Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA - A clever stealth DRM - Trojan


crenca

Recommended Posts

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
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?  

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
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
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
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
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

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
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. 

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
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
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
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

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
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
  • 9 months later...

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...