MQA is Vaporware

[Jud]

40 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I believe there is actual research, yes.  But life being busy at the moment, perhaps we could reach a resolution faster this way:

 

@Miska has said he can perceive differences in the sounds of his filters, which vary from each other in the sorts of characteristics I mentioned.  Do you believe him?  If so, these things are indeed perceptible.  Accuracy of those perceptions will then be a matter of training.

 

I've just realized I may have put mansr in an awkward personal position by what could be construed as asking him to comment on the statements or work of another developer.  So I withdraw the question.

[Rt66indierock]

44 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I believe there is actual research, yes.  But life being busy at the moment, perhaps we could reach a resolution faster this way:

 

@Miska has said he can perceive differences in the sounds of his filters, which vary from each other in the sorts of characteristics I mentioned.  Do you believe him?  If so, these things are indeed perceptible.  Accuracy of those perceptions will then be a matter of training.

 

I do one of the reasons I want to control the filters not Bob Stuart. I've written about ultrasonics and how I perceive them. And yes training will be necessary for any level of accuracy. 

[Rt66indierock]

Keep it.

[Rt66indierock]

53 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I don't disagree labels like MQA, but I can't figure out why they all wouldn't be onboard if it's as cut and dry as everyone thinks. 

 

To encode music in MQA will cost money. The question then is how do they recover these costs? Every large company has an internal rate of return (similar to interest). So is there a solid predictable stream of cash that will meet or exceed their internal rate of return for investing in equipment to encode MQA? That question may be hard to answer.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

To encode music in MQA will cost money. The question then is how do they recover these costs? Every large company has an internal rate of return (similar to interest). So is there a solid predictable stream of cash that will meet or exceed their internal rate of return for investing in equipment to encode MQA? That question may be hard to answer.

 

Then the argument that this is a boon to the labels falls somewhat flat. 

[witchdoctor]

9 hours ago, fung0 said:

 

The only relevant definition of "lossy" in the current discussion is: that loss in fidelity relative to the working studio master which is inflicted purely for the purposes of reducing data size of the recording delivered to the consumer.

 

Why is this particular type of 'loss' so significant?

 

Ever since Thomas Edison, audiophiles have been demanding access to recordings of higher and higher fidelity. Music labels have delivered technological improvements in numerous lucrative stages - LP, tape, cassette, CD, SACD, FLAC, high-res FLAC...But we are now reaching a limit. There is very little further improvement that music publishers can offer. The next logical step, already underway, is delivering to consumers the actual studio master copy. That is, allowing them to purchase the highest-quality digital representation that exists of the original analog (real-world) performance.

 

Music publishers would rather cut off an appendage than do this. Not just because it means they'll never be able to sell us the same content yet another time. But, more fundamentally, because it means relinquishing their control, their position of superiority. Once consumers have the masters, the publishers are no longer the custodians of the one true Holy Grail.

 

Hence their eager adoption of MQA. In the nick of time, someone has developed a format that lets publishers proclaim that they're releasing something that "Sounds Just as Good!!" as the original studio master - but which is definitively not the original studio master. The distinction is very real, even if the human ear is incapable of distinguishing the 'lossy' MQA file from the original master. It's the only conceivable reason for MQA to be a 'lossy' format, and not simply an enhancement to 'lossless' PCM. The master remains the master, and the MQA file is emphatically not a bit-for-bit copy of it.

 

Once you see this logic, you can't help but realize that MQA is being embraced not as a parallel delivery format to high-resolution PCM, but as a replacement for it. An entirely needless replacement. There are no technical impediments any more. So why would a true audiophile choose a somewhat more-compact recording over one that is absolutely unequivocally guaranteed to contain every possible bit of the original studio recording? The only plausible reason for the adoption of MQA is to avoid giving us that choice.

 

People keep saying "Don't worry, our high-res PCM-FLAC files won't go away." But they will. That's the whole point.

I don't want to beat up on a newbie but are you paranoid in general or just in this post? Vinyl didn't go away but 8 tracks did. only the strong survive. If PCM goes away it must have deserved to die a slow painful death. If it doesn't it means demand is high. Now do you feel better?

[witchdoctor]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Then the argument that this is a boon to the labels falls somewhat flat. 

The goal is to increase paid subscribers vs prirates, I see no harm in that.

[Jud]

17 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

The goal is to increase paid subscribers vs prirates, I see no harm in that.

 

The trouble is that the labels have historically seen customers as pirates or potential pirates.  Apple came along and gave people the chance to preview a song and see if they liked it, and if they did, to purchase it for 99 cents.  This was in contrast to the labels, who wanted everyone to buy $15-$16 CDs on the basis of advertising and hearing one of a dozen or more songs on the radio.  People didn't bother much to pirate what they could get so easily from Apple.  Problem solved!

 

But the industry is still blaming many of its ills on piracy - better than blaming them on the record company execs, eh?

[rickca]

25 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

The question then is how do they recover these costs?

Perfect question ... what is the business case for converting your catalog to MQA?

 

The labels can easily get a good ROI by combating piracy.  Many companies spend a lot of money on tracking down the source and distribution of counterfeit products.  So if it isn't MQA, it's counterfeit once you no longer authorize distribution of anything but MQA.  What if the free tiers of music services were no longer viable in an MQA-only world, and many of those listeners signed up for a paid subscription?

[Jud]

Thanks mansr for the really informative comment.

 

Have you ever noticed that people in this forum (perhaps elsewhere in your life as well?) tend to react much more favorably to your less strident comments (for example, the nice bulleted list of MQA dislikes, refreshingly free of nastiness and exaggeration, you put up earlier in the thread)?  I.e., you're (paradoxically?) more persuasive when you're reasonable rather than railing?  As someone of a scientific bent, perhaps these data should be an indication to you of the road to future success.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

Thanks mansr for the really informative comment.

 

Have you ever noticed that people in this forum (perhaps elsewhere in your life as well?) tend to react much more favorably to your less strident comments (for example, the nice bulleted list of MQA dislikes, refreshingly free of nastiness and exaggeration, you put up earlier in the thread)?  I.e., you're (paradoxically?) more persuasive when you're reasonable rather than railing?  As someone of a scientific bent, perhaps these data should be an indication to you of the road to future success.

 

I removed the post in question, but your comment is welcomed. 

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I removed the post in question

The person it was in reply to has spent the last couple of days incessantly belittling and ridiculing anyone who doesn't sing the praises of MQA. I don't mind that you deleted my post, but please consider why I posted it, even if it was a bit uncivil.

[Sal1950]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

The person it was in reply to has spent the last couple of days incessantly belittling and ridiculing anyone who doesn't sing the praises of MQA. I don't mind that you deleted my post, but please consider why I posted it, even if it was a bit uncivil.

+1

[rickca]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I don't disagree labels like MQA, but I can't figure out why they all wouldn't be onboard if it's as cut and dry as everyone thinks. 

You would think if anyone is sensitive about being hacked and losing control of product distribution, it would be Sony.  I agree it's puzzling.

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, mansr said:

The person it was in reply to has spent the last couple of days incessantly belittling and ridiculing anyone who doesn't sing the praises of MQA. I don't mind that you deleted my post, but please consider why I posted it, even if it was a bit uncivil.

 

I certainly understand. 

[rickca]

17 minutes ago, mansr said:

The person it was in reply to has spent the last couple of days incessantly belittling and ridiculing anyone who doesn't sing the praises of MQA. I don't mind that you deleted my post, but please consider why I posted it, even if it was a bit uncivil.

I didn't see the post, but there's definitely someone in here who matches that description.  FACT.

 

Let's be particularly kind with CA newbies.  We want them to feel welcome.  Some will become valuable contributors.

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, rickca said:

You would think if anyone is sensitive about being hacked and losing control of product distribution, it would be Sony.  I agree it's puzzling.

 

Word on the street now is that hackers are holding a Sony movie for Bitcoin random. 

 

Anyway, it's also strange that all the labels don't sign up for it because they don't have to encode an entire catalog if they don't want to. Or perhaps there are high minimum album requirements. 

 

Wish I knew how it all worked. 

 

P.S. I'm told another MQA announcement is coming tomorrow morning. 

[Sal1950]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Anyway, it's also strange that all the labels don't sign up for it because they don't have to encode an entire catalog if they don't want to. Or perhaps there are high minimum album requirements.  

Chris, we can't forget that there are a few people at labels with ethics.

Remember Linn

https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music

[rickca]

Maybe MQA should adopt Blurred Lines as their official theme song.

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Chris, we can't forget that there are a few people at labels with ethics.

 

I didn't forget that, I never knew it in the first place :~)

[Sal1950]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I didn't forget that, I never knew it in the first place :~)

Question,

If Schiit does ever decide to bring out a MQA enabled DAC will they call it the 

DeblurrSchitt ?

[Rt66indierock]

4 hours ago, rickca said:

Perfect question ... what is the business case for converting your catalog to MQA?

 

The labels can easily get a good ROI by combating piracy.  Many companies spend a lot of money on tracking down the source and distribution of counterfeit products.  So if it isn't MQA, it's counterfeit once you no longer authorize distribution of anything but MQA.  What if the free tiers of music services were no longer viable in an MQA-only world, and many of those listeners signed up for a paid subscription?

 

Good comments

 

Piracy is two components. One is individuals copying files and sharing them. Two is the more troubling one industrial piracy. Look at all the people who say MQA isn’t DRM because I can make a copy of it. If true then here is nothing in MQA to stop individuals from sharing files and is not a solution for this kind of piracy. On the industrial side of piracy unauthorized copies are made of music, the music is distributed, these copies enter retail channels and the label receives no compensation. If you can get a copy of the MQA file by whatever means you can still presumably copy it the same way an individual can so there is no gain to the label. The labels still have to spend money to track the sources and distributors of your illegally copied music. Nothing has changed.

The problem with a lot of the industrial piracy in the music business is places actually authorized to make copies of music just make a few more. Then sell them themselves. This is very hard to track down.

 

Now if the DRM in MQA can track the path of the file to ensure its authenticity then that is an entirely different matter. You would know someone is copying your files and you could trace it back to them.

 

If MQA made free streaming unviable then the royalty payments might change a bit. But remember the free services still pay royalties for music and nobody is making a profit streaming with a subscription model. Spotify for example can’t go public (sell its stock on an exchange) because royalty payments make it impossible to make profit and return value to the shareholders. Finally in the United States free services can always go back to a radio style model which is protected by statute.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

7 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Good comments

 

Piracy is two components. One is individuals copying files and sharing them. Two is the more troubling one industrial piracy. Look at all the people who say MQA isn’t DRM because I can make a copy of it. If true then here is nothing in MQA to stop individuals from sharing files and is not a solution for this kind of piracy. On the industrial side of piracy unauthorized copies are made of music, the music is distributed, these copies enter retail channels and the label receives no compensation. If you can get a copy of the MQA file by whatever means you can still presumably copy it the same way an individual can so there is no gain to the label. The labels still have to spend money to track the sources and distributors of your illegally copied music. Nothing has changed.

The problem with a lot of the industrial piracy in the music business is places actually authorized to make copies of music just make a few more. Then sell them themselves. This is very hard to track down.

 

Now if the DRM in MQA can track the path of the file to ensure its authenticity then that is an entirely different matter. You would know someone is copying your files and you could trace it back to them.

 

If MQA made free streaming unviable then the royalty payments might change a bit. But remember the free services still pay royalties for music and nobody is making a profit streaming with a subscription model. Spotify for example can’t go public (sell its stock on an exchange) because royalty payments make it impossible to make profit and return value to the shareholders. Finally in the United States free services can always go back to a radio style model which is protected by statute.

Got it.  MQA does not prevent piracy, and it contains no mechanism for tracing illegal copies back to their bootleg sources, as far as any public explantanations to date of MQA technology are concerned.  It does, as we know, certify "authenticity" of a played or streamed copy to the user during playback.

 

So, how is it then DRM as so many insist?  Sorry, I do not follow that logic, at the risk of being pelted from all sides here.  But, though many proclaim this is as obvious as 1+1=2, I just do not get it.  I am trying to be rational and objective, not trying to reopen old wounds or debates.  Call me an idiot.  But, though repeated over and over with great fury and alarm, the charge falls completely on its face,  IMHO.  Especially, given the lynch mob fervor of the nay sayers.

 

You also seem unsure of the question of whether an MQA recording can be copied.  All the evidence that I have seen suggests it is just a file in a normal FLAC/PCM wrapper, so it can therefore be copied with existing technology.  Do you have evidence to the contrary? Does anyone?   Again, I do not see DRM here.  

 

 

[Don Hills]

9 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Got it.  MQA does not prevent piracy, and it contains no mechanism for tracing illegal copies back to their bootleg sources, as far as any public explantanations to date of MQA technology are concerned. ...

 

I believe it does contain such a mechanism, according to Mansr's analysis of the control bitstream.

[Don Hills]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

Maybe some of them see the downsides. Linn certainly seems to.

 

Unlike the majors, Linn cares about audio quality.