MQA is Vaporware

[GUTB]

Why do you guys keep saying DRM over and over again when there is no DRM?

[crenca]

1 minute ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

 

Ok, that was a long story.  The point is, if you have not heard what a technology can do in SQ yourself, you are not tuned into all the information involved in the tradeoff.  You have blinders on and you are not seeing the whole story.  You are entitled to do that.  But, I just think others should know where you are coming from.

 

 

 

You speak as if the trade-off is not being discussed - as if the SQ aspect is not being brought forward.  This is upside down, because the only thing being discussed about MQA was the SQ - that is how it is being sold almost everywhere.  The only exception is these rascally forums.  Here, MQA is discussed in a balanced way and allows folks to be "tuned into all the information", or at least all that can be known about a DRM/IP protected "product".  

 

Thus, I am curious as to where you are coming from - why are you selling the SQ aspect of MQA and denigrating all the other aspects of MQA as "conspiracy theory"?

[crenca]

8 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Why do you guys keep saying DRM over and over again when there is no DRM?

 

 

MQA = DRM (properly defined):

 

 

[ron spencer]

What would people think if 44.1/16 was perverted by MQA to somehow be MP3 quality on copy and a "special" DAC needed to "unfold" the poorer quality "MP3 sound" into the "full" 44.1/16 sound?

 

If there is restriction of the source files based on some fancy DAC or other private licensing deal, then, for all intents and purposes, it is DRM. If I buy files I want to use my files unencumbered, MQA is not that, it just isn't. While some may think it is "cool" for streaming, great, go for it. But for those who like files and music servers, the chance that one's files can be debilitated is a reason not to support this...it is just wacky. Again, what's the point? I see no merit, either from bandwidth savings, sound quality or in a pragmatic sense.

 

If all files/masters/versions of files will be made available at the same time, then great, but I won't trust the industry blindly.

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Why do you guys keep saying DRM over and over again when there is no DRM?

 

Some people say MQA contains DRM. 

Some people say MQA contains no DRM. 

MQA Ltd says its product contains no DRM. 

 

Other than that, you can read all the discussions here debating the topic. 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Just now, GUTB said:

Why do you guys keep saying DRM over and over again when there is no DRM?

Excellent question.  The answer is complicated, though. Unfortunately, some unfounded and irrational hysteria is involved.  But, MQA opponents have built certain scenarios in which they find MQA, and their criminal overlords, guilty beyond redemption of the sin of imposing DRM on the hi rez portion of the entire Galaxy, though not the RBCD portion. 

 

I do not think it is clear cut, nor do I believe any of those business scenarios that are their party line demonstrate this.  Nor, do I believe, as has been alleged, that studios will be tossing out all their non-MQA masters in favor of the "lossy", obviously SQ inferior MQA masters in their place.

 

But, perhaps you might be more convinced by the arguments of others.

[ron spencer]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Let me respond by modifying your post a bit...

 

To be honest, Porsche doesn't really mean anything, except to a hugely small () segment of the population. Most people today seem quite happy with their crummy fat SUVs and horrible self-driving pods. Very few people "drive" cars anymore...most just sit in it, get conveyed around and that is it.

 

Well, you didn't respond to the most salient point:

 

"A priori one can never know, but since the folks at Meridian won't realease an SDK for people to use to unfold their purchases, I for one don't trust it. Why should I?"

 

But I do get your point about Porsche...their cars suck 

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Some people say MQA contains DRM. 

Some people say MQA contains no DRM. 

MQA Ltd says its product contains no DRM. 

 

Other than that, you can read all the discussions here debating the topic. 

Some of those people are telling porkies. Some of those telling porkies do it for profit.

[GUTB]

But, isn't the argument that MQA needs special hardware or software an equal to DRM ludicrous on its face? Calling DSD a DRM scheme would be less ridiculous. You might as well call DXD a DRM scheme. 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

3 minutes ago, GUTB said:

But, isn't the argument that MQA needs special hardware or software an equal to DRM ludicrous on its face? Calling DSD a DRM scheme would be less ridiculous. You might as well call DXD a DRM scheme. 

Or, LP.  Or cassette or 8 track.  I agree with you.  

[Fitzcaraldo215]

7 minutes ago, ron spencer said:

 

Well, you didn't respond to the most salient point:

 

"A priori one can never know, but since the folks at Meridian won't realease an SDK for people to use to unfold their purchases, I for one don't trust it. Why should I?"

 

But I do get your point about Porsche...their cars suck 

Yeah, dem Porschies sure do suck. 

[Ralf11]

maybe this web site could contain a bot that would flash a warning on everyone's screen whenever the string MQA appears on the page

 

something like "WARNING!!  MQA may contain DRM!"

[Jud]

8 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Sure everybody has heard ABOUT it.  But, have you actually heard it?  What do you think about how it sounds?  Sal?  Anybody?

 

Yes, but - not the "full decode," but the first "unfolding," and A+'s upsampling after that.

 

I thought the times when the masters were different, the MQA masters were uniformly better, so I'm hoping those masterings become available without the MQA treatment.  The reason I say that is because when the masterings were identical, I thought the non-MQA files I'd downloaded were slightly better.

[mrvco]

23 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Why do you guys keep saying DRM over and over again when there is no DRM?

 

Beyond the "he said / I suspect" aspect, the most rational argument seems to be that MQA does have a framework, currently used to validate the hardware DAC or software player for unfolding and illuminating the MQA light, that could easily utilized for a more traditional DRM implementation.

 

MQA is already performing Digital Rights Management in the sense that the MQA bits are encrypted and are only accessible by MQA certified DACs (in the same sense that HDCP degrades audio quality to CD quality for digital links where HDCP is not active) so there is some reasonable basis for concern regarding DRM and how it might be used by MQA if they are allowed to become the singular format for Hi-res audio.

[ron spencer]

23 minutes ago, mrvco said:

 

Beyond the "he said / I suspect" aspect, the most rational argument seems to be that MQA does have a framework, currently used to validate the hardware DAC or software player for unfolding and illuminating the MQA light, that could easily utilized for a more traditional DRM implementation.

 

MQA is already performing Digital Rights Management in the sense that the MQA bits are encrypted and are only accessible by MQA certified DACs (in the same sense that HDCP degrades audio quality to CD quality for digital links where HDCP is not active) so there is some reasonable basis for concern regarding DRM and how it might be used by MQA if they are allowed to become the singular format for Hi-res audio.

 

This is a great post..if MQA becomes the standard for hi-res and only certain files are available in certain formats, then that would be bad for music. But if Merdian provided an SDK (yah right) then it wouldn't matter. EVERYONE should be concerned about the possibility of the restriction of supply. Why? Well, if it can be done with hires, then it could be done with 44.1/16 as well. Not cool.

[Sal1950]

1 hour ago, ron spencer said:

 

What would people think if 44.1/16 was perverted by MQA to somehow be MP3 quality on copy and a "special" DAC needed to "unfold" the poorer quality "MP3 sound" into the "full" 44.1/16 sound?

 

 

That may kind of be already happening though I'll admit my understanding of this is very foggy., The MQA CD,

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-encoded-cds-yes#jLTzPdmPgxSsGe5X.97

They are claiming a hi rez file is being MQA encoded on the CD, That a undecoded playback will offer better than RB sound as the file has already been deblurred and a decoder in not needed for the SQ improvement?

They also then claim the CD can be decoded by a MQA DAC for a 176/24 data rate?

Is the process for the MQA CD somehow different than regular MQA that reduces a undecoded file to a lossy factsimilie of RB?

If the deblurring process can be offered without data reduction, why not just offer it separately as a DAC enhancement and leave our lossless files alone?

I freely admit again this new processing has me scratching my head to understand.

[mrvco]

9 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Well, if we really want to eventually get to the truth about something, which is not always easy, we can guess, make stuff up, speculate and believe all we want.  But, that does not make it so.  Maybe Harley does that, maybe I do that, maybe Sal and you do too.

 

By the way, I am not selling anything.

 

Sure everybody has heard ABOUT it.  But, have you actually heard it?  What do you think about how it sounds?  Sal?  Anybody?

 

I've only heard MQA through the Explorer2 DAC with Tidal streams.

 

At work using my MacBook Air, the E2 DAC and Sennheiser Momentum headphones, I heard no difference between folded and unfolded Tidal streams.

 

At home on my 2ch rig, I could hear a bit more clarity and detail in the unfolded streams as compared to the non-MQA version (I can only assume that they are from the same master).  However I couldn't hear any difference between an unfolded 24/96 MQA stream and a local 24/96 FLAC file.

 

In my normal 2ch setup, I upconvert everything to DxD or DSD128, but that comparison is not possible with the Explorer2.  I'm perfectly happy with that setup and from what I've heard so far, I wouldn't pay more than I already pay for Tidal HiFi to get MQA.

 

I do have a MyTek Brooklyn DAC on the way, so that will enable some more in depth comparisons.

 

 

[crenca]

51 minutes ago, GUTB said:

But, isn't the argument that MQA needs special hardware or software an equal to DRM ludicrous on its face? Calling DSD a DRM scheme would be less ridiculous. You might as well call DXD a DRM scheme. 

 

To add to mrvco's response - DRM is not a technical implementation (such as many  and apparently yourself believe), it is a legal limitation.  DXD is not a legal limitation - if your DAC can not process it is because the design is limited.  If your DAC can not process MQA, it is because of a legal limitation.  If your DAC does process MQA it is because the designer has gone through the legal $hoops$.  

 

If you play MQA through your "legacy DAC" (the one you have now) you are being "managed", digitally - your rights are limited...it is called Digital Rights Management

[esldude]

Maybe MQA is more akin to watermarking though for different purposes.

[new_media]

If I buy a track from iTunes, I can convert it to 16/44 FLAC with no loss of quality. Converting to lossless doesn't add anything, but there is no loss of quality in the process, and that FLAC file will sound as good as the original M4A file on anything I choose to play it on.

 

If I were to buy a track in MQA, there is no way I could convert it to 24/96 FLAC without a loss of quality. There is no way I could save the "unfolded" audio to another format that would sound as good as the original "unfolded" MQA file. And if in 10 years MQA has gone belly up and there are no longer DACs on the market that can decode it, there would be no way to ever listen to those files in full resolution.

 

You can call that DRM or not, but that is why I do not want MQA to replace FLAC as the standard for hi-res downloads. An no, I have no proof that that is there plan, but such a plan would certainly benefit MQA AND would satisfy the labels' desires to lock down the "crown jewels."

 

I would rather buy a CD than an MQA download.

[rickca]

I suppose the Sony announcement will come at Munich High End.  They probably signed quite some time ago, but MQA wants a constant drumbeat of press releases so that MQA is continuously in the spotlight while they get their act together.  This managed perception of momentum really is very tiresome.

 

Clearly, this is just speculation.  The only certainty is yet another round of rapturous excitement from audio journalists.

[esldude]

35 minutes ago, new_media said:

If I buy a track from iTunes, I can convert it to 16/44 FLAC with no loss of quality. Converting to lossless doesn't add anything, but there is no loss of quality in the process, and that FLAC file will sound as good as the original M4A file on anything I choose to play it on.

 

If I were to buy a track in MQA, there is no way I could convert it to 24/96 FLAC without a loss of quality. There is no way I could save the "unfolded" audio to another format that would sound as good as the original "unfolded" MQA file. And if in 10 years MQA has gone belly up and there are no longer DACs on the market that can decode it, there would be no way to ever listen to those files in full resolution.

 

You can call that DRM or not, but that is why I do not want MQA to replace FLAC as the standard for hi-res downloads. An no, I have no proof that that is there plan, but such a plan would certainly benefit MQA AND would satisfy the labels' desires to lock down the "crown jewels."

 

I would rather buy a CD than an MQA download.

Sort of like all those HDCD DACs and discs that were available and now that company, Pacific Microsonics are no more.  Bought up by Microsoft and shut down.

[Rt66indierock]

36 minutes ago, esldude said:

Sort of like all those HDCD DACs and discs that were available and now that company, Pacific Microsonics are no more.  Bought up by Microsoft and shut down.

 

Well to be accurate bought up by Microsoft who tried to make a go of HDCD then shut it down. About 5,000 albums were released. 

[mrvco]

41 minutes ago, esldude said:

Sort of like all those HDCD DACs and discs that were available and now that company, Pacific Microsonics are no more.  Bought up by Microsoft and shut down.

 

At least you can rip an HDCD disc to a 24-bit / 44.1 KHz file using dBpoweramp and the appropriate DSP filter to get the benefits.

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

Why do you guys keep saying DRM over and over again when there is no DRM?

 

They read the first paragraph of the original post.