MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

[LuckyLuke575]

I’m happy to let anyone do their own research about these events in the trade press or the DOJ MS emails and make their own conclusions.

I have no desire to discuss your CV. Indeed, once again, my point was that appeals to authority are irrelevant in a debate about MQA.

But you continue to make appeals to authority rather than to facts.



Your response is a non-sequitor. I am not claiming to be an authority. Haven’t done so once in my posts. Indeed, I’m arguing against the logical fallacy of appeals to authority. Instead, I said we should weigh Archimago’s arguments and facts more than amorphous, irrelevant references to someone else’s CV.

I've been reading the thread, and your comments are repetitive hogwash bud. It sounds like your trying to win a ego battle in your head. Do you have a view or comment on the MQA topic? What's your position?

 

[GrimSurfer]

@amirm @Thomas savage Time to close this one again?

That was my initial thought, @DonH56, but locking the thread would give the trolls more grist for their argument that ASR is more about enforcing a party doctrine than revealing the truth.

As tiresome as it may be to listen to idiots (or read their posts) it is a useful exercise to give people the editorial freedom to demonstrate their biases and ignorance for all to see.

 

[LuckyLuke575]

Ah, maybe you should take a bit longer to learn some reality's of audio.

I don't need to "learn" anything. The main "reality" I have is when I play my music; I'm not trying to get it from bozos on the Internet. Tidal has a month free subscription; anyone can try it for free. I like this forum because of the objective measurements that helped me to make a purchase decision (so much so that I decided to contribute to the site financially).

I don't have a dog in the fight (and I don't know who the authors of the different views are) but it's a pity to see such the discussion devolve to the point it has. There's clearly a lack of data or clear understanding all round. Either way, the best thing is for people to listen to all the available options, and go for the one that they like most and are willing to pay for. I don't need to go around in circles. It's like buying a car; why rely on the magazine review when you can go down to the car lot and test drive one? This is one of the only hobbies / interest groups where I've seen so much hogwash and theoretical debate.

P.S I've met some condescending audio people irl, so I'm not surprised to have found you here.

 

[beefkabob]

IMHO, the cats already out of the bag with music. lossless coping is dead easy and rampant. (At least until MQA and Meridian has it's way.)
Movies are a bit tougher. Ever try to copy-rip a BD losslessly?

I have not tried to rip a BD, but I have tried to play it on a computer. Failed.

That said, pirating BD isn't hard. There are tons of full discs out there for download.

 

[amirm]

Yeah, I was wondering why there seems to be such a dramatic difference between the two industries.

It is a long and complicated story. There was a time when both studios and record labels were in love with copy protection. The break with music came after introduction of DVD-A and SACD. Both were heavy on copy protection. The technical people inside the labels had sold their management that the music buyer wanted high-res music so bad that they would adopt them. As you know neither happened. Format war killed both of them. This caused the technical people inside the record labels to get an egg on their face.

Then came Steve jobs. He did the impossible: convinced the labels to sell songs independently of records. They did. He priced them at 99 cents, built a killer player (iPod) and provided the only path for monetizing music online. What started as a trial with Apple, became the standard deal. And with it, Apple's power over record labels hugely increased.

The next shoe dropped when Jobs convinced the labels to drop requirement for copy protection. In a complete fist into the face of the technical hawks inside the labels, the execs said Yes. Jobs had some amazing power over people. Just being in a meeting with him was considered a sign that you had arrived! So labels made concessions that they would never, ever do in the past.

Meanwhile, sales of physical records started to decline and basically, the music labels became a shell of who they were. Wholesale clean up of the management occurred. They started to license anything anyone wanted as long as they provided minimum guarantees of royalties. They would get their $2M check whether the outfit was going to be successful or not.

By that time, and we are talking 10 years ago now, all religion on copy protection was lost. All the technical people screaming about copy protection were long gone. They even gave up on other fights like streaming. Heck they created their own gig on that in Europe.

It is a complete transformation of who they are today, versus who they were 20 years ago. 20 Years ago they were telling us that we should modify Windows to not play MP3 files that were not copy protected.

With their highest value content available to anyone that wants it for years now, there is no reason, thought or drive whatsoever to bring back copy protection. They see their main source of revenue being streaming anyway and there, stream protection is mandatory so all is good.

For these reasons, I can't fathom why people talk about MQA having DRM for the sake of content owners. I am confident there is not one ounce of value or even discussion with labels around that.

With streaming of high-res available to all of us, and many of us happy to pay our monthly fees to consume it, the notion of copy protecting downloaded content is stale anyway. It is not like you could capture and store Tidal content for your own use without MQA. It was all copy protected without MQA.

 

[Eirikur]

With streaming of high-res available to all of us, and many of us happy to pay our monthly fees to consume it, the notion of copy protecting downloaded content is stale anyway. It is not like you could capture and store Tidal content for your own use without MQA. It was all copy protected without MQA.

Thanks Amir, for me this (and a couple of preceding posts) puts a clear perspective on your stand, which I would summarize as "MQA is a non-discussion, it will sizzle out or stay as tiny niche."
From a technical point of view I still object to MQA, but in the grand scheme of audio and delivery formats it's unlikely to screw up the market and mass availability of truly lossless formats.

 

[SMG]

Not sure if you were trying to diminish any of this but this is what I lived and breathed for a decade.

Not at all. I was one of the earliest supporters and adopters of HD-DVD. And I appreciate how competition forced the blu-ray folks to adopt better codecs and physical media. Just acknowledging that while you cited blu-ray, your baby got killed by blu-ray.

 

[BillG]

It is not like you could capture and store Tidal content for your own use without MQA. It was all copy protected without MQA.

There is stream ripping software that currently claims to faithfully capture content from Tidal, and other services as well. I've not used such myself, so I can't attest to the validity of the claims...

 

[amirm]

There is stream ripping software that currently claims to faithfully capture content from Tidal, and other services as well. I've not used such myself, so I can't attest to the validity of the claims...

They likely act like a fake audio device and capture that way in which case you can also capture the MQA stream.

 

[Ron Party]

Amir, thanks for the detailed reply.

 

[RayDunzl]

The movie studies care a ton about content protection but not the music labels.

I've often wondered about this. The reasons probably are obvious to everyone but me... wouldn't be the first time . Can you or others explain this?

I figure:

What's it cost to record someone warbling into a mic vs movie production?

https://parlaystudios.com/blog/feature-film-budget-breakdown/

 

[BillG]

They likely act like a fake audio device and capture that way in which case you can also capture the MQA stream.

Yes, I'm aware of that some use a sort of software loop back technique to capture audio, while others directly capture the stream and write it to disk. The latter I've used in the days of Winamp and Shoutcast...

 

[digicidal]

I figure:

What's it cost to record someone warbling into a mic vs movie production?

https://parlaystudios.com/blog/feature-film-budget-breakdown/

That coupled with repeat/rebuy potential as well. Even with movies that I enjoy enough to have purchased multiple times (VHS/DVD/BD) I have very few that I've watched more than 10 times. The vast majority I watch are one-and-done affairs (most that I regret the first time actually). Although the profit potential is much higher (merch/product placement incentives/etc.) you have much more limited potential for royalties. Sure you'll get some on-going sales of media, and some for TV presentations... but nothing like music where you can get separate dollars per track and per album for decades in many cases.

Plus, I think there is some knowledge within the recording industry now (as opposed to Napster days) - that many of the people getting their hands on pirated music actually convert into paying customers later on. I don't think that's the case with movies however. I could be (and likely am) wrong about that, but that's my guess.

 

[mkawa]

@amirm @Thomas savage Time to close this one again?

+2

 

[GrimSurfer]

I figure:

What's it cost to record someone warbling into a mic vs movie production?

https://parlaystudios.com/blog/feature-film-budget-breakdown/

Depends on your name. If the name is marketable, that warbling into a mike will attract big money for quite a long period of time.

If the director/story/cast is good, then big money will be spent getting the sound fx (more than the sound track) right... But film big revenues are fairly short lived phenomenon.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Plus, I think there is some knowledge within the recording industry now (as opposed to Napster days) - that many of the people getting their hands on pirated music actually convert into paying customers later on. I don't think that's the case with movies however. I could be (and likely am) wrong about that, but that's my guess.

Good points.

Generally speaking, music holds its value longer too. Good artists albums can continue to be sold at full price for a decade or more. Movies? Top dollar for a few weeks after release, half price thereafter until going to the bargain bin after about a year or two.

 

[Wombat]

I have not tried to rip a BD, but I have tried to play it on a computer. Failed.

That said, pirating BD isn't hard. There are tons of full discs out there for download.

BD drive plus readily available, free or purchase, software does it.

Drive

Software

Look for an external drive that includes software. I purchased(Ebay) a used Pioneer external Blu-Ray burner that came with Power DVD 12 for less than the price of the current version of the software.
It works just fine for playback. I haven't tried it for back-up or burning …………………………… yet.

 

[KozmoNaut]

By that time, and we are talking 10 years ago now, all religion on copy protection was lost. All the technical people screaming about copy protection were long gone.

Copy protection still exists in the form of watermarking. There is an ongoing debacle with Spotify since ~2014 about Universal's catalogue being plagued by audible watermarks.

It won't prevent a copy being shared, but they do threaten legal action if your watermarked copy is shared around illegally.

I handle promotional copies of albums for reviews, which must necessarily be available before the official release date. All the major promo platforms (such as ipool, Haulix and Promojukebox) encode unique watermarks into the downloads, based on your login and account information.

I think they do play up the effectiveness of their systems a little, to play on people's fears, but it does work.

 

[Soniclife]

Copy protection still exists in the form of watermarking. There is an ongoing debacle with Spotify since ~2014 about Universal's catalogue being plagued by audible watermarks.

I've shown that tidal MQA streams are watermark free, when the non MQA is watermarked. I await the inventive use of language if they start adding watermarks but still claim it's master quality authenticated.

 

[digicidal]

I just rip my BD movies using MakeMKV... in theory it's lossless due to no compression and native audio streams... the size is definitely the same.
I've never bothered to do a file comparison to an extraction - I can't tell the difference anyway. Of course, I don't mind watching movies streamed via Netflix either... and they have a crapload of compression involved.

Obviously I keep the physical BD/DVD media as well - so if I'm positive I want the full experience I could have it... but I never do. Especially since the "full experience" includes: slow java download, useless (IMO) additional angles and/or tracks, FBI warnings, previews, menus, etc.