Popular Post crenca Posted January 1, 2018 Author Popular Post Share Posted January 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Norton said: 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. This is not quite correct norton. I won't argue whether DRM is bad "inherently" (I don't know, like the Devil ). DRM, when limited and balanced is "ok" for most consumers. However, DRM can be used to impose a de facto monopoly. It is a legal monopoly, a monopoly in the sense of leaving the consumer with no other choices. MQA is monopolistic (if it becomes the standard format) in a double sense - it leaves the consumer AND the manufacturing/supply chain with no choices at all. Shadders and Sonic77 1 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Norton Posted January 1, 2018 Share Posted January 1, 2018 43 minutes ago, crenca said: 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?" Thanks for this, I'm not sure I have taken it all in yet, but I am a big fan of SACD which I have always been perfectly happy to accept as a closed system (prior to reliable ripping that is). Do you seen MQA as fundamentally different to SACD in this respect? Link to comment
crenca Posted January 1, 2018 Author Share Posted January 1, 2018 10 minutes ago, Norton said: Thanks for this, I'm not sure I have taken it all in yet, but I am a big fan of SACD which I have always been perfectly happy to accept as a closed system (prior to reliable ripping that is). Do you seen MQA as fundamentally different to SACD in this respect? Yes, I see MQA as fundamentally different. SACD is closer (if not the same) to HQP than it is to MQA on the continuum of DRM and its consequences. SACD does not impose a public/private key encryption mechanism I do not believe. It has no "end to end" aspirations which fundamentally limits innovation. This is not to say that it did not want to become a standard (which it failed at), etc. Besides, what does a closed standard like SACD give you that open DSD does not? In audio, now that we have the benefit of hindsight (SACD, DVD-A etc.) and others experience (video, etc.), and we have had the benefit of de facto open standards (namely PCM), what is in it for us (as consumers, as manufacturers, etc.) to cede this situation? JA argues that there are problems with the current situation and of course there are, but is a DRMed, "end to end" MQA a step forward or a step backwards? Even if MQA could deliver all of its promises, would the consumer be better off overall? Is a closed, DRM locked, innovation stifling standard better in the long term even granting its claimed immediate benefits? MrMoM 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
asdf1000 Posted January 1, 2018 Share Posted January 1, 2018 3 hours ago, crenca said: SACD does not impose a public/private key encryption mechanism I do not believe. It has no "end to end" aspirations which fundamentally limits innovation. Can someone verify this? Isn’t this why any SACD player can’t just output the DSD stream of an SACD disc, via digital output, even DoP DSD64? Because it needs a certain chip at both ends? Link to comment
Norton Posted January 1, 2018 Share Posted January 1, 2018 2 hours ago, Em2016 said: Can someone verify this? Isn’t this why any SACD player can’t just output the DSD stream of an SACD disc, via digital output, even DoP DSD64? Because it needs a certain chip at both ends? I got the impression from Bryston that the restriction is on players outputting DSD via SPDif. The Oppo players can output DSD via HDMI and Bryston's BDA3 is, I think, unique among DACs in being able to accept it as an input. As I recall the quid pro quo was that Bryston could not offer a SPDif out on the BDA3. Link to comment
asdf1000 Posted January 1, 2018 Share Posted January 1, 2018 15 minutes ago, Norton said: The Oppo players can output DSD via HDMI Agreed but isn't this why recording (ripping for backup purposes) the DSD stream from an SACD, even from the Oppo HDMI output is not easy? And this is why there's a very elaborate and not so straight forward procedure to rip SACD's? Because it needs a particular chip in the receiving device also? So it is end to end protected? Putting aside the elaborate hack of course, for ripping SACD's Link to comment
Norton Posted January 1, 2018 Share Posted January 1, 2018 6 hours ago, crenca said: This is not quite correct norton. I won't argue whether DRM is bad "inherently" (I don't know, like the Devil ). DRM, when limited and balanced is "ok" for most consumers. However, DRM can be used to impose a de facto monopoly. It is a legal monopoly, a monopoly in the sense of leaving the consumer with no other choices. MQA is monopolistic (if it becomes the standard format) in a double sense - it leaves the consumer AND the manufacturing/supply chain with no choices at all. Maybe I'm naive but I would like to think that such a monopoly would in practice be impossible to achieve in a capitalist system; because 1. it would in effect need the tacit consent of the consumer ( only likely to be granted if the technology is overwhelmingly superior), 2. because there will always be "challenger" brands and technologies and 3. quite possibly because it would be illegal under media ownership and competition law. Link to comment
Popular Post kumakuma Posted January 2, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 2, 2018 8 minutes ago, Norton said: Maybe I'm naive but I would like to think that such a monopoly would in practice be impossible to achieve in a capitalist system; because it would in effect need the tacit consent of the consumer, because there will always be "challenger" brands and technologies and quite possibly because it would be illegal under media ownership and competition law. This might be true in some industries but roughly 70% of the recorded music market is controlled by just three companies: https://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/2017/02/26/global-recorded-market-music-market-shares-2016/ If these three companies decide that all new music releases will be in MQA format, it becomes the standard. Shadders, Lighthouse and MrMoM 2 1 Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
GUTB Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Oppos don't allow streaming of SACD externally, you need an after-market mod for that to work. Sony doesn't allow SACD to be streamed externally from SACD players unless the stream is encrypted, which is why you only see that feature in proprietary connection schemes in certain products (dCS, McIntosh, etc). Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted January 2, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 2, 2018 On 12/31/2017 at 12:10 AM, GUTB said: I'm not going to buy the AES paper, so I'll go by the JAS paper which is freely available. Bob Stuart and Keith Howard cite studies showing the ability of human brains to activate at ultrasonic information at certain levels, a study showing ultrasonic information from real instruments linked to their perception in humans, a study showing audibility of the time-domain effects of certain digital filters, studies showing human listeners beating Fourier limitations. Stuart claims that human time-domain perception is much more acute than frequency-domain perception, and couches this in an evolutionary theory. None of these studies are mentioned by the presenter. GUTB: The AES paper is freely available here: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17501 If the basis of MQA's research into human perceptibility are those articles Stuart cites and is presented as the foundation to what they're trying to achieve, then clearly this is all nonsense. Tell me, have you looked into those references? Do you believe any of those references actually apply to real music? How many of the references actually deal with humans (especially in the AES paper) as opposed to auditory perception of gerbils and owls (as the presenter alluded to)? Quote Presenter moves on to attacking sound quality claims made by MQA: Study of listeners showed no preference, citing Archimago's test. I've talked about Achimago's test before, and it's baldly obvious FUD hobby horse campaign of his. This was a test in which listeners without MQA DACs were used to determine the efficacy of MQA and other elements I won't go into here. How many times do I have to explain to you that the listening test involved actual music decoded by an actual licensed MQA software decoder (Audirvana+) and that I modeled the MQA digital playback filter based on what we know of the Dragonfly Black and Mytek Brooklyn? Do you not understand that in truth there is nothing all that remarkable about an "actual" MQA DAC that cannot be simulated already because at the end of the day, MQA playback is simply software decoding with a few digital filter parameters thrown in?! I know you like to be a proponent of MQA but in truth you never engage in discussion nor demonstrate a willingness to think about what you claim... Quote Other questions re: MQA filtering strategy based on his and Hotto's (CA's) opinions. I'm not equipped to address these opinions so I'll skip those. Seriously, unless you are able to address the issues about the crappy filtering used by MQA, you cannot refute the highly suboptimal filtering they've designed into the MQA firmware! Quote First presenter comes back and asks "where's the DRM?" Yes, thank you, let's please get into this... Presenter shows a diagram from the Hotto (ie, CA) paper. Hmm. Something's missing though... Oh right, the admission that this is just a guess based on the Bluesound code. But let's talk about this DRM. Where's the DRM? Still more re-hashed CA stuff...I'm going to skip these, I'm getting tired and I want to address the DRM already... Oh GOD we're doing this Utimaco thing again? This is the centerpiece of this entire "talk"?? Sigh...from the Utimaco website: To ensure the integrity of the artist’s music from the original source to the end listener, MQA needed a solution for securely signing the music file, to ensure cryptographically that what the listener hears is what the artist approved. Authentication is critical to MQA technology, which must work end-to-end, from the studio all the way to the music fan. An advanced cryptographic solution was the best option to verify the musical file. MQA turned to Utimaco, a leading manufacturer of hardware-based security solutions that provide the root of trust to keep cryptographic keys safe, secure critical digital infrastructures and authenticate high value data assets. There isn't a word about DRM. It's exactly what MQA has always said it was about, certifying that an MQA stream, is in fact, an MQA stream. It's what that blue light is all about: "you're getting the best experience from the studio, guaranteed, because this light says so". Is there an IP protection aspect to it -- probably! Who cares? Anyway, back to the presentation... There's nothing. Just a discussion on DRM. NOTHING on DRM on MQA. NOTHING. Why did I spend hours writing this post??? As the speaker says, MQA has a complex cryptographic scheme implemented. Sure, it doesn't prevent copying at this time. But it does implement "conditional access". And there are hints of the potential to implement "scrambling" in the firmware with bit transposition as the speaker mentioned. So the potential is there in the future if they wanted to implement something more impactful of playback quality. Why is this not DRM? Personally I don't particularly worry about DRM that much because MQA doesn't present a system truly capable of high fidelity compared to hi-res FLAC. I'd be more concerned if indeed MQA was a real step forward in terms of encoding higher fidelity and the access restriction prevented me from using a legally purchased album through DSP room correction at full resolution. Quote HAHAHA audience member asks a REALLY good question: "If MQA firmware has been reverse engineered, it seems it doesn't have such a sophisticated protection scheme..." WOW GOOD POINT. I don't see the dilemma here. Firmware can be downloaded and analyzed. Heck, even complex schemes like HDCP can be stripped from HDMI signals or cracked. The truth is that nobody's saying that MQA's encoding system has been figured out nor has anyone "cracked" MQA's crypto scheme to turn on that blue light. Even without doing all that, there's enough information looking under the hood for us to have a reasonable level of understanding and adjudicate for ourselves the areas that MQA appear to be lacking... crenca, semente, Fokus and 6 others 6 1 2 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
firedog Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 On 12/31/2017 at 7:22 PM, NOMBEDES said: Human hearing, like most aspects of human capabilities can be plotted on a bell curve. My hearing ability is on the lower left side of of bell curve. My wife's hearing is plotted on the higher end of the scale, where the bat and human intersect. (sorry dear, I am not saying you are an old bat).... anyway. So for me, high resolution is a myth. I can not tell the difference between a CD and a high end super duper file. So be it. Now when we interpose human hearing capabilities over a graph of age progression as it applies to hearing and disposable income you will see an X plot graph, income will increase with age as hearing ability declines. (the point being that the people with sufficient disposable income to enjoy expensive high resolution downloads, MQA enhanced equipment and associated components and speakers have, in general, degraded hearing acuity) There are, of course exceptions, many people on this site claim to have excellent hearing well into advanced age. I doubt if this minority can support the house of cards that MQA is building. The physical ability to hear high frequencies has little to do with the listening skills inolved in judging audio reproduction performance. I don’t have the ability to hear many high frequencies anymore, but I can hear all sorts of things (including in the treble region) that my younger friends with so called “better hearing” cannot. It’s not an issue of what frequencies can be heard on a hearing chart. Listening is a learned skill which involves training your brain to actually hear/interpret what gets to your ears. Many people with “good hearing” don’t know how to listen and “can’t hear” things that I can. So good equipment is wasted on them and not on me. I’m not exceptional in this regard. PeterSt 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Yes, sadly old age does not get you into a cheaper HiFi system Link to comment
esldude Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 2 hours ago, Ralf11 said: Yes, sadly old age does not get you into a cheaper HiFi system If you get old enough it might. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
esldude Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 3 hours ago, firedog said: The physical ability to hear high frequencies has little to do with the listening skills inolved in judging audio reproduction performance. I don’t have the ability to hear many high frequencies anymore, but I can hear all sorts of things (including in the treble region) that my younger friends with so called “better hearing” cannot. It’s not an issue of what frequencies can be heard on a hearing chart. Listening is a learned skill which involves training your brain to actually hear/interpret what gets to your ears. Many people with “good hearing” don’t know how to listen and “can’t hear” things that I can. So good equipment is wasted on them and not on me. I’m not exceptional in this regard. Come on now be honest. Yes there is some skill and learning that takes place with experience. But the curve running in the other direction is loss of hearing ability. The loss of high frequencies is the most noted. Your filtering sharpness also widens with age meaning less ability to hear into things. The instantaneous dynamic range drops. Probably some others we don't know about. Plus no matter your experience and training you can't react to what you are no longer hear. And there are bound to be some small percentage who have all the hearing abilities you do from experience (or more or actual rigorous training) and still have more of their hearing. So yes you may hear more than most, or care about it and they don't. There is no denying with time your hearing acuity is diminished. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
firedog Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 2 hours ago, esldude said: Come on now be honest. Yes there is some skill and learning that takes place with experience. But the curve running in the other direction is loss of hearing ability. The loss of high frequencies is the most noted. Your filtering sharpness also widens with age meaning less ability to hear into things. The instantaneous dynamic range drops. Probably some others we don't know about. Plus no matter your experience and training you can't react to what you are no longer hear. And there are bound to be some small percentage who have all the hearing abilities you do from experience (or more or actual rigorous training) and still have more of their hearing. So yes you may hear more than most, or care about it and they don't. There is no denying with time your hearing acuity is diminished. We aren't arguing. Of course, lots of people are better listeners than me, including many with better retention of all their physical abilities. My point was that the importance of the ability to hear high frequencies is much exaggerated. In practice, lots of older people who are trained listeners can hear lots more of what's going on in a recording than younger people with more pure physical ability to hear. Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 I would not use "acuity" - I would agree that higher freqs. appear undetectable or require higher SPLs with age. I'm not clear on exactly what aspects of sound besides that may decline with age - I suppose CA could benefit from an addition of a research scientist specializing in gerontological audiology, instead of the motley collection of biologists here presently... Link to comment
PeterSt Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 Deleted (offtopic). 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
semente Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 On 03/01/2018 at 8:14 PM, Ralf11 said: I would not use "acuity" - I would agree that higher freqs. appear undetectable or require higher SPLs with age. I'm not clear on exactly what aspects of sound besides that may decline with age - I suppose CA could benefit from an addition of a research scientist specializing in gerontological audiology, instead of the motley collection of biologists here presently... Many audiophiles play music at overly loud levels. I'm sure that this will have serious effects in the long run. "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
Hugo9000 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 Somehow I missed this thread in my original lurking mode. 请教别人一次是5分钟的傻子,从不请教别人是一辈子的傻子 Link to comment
Hugo9000 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 Oops, I hope thread necromancy isn't against the ToS. ☠️? I think that's what they call what I did there. Edited to add: Oops, and is this what's called "double posting?" Sorry! I must be tired, it's past my bedtime! 请教别人一次是5分钟的傻子,从不请教别人是一辈子的傻子 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