MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[Sonic77]

Eventually the MQA guys will realize that the consumer doesn't want or need a new audio format, hopefully that will be after millions of dollars are poured down the rat hole.

[Brinkman Ship]

Poor Scoggs:

 

[Ralf11]

21 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Goodnight.

 

Try to use your time wisely and study up so you can lie more effectively.

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

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

 

Perhaps this explains why they sometimes down-sample the files before handing them over to HDtracks.  I've always thought there was more to the story.  Maybe this is the explanation?

[Shadorne]

7 minutes ago, Sonic77 said:

Eventually the MQA guys will realize that the consumer doesn't want or need a new audio format, hopefully that will be after millions of dollars are poured down the rat hole.

 

Absolutely!

 

PCM 24/96 is already a perfectly good format for the foreseeable future. SACD wasn’t necessary and neither is DSD. Give us better mix/masters - ones that aren’t overly compressed to the extent it really ruins audio quality. (I am not against tasteful compression in pop/rock but we are far beyond that in most cases)

[Ralf11]

I'm inclined to agree with the 24/96 comment based on the marginal SQ increase of SACDs over Redbook.

 

BTW, Stereopile has an article out now on how well MQA does over a 3G network (!!)  - maybe they have not heard of 5G?

[MikeyFresh]

15 minutes ago, esldude said:

My initial response is hilarious laughter. 

 

You are joined in a loud chorus of laughter. Hilarious.

 

Maybe that's what MQA/DRM has been bleeding £16,000 per day on?

[MikeyFresh]

11 minutes ago, Sonic77 said:

Eventually the MQA guys will realize that the consumer doesn't want or need a new audio format, hopefully that will be after millions of dollars are poured down the rat hole.

 

The latter has already occurred, not too sure about the former but I'm hopeful the MQA/DRM partners will come to that realization in the near term.

[Hugo9000]

@Brinkman Ship So which one has been deblurred by MQA, the smiling face of the guy in your signature, or the angry/constipated face he presented throughout the RMAF video of Chris' presentation?

[Hugo9000]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I'm inclined to agree with the 24/96 comment based on the marginal SQ increase of SACDs over Redbook.

 

BTW, Stereopile has an article out now on how well MQA does over a 3G network (!!)  - maybe they have not heard of 5G?

They must be slumming, like when that guy wrote about using the Sony PS1 as an audiophile CD player.  Surely no one who can afford the equipment they tout would be using 3G still.  I think even TracFone uses 4G.  lol

[Brinkman Ship]

8 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

@Brinkman Ship So which one has been deblurred by MQA, the smiling face of the guy in your signature, or the angry/constipated face he presented throughout the RMAF video of Chris' presentation?

oh for sure my sig pic has been deblurred...?....

[Siltech817]

1 hour ago, Brinkman Ship said:

i just realized what a renaissance.man Scoggins is..a brilliant consultant, an award winning recording engineer, a golden eared “reviewer”, a researcher, and an expert on so many topics and a master-debater....lol...?

 

 

 

Judging by his fist pounding as common in the U.K. comments, he is also an expert on all things Europe?

No, actually no one on the European continent cares about MQA at all, so at least there Lee can learn something. MQA is an absolute unknown in Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, or Italy, and thats unlikely to change, no one will ever care.

[rickca]

I will not pay a premium for Master Quality Adulterated files.  So how is everyone in the ecosystem going to make money?

[Fokus]

4 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

The DRM code is not for DRM, it's for authentication so they can control the quality of the end product.  It certifies that the resulting file has had the correct MQA filters applied and has been approved by the label/producer/artist or some subset thereof.

 

The part of the encryption used for authentication is not the DRM we are pointing at, pay attention.

 

This said, the authentication scheme does not even work. It has been demonstrated here that an MQA file can be mutilated, with the Famous Blue LED still remaining lit.

 

(Apologies to Jenny and Lenny.)

 

[Don Blas De Lezo]

4 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I have a Qobuz subscription and I like it a lot.  But Tidal Masters still sound a bit better on Roon.  Soon I suspect it will get integrated into Roon and we can do an apples to apples comparison.

Or we can do an apples to apples comparison right now on Audirvana 

[sls]

5 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Why would the MQA team be worried about DRM?  All they have to do is show that no DRM has ever been used in over four years since launch.  I don't think it's a big issue for the labels.  The labels are not that smart but they have learned from past mistakes.

 

Mr Scoggins

 

I am not an “armchair engineer”, I only have a handful of posts on this forum, but an accountant and music lover (my wife and I go to about 150 shows a year, mostly dance, ballet and opera). Most of my music listening has been served by Qobuz for the last 5 or 6 years, the last 2 years mostly high-res.

 

The experience of Qobuz is that hi-res allows music companies to make available to consumers all available editions in the format they issued, so you will find 16/44 CD and 24/96 master versions of the same album, including remastered and live versions. Would a consumer prefer that or a version filtered by a third party?

 

I stream from a mobile device to an all-in-one unit that does not have MQA. The fact that I would have to buy MQA equipment is DRM. 

 

The sound may may be different, but that is not better. On holiday recently, 50 miles from the nearest road and with Internet a distant memory, with Qobuz Sublime I could listen to hi-res music from my offline cache via a Chord Mojo DAC into a good pair of headphones. It was Sublime. Does MQA facilitate that level of convenience?

 

As an accountant I can read accounts. MQA is a disruptor, majority owned by an investment fund whose principal investment is in BAT, one of the world’s biggest tobacco companies. It has paid for millions of costs by giving away equity and at 31/12/17 was dependent on a £5million loan. It’s business plan , or lack of one, is laid bare in the directors’ report. I’m not surprised those executives were a bit rattled. 

[mcgillroy]

1 hour ago, Fokus said:

 

The part of the encryption used for authentication is not the DRM we are pointing at, pay attention.

 

This said, the authentication scheme does not even work. It has been demonstrated here that an MQA file can be mutilated, with the Famous Blue LED still remaining lit.

 

(Apologies to Jenny and Lenny.)

 

 

On top of that authentication is DRM. Technically and more importantly legally.

 

Trying to reduce DRM to copy control is just part of the MQA marketing spiel. Doctoring terms is what they are good at and any journalist should be able to look through it.

 

There also is a copy-control angle to authentication.

 

Authentication is a prerequisite for fine grained access control, including the capacity to control copying the file or parts of the file.

 

Bob’s word stands against business realities. If this failing startup ever gets acquired we’ll see if Bob still has a say to what his cleverly engineered DRM can do and can’t do.

 

 

 

[Allan F]

5 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Like I said above, the goal is really to get back to what the artist and producer wanted in the studio.

 

Nonsense! How can MQA possibly know what the artist and the producer wanted in the studio? The only evidence available of what they wanted is the original master recording. The fact that MQA alters the sound of the recording is evidence to the contrary. While people may prefer the sound of the MQA processed result, that doesn't make it what the artist and producer wanted.

[Currawong]

On 10/10/2018 at 6:04 AM, Derek Hughes said:

At the end of the day the seminar was about the pros and cons of MQA, that's what Chris tried to present. In MY OPINION, that was not what his presentation was, it was biased against MQA, that is why he got the reaction that he did. Again in MY OPINION, he stated that it would be unbiased and it wasn't. I am in touch with Chris privately and I think we are good.

 

Hi Derek,

 

I myself have taken an interest in MQA out of both interest and because I produce video reviews of products. Like Chris, unfortunately all I've found about MQA is that the amount of technically verifiable information about leans very strongly towards it not only being a poor format, but goes as far as to suggest blatant dishonesty on the part of MQA to explain what it does. So if Chris' presentation was quite negative, it's because the majority of information out there from repeatable analysis of MQA is negative.

[Fokus]

 

6 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

The unfolding is the clever aspect of Stuart's approach which enables the smaller file sizes.

 

Let's put this straight: the folding/unfolding is not a Stuart or MQA invention. There is a Japanese patent predating this by years.

 

And this too:  there are non-MQA approaches that similarly would reduce file sizes.

 

6 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 You are essentially saying that any folding is DRM but the classic definition is that DRM controls user rights. 

 

The folding has nothing to do with DRM. It is mind-boggling that 4 years after MQA's birth you don't even grasp something this fundamental.

 

The DRM is in the system being entirely closed. The consumer never has access to the full unfolded and decrypted data. I cannot inspect an MQA file to see if it really is hi-res, rather than a fake upsample. My rights are being managed. I cannot fully decode an MQA file and then send it to some other part of my system for digital processing (such as a digital-active speaker). My rights are being managed. And MQA does not even sell a gizmo or software that would allow me to do these things. I only get invited to replace a lot of hardware with MQA-licensed hardware. My rights are being managed. Formats like FLAC and even DSD do not pose such restrictions.

 

6 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

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. 

 

So much for the touted white-glove approach then.

 

 

 

(Is there a boldly banging on the table emoji?)

 

 

[rwdvis]

8 hours ago, kumakuma said:

Are you compensated by the company, either financially or in other ways?

 

8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

No, I have not received any compensation.  I am writing articles on the technology because I think it has merit in terms of getting more hirez out as my first article showed.

 

8 hours ago, kumakuma said:

Thank you.

Kumakuma,

You don’t actually believe him, do you?  Look closely at his answer.  You have to use a critical eye when dealing with such people.

 

“No, I have not received any compensation.”

 

Translation:  I have not yet received any compensation.

 

This does not answer the intended question as to whether there is/was any agreement, arrangement, partnership, planned/future compensation, etc.

 

Additional points to consider:

1). People are perfectly capable of lying (some are more capable than others)
2)  There are hundreds of creative ways one can be compensated (some even violate state/federal laws)
3). Illegal or secret arrangements/transactions are not out of the realm of possibilities

 

I don’t get this honor thing, where people assume that if they ask a question, they’re getting an honorable answer.  No.  Some people are simply dishonest, disingenuous, straight up liars.

 

One final point:  The question is poorly worded (i.e., “the company” is meaningless).

[mansr]

7 hours ago, jabbr said:

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. 

Does anyone remember the (original) Microsoft Network (MSN)?

[mansr]

9 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Their customer is the label, producer, and artist.

8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Derek is a customer who likes MQA

So which label or production company does Derek work for?

[Fokus]

12 minutes ago, mansr said:

So which label or production company does Derek work for?

You forgot 'artist'.

[John_Atkinson]

12 hours ago, jtwrace said:

You should be ashamed of your MQA folks acting like they did...

 

For the record, I have no connection with MQA other than reporting on it. They are not my "folks." Please put your conspiracy theories back in your pocket.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile