Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Not true.  The artist is more concerned with the live event in the studio more often than the end product.  MQA is getting closer to the live event and, thus the artist's intentions.

 

Hey Lee - ever heard of multitracking?! It’s been around for a while, utilized in 99% of cases when recording classical music too.

 

“Live-event” in the studio. Lol. You are living either in a different decade or in a fantasy world. Most likely both.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

2.  I work on two different AI ecosystems at work and I am applying my learning from that to what MQA is doing with a music provider ecosystem.  I believe there will be some good for the industry.

 

 

 

Can you please elaborate how AI ecosystems yield relevance to MQA?

 

 

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I really don't see this.  If DRM was a primary factor, they would want to see it in use but we have not a single documented case of DRM being used in an MQA file after even thousands of tracks being released in MQA.

 

 

Can you "unfold" MQA without a licensed decoder? 

 

Can a vendor implement an MQA decoder without a license?

 

Does the vendor have to be "certified" by MQA in order do implement their stack and does this certification include the generation of a cryptographic identifier of that vendor?

 

Does the MQA-stack include checks for integrity of the software and the hardware environment it is deployed in?

 

Does MQA encoding of files include embedding cryptographic means to authenticate the file via the decoder?

 

Does MQA include means to not only encrypt the high-rez portion of the file but the complete file?

 

If the answer is yes to one or more of of these questions Digital Rights Management is used.

 

Care to disagree? If so please explain.

 

It's simple Lee: every time MQA is used DRM is in use.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, mcgillroy said:

 

Trying to narrow down the definition of DRM to copy-protection is part of MQA's marketing spiel. And you are playing along.

 

Such a definition does not adhere to the technological and legal definitions of DRM accepted in the industry, by IP-laywers and in academia. 

 

It's as intellectually dishonest as to relabel accepted technical terms like dispersion into "blur" or lossless into "lossless in the air."

 

Marketing is marketing. But if you try to hide your intentions behind semantic operations of that magnitude you have something profound to hide. You are also underestimating your audience.

 

So again Lee: is MQA DRM or not? Simple question, simple answer.

 

Thank you.

@Lee Scoggins I see you answered a host of other questions here in the past 24h. You choose to ignore this one.

 

Would you please tell us if MQA is DRM or not?!

 

Thank you.

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...