MQA is Vaporware

[wushuliu]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

And this too:

 

“We don’t really have to educate the 40, 50 and 60-year-olds because they already know. They have CD collections at home, they already know the benefit."

 

So where the heck are redbook CDs going? Are they insinuating that the production of redbook CDs will come to a halt?

 

IOW, this is the MQA snow job target market. The audiophiles who read the Mejias sections of Stereophile and actually thought the magazine was reaching younger readers. 

 

Apple only just went DRM-free last year. And now comes a new format that involves more DRM hijinx? It's not going to fly with younger ears. It will however, as it is on the brink of now, be gobbled up by audiophiles.

 

Common sense says Tidal has shown the way: MP3 and equivalent will be lower-tiered pricing and DRM-free. Hi-Res will have MQA, cost more with additional tiers and packages, and will allow audiophiles to be locked in no problem so they can milk you over and over again knowing that odds are if the object is shiny enough, you'll pay up.

 

 

[mav52]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

To the contrary - in these sorts of dealings, the record companies hold the economic power, and consequently they *write* the fine print.

And these fine print authors like a label believe young people are going to pay to listen to MQA. Maybe some audiophile type but not the masses. 

[darkmass]

20 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Since I use primarily Linux, I won't be able to use that software.

 

 

Miska, your discussion and arguments are well stated.  I have no disagreement with them and appreciate the new knowledge you have brought to my attention.  Thank you.

 

You have not said (at least that I have seen) what Linux release(s) you are using, and as a non-Linux user myself, I cannot offer verification of the following statement.  I pass it on merely as possibly useful information...

 

On the DVD Audio Extractor site it is noted, "DVD Audio Extractor is a cross-platform application runs on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux (Ubuntu and Fedora)."

[mcgillroy]

6 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

And this too:

 

“We don’t really have to educate the 40, 50 and 60-year-olds because they already know. They have CD collections at home, they already know the benefit."

 

 

So CDs now are high-rez in label talk...

 

Makes strategic sense to frame anything above MP3/AAC like that. Divide and conquer, create leverage for price differentiation when negotiating with the entities that actually bring the music to consumers.

 

Cause with all the broohah about "High-Rez not being niche" anymore it's important not to forget where the real action is:

 

"Facebook has offered music rights-holders “hundreds of millions of dollars” to permit its users to play with copyrighted tracks as soon as possible."

 

To put that in context the combined payments of all video-streaming services like Youtube, Vimeo etc to labels in 2016 were $553m.

 

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/facebook-offers-music-biz-hundreds-millions-dollars-labels-publishers/

 

MQA is just another hedge by the labels in this game. They will either drop it the moment somebody like Apple/Facebook/Google/Amazon offers them a better deal with higher royalties. Not least since none of this companies will ever let MQA and it's licensing baggage + DRM into their ecosystems.

 

Else they will leave the distribution of <16/44.1 to the platformers and >=16/44.1 to streaming services they directly or indirectly control - like Deezer, Spotify and others. 

 

 

 

 

[mansr]

2 hours ago, mcgillroy said:

So CDs now are high-rez in label talk...

 

Makes strategic sense to frame anything above MP3/AAC like that. Divide and conquer, create leverage for price differentiation when negotiating with the entities that actually bring the music to consumers.

It's not that long ago mp3 was touted as providing CD quality. How times changes.

[Jud]

17 hours ago, Shadders said:

This is my point - DRM is in MQA since MQA want control. DRM is not there to suffice the US Government.

 

Of course.  It’s there so MQA can maintain control of *their IP*.  But that could be the less significant part of the story for the music industry and most consumers.

 

Audiophiles are a blip on the radar for the industry.  What MQA offers the industry is something perhaps better sounding than mp3 that isn’t the hi res master.  All else is icing on the cake.  

 

It will be interesting to see to what extent the industry will market MQA as something not needing special hardware for better sound, and to what extent hardware manufacturers will market MQA-ready stuff as getting you the very best sound.

 

Of course most interesting of all will be seeing how the big streaming companies, Apple, and the music buying public react.

[Jud]

5 hours ago, mcgillroy said:

 

 

So CDs now are high-rez in label talk...

 

Makes strategic sense to frame anything above MP3/AAC like that. Divide and conquer, create leverage for price differentiation when negotiating with the entities that actually bring the music to consumers.

 

Cause with all the broohah about "High-Rez not being niche" anymore it's important not to forget where the real action is:

 

"Facebook has offered music rights-holders “hundreds of millions of dollars” to permit its users to play with copyrighted tracks as soon as possible."

 

To put that in context the combined payments of all video-streaming services like Youtube, Vimeo etc to labels in 2016 were $553m.

 

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/facebook-offers-music-biz-hundreds-millions-dollars-labels-publishers/

 

MQA is just another hedge by the labels in this game. They will either drop it the moment somebody like Apple/Facebook/Google/Amazon offers them a better deal with higher royalties. Not least since none of this companies will ever let MQA and it's licensing baggage + DRM into their ecosystems.

 

Else they will leave the distribution of <16/44.1 to the platformers and >=16/44.1 to streaming services they directly or indirectly control - like Deezer, Spotify and others. 

 

I think control is the point, and why the industry would only drop MQA in favor of some Silicon Valley connection if they were forced into it economically by an apathetic reaction on the part of the music buying public.

 

For years the industry has chafed under Apple’s control of the download business, and they don’t control the streaming business to nearly the extent they would like.  MQA offers a contractual situation the industry can control, since MQA doesn’t have the size to exercise any economic leverage in contract negotiations.

 

So the music industry can be expected to try to push MQA to try to free itself from Apple and gain more leverage over the big streaming services, while Apple and the big streaming services will either wait this out or develop their own alternatives.  And that appears to be exactly what’s happening.

 

Meanwhile, MQA has no economic power and controls exactly nothing other than their own IP.

[mav52]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I think control is the point, and why the industry would only drop MQA in favor of some Silicon Valley connection if they were forced into it economically by an apathetic reaction on the part of the music buying public.

 

For years the industry has chafed under Apple’s control of the download business, and they don’t control the streaming business to nearly the extent they would like.  MQA offers a contractual situation the industry can control, since MQA doesn’t have the size to exercise any economic leverage in contract negotiations.

 

So the music industry can be expected to try to push MQA to try to free itself from Apple and gain more leverage over the big streaming services, while Apple and the big streaming services will either wait this out or develop their own alternatives.  And that appears to be exactly what’s happening.

 

Meanwhile, MQA has no economic power and controls exactly nothing other than their own IP.

I really think your on point about this.  The music industry now has a medium to control the pirating of their music and that's using DRM regardless of a few audiophiles might think about what MQA really is or isn't. Its DRM all the way, the industry is speaking and MQA Capt Stuart listened. I hope that makes sense as I'm installing my Hurricane panels at the moment.

[wushuliu]

5 minutes ago, mav52 said:

I really think your on point about this.  The music industry now has a medium to control the pirating of their music and that's using DRM regardless of a few audiophiles might think about what MQA really is or isn't. Its DRM all the way, the industry is speaking and MQA Capt Stuart listened. I hope that makes sense as I'm installing my Hurricane panels at the moment.

 

And look how well this has worked in the past. You've already got major awareness regarding internet rights and privacy due to FCC. People are in a fighting mood. It's been three years of this MQA talk already. If audiophiles and associated companies are already divided, what chance does MQA have?

 

In fact I predict a backlash and ascendancy of the 320mp3 crowd in opposition to hi res if it's made equivalent to MQA. We've done this rodeo already.

[Michael Lavorgna]

13 hours ago, mansr said:

I'd be up for it, but I'm afraid anything actually published would be creatively edited to cast me as a fool in front of Saint Bob. Unless Mr Lavorgna radically changes his attitude, I'll have to politely decline any participation in what can only end up a farce. However, if someone is serious about writing a critical piece on MQA, I'll gladly help out in any way I can.

 

This is absurd. There is not 1 instance where I've ever done anything like this. There is an "Industry Voice" section on AudioStream where I publish papers that are submitted. Prior to publication, the person who submitted the paper is sent a preview for fact check purposes and final approval.

 

I would suggest your imagination is getting the better of your common sense.

 

I'll tell you what Mansr, I'll gladly change my attitude towards you if stop spouting nonsense about me. Deal?

[Michael Lavorgna]

Here are my initial thoughts on the idea of a video 'conversation' between Bob Stuart, Charley Hansen, and whomever. Take a look at Mansr's response to the idea of submitting something in writing to AudioStream - he says he's not interested because I would purposefully edit his text to make him look foolish. Of course this is nonsense.

 

My point being, why would anyone want to be on video with people making these kinds of silly nonsensical accusations? And let's not forget about the personal attacks that would most certainly be a part of the 'conversation'? 

 

Of course I'm just throwing out my initial thoughts and I have no idea as to what Bob Stuart's response would be. What I do know is I don't care about traffic numbers above all other considerations. I also know I'm not interested in hosting a witch hunt.

[Jud]

@Michael Lavorgna, Charles and mansr and others here have some excellent technical points to make, though I agree some Internet “debate” is extremely unlikely to provide a venue where greater understanding can take place.

[Michael Lavorgna]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

@Michael Lavorgna, Charles and mansr and others here have some excellent technical points to make, though I agree some Internet “debate” is extremely unlikely to provide a venue where greater understanding can take place.

 

I agree.

 

I should have added  that a paper written by one or all of the people you mentioned would be great. I see no reason why that paper wouldn't be published here by Chris since it is due to his community that this discussion has taken place. If/when that occurs, I'd be happy to link to it from AudioStream.

[mansr]

I see it's time for the daily Lavorgna assault.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, mav52 said:

I really think your on point about this.  The music industry now has a medium to control the pirating of their music and that's using DRM regardless of a few audiophiles might think about what MQA really is or isn't. Its DRM all the way, the industry is speaking and MQA Capt Stuart listened. I hope that makes sense as I'm installing my Hurricane panels at the moment.

 

I think the music industry probably doesn’t give a rusty goddamn about the DRM aspect of MQA because (1) they can market MQA as superior to mp3 regardless of decryption, (2) it restricts their market to those with the right hardware, and (3) “DRM” is unpopular.

 

It would be the larger hardware manufacturers I’d expect to want to market “best quality MQA,” except of course for Apple.

[wdw]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

I see it's time for the daily Lavorgna assault.

 

Give it up!  Pleezzze!

[Jud]

By the way - anything at all preventing me from sending you a copy of an MQA file, and you decrypting it on your MQA DAC?

 

Can pre-decryption streams be recorded/copied and shared in this way?

 

Just trying to get a notion for what exactly the DRM would restrict.

[mansr]

20 minutes ago, Jud said:

By the way - anything at all preventing me from sending you a copy of an MQA file, and you decrypting it on your MQA DAC?

MQA files available today aren't encrypted at all, only signed.

[lucretius]

39 minutes ago, Jud said:

By the way - anything at all preventing me from sending you a copy of an MQA file, and you decrypting it on your MQA DAC?

 

Can pre-decryption streams be recorded/copied and shared in this way?

 

Just trying to get a notion for what exactly the DRM would restrict.

 

Not sure what you mean by "recorded".??  When an MQA file download becomes available to me, first thing I'll do is copy it and play it on MQA and non-MQA dacs. 

[lucretius]

17 minutes ago, mansr said:

MQA files available today aren't encrypted at all, only signed.

 

I suspected as much.

[mansr]

Just now, lucretius said:

Not sure what you mean by "recorded".??  When an MQA file download becomes avaiable, first thing I'll do is copy it and play it on MQA and non-MQA dacs. 

If it is encrypted, you won't be able to play it on non-MQA DACs. Well, you'll be able to play it, but you'll only get 4 bits worth of music.

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, wushuliu said:

 

And look how well this has worked in the past. You've already got major awareness regarding internet rights and privacy due to FCC. People are in a fighting mood. It's been three years of this MQA talk already. If audiophiles and associated companies are already divided, what chance does MQA have?

 

In fact I predict a backlash and ascendancy of the 320mp3 crowd in opposition to hi res if it's made equivalent to MQA. We've done this rodeo already.

 

I agree with the first paragraph.

 

As for your prediction John Atkinson editor of Stereophile made a recording of the Portland State Chamber Choir just recently released.

I've talked with a few fellow Portland State alums who are just classical music fans. They are very happy with the MP3 and iTunes versions. The mainstream music consumer in the United States has voted with their dollars for years and ignored hi-res audio.

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

By the way - anything at all preventing me from sending you a copy of an MQA file, and you decrypting it on your MQA DAC?

 

Can pre-decryption streams be recorded/copied and shared in this way?

 

Just trying to get a notion for what exactly the DRM would restrict.

Hi Jud,

I think it would be the next stage, where any download of MQA is tied to your account, and the MQA file has your public key embedded. Only by using your private key, can you either extract the MQA file data correctly, or remove the degradation inbuilt.

If DRM is to be embedded into every device - DAC - then this new IC could handle this aspect - your private key is in the DAC and cannot be extracted.

Every DAC/Device will have a private key - so one MQA file for one device only.

The above is a possible scenario only - and there are obviously, variations.

Regards,

Shadders.

[lucretius]

35 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Every DAC/Device will have a private key - so one MQA file for one device only.

 

Surely, that would be the death of MQA file downloads.

[Shadders]

4 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Surely, that would be the death of MQA file downloads.

HI,

Yes - if it was implemented right now. I expect any such strategy to be gradual.

If you have an MQA DAC now - you can unfold the MQA file.

If they want to assign a tiered pricing depending on quality, then only DRM can do this, else you could send the highest resolution file to anyone with an MQA DAC.

Regards,

Shadders.