MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[tmtomh]

18 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

If the DRM aspects were important, why would they not be embedding DRM into the files already?

 

If the labels were worried about theft of masters, why would they license content to Qobuz in hirez?

 

If the labels were worried about theft of masters, why would they allow downloads by HDTracks and others?

 

@Lee Scoggins, to your first question: MQA is embedding DRM into the files already. An unfolded and/or rendered MQA file - that is, the full quality and full resolution - can only be played/streamed in real time, on proprietary, licensed software and hardware. It cannot be copied, manipulated by the end user for personal use, or played back at full/original resolution on non-proprietary software or hardware.

 

To your second question: This is why MQA makes the "crown jewels" argument. The idea is that the labels have dipped a toe in the high-res waters but it remains a niche market because they are hesitant about making high-res PCM a truly widespread, mainstream market for fear of totally losing control of their masters. To learn more about this, you should really ask this guy @Lee Scoggins about that. I don't know if you've met him, but he's on record here, and I believe at the Hoffman forums, repeatedly saying that MQA will make the labels feel more comfortable releasing high-res music more broadly, resulting in a quantum leap in the amount of high-res music available to consumers. His argument only makes sense if the labels see MQA as a way to maintain control over their high-res PCM masters. You really should check out his posts. 

 

To your third question: See my reply to the second question, as it's the same question.

[FredericV]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Look, at the end of the day, this forum wields little power over MQA..

 

So why waste so much time defending MQA, on a forum that wields little power over MQA?

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

I've been talking to people in the audio business the past few weeks.  I think that some execs believe that authentication is important.  But not really for copyright and DRM reasons.  I think they want to have revenue from a premium product.  The "green light" authentication creates a visual way to confirm good sound and they are probably betting the customer will pay extra for that...or at least some customers.

Come on Lee. A dynamically compressed track with all the DR removed will still illuminate the MQA light. The light is no guarantee of good sound and you know this. 

[jabbr]

Can you imagine two Webs launched in 1993 — one is the web as we know it based on the open HTML/HTTP protocols, TCP/IP etc and the other a closed proprietary protocol which required use of a special Sony screen but guaranteed that the type would be sharper? The second would be more dystopian than Handmaid’s Tale. 

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Come on Lee. A dynamically compressed track with all the DR removed will still illuminate the MQA light. The light is no guarantee of good sound and you know this. 

at this point being put in a sleeper hold by a lying disingenuous troll is a bore...

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

LOL.....best one yet. Enough buffoonery.

 

time to ban this TROLL.

I assume the term buffoonery is aimed at Lee’s actions / comments  not him personally as to evade our ban on personal attacks?

[Lee Scoggins]

1 minute ago, tmtomh said:

 

To your first question: MQA is embedding DRM into the files already. An unfolded and/or rendered MQA file - that is, the full quality and full resolution - can only be played/streamed in real time, on proprietary, licensed software and hardware. It cannot be copied, manipulated by the end user for personal use, or played back at full/original resolution on non-proprietary software or hardware.

 

To your second question: This is why MQA makes the "crown jewels" argument. The idea is that the labels have dipped a toe in the high-res waters but it remains a niche market because they are hesitant about making high-res PCM a truly widespread, mainstream market for fear of totally losing control of their masters. To learn more about this, you should really ask this guy @Lee Scoggins about that. I don't know if you've met him, but he's on record here, and I believe at the Hoffman forums, repeatedly saying that MQA will make the labels feel more comfortable releasing high-res music more broadly, resulting in a quantum leap in the amount of high-res music available to consumers. He's said millions of MQA songs are in the pipline, and he's said about 30,000 MQA albums are in the pipeline. You really should check out his posts. 

 

To your third question: See my reply to the second question, as it's the same question.

 

I don't believe this definition of DRM is fair to MQA's unfolding technology.  The unfolding is the clever aspect of Stuart's approach which enables the smaller file sizes.  You are essentially saying that any folding is DRM but the classic definition is that DRM controls user rights.  The MQA file can be copied and played on any MQA-compatible device.  It's apples and oranges.

 

On the second paragraph, a couple of thoughts:

1.  The need for smaller files is real as bandwidth considerations at scale are real.

2.  All the major labels and Merlin have committed to applying MQA to their entire back catalog.  I know from people working in the industry, that the MQA masterings are being done in volume.  There is so much activity that MQA now has a cloud-based service where engineers are uploading files that get encoded in the cloud.

[beetlemania]

Apparently, JVS witheld a 5 star rating for sonics for an album because it doesn’t have an MQA or SACD version. Something about lack of ultimate transparency. He reviewed a 24/96 file. Good night, Stereophile.

[Lee Scoggins]

30 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Come on Lee. A dynamically compressed track with all the DR removed will still illuminate the MQA light. The light is no guarantee of good sound and you know this. 

 

Sorry Chris, misread the comment.

[opus101]

Just now, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Come on Chris.  You know that MQA doesn't compress the dynamics of a track.  You are really biased on this subject.

 

But he didn't say that MQA did. Could it be your own bias is showing?

[Hugo9000]

@Lee Scoggins The MQA-DRM product is a "free" feature for Tidal HiFi subscribers, I thought.  Thrown in there for no extra charge for those who want CD-quality streaming as a Tidal HiFi Member.

 

So that's not "premium," nor is that junky Meridian product that someone could use to get a special little light.

 

Oh, and if MQA is so special, I'm assuming that Meridian would agree that the junky $200 product must outperform their super-expensive products from the pre-MQA years.  That says a lot about their engineering prowess.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I assume the term buffoonery is aimed at Lee’s actions / comments  not him personally as to evade our ban on personal attacks?

you are correct. bufoonery describes his Alice In Wonderland posts sprinkled with lies, and misrepresented facts, like “Ken” and “Mike” were civil.

[Lee Scoggins]

8 minutes ago, FredericV said:

 

So why waste so much time defending MQA, on a forum that wields little power over MQA?

 

Because there are still a handful of people here with an open mind who might appreciate an opposing view to "MQA is evil".

[MikeyFresh]

40 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Why would the MQA team be worried about DRM?

 

Because they know damn well that's the only thing that has the labels the least bit interested, and simultaneously that consumers have flatly rejected DRM in the past. 

 

So MQA/DRM has a tall task, creating some marketing BS complete with file size/streaming efficiency/temporal deblurring/sonic merit false claims that distracts from the Trojan horse DRM aspect that the labels covet.

 

Nice try, but it hasn't worked, no one is fooled.

[opus101]

Just now, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Because there are still a handful of people here with an open mind who might appreciate an opposing view to "MQA is evil".

 

You still don't get it - the 'MQA is evil' meme is purely in the mind of those who feel CA is a threat. Those who don't, don't perceive any 'evil' in civil, open and inquiring discussion of MQA's merits, or not.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 minute ago, opus101 said:

 

But he didn't say that MQA did. Could it be your own bias is showing?

 

Maybe I misread his comment.  If he is saying the track is dynamically compressed for other reasons then that is a mastering issue that MQA won't fix.  However, in the MQA approach the idea is that the dynamics are preserved.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 minute ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Because they know damn well that's the only thing that has the labels the least bit interested, and simultaneously that consumers have flatly rejected DRM in the past. 

 

So MQA/DRM has a tall task, creating some marketing BS complete with file size/streaming efficiency/temporal deblurring/sonic merit false claims that distracts from the Trojan horse DRM aspect that the labels covet.

 

Nice try, but it hasn't worked, no one is fooled.

 

I don't think so based on conversations with music execs.  They tell me they need to sell a better product to get more interest.  I think they see hirez as an important value but they have an issue with doing that at scale, in real time on a streaming service.

[MetalNuts]

3 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Because there are still a handful of people here with an open mind who might appreciate an opposing view to "MQA is evil".

I am sorry I will disappoint you.

[opus101]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

If he is saying the track is dynamically compressed for other reasons then that is a mastering issue that MQA won't fix. 

 

That is indeed how I read him. 'Loudness wars' cannot be fixed by any technological solution.

[MikeyFresh]

6 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Come on Chris.  You know that MQA doesn't compress the dynamics of a track.  You are really biased on this subject.

 

No one misunderstood Chris' statement, except possibly you Lee.

[Lee Scoggins]

Just now, MetalNuts said:

I am sorry I will disappoint you.

 

Ain't that a kick in the nuts.

[tmtomh]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I don't believe this definition of DRM is fair to MQA's unfolding technology.  The unfolding is the clever aspect of Stuart's approach which enables the smaller file sizes.  You are essentially saying that any folding is DRM but the classic definition is that DRM controls user rights.  The MQA file can be copied and played on any MQA-compatible device.  It's apples and oranges.

 

On the second paragraph, a couple of thoughts:

1.  The need for smaller files is real as bandwidth considerations at scale are real.

2.  All the major labels and Merlin have committed to applying MQA to their entire back catalog.  I know from people working in the industry, that the MQA masterings are being done in volume.  There is so much activity that MQA now has a cloud-based service where engineers are uploading files that get encoded in the cloud.

 

The question is not whether my definition of DRM is "fair" to MQA's technology. It's not "my" definition - it's THE definition of DRM. It's copy control - and unlike, say, HDCD, which also had a proprietary, licensed codec function built into it, the business model of MQA is precisely based - as you have said yourself and as MQA has said itself - on the labels not having to give away the crown jewels by making widely available the exact same 24/96 or 24/192 PCM files that live on the mastering engineer's hard drive.

 

As for bandwidth, absolute and total BS: 4k streaming video is mainstream, and even regular HD video is far more storage-hogging and bandwidth intensive than any high-res audio-only format.

 

As for all the labels committing to MQA-ifying their entire back catalogues, that's not my argument - perhaps you should re-read my comment. My point was that you have repeatedly argued that all of this MQA-ification of the labels' catalogues is happening because the labels are more comfortable with MQA than with regular PCM formats. That's because MQA lets them hold on to the crown jewels - as, I repeat for the 3rd or 4th time now - MQA itself has said. That's not my argument - that's MQA's argument (and it's your argument too, despite your attempt now so say, "No, it's just to be able to market quality based on the little green light." Ridiculous.).

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Maybe I misread his comment.  If he is saying the track is dynamically compressed for other reasons then that is a mastering issue that MQA won't fix.  However, in the MQA approach the idea is that the dynamics are preserved.

Yes, as you know sound quality has little to do with illuminating an MQA light. A track that’s already ruined will light up the MQA light. Thus, your comments about that light equating to good sound are completely incorrect. 

[MikeyFresh]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

However, in the MQA approach the idea is that the dynamics are preserved.

 

Dur

[Lee Scoggins]

Just now, opus101 said:

 

That is indeed how I read him. 'Loudness wars' cannot be fixed by any technological solution.

 

True.  And thus not really relevant for this discussion.