norton said:

 

But if you've already decided you want to attack something, why bother trying 

 

Less like applied Sun Tzu, more like applied Adolf Eichmann.*

 

* I am not actually suggesting that anyone here is behaving like a Nazi.

 

You edited that * in. Until that time you were exposed as an arsehole.

 

But let me be clear: I have two relevant engineering degrees, I am a music lover, I build audio gear, even design(ed) my own filters, and I have been studying MQA in detail since 2014. So I understand. And because I understand, I attack.MQA is so bad an idea and an even worse implementation that it deserves to be attacked, if only to make a counterweight to the audiophile press that has forgotten how to spell critique.

 

And now back to our guests ...

 

[Norton]

1 hour ago, Fokus said:

 

You edited that * in. Until that time you were exposed as an arsehole.

 

But let me be clear: I have two relevant engineering degrees, I am a music lover, I build audio gear, even design(ed) my own filters, and I have been studying MQA in detail since 2014. So I understand. And because I understand, I attack.MQA is so bad an idea and an even worse implementation that it deserves to be attacked, if only to make a counterweight to the audiophile press that has forgotten how to spell critique.

 

And now back to our guests ...

 

Nice.  I can see your MA in Wildean wit and repartee has clearly paid off.  But can you explain what exactly is wrong with my post?  I wasn't aware CA was a safe space where we can't mention bad men from history.  Maybe I should  have provided you with a trigger warning?

 

Just like you I used a historical figure to illustrate a point I was making.  If you know your 20th century history well, you will understand the appropriateness of the illustration I was making.  But as you well know, I was no more suggesting anyone here was a Nazi than I presumed you  were actually threatening the staff of MQA with the violence of 6th c. BC  Chinese warfare. I thought we were  having an interesting and grown up discussion on the nature of hatred.  Clearly I overestimated  your intellect.

 

I included the clarification to my post to head off the faux snowflakes like yourself.  Happy new year.

[Don Hills]

4 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

Sigh. Look, when MQA introduces DRM, then we can can all point to when they said otherwise and call Stuart a liar. Until then, it’s just an imaginary boogeyman.

 

On the contrary, it's very real.

The encryption scheme used is very good (and expensive). You can bet that it was included to make MQA more attractive to the record labels. And you can also bet the labels will be tempted to use it if MQA becomes the dominant format.

 

Another problem with MQA is that it requires specific hardware. What happens when/if MQA dies in the marketplace and DAC manufacturers stop paying the license fee and drop support in their new DACs? There have already been several cases where DRM schemes have folded, leaving people with music they can no longer play.

 

And for those who say that you can still play the undecoded MQA, remember that the currently encoded MQA files don't use the optional degradation functions. The undecoded quality can be reduced to a level where you can barely recognise the music being played.

[Allan F]

6 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

GUTB says there is no DRM.  Miska says there is DRM.

 

Who to believe?

 

Of the two, who do you think occupies a well deserved place on many Ignore Lists? A rhetorical question, no replies necessary.

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Of the two, who do you think appears on many Ignore Lists? A rhetorical question, no replies necessary.

 

Wait, I know the answer to this one.

 

 

 

 

 

[GUTB]

1 hour ago, Don Hills said:

 

On the contrary, it's very real.

The encryption scheme used is very good (and expensive). You can bet that it was included to make MQA more attractive to the record labels. And you can also bet the labels will be tempted to use it if MQA becomes the dominant format.

 

Another problem with MQA is that it requires specific hardware. What happens when/if MQA dies in the marketplace and DAC manufacturers stop paying the license fee and drop support in their new DACs? There have already been several cases where DRM schemes have folded, leaving people with music they can no longer play.

 

And for those who say that you can still play the undecoded MQA, remember that the currently encoded MQA files don't use the optional degradation functions. The undecoded quality can be reduced to a level where you can barely recognise the music being played.

 

This definition also applies to SACDs, but I don’t recall anyone accusing Sony of trying to push DRM via SACD.

 

I bought a 2L MQA album. Nothing’s stopped me from playing it where I want how I want, upload to or give it to whoever I want. If I want to unfold the SQ benifits from MQA I need a DAC that supports MQA. Just like if I want to benifit from DSD quality I need a DSD capable DAC, and if I want to get the benifit from 352 kHz files I need a 352 kHz capable DAC. It’s just a format — the main wrinkle being that it’s a format that’s trying to secure itself against fruad (ie, hi-res tracks that were just upsampled Redbook all over HDTracks, etc). This is not DRM, as there is no rights management or enforcement mechanism. If such DRM mechanisms show up in the future, we can all call Stuart and MQA liars.

[Don Hills]

2 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

... This is not DRM, as there is no rights management or enforcement mechanism. If such DRM mechanisms show up in the future, we can all call Stuart and MQA liars.

 

The mechanism is there, it's just not being used yet. It's like HDCP in the HDMI spec. It wasn't used in the early days. Now that the interface is ubiquitous, it is being used.

[Don Hills]

2 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

 

Edit error.

[Norton]

Unless it degrades SQ, what's wrong with DRM?

 

I don't work for free or expect my music for free so am quite happy to see others get paid for their work and their IP protected.

 

For example, HQP is very popular on this site, I don't see anyone complaining that it requires you to buy a licence and install a key.  Isn't Miska just managing his digital rights too?

[FredericV]

2 hours ago, Norton said:

For example, HQP is very popular on this site, I don't see anyone complaining that it requires you to buy a licence and install a key.  Isn't Miska just managing his digital rights too?

 

More than one high-end player software exists, so there is competition. HQP is not a monopoly, more players exist with upsampling features and custom filters.

MQA tries to infect the highres world to become the one and only format by making deals with the largest studio's, therefore becoming a monopoly format for highres, and then convince hardware vendors this is the only format so they need to implement this or fear not to tick the box and loose business.

MQA is trying to become a monopoly on highres distribution.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

MQA is trying to become a monopoly on highres distribution.

 

In your mind, yes.

[FredericV]

7 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

In your mind, yes.

 

So did you already sign the MQA contract to decode the first unfold in your player?
Do you want to be part of MQA's new world order?
 

http://www.aes.org/events/143/specialevents/?ID=5624

"We have 3 distinguished panelists to guide you through the new world order"

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, FredericV said:

So did you already sign the MQA contract?

 

Did you buy your fireworks in Germany ?

 

 

[Shadders]

9 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Did you buy your fireworks in Germany ?

 

 

Hi PeterSt,

I assume there is some cultural aspect between Netherlands and Germany here ?

The statement on the AES may be tongue in cheek, but....

If you examine dispersion, it cannot be reversed for a complex audio signal. So the claims by MQA are false. Reversal of dispersion is "the" key aspect MQA, which being false, makes MQA a scam. So, maybe the DRM aspect is a stealth strategy.

Regards,

Shadders.

[PeterSt]

46 minutes ago, Shadders said:

I assume there is some cultural aspect between Netherlands and Germany here ?

 

No, pure coincidence. if FredericV asks unrelated questions, I can do that too.

But to satisfy your curiosity : In Holland people buy their fireworks in Belgium or in Germany. Bigger, better, cheaper there.

 

49 minutes ago, Shadders said:

If you examine dispersion, it cannot be reversed for a complex audio signal.

 

Maybe you remember that I proposed something I could do myself, regarding this (with my immediate self-response that I would not like to manipulate the signal). And if I think I can do that, I can also think that another (MQA) can do it.

 

50 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Reversal of dispersion is "the" key aspect MQA

 

Well, good if that came through finally. Haha.

 

51 minutes ago, Shadders said:

So, maybe the DRM aspect is a stealth strategy.

 

Nice thinking.

 

Maybe we must redefine DRM into sub categories. There plainly is no DRM in MQA at this moment, so saying that it is because the possibility is there (I surely agree with that) is b*ll. That a lot can be arranged with it, is true just the same. But DRM is still DRM as DRM is supposed to operate, and this is not in there.

Btw, I forgot again why the real DRM a danger to streaming audio. Maybe you can help me out (I recall there is a good reason, but I really forgot).

Anyway I would agree with those who propose that with what's in MQA the quality can be manipulated to all sorts of levels. But what is wrong with that is beyond me. If I don't want to pay for the best quality, then nothing is wrong with that. Right ?

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

Do you want to be part of MQA's new world order?
 

http://www.aes.org/events/143/specialevents/?ID=5624

"We have 3 distinguished panelists to guide you through the new world order"

 

You added this later.

 

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

I assume there is some cultural aspect between Netherlands and Germany here ?

 

As I said, No. But between Netherlands an Belgium sure Yes. Just observe ...

[PeterSt]

15 hours ago, Norton said:

I wasn't aware CA was a safe space where we can't mention bad men from history.

 

And since we're at it anyway ... Say that to a random American and it's fine. But you were indirectly talking to a German and so it could only be read as bad intentions (not saying that you had bad intentions - not at all).

I personally don't know anyone who exhibits grief about our mutual past and I like Christoph et al to know. If it is about football, all is different. 

 

[FredericV]

8 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Maybe we must redefine DRM into sub categories. There plainly is no DRM in MQA at this moment, so saying that it is because the possibility is there (I surely agree with that) is b*ll. That a lot can be arranged with it, is true just the same. But DRM is still DRM as DRM is supposed to operate, and this is not in there.

 

Why do you believe this? Why does MQA needs strong crypto? To protect the crown jewels.
With MQA you don't get access to the master, but you get the right to lisen to some approximation of the master, only on MQA dacs.

This is a clear form of DRM.

 

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, FredericV said:

This is a clear form of DRM.

 

Because you want to see it like that.

 

2 minutes ago, FredericV said:

Why do you believe this?

 

Because I want to see it like that.

 

[Shadders]

18 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Maybe you remember that I proposed something I could do myself, regarding this (with my immediate self-response that I would not like to manipulate the signal). And if I think I can do that, I can also think that another (MQA) can do it.

 

Hi PeterSt,

Without prior knowledge of the exact target waveform, you can NEVER calculate the inverse function to remove dispersion.

Are you agreeing that this is the case ?

Regards,

Shadders.

[FredericV]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Because you want to see it like that.

 

 

Because I want to see it like that.

 

 

For a dev who wants to incorporate MQA into his player, it makes sense to deny that MQA contains DRM.

[GUTB]

3 hours ago, FredericV said:

 

Why do you believe this? Why does MQA needs strong crypto? To protect the crown jewels.
With MQA you don't get access to the master, but you get the right to lisen to some approximation of the master, only on MQA dacs.

This is a clear form of DRM.

 

 

Do you actually believe this, or is it just a party line you have to follow to be a part of the anti-MQA crowd?

[crenca]

8 hours ago, Norton said:

Unless it degrades SQ, what's wrong with DRM?

 

 

For example, HQP is very popular on this site, I don't see anyone complaining that it requires you to buy a licence and install a key.  Isn't Miska just managing his digital rights too?

 

Norton,

 

As far as question #1 - it depends.  Some folks are fine with DRM (look at the video world).  Actually, I am fine with some DRM as well.  On the level of a format, which is what ALL the rest of your (in this case musical - we are talking audio with MQA) digital ecosystem depends on (from beginning to end - from your playback software/hardware to your speaker, and in the case of MQA before it gets to you in its "end to end" influence on the recording chain itself) many consumers understand the consequences which include:  ceding control of SQ, innovation, design, digital filter & DSP, and ownership to one company.  It is fundamentally monopolistic.

 

As to your second question, licensing in of itself is not DRM (its a legal construction).  A digital key system that enables a product like HQP is a form of DRM in the broadest possible sense, and one that is very common (I use HQP).  DRM is more properly thought of (don't take my word for any of this - wiki DRM) as a kind of active control of digital functionality and "rights" that cedes control of the product to the licensor on a constant basis (both legally and digitally).  The licensee is then in a sense a passive unit of manipulation with very limited rights who no longer is in control of this or that aspect of his digital domain.

 

MQA move way beyond merely enforcing a payment agreement - it controls the product (MQA itself) by design - as the presenters in the video demonstrated it is a "freemium" model of DRM.  It controls the user of MQA (which includes not only the consumer but also everyone else in the musical production chain - DAC manufactures, labels, etc.) through a public/private key encryption system that we don't fully understand and we can't - it is intentionally (legally) hidden from us.  As the licensee, we agree to be "ok" with this situation and even agree that the licensor can change the functionality of the software (MQA is software) at any time for any reason.  

 

Consumers are usually "ok" with DRM in limited case - this particular software, this particular device - when they can control the influence of it, it can be removed (with another product, or another method of doing the same thing, etc.), there is competition, and the like.  However, when DRM goes the the root of something (and at the root of all things digital is something called formats, standards) then the consumer no longer has any choices.  Net Neutrality is an example - it involves a fight over a standard, a standard that has existed since the beginning is and changed by carriers imposing a tiered delivery system over the top of TCP/IP.  

 

A metaphor:  I don't know what kind of music you like, but what if one day someone came along and defined what music is by putting legal and digital requirements on it that it has to have violins, a harp, a distorted guitar, and a drum machine set at 120 BPM. When you complained (or simply pointed out the truth of these conditions) I said to you:

 

"what's wrong with this?  It has musical instruments, did not the music you used to listen to not sometimes have these things to?  Is this not music?" 

 

 

[crenca]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Because you want to see it like that.

 

  

You are in error PeterSt.  Neither you nor I defined what DRM is.  Please don't fill this thread with your rambling, half baked english.  You are not going to "subjectivise" DRM as it is not part of the art and wine audiophile world that you live in...

[Norton]

6 hours ago, FredericV said:

 

More than one high-end player software exists, so there is competition. HQP is not a monopoly, more players exist with upsampling features and custom filters.

MQA tries to infect the highres world to become the one and only format by making deals with the largest studio's, therefore becoming a monopoly format for highres, and then convince hardware vendors this is the only format so they need to implement this or fear not to tick the box and loose business.

MQA is trying to become a monopoly on highres distribution.

 

DRM and monopolies are two separate things.  I do take your point about the dangers when the two are combined, but I don't see that DRM in itself is inherently bad.