MQA is Vaporware

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

MQA/Tidal/Audioquest seems to still be stuck on getting MQA Core working on ARM processors.  AQ is way behind on that firmware update for the new Dragonflys, apparently blaming Tidal.  But I've heard the actual code comes from MQA themselves.

 

I know of two software MQA Core implementations: Tidal desktop and Audirvana+ 3.0.  Are there any others?

 

 

 

There's an ARM version used on Bluesound devices and possibly others. This is probably built from the same source code as the library used by Tidal and A+. There is nothing platform specific in the code.

 

The Explorer 2 has an XMOS processor, so clearly a decoder exists for that as well. They also state as much on the MQA website.

 

The AQ Dragonfly is different beast. It has only a puny MIPS processor that is far too slow to do even the "render" part in software. My guess is that the firmware will only extract the metadata from the LSB and program the ESS DAC with the requested filters. It's ridiculous that it's taking them this long.

[Samuel T Cogley]

14 minutes ago, mansr said:

 

There's an ARM version used on Bluesound devices and possibly others. This is probably built from the same source code as the library used by Tidal and A+. There is nothing platform specific in the code.

 

The Explorer 2 has an XMOS processor, so clearly a decoder exists for that as well. They also state as much on the MQA website.

 

The AQ Dragonfly is different beast. It has only a puny MIPS processor that is far too slow to do even the "render" part in software. My guess is that the firmware will only extract the metadata from the LSB and program the ESS DAC with the requested filters. It's ridiculous that it's taking them this long.

 

I hear you.  Can you characterize the difference between Bluesound's ARM implementation and a typical mobile one?  Perhaps the issue is Android/iOS integration?

[audiventory]

2 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I know of two software MQA Core implementations: Tidal desktop and Audirvana+ 3.0.  Are there any others?

 

MQA Core is not full MQA ability? As I remember, full MQA ability allowable with apparatus only?

[Samuel T Cogley]

54 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

MQA Core is not full MQA ability?

 

Correct.  There is MQA Core and MQA Render(er).  The latter is what the new AQ Dragonfly does (after the as yet unreleased firmware update).

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I hear you.  Can you characterize the difference between Bluesound's ARM implementation and a typical mobile one?  Perhaps the issue is Android/iOS integration?

 

It's just a software library with very minimal dependencies. The Bluesound binaries run without fuss on just about any Linux system with a compatible CPU. Another application would probably integrate the MQA library as delivered by MQA (the company) a bit differently, but this is all trivial stuff.

[Sal1950]

On 3/27/2017 at 0:30 PM, Jud said:

 

Any actual plans regarding contractual arrangements between the industry and the vendors who supply HDT etc. that you can point to?

 

Otherwise, not saying this can't or won't happen, but let's not take it as proved just yet.

 

I also have a hard time seeing why the industry would have bothered to help create a hi res download industry and then destroy it, for what, exactly?  It isn't like they're bleeding massive amounts of revenue from piracy in this tiny niche area of their operations.

The history of double inventory stocking isn't on the side of continued availability but we shall see. 78, LP, 8 track, cassettes, reel 2 reel, now even CD get displaced by the new tech when their time comes.  I don't see someone like Tidal continuing to offer a stream of any one album in lossless flac 16/44, and a MQA encoded file which will offer the same (undecoded) thing to everyone except the few of us that care about such things. If they do for the short term it is only because they'll be charging extra for MQA?  I don't know, are they? .

[Jud]

12 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

The history of double inventory stocking isn't on the side of continued availability but we shall see. 78, LP, 8 track, cassettes, reel 2 reel, now even CD get displaced by the new tech when their time comes.  I don't see someone like Tidal continuing to offer a stream of any one album in lossless flac 16/44, and a MQA encoded file which will offer the same (undecoded) thing to everyone except the few of us that care about such things. If they do for the short term it is only because they'll be charging extra for MQA?  I don't know, are they? .

 

Makes sense re Tidal, but they're a tiny fraction of the streaming market.  And there are of course also downloads, entirely apart from the streaming market.

[fung0]

The question of "why?" is the key to this whole MQA movement. Why would publishers and distributors rush to climb aboard with an upstart new technology, which requires licensing fees and a complete rebuild of all audio hardware, when there are lots of existing systems and formats that are far more convenient? It's not like consumers were clamoring for MQA.

 

The answer, unfortunately, is obvious. The content industry views any shift in technology as an opportunity to tighten its grip on the ecosystem. Look at the example of UHD Blu-ray. It introduces a relatively minor upgrade in quality (which no one was clamoring for, and which needs all new hardware), but is eagerly embraced by the movie industry because it allows the adoption of something they've dreamed of for many years (ever since the original Divx): consumer players that won't work unless they have a connection to the company's servers. Meanwhile, open and far more convenient formats such as h.264 and h.265, plus MKV, are ignored.

 

MQA offers the same kind of 'advancement.' Marginally better quality is, for no particular technical reason, coupled with decoders that can 'validate' the entire delivery chain. MQA allows the music-delivery system to be locked down. Would this system 'leak'? Of course. But it would certainly put up new barriers that MP3 and FLAC do not. (Especially for the average non-geeky consumer.)

 

The counter-arguments are purely on the practical side. For example: MQA affects HD audio only. True. But the industry's dream, as with Blu-ray and now UHD Blu-ray, is always to move in the direction of tighter control. As each new format gains ground, the grip tightens. Or: MQA affects streaming only. Again, true (so far). But the dream is to move in the direction of streaming. (It's significant that video services like Netflix never let the consumer have control of the content at all. A 'Netflix VCR' can never exist.) Truly worthwhile increments in technology are getting scarce, so there's a bit of a rush. "We failed to lock down CD, MP3 and FLAC; this may be our last chance!"

 

Yes, it's possible that neither HD audio nor streaming will dominate audio in the future. But there's a good chance that they will - especially if the music industry gets behind them with a remarkably unified push. We all know that's exactly the logic that's applied in industry boardrooms.

[Jud]

40 minutes ago, fung0 said:

But there's a good chance that they will - especially if the music industry gets behind them with a remarkably unified push. We all know that's exactly the logic that's applied in industry boardrooms.

 

Glad "we all" have telepathic or precognitive powers to know this, since public announcements from other companies at CES this year appeared to indicate hi-res streaming competition for MQA rather than unification behind it.

[Sal1950]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Glad "we all" have telepathic or precognitive powers to know this, since public announcements from other companies at CES this year appeared to indicate hi-res streaming competition for MQA rather than unification behind it.

Which one of those "alternatives" have you seen record labels signing up for?

I don't believe it takes a crystal ball to see all the muscle lining up behind the MQA juggernaut and a future plans to place it as the one stop distribution codec offering a lossy facsimile of 16/44, and HDA all in one file. Then just like the various DRM schemes if you want the quality spread (lossless 16/44 or better) you have to pay up suckers. 

[fung0]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Glad "we all" have telepathic or precognitive powers to know this, since public announcements from other companies at CES this year appeared to indicate hi-res streaming competition for MQA rather than unification behind it.

There's very little telepathy required. Part of it is direct observation: I've been working in and around this field for a lot of years; I've met quite a few execs and visited a fair number of boardrooms. Part of it is just paying attention: reading the relevant press. None of my examples are secret, nor are the industry attitudes behind them.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, fung0 said:

The question of "why?" is the key to this whole MQA movement. Why would publishers and distributors rush to climb aboard with an upstart new technology, which requires licensing fees and a complete rebuild of all audio hardware, when there are lots of existing systems and formats that are far more convenient? It's not like consumers were clamoring for MQA.

 

The answer, unfortunately, is obvious. The content industry views any shift in technology as an opportunity to tighten its grip on the ecosystem. Look at the example of UHD Blu-ray. It introduces a relatively minor upgrade in quality (which no one was clamoring for, and which needs all new hardware), but is eagerly embraced by the movie industry because it allows the adoption of something they've dreamed of for many years (ever since the original Divx): consumer players that won't work unless they have a connection to the company's servers. Meanwhile, open and far more convenient formats such as h.264 and h.265, plus MKV, are ignored.

 

MQA offers the same kind of 'advancement.' Marginally better quality is, for no particular technical reason, coupled with decoders that can 'validate' the entire delivery chain. MQA allows the music-delivery system to be locked down. Would this system 'leak'? Of course. But it would certainly put up new barriers that MP3 and FLAC do not. (Especially for the average non-geeky consumer.)

 

The counter-arguments are purely on the practical side. For example: MQA affects HD audio only. True. But the industry's dream, as with Blu-ray and now UHD Blu-ray, is always to move in the direction of tighter control. As each new format gains ground, the grip tightens. Or: MQA affects streaming only. Again, true (so far). But the dream is to move in the direction of streaming. (It's significant that video services like Netflix never let the consumer have control of the content at all. A 'Netflix VCR' can never exist.) Truly worthwhile increments in technology are getting scarce, so there's a bit of a rush. "We failed to lock down CD, MP3 and FLAC; this may be our last chance!"

 

Yes, it's possible that neither HD audio nor streaming will dominate audio in the future. But there's a good chance that they will - especially if the music industry gets behind them with a remarkably unified push. We all know that's exactly the logic that's applied in industry boardrooms.

 

 

I think this is a fair assessment. The past is frequently a great predictor of the future. I can see many reasons why the copyright holders and those who make a living from recored sound would want tight control. The vast majority of the public doesn't really care if the content industries have tight control, so it makes sense to grab control if they can. When it comes to video, I could care less about control. I purchase and rent movies through Apple TV and Roku. I realize the consequences of purchasing on both platforms and the services on the platforms. Some content is only available via one app on one of the platforms. So be it. 

 

Music means much more to me than video and of course I want total control all the time, but it depends on the pros and cons of this and at what cost. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens. 

[Jud]

19 minutes ago, fung0 said:

There's very little telepathy required. Part of it is direct observation: I've been working in and around this field for a lot of years; I've met quite a few execs and visited a fair number of boardrooms. Part of it is just paying attention: reading the relevant press. None of my examples are secret, nor are the industry attitudes behind them.

 

 

About past practice and general tendencies I surely agree.  But perhaps when thinking about what the industry is going to do regarding something as specific as MQA streaming, we might include their announced plans in our consideration.

[crenca]

4 hours ago, fung0 said:

The question of "why?" is the key to this whole MQA movement. Why would publishers and distributors rush to climb aboard with an upstart new technology, which requires licensing fees and a complete rebuild of all audio hardware, when there are lots of existing systems and formats that are far more convenient? It's not like consumers were clamoring for MQA.

 

The answer, unfortunately, is obvious. The content industry views any shift in technology as an opportunity to tighten its grip on the ecosystem. Look at the example of UHD Blu-ray. It introduces a relatively minor upgrade in quality (which no one was clamoring for, and which needs all new hardware), but is eagerly embraced by the movie industry because it allows the adoption of something they've dreamed of for many years (ever since the original Divx): consumer players that won't work unless they have a connection to the company's servers. Meanwhile, open and far more convenient formats such as h.264 and h.265, plus MKV, are ignored.

 

MQA offers the same kind of 'advancement.' Marginally better quality is, for no particular technical reason, coupled with decoders that can 'validate' the entire delivery chain. MQA allows the music-delivery system to be locked down. Would this system 'leak'? Of course. But it would certainly put up new barriers that MP3 and FLAC do not. (Especially for the average non-geeky consumer.)

 

The counter-arguments are purely on the practical side. For example: MQA affects HD audio only. True. But the industry's dream, as with Blu-ray and now UHD Blu-ray, is always to move in the direction of tighter control. As each new format gains ground, the grip tightens. Or: MQA affects streaming only. Again, true (so far). But the dream is to move in the direction of streaming. (It's significant that video services like Netflix never let the consumer have control of the content at all. A 'Netflix VCR' can never exist.) Truly worthwhile increments in technology are getting scarce, so there's a bit of a rush. "We failed to lock down CD, MP3 and FLAC; this may be our last chance!"

 

Yes, it's possible that neither HD audio nor streaming will dominate audio in the future. But there's a good chance that they will - especially if the music industry gets behind them with a remarkably unified push. We all know that's exactly the logic that's applied in industry boardrooms.

 

 

Nice summary and well stated.  Chris and Jud have a "wait and see" attitude, but I am not sure what we are waiting for in that the motivations, goals, and desired outcomes are here and present - no waiting required/needed...

[mansr]

9 minutes ago, crenca said:

Nice summary and well stated.  Chris and Jud have a "wait and see" attitude, but I am not sure what we are waiting for in that the motivations, goals, and desired outcomes are here and present - no waiting required/needed...

 

Is that a hungry tiger stalking us? Let's wait and see what he does. Maybe he just wants a cuddle.

[ron spencer]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

About past practice and general tendencies I surely agree.  But perhaps when thinking about what the industry is going to do regarding something as specific as MQA streaming, we might include their announced plans in our consideration.

I really like this quote by Jud...as he says "MQA streaming"

 

I say it again, if this is all MQA is for, then fine. But if fancy new remixes/remasters are ONLY available as MQA, then this restricts the supply of music, which should not be tolerated by anyone. It does remain to be seen if such DRM is to be used, but as others have pointed out here, little, if anything, is gained by using MQA over FLAC. If MQA hides/folds sound that needs special devices to listen to and only MQA is available, then music will be heading into another dark zone. One can stay "relaxed" and have a "wait and see attitude", but your music may dry up in the interim. 

[ron spencer]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

 

Is that a hungry tiger stalking us? Let's wait and see what he does. Maybe he just wants a cuddle.

And he doesn't? Well, he'll eat up your supply of "non-folded" music. NEVER, EVER, turn your back on a tiger :-)

[Rt66indierock]

5 hours ago, mansr said:

 

Is that a hungry tiger stalking us? Let's wait and see what he does. Maybe he just wants a cuddle.

Mansr,

I always forget if you aren’t an American you may not know our recording industry is still operating under a Consent Decree that has been in place since 1941. Last year the terms were tightened. Your tiger has been in the crosshairs of a .375 Holland & Holland a long time. Because of this it is in every Americans DNA to distrust record companies.

 

There is a reason I called MQA vaporware. Until there are 10,000 albums the format does not matter. At that point other discussions take place until 1% of say Tidal tracks are MQA. This is a number higher than all the current hi-res albums by a factor of three. Then we can have discussion about whether MQA can reach critical mass. I’m defining critical mass as the minimum amount of albums needed to have a viable streaming service that will allow providers to charge more than CD quality. We are about a quarter of the way from even starting a conversation about commercial viability.

 

Finally Steve Miller’s rant was the sugar coated version of what the recording is. Anyone believes anything else is gullible or in the industry.

[Jud]

6 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Mansr,

I always forget if you aren’t an American you may not know our recording industry is still operating under a Consent Decree that has been in place since 1941. Last year the terms were tightened. Your tiger has been in the crosshairs of a .375 Holland & Holland a long time. Because of this it is in every Americans DNA to distrust record companies.

 

There is a reason I called MQA vaporware. Until there are 10,000 albums the format does not matter. At that point other discussions take place until 1% of say Tidal tracks are MQA. This is a number higher than all the current hi-res albums by a factor of three. Then we can have discussion about whether MQA can reach critical mass. I’m defining critical mass as the minimum amount of albums needed to have a viable streaming service that will allow providers to charge more than CD quality. We are about a quarter of the way from even starting a conversation about commercial viability.

 

Finally Steve Miller’s rant was the sugar coated version of what the recording is. Anyone believes anything else is gullible or in the industry.

 

These days, if there is something the entertainment industry doesn't like about the consent decree, I can't see great difficulty getting the underlying law changed.  The industry got its own beloved version of a copyright law passed, so I'm not sure a lot else is beyond it (as long as NBC hasn't PO'd the Big Man beforehand).

 

But that's at a 30,000-foot level.  Right now, MQA hasn't even succeeded in showing elementary commercial viability for one minor player in one segment of the music industry, let alone become top of mind for entertainment conglomerate executives as a must-have.  So let's (1) continue to vote with our dollars, and urge the companies we deal with to do the same; (2) support true hi res streaming when and if it happens; and (3) continue to be informed consumers of true hi res downloads (chances the Pono Store comes back, anyone?).

[Jud]

12 hours ago, mansr said:

 

Is that a hungry tiger stalking us? Let's wait and see what he does. Maybe he just wants a cuddle.

 

My strategy would be not to feed the tiger cub, rather than wasting energy hollering "Look, a huge, horrible tiger!" at people who can see it plainly isn't, yet, and will therefore tend to discount what you say rather than taking action.

[Sal1950]

5 hours ago, Jud said:

 

My strategy would be not to feed the tiger cub, rather than wasting energy hollering "Look, a huge, horrible tiger!" at people who can see it plainly isn't, yet, and will therefore tend to discount what you say rather than taking action.

Couldn't dis-agree more, It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. All the major audiophile media are beating the drum in support of MQA, telling their readers how it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. If we in the audiophile community don't raise our voices of opposition often and loud, the forces behind MQA WILL have their way. Ignoring it won't make it go away.

6 hours ago, Jud said:

But that's at a 30,000-foot level.  Right now, MQA hasn't even succeeded in showing elementary commercial viability for one minor player in one segment of the music industry, let alone become top of mind for entertainment conglomerate executives as a must-have.  So let's (1) continue to vote with our dollars, and urge the companies we deal with to do the same; (2) support true hi res streaming when and if it happens; and (3) continue to be informed consumers of true hi res downloads (chances the Pono Store comes back, anyone?).

Now here we can agree. I only wish we could get Chris to put the weight of CA on the side of freedom and give some push back against the juggernaut. There's nothing to wait and see over, the intend and desired results of Meridian's agenda are clear as glass.

 

As to Pono, I vote it's NoMo.  Putting Young's deceptive advertising for HDA aside, I just don't believe there's room in the marketplace for another store.

[Jud]

33 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

I just don't believe there's room in the marketplace for another store.

 

Really?  I used to price shop between them, HDTracks, and a couple of others, and the Pono Store would often have the best price.  So I miss them at least for that.

[mrvco]

With a bit of momentum, I expect that MQA makes a lot of sense from a record label perspective.  The labels are struggling with the economics of Hi-Res music production and distribution, as well as their inherit "master tape" piracy fears.  There is no indication that the vast majority of music consumers are willing to pay a premium for Hi-Res streaming, downloads or physical media, less than half of Tidal's modest subscriber base opts for the HiFi tier.

 

However, with Spotify announcing their lossless offering, it appears that Hi-Res could become table stakes for streaming service marketing.  As the market matures and they increasingly compete for one another's subs, there will inevitably be increased pressure to reduce prices on lossless tiers or at least offer greatly reduced promo pricing to get people to switch.  The investment required for Hi-Res (increased production, storage and bandwidth costs) with little or no increase in revenue still has to be a tough sell for the labels.

 

Enter MQA, while their business model remains opaque, I think it is fair to assume that MQA's pitch to the labels is let us transcode your existing content to the MQA format and we'll give you a percentage of the royalties that we generate from every single MQA-enabled device (DAC, Media Player and presumably production equipment) that is sold now and forever.  I expect that MQA had a similar pitch for Tidal to get MQA content launched on their platform.

 

If I had to guess, the icing on the cake for the labels is that this MQA royalty stream is structured in such a way that it is independent of digital distribution rights and doesn't have to be shared with their artists.  We can ABX double blind test MQA versus 24/96 FLAC and Redbook streams all we want, but I see no indication that this is what MQA is really about, it's just MQA taking a page out of Dolby's playbook and applying it to the music industry.

[bogi]

16 minutes ago, mrvco said:

If I had to guess, the icing on the cake for the labels is that this MQA royalty stream is structured in such a way that it is independent of digital distribution rights and doesn't have to be shared with their artists.

 

Yes, MQA is mainly about money for labels and not about artists. The marketing speak (that artists approved deblurred origami) is here to convince customers to pay more for music and potentially to get them to buy once again what they already bought.

[audiventory]

45 minutes ago, mrvco said:

With a bit of momentum, I expect that MQA makes a lot of sense from a record label perspective.  The labels are struggling with the economics of Hi-Res music production and distribution, as well as their inherit "master tape" piracy fears.

 

How MQA help in struggling with piracy?