MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

[RichB]

They don't block processing. They force a different LED to light up as if I or anyone else cares about the stupid colors.

On the signal processing side, they have a tough constraint to be backward compatible with in the clear PCM format. So they made compromises that would not be there had they built a completely incompatible system. On the filer side it is a lousy decision they have made and I have no defense to present. I can tell you that companies have sent me MQA DACs that only implemented MQA filtering and I sent them right back. And told them this is totally unacceptable. Bob Stuart and crew think there is a sonic benefit there in that filtering, I don't agree and that is that. The filter setting should have been up to end user, not managed by license.

Really, on roll out front they have done a horrible job. A lot of blame lies at their feet for creating these negative attacks. The people who dreamed big in that company didn't have any understanding of how this field works. None of this authentication business was necessary as it is doubtful people would want to pirate their bits, or pirate enough to matter.

So as much as I respect Bob Stuart as a technical person and his contributions to audio science and engineer, I hardly have anything good to say regarding MQA as a business initiative.

The point was made that digital processing could not be applied to MQA encoded tasks.
Is that correct?

- Rich

 

[amirm]

The point was made that digital processing could not be applied to MQA encoded tasks.
Is that correct?

That was their original stance but they then changed. Roon player for example is able to provide DSP function on MQA content but it has force a flag that changes the LED color. There was some DAC I tested this on but I forget which now. I think it was SMSL.

 

[abdo123]

The point was made that digital processing could not be applied to MQA encoded tasks.
Is that correct?

- Rich

You can always do DSP on MQA, Some do it by preserving the authentication bits (Roon) and some do it by just using the OS equalizer after Tidal did the first (meaningful) unfold.

The sledgehammer way (for those who go out of their way to purchase MQA tracks somewhere) can also apply DSP in the traditional way but they’re stuck with the unencrypted bits (little below CD quality).

 

[firedog]

What you state is the norm in the industry and our everyday lives. Your ability to play MQA content depends on having a decoder for MQA. This is no different than needed an AAC decoder to play AAC content.

The difference between the two is that you could wake up tomorrow, write an AAC decoder (or steal it from elsewhere) and ship that decoder without paying royalties to the patent holders (as an aside I think the patents are expired for AAC but let's go along). MQA sets out to disable this type of decoder piracy. Unless you say you have a right to steal someone else's IP, then you have no freedom that has been stepped on.

MQA is actually superior to the AAC example since its baseline layer is 100% open and backward compatible. Anything that can play a flac file can play that baseline MQA file. So even in the most extreme case nobody's ability play the file is taken away.

BTW, the above piracy occurred for SD cards. Every SD card has a CPRM copy protection system. There is a microprocessor with mandatory cryptographic engine to implement this. The engine is patent protected and IP holders got upset that some actors were producing SD cards without a license. So later revisions of the SD card firmware were designed to key to the storage silicon in there to reduce piracy of such logic. That authentications scheme is very similar to what MQA has. None of this has impacted SD card business whatsoever.

Netflix has a proprietary end to end copy protection system to distribute movies. Nothing about it is open yet they have 73 million subscribes. Disney announced that their Plus subscription service has 74 million customers. Amazon Prime has its own. All closed systems. All content protected or else everyone could steal the service. Consumers have clearly shown that copy protection by itself is not a barrier to them. They just want it to be transparent to them. And MQA system absolutely is. Even more so than any of these services.

Every phone has a sim card or virtual version of the same so you can't use it on a carrier without subscription. Examples go on and on. The notion that you should have the right to play content without properly licensing a decoder is non squitter. Neither Windows nor Mac OS are open and free for you to use either.

The difference with MQA and all those other technologies you mention is that MQA has no reason for existence other than as a way to extract more money from music HW and SW producers, and music consumers. It provides nothing of actual benefit that can't be provided without it.

 

[mansr]

I think, based on @dmac6419 's most recent comment, that they're trying to say it's not DRM, but rather just proprietary software. I won't comment, as I think the burden is on them to make less cryptic comments and properly explain themselves rather than making others try to figure out what their point is.

That distinction is mostly academic anyway:

• DRM: can't play without secret 1024-bit key.
• Proprietary codec: can't play without secret 1048576-bit decoder.

If you don't have the secret thing, you're out of luck either way.

 

[bogi]

That was their original stance but they then changed. Roon player for example is able to provide DSP function on MQA content but it has force a flag that changes the LED color. There was some DAC I tested this on but I forget which now. I think it was SMSL.

With one exception (Roon) they changed? They changed if their decoder is available for free to all including developers of free software.

 

[abdo123]

With one exception (Roon) they changed? They changed if their decoder is available for free to all including developers of free software.

... What? So a software is inherently bad if it is proprietary?

 

[bogi]

they’re stuck with the unencrypted bits (little below CD quality)

If PCM part is 14 or 15 bits it means the non PCM rest (control stream with authentication, sample rate and filter info + coded ultrasonic content) will participate on DSP too. The result then goes into 20 or 21 bit resolution capable DAC.
The general 'solutions' are no DSP with MQA decoding or lower than Redbook resolution with added non musical content participating on DSP. I hope that's the point on which MQA will die.

 

[abdo123]

Honestly i welcome all competition regarding codecs.

if MQA offers no benefit to the user then hopefully a competitor rise up that allows both DRM and audible improvements over PCM. Or perhaps MQA can evolve to reach that goal.

Apple revolutionized the music world with AAC on iTunes. Then Streaming completely changed the industry (Lossy and copy protection).

 

[abdo123]

If PCM part is 14 or 15 bits it means the non PCM rest (control stream with authentication, sample rate and filter info + coded ultrasonic content) will participate on DSP too. The result then goes into 20 or 21 bit resolution capable DAC.
The general 'solutions' are no DSP with MQA decoding or lower than Redbook resolution with added non musical content participating on DSP. I hope that's the point on which MQA will die.

I couldn’t comprehend this comment, can you rephrase it?

 

[amirm]

The difference with MQA and all those other technologies you mention is that MQA has no reason for existence other than as a way to extract more money from music HW and SW producers, and music consumers. It provides nothing of actual benefit that can't be provided without it.

Almost nothing in audio/video business is without these motivations. You think folks just feel sorry for consumers when they develop new video codecs? Or new CPUs? Or new phones? You make it like it is a dirty thing to make money from new formats. Do you work for free or get paid to do what you do? If you get paid, then are you extracting money from your ecosystem?

As to someone needing it, record labels have better than CD "masters" in their inventory. They can distribute them as is and charge extra for them. Or use MQA to release them. Either way, there is demand to access those bits and it is not your place as a non-consumer of either to complain. Objectively people can get more. Subjectively they may not but that may be true of a DAC you bought as well.

I go to hotel rooms and there is always a $5 small bottle of Fiji water in there. I assume many people drink the stuff and pay the $5 whether it tastes better than filtered city water or not.

Really, the attitude needs to go out the window. If you are not a customer for anything here then it is not up to you complain about the offer. The danger with "no one wants high-res" is the slippery slope to "no one needs better than lossy encodings either." If you care about mass appeal, then the CD needs to go away too and with it, any services at that fidelity. It is not like you can make a strong case for the quality gap between lossy formats and CDs.

And it is not like MQA is costing anything. I get it totally for free. Don't pay extra to consume it on the service side and my Roon player decodes it for the same free price. So nothing was extracted from me or most of MQA users.

 

[levimax]

What you state is the norm in the industry and our everyday lives. Your ability to play MQA content depends on having a decoder for MQA. This is no different than needed an AAC decoder to play AAC content.

The difference between the two is that you could wake up tomorrow, write an AAC decoder (or steal it from elsewhere) and ship that decoder without paying royalties to the patent holders (as an aside I think the patents are expired for AAC but let's go along). MQA sets out to disable this type of decoder piracy. Unless you say you have a right to steal someone else's IP, then you have no freedom that has been stepped on.

MQA is actually superior to the AAC example since its baseline layer is 100% open and backward compatible. Anything that can play a flac file can play that baseline MQA file. So even in the most extreme case nobody's ability play the file is taken away.

BTW, the above piracy occurred for SD cards. Every SD card has a CPRM copy protection system. There is a microprocessor with mandatory cryptographic engine to implement this. The engine is patent protected and IP holders got upset that some actors were producing SD cards without a license. So later revisions of the SD card firmware were designed to key to the storage silicon in there to reduce piracy of such logic. That authentications scheme is very similar to what MQA has. None of this has impacted SD card business whatsoever.

Netflix has a proprietary end to end copy protection system to distribute movies. Nothing about it is open yet they have 73 million subscribes. Disney announced that their Plus subscription service has 74 million customers. Amazon Prime has its own. All closed systems. All content protected or else everyone could steal the service. Consumers have clearly shown that copy protection by itself is not a barrier to them. They just want it to be transparent to them. And MQA system absolutely is. Even more so than any of these services.

Every phone has a sim card or virtual version of the same so you can't use it on a carrier without subscription. Examples go on and on. The notion that you should have the right to play content without properly licensing a decoder is non squitter. Neither Windows nor Mac OS are open and free for you to use either.

Thank you for a clear answer that lay people can understand. I have no issue with companies protecting their IP. My main issue with MQA is that I think their "sound improvement" scheme is suspect and I don't like doing business with companies that mislead their customers, in additional Tidal replaced Warner existing content with Warner MQA content (reduce choice and since I don't have a MQA DAC reduced resolution), and finally I can't use MQA with my DIY tri-amped / DSP room EQ system without buying a bunch of new hardware (DAC and ADC).

 

[dmac6419]

Thank you for a clear answer that lay people can understand. I have no issue with companies protecting their IP. My main issue with MQA is that I think their "sound improvement" scheme is suspect and I don't like doing business with companies that mislead their customers, in additional Tidal replaced Warner existing content with Warner MQA content (reduce choice and since I don't have a MQA DAC reduced resolution), and finally I can't use MQA with my DIY tri-amped / DSP room EQ system without buying a bunch of new hardware (DAC and ADC).

You should try Qobuz or one of the other streaming services, I think you would be much happier

 

[bogi]

I couldn’t comprehend this comment, can you rephrase it?

If your player is not MQA capable and you have MQA capable DAC, then you are not able to do both MQA decoding and DSP.

If you do DSP with such a player, the following happens: MQA samples consist of some 14-15 bits of PCM part (not coded, playable on any player) and the rest is coded information not in PCM format - but the DSP engine of ordinary player includes it in processing. The result then goes into 20 or 21 bit resolution capable DAC - so the DAC processes also the non PCM part and converts it to analog.

That's about the level of MQA backward compatibility with Redbook standard.

If you don't have MQA capable player but you have MQA capable DAC and you want to decode MQA to use its full resolution, then you cannot do DSP in the player (because it would destroy the authentication information).

And if you have MQA capable player and MQA capable DAC, you still cannot do DSP and fully decode the MQA content unless you are using Roon as currently the only exception.

 

[Tks]

... What? So a software is inherently bad if it is proprietary?

Maybe not the way you're wording it, but yes - software that is proprietary has inherently undesirable aspects to it in virtue of being proprietary. When successful it allows for all sorts of troubling control related issues. See Apple for example which you mention later. You can for example get iOS mobile operating system, with all it's benefits. But if you want to install apps of your own from other sources aside from their App Store? Yeah not happening unless you manage to crack the system with a jailbreak. Thus a clear-cut example of proprietary software that is inherently undesirable. I could go on with security issues present when only one source is the gatekeeper of patches and eyes on finding holes (as oppposed to open source, where these sorts of issues are rectified with universally a more efficient and quicker turnaround) but you get my point.

Honestly i welcome all competition regarding codecs.

if MQA offers no benefit to the user then hopefully a competitor rise up that allows both DRM and audible improvements over PCM. Or perhaps MQA can evolve to reach that goal.

Apple revolutionized the music world with AAC on iTunes. Then Streaming completely changed the industry (Lossy and copy protection).

You seem to be unaware of the problem of how you pre-condition your request. When you say "Hopefully a competitor will rise up that allows both DRM and audible improvements over PCM", you have two issues. The first being, "audible improvements over PCM", there's no need for such a thing, DSD tried it, to virtually no avail. The second, is this implication that DRM is something that a consumer would desire in the first place to begin with, when DRM schemes do nothing for the end-user experience, and could only serve as more overhead for providing better quality (on the technological level since the DRM now needs to be taken into account from the hardware processing it), while also literally not providing any use from DRM itself from a usage perspective from the user. You running a magical supra-PCM format is fine and all - but DRM would literally not add a shred of quality inherent to the format, as DRM by definition doesn't concern itself with quality of anything, it's simply a protection scheme and nothing else.

So why you would openly want DRM as a consumer doesn't make sense to me (outside of some preconceived economic world-view stances you may hold).

As for MQA evolving, we can't get them to be audited by specialists in the field to empirically prove their claims. Why would I care about MQA evolving into anything aside from the dumpster?

As for better-than-PCM format, again pointless unless proof of concept deems worthy a new format brand new hardware paradigms must follow for.

As far as codecs (since this is a bit different and not exactly in line with the later statement you make about "improvements over PCM" since you can have different codecs for PCM) - this is a point I can agree with you wholly. Though in terms of "quality" or "improvements" they're only quality or improvements I can imagine is better compression algo's. And not actual "sound quality". Menaing smaller files with similar sound quality, or quicker compression and decompression that saves CPU cycles since much of music content is being consumed on mobile devices.

If you want better codecs, that's what you need to look for. Concerning lossless codecs, they simply can only improve concerning the tech-side (the file processing). Concerning lossy, they can improve on the file processing side, as well on the quality side. Lossless is pretty much finished unless some breakthrough occurs (MQA is most certainly not it, since it's not even a lossless ordeal to begin with), and with lossy files, the only thing I would be interested in the competition with, is if anyone is capable of outdoing OPUS codec. Competing against MP3 or AAC is pointless considering OPUS beats it from a sound quality perspective per-filesize/bit-rate.

So when you say you welcome all competition, I don't know why? If competition isn't actually competing on any appreciable level, then why would I care for a product like that? It would first need to outdo a product in one single aspect unequivocally for me to simply care about it's attempt of competing. But if we're going to have AAC clones left and right, I simply cannot understand why that would be welcomed?

MQA goes above and beyond this disqualification. We don't even know what it even wants to do given their secrecy, and empty claims, and just nonsensical approach in general. It's not like DSD where one would be intrigued in terms of a completely new tech paradigm. And it starts off with a "DRM" or "copy protection" scheme that INSTANTLY turns one off (unless you're the sort of buffoon that doesn't see that DRM schemes exist virtually for the sake of market and economic factors, rather than any user experience benefit).

 

[Blumlein 88]

Fraudulent claims of SQ improvement with mqa are okay even while being a bother to those not wishing to use mqa according Amir. Not sure what the problem with PS Audio is when they make claims that aren't true but just part of doing business.

 

[win]

MQA seems like a product from 2005

Everyone moved beyond clunky DRM, and MQA, with its cargo shorts and UGG boots, Ed Hardy hat, and original iPod mini, refuses to let it go

 

[KeenObserver]

It is not like you can make a strong case for the quality gap between lossy formats and CDs.

And it is not like MQA is costing anything. I get it totally for free. Don't pay extra to consume it on the service side and my Roon player decodes it for the same free price. So nothing was extracted from me or most of MQA users.

What is the purpose then of testing equipment to beyond the quality level of the music. Again, if we are going to test for the most exacting musical reproduction equipment, should we not seek the best possible music to play on it?
And, their will be royalty payments to use MQA on equipment and music. The music consumer ultimately pays for this. If MQA does not provide any benefit to the music consumer, why would the music consumer want this? There is nothing that MQA does that cannot be done better by open codecs. MQA benefits MQA and the studios at a cost to the music consumer. And you wonder why the music consumer would be opposed to it.

 

[Tks]

Almost nothing in audio/video business is without these motivations. You think folks just feel sorry for consumers when they develop new video codecs? Or new CPUs? Or new phones? You make it like it is a dirty thing to make money from new formats. Do you work for free or get paid to do what you do? If you get paid, then are you extracting money from your ecosystem?

As to someone needing it, record labels have better than CD "masters" in their inventory. They can distribute them as is and charge extra for them. Or use MQA to release them. Either way, there is demand to access those bits and it is not your place as a non-consumer of either to complain. Objectively people can get more. Subjectively they may not but that may be true of a DAC you bought as well.

I go to hotel rooms and there is always a $5 small bottle of Fiji water in there. I assume many people drink the stuff and pay the $5 whether it tastes better than filtered city water or not.

Really, the attitude needs to go out the window. If you are not a customer for anything here then it is not up to you complain about the offer. The danger with "no one wants high-res" is the slippery slope to "no one needs better than lossy encodings either." If you care about mass appeal, then the CD needs to go away too and with it, any services at that fidelity. It is not like you can make a strong case for the quality gap between lossy formats and CDs.

And it is not like MQA is costing anything. I get it totally for free. Don't pay extra to consume it on the service side and my Roon player decodes it for the same free price. So nothing was extracted from me or most of MQA users.

Did I miss something, are you in support of MQA now?

So a few issues. You say it's not a dirty thing to "make money" from new formats. While that's fine, the nuance is lost on the MQA example because MQA is attempting with unsubstantiated claims, aka false advertising at face value until claims do get substantiated.

Second, if MQA has access to these supposed "masters", I've not seen that wholly demonstrated either, nor have I seen why a consumer is better served going this route for them, as opposed to any other format. You say there's no right to complain. Pretty nonsensical since there is precedent in lossless itself for how access to masters could be granted on non-DRM'd formats like MQA (if they do in the first place). What I mean by this is, you are charged more for lossless purchases than lossy. And this difference is substantiated (which you yourself have countless blind tested by your own ears). Yet here we have a case where a higher costing product, that does actually sound better and can be objectively shown as to why (and has, in virtue of lossless by definition), yet no need for an MQA-like formatting scheme.

So I'm not sure how you hold this view of "no right to complain" tbh when there is precedent and reason to complain directly. Lossy to Lossless = no DRM purchases exist. "Masters" to MQA = DRM'd purchases. If anything people have more right to complain due to more being offered for less restriction from the lossy to lossless paradigm that currently exists. Yet we don't have a right to complain about an idiotic format seemingly trying to pull a fast one? I hope I have completely misunderstood your position, otherwise I have no idea what makes you come out in defense of this practice.

As far as the slippery slope of "no one wants hi-res" is just an assertion that it would mean "no one needs". And how we can't make a strong case for the quality gap between lossy to CD? Did someone hack your account? The quality loss between something like OPUS AAC and MP3 V0 is minor for the aforementioned mass appeal blind tests prove this, especially prove it when someone isn't actually critically listening to exhaustion. You seem to think that MQA isn't trying to position itself in a mass market of sorts, if it could, it would be on every streaming service possible, as is the case for any tech concerned company. I don't know of any true "luxury software" that is consumer targeted (there is of course entireprise software, but that has nothing to do with luxury obviously).

You say also if mass appeal is the only concern, CD's need to go away to. Well, they are. Even with respect to professionals, who in their right mind would work with CD's and CD drives if you can have lossless files on SSD's or HDD's on tap at a moments notice? CD's are "okay" for archival purposes when being stored in basements (though not really since CD's start partially degrading a few decades out, but you get my point).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keep in mind, this is coming from someone that doesn't stream, owns CD's, and tries to purchase music only in lossless formats (the value isn't in the listening experience for me, it's in the ability to possess my content for whatever dish I want to serve, whether taking it to lossy formats so I can have it on lower powered/storage devices on the go (without having to double-lossy re-compress). Or I can fire up the lossless files at home when I want my OCD quelled when I want to remove all notions of "bottlenecking".

I can't blind MP3 V0 and lossless. Even with my limited usages for lossless (it's not like I'm working in the industry needs to work with 24-bit lossless files for easier editing and such), I still don't see why people don't have the right to complain about a paradigm that gives rise to stupidity like the one MQA presents (when as I've said before, we've been given more when we can choose lossy or lossless files for purchase, without the idioitic DRM scheme).

Your post read like satire since I've seen you make a mockery of MQA on many levels before. Yet for whatever reason the practice of bringing something like it to market, you feel is justified to the degree where people can't complain if they're not in the market for it. When in fact they're not in the market for it, due to it's claims, and sound reasoning as to why it must come bundled in a DRM scheme. (I am aware of why it "must" from an economic sense, and that "must" is derived from a series "want" to earn as much money as possible), but when I say must, I only care for the the reasons as to what the consumer gets out of the DRM package that couldn't be had otherwise.

EDIT: I just want to quickly say, the main objection I have to your "no right to complain" is the same objection you take to "no one needs hi-res". The reason people complain is we don't want to see a market riddled with false claims, and that somehow becoming the new paradigm for services rendered.

It would be like saying "You're not in the market for an iPhone? You have no right to complain about it's price, or features". Ridiculous, when you see the amount of companies that attempt to emulate what they do (Samsung especially, with elimination of headphone jack, and now also following the hilarious removal of accessories in future phones like power bricks and earbuds).

This is mostly why I feel the claim of "no right to complain" doesn't pan out pragmatically at the very least. Like if you could garantee (by divine power or something like magic), that MQA would be the ONLY company ever that will try to position itself on the market the way it has. Then I would perhaps grant your position, and say I won't complain. Knowing how no systems in life operate in isolation though? I can't grant the position even if all I cared about was lossy 192kbps MP3 purchases.

 

[abdo123]

So why you would openly want DRM as a consumer doesn't make sense to me (outside of some preconceived economic world-view)

Because I know record companies won’t rest before they find a way to completely eliminate piracy, Streaming succeeded with that to a large extent, but audiophiles were left in a gray zone.

The whole shtick of MQA is that the tracks are supposedly encoded by the record labels themselves and are ‘authentic’ (authenticated). I appreciate that concept, but i also rather have a slightly more intelligent codec that benefits the consumer. Honestly screw backwards compatibility, just ‘DSD’ it but make it good.