MQA is Vaporware

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

 

So, in laymen's terms, MQA is the client of Merlin.  MQA by signing this deal is farming out contractual terms of use and collection of $ for each MQA encoded file that is played or sold.  In other words I had it exactly backwards.  Are you sure this is the case or is this an assumption based on what you know about Merlin's business?  Does any other licensed format (mp3, Dolby, etc.) use this mechanism?

 

I wonder if artists understand that MQA is yet another third party dipping into the shrinking pie?  It strikes me that it would be in artists best interest (given that they have been forever complaining about this for ever) to reject a format that demands a piece of the action...

 

No you still have it wrong. MQA Ltd is one party and independent labels (members of Merlin a nonprofit) are the other parties of the agreement. Merlin negotiated the terms so their members could encode master recordings as MQA files if they want to. Merlin was created in 2007 for Mp3 files.

 

Artists know there is no money in recording an album. The only money to be made is in touring. You only make albums for marketing reasons. To make $1,000 you would have to stream 83,333 songs on TIDAL based on the latest estimates. Or you could sell 125 CDs at concerts your choice.

 

Didn’t you ever wonder why there are so few high resolution albums for sale? It doesn’t make sense for artists financially.

[crenca]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

That raises an interesting question. What is this all about for people who are so against MQA? Honestly, I'm interested in this answer. It will help focus discussions.

 

 

Well, sort of like asking "what is it about it that you are so against prison - I mean, they give you a roof over your head, 3 square meals a day, free medical care..." (it is true - there are people who think like this).  

 

"What is it all about that you are so against the DRMing  (is that a verb? ) of your musical digital ecosystem.".

The fact is that since digital music (and even before - how do you "improve" vinyl such that you can directly control what a consumer hears?) became the majority way to consume music, we have been under this cloud - what digital can give it can take away (especially since the DMCA).  MQA (or something like it) is of course not the end of the world (it's only music) but it is the end of the status quo.  Some most people who are "ok" with that won't be when the full consequences become evident.

 

But hey, people are very very adaptable...just ask people in prison

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

No you still have it wrong. MQA Ltd is one party and independent labels (members of Merlin a nonprofit) are the other parties of the agreement. Merlin negotiated the terms so their members could encode master recordings as MQA files if they want to. Merlin was created in 2007 for Mp3 files.

 

Artists know there is no money in recording an album. The only money to be made is in touring. You only make albums for marketing reasons. To make $1,000 you would have to stream 83,333 songs on TIDAL based on the latest estimates. Or you could sell 125 CDs at concerts your choice.

 

Didn’t you ever wonder why there are so few high resolution albums for sale? It doesn’t make sense for artists financially.

 

Ok, so Merlin is the middle man/agent - still, the substance of the deal/contract flows in opposite direction that I first assumed.

 

As far as the market/financial realities, are you saying that artists could care less - or really are on board with a DRM mechanism...yep, that is what you are saying I think

 

This says nothing that we have not already discussed - that the consumer really only has himself to rely on here.  Everybody, from the artists to the label's to most in the industry and at least 90% of the press thinks MQA (or something like it) is a wonderful thing.  Nothing new here of course but since consumer's current enjoyment of open digital formats is the "problem" it will be solved one way or another, sooner or later...

[crenca]

43 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I'd like to see a digital "expansion" or unfolding origami sound quality increase that would ensure that the artists who create the music get adequate compensation, not the labels or A&R flacs.

 

I think a very direct sales model via an open service (thinking Bandcamp but with much better publicity/discovery) is the future.

 

One thing is fur sur, the DRMing of our musical digital ecosystem will not benefit the artists much (if at all) because control is two way - it only creates more middle men and obfuscation of the relationship between those who create and those who consume...

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 minutes ago, crenca said:

One thing is fur sur, the DRMing of our musical digital ecosystem will not benefit the artists much (if at all) because control is two way - it only creates more middle men and obfuscation of the relationship between those who create and those who consume...

 

Is this true for the movie industry as well?

[Sal1950]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

That raises an interesting question. What is this all about for people who are so against MQA? Honestly, I'm interested in this answer. It will help focus discussions.

 

Come on Chris, really. Have you not read or comprehended all the points we've covered over and over in this thread and all the others..??

I believe you must be pulling our chains here.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Sal1950 said:

Come on Chris, really. Have you not read or comprehended all the points we've covered over and over in this thread and all the others..??

I believe you must be pulling our chains here.

Chris is starting to sound a lot like a climate change denier. No matter what evidence emerges, he still insists on maintaining a "balanced" debate.

[Jud]

39 minutes ago, mansr said:

Chris is starting to sound a lot like a climate change denier. No matter what evidence emerges, he still insists on maintaining a "balanced" debate.

 

Yes, this is just like climate change, with 97% of music scientists in firm agreement.

[witchdoctor]

9 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

A couple of quotes from Lucian Grainge CEO of Universal February 7, 2013

 

“The data shows and has proved that the enjoyment, the pleasure, the use, the interest in music has never been higher. Ironically, our ability to monetize that through distribution has never been lower.”

 “Power is the ability to stop new services. Power is the ability to create new services.” 

 

MQA gives the major labels more ability to monetize distribution of music and more power. Neither is a good thing but you already knew that.

Are you insane? I LIKE music, I want higher quality, more choices, and convenience. I WANT legal streaming to grow. If MQA helps Tidal signup more subscribers I support it. 
If you are defending pirating you just don't get it.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

Chris is starting to sound a lot like a climate change denier. No matter what evidence emerges, he still insists on maintaining a "balanced" debate.

 

Surely you jest. 

 

So far I've read tons of speculation and fear mongering without many facts. 

 

I ask a simple question to boil things down, and Sal speculates I'm pulling his chain. 

 

It seems like many are afraid of losing access to the latest Beyonce album in standard PCM, even though they'd never buy the album. 

 

[witchdoctor]

9 hours ago, crenca said:

 

I think a very direct sales model via an open service (thinking Bandcamp but with much better publicity/discovery) is the future.

 

One thing is fur sur, the DRMing of our musical digital ecosystem will not benefit the artists much (if at all) because control is two way - it only creates more middle men and obfuscation of the relationship between those who create and those who consume...

What do I care about DRNing or the mass public? All we want is to hit play and for it to be the best SQ possible. The artist wants to get paid, DRM, MQA, XYZ, they don't care as long as they get paid.

The malcontents are not only bitter they wasted their $$$ on hirez software, now they are being put out because this may cut into the pirating market. Guys, get over it, put on a MQA playlist and enjoy, it really sounds good!!! 

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Surely you jest. 

I do not.

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

So far I've read tons of speculation and fear mongering without many facts.

I posted enough facts that people started accusing me of violating intellectual property laws. How much more do you need?

[witchdoctor]

Just now, witchdoctor said:

What do I care about DRNing or the mass public? All we want is to hit play and for it to be the best SQ possible. The artist wants to get paid, DRM, MQA, XYZ, they don't care as long as they get paid. 

 

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Surely you jest. 

 

So far I've read tons of speculation and fear mongering without many facts. 

 

I ask a simple question to boil things down, and Sal speculates I'm pulling his chain. 

 

It seems like many are afraid of losing access to the latest Beyonce album in standard PCM, even though they'd never buy the album. 

 

"even though they would never buy the album"
BINGO, you got it. That is the bottom line, the "inconvenience" this causes to pirating music and the expense of buying music is what bothers the malcontents the most.
 

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

"even though they would never buy the album"
BINGO, you got it. That is the bottom line, the "inconvenience" this causes to pirating music and the expense of buying music is what bothers the malcontents the most.

Please stop this crap. You're not funny. Nobody is advocating piracy. I'm quite happy with every bit of music I've bought.

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

I do not.

I posted enough facts that people started accusing me of violating intellectual property laws. How much more do you need?

 

Therein lies the reason for my question. The information you've presented is factual. However, that info has been used for wild speculation. 

 

The anti-mqa crowd is so against it, they are like the NRA. You never know when a concealed WW1 cannon could be needed, so don't ban it. You guys are losing the plot. Thus the reason I asked for people to boil down exactly what they don't like. 

 

I don't like DRM. However the DRM continuum is wide. If MQA needed to phone home in order to play, that would be terrible. But, this isn't the case. Sure it could happen, but MQA could also be open sourced. Both unlikely to happen in my view. 

 

Are people afraid of losing access to albums they already own?

[witchdoctor]

Lead, follow, or get out of the way. MQA is leading, the major labels and audio vendors are following.

The malcontents need to get out of the way or get on board the MQA train.
BTW, to all of you malcontents there is another solution, find a better cheaper way to stream, start your own streaming service and I'll be your first customer. Good luck with that...

[rando]

23 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The anti-mqa crowd is so against it, they are like the NRA. You never know when a concealed WW1 cannon could be needed, so don't ban it. You guys are losing the plot. Thus the reason I asked for people to boil down exactly what they don't like.

To your credit there really aren't any good shooting ranges or full blown nutjob compounds in the prairie states.  I assure you no truther/searcher/woke/enlightened thinker is without a plot though.  So in fact they are not losing it but close to actually refining it. 

 

This was humor, plain and simple.  Besides, I can think of at least a half dozen places a normal person could go shoot their cannon should they so wish and there is something to be said about the primitive joy of blowing a massive hole in the sky during times of peace.

[Fyper]

22 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It seems like many are afraid of losing access to the latest Beyonce album in standard PCM, even though they'd never buy the album. 

That is intriguing.

Of course I'll fight for this even though I won't buy the album, I'll fight for all of them whether I like the music or not, whether it sounds good or not.

The (maybe irrational) fear is that there might be a take over of the PCM standard by a private company, which may thus have significant control of much of process, from production to sale. Some players and consumers in that chain may be happy to let go the little influence they have against something more interesting to them, but many are not.

And yes there is no proof that this may happen. May I say that when there is proof it's too late.

And yes it's only music and a hobby. But this pattern has been repeating itself in so many other areas at so many other levels that it's a question of principle, not money, not self-interest.

The same way some feel the need to balance a discussion for the sake of that discussion, I feel the need to fight for some core principles even if it's not related to my personal interest.

Sorry, got carried away....:-)

[witchdoctor]

5 minutes ago, Fyper said:

That is intriguing.

Of course I'll fight for this even though I won't buy the album, I'll fight for all of them whether I like the music or not, whether it sounds good or not.

The (maybe irrational) fear is that there might be a take over of the PCM standard by a private company, which may thus have significant control of much of process, from production to sale. Some players and consumers in that chain may be happy to let go the little influence they have against something more interesting to them, but many are not.

And yes there is no proof that this may happen. May I say that when there is proof it's too late.

And yes it's only music and a hobby. But this pattern has been repeating itself in so many other areas at so many other levels that it's a question of principle, not money, not self-interest.

The same way some feel the need to balance a discussion for the sake of that discussion, I feel the need to fight for some core principles even if it's not related to my personal interest.

Sorry, got carried away....:-)

At least we both agree you got carried away. If you want to fight join the army or do martial arts. I am paying $20 a month for a service I like that is getting better all the time. I "surrender" to better SQ via MQA.

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Therein lies the reason for my question. The information you've presented is factual. However, that info has been used for wild speculation. 

 

The anti-mqa crowd is so against it, they are like the NRA. You never know when a concealed WW1 cannon could be needed, so don't ban it. You guys are losing the plot. Thus the reason I asked for people to boil down exactly what they don't like. 

 Some things I don't like about MQA:

• It uses lossy compression. While the losses in the audible range are probably small, there is simply no need for lossy compression these days. We're streaming 4K video ffs.
• It forces use of minimum phase filters. The pros and cons of linear vs minimum phase filters are debatable, but as long as differences of opinion exist, removing the choice is a bad thing.
• The filters it uses are incredibly leaky with lots of aliasing/imaging. This precludes any possibility of accurately restoring the original signal.
• Being a proprietary format, it requires proprietary software and hardware to decode. Should such software cease to be developed in the future, existing files will become inaccessible (less applicable to streaming). This has happened in the past, and it will happen again. Does anyone remember RealAudio/RealVideo? Good luck finding official software for playing such files today.
• It makes most uses of DSP impossible. While there is some support for doing simple EQ, more advanced uses like speaker crossover filters (including plain old bass management with subwoofer) are impossible.
• By requiring DAC certification, it places an artificial barrier for entry into that market, should it become a must-have feature. This is bad for innovation.

And I haven't even mentioned DRM.

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Are people afraid of losing access to albums they already own?

I don't think anyone will come to my house and delete the files I already "own." However, there is a possibility that new music will not be made available in open formats. That's what people are afraid of, and rightly so.

[Jud]

mansr, I thought that (your bulleted list plus the last statement) was quite nicely stated.

[lucretius]

30 minutes ago, mansr said:

 Some things I don't like about MQA:

Thanks for posting that.  Seems like reasonable concerns.

[Jud]

To me, MQA presents a much less than compelling technical argument (anyone who likes the way it sounds, peace, I have no quarrel with your taste) and a very tiny likelihood of monopolizing the market so thoroughly as to exclude any room for technically superior open formats.

 

What would present a more interesting question to me is if the rumors about Apple lying in wait with millions of 24/96 files came true.  Would you jump on the bandwagon with Apple's enormous market share and the possibility for it to effectively take over the hi res download and streaming markets in return for convenient reasonably priced access to open format 24/96 files?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, rando said:

To your credit there really aren't any good shooting ranges or full blown nutjob compounds in the prairie states.  I assure you no truther/searcher/woke/enlightened thinker is without a plot though.  So in fact they are not losing it but close to actually refining it. 

 

This was humor, plain and simple.  Besides, I can think of at least a half dozen places a normal person could go shoot their cannon should they so wish and there is something to be said about the primitive joy of blowing a massive hole in the sky during times of peace.

 

Hi Rando - It's the concealed cannon I want :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Fyper said:

That is intriguing.

Of course I'll fight for this even though I won't buy the album, I'll fight for all of them whether I like the music or not, whether it sounds good or not.

The (maybe irrational) fear is that there might be a take over of the PCM standard by a private company, which may thus have significant control of much of process, from production to sale. Some players and consumers in that chain may be happy to let go the little influence they have against something more interesting to them, but many are not.

And yes there is no proof that this may happen. May I say that when there is proof it's too late.

And yes it's only music and a hobby. But this pattern has been repeating itself in so many other areas at so many other levels that it's a question of principle, not money, not self-interest.

The same way some feel the need to balance a discussion for the sake of that discussion, I feel the need to fight for some core principles even if it's not related to my personal interest.

Sorry, got carried away....:-)

 

Hi Fyper - Thanks for the rational comments. This is the type of discussion that helps. 

 

Many people have no clue that I called out Pono for using DRM / MQA at CES several years before any of this discussion. It's on video somewhere. I'm not a fan of any restrictions on anything I do or want. However, there are always more sides to every story and a continuum involved. 

 

I don't believe the PCM standard is going anywhere. There's nothing stopping any label, artist, etc... from releasing standard PCM. Whether or not they want to  is another story. Perhaps this anger  should be directed at those who elect to use MQA for deliver their own music rather than the technology. After all, people kill people, not guns. 

 

I'm not sure, just food for thought.