MQA Deep Dive - I published music on tidal to test MQA

[voodooless]

It isn't. How can you all keep getting this so wrong? Protecting the decoder is NOT the same as protecting the content which what DRM is about.

So you're saying MQA is not protecting the content? Let's see..

If you don't have a decoder for Dolby on your computer, you can't play that content. Dolby wants a license fee before it lets you play such content. That doesn't make it DRM protected. Put that Dolby stream on Blu-ray where it fully encrypts the content, then you have a form of "DRM."

But a Dobly encoder can give you access to the fully decoded audio stream to do with as you please. Just run the thing through FFmpeg, or some other tool, and you'll end up with it. With MQA I can go through some hoops to get the core decode, but I never have access to the fully decoded stream. Hell, Roon had to get a special dispensation to add EQ to MQA tracks. How is that not protecting content?

MQA content is fully in the clear and even plays without a decoder. That is a huge step above most other codecs. Imagine being able to play MP3 wihtout a decoder. You simply can't do that.

That is a strawmen argument, and you know it. HDMI DRM limits digital output of audio to 2 channel 24/48 as well, that doesn't mean it doesn't have DRM.

This is why these threads are so poisonous. Hatred of MQA is so strong that leads people to make all kinds of false assertions with zero foundation in reality. Even when corrected, folks like you keep repeating the false narrative. If you are not going to listen to what the reality is, then threads like don't belong in this forum. We are not here to teach people the wrong information about something as important as DRM.

Do you mean false equivalence and strawmen arguments? Yes, I fully agree.

Let's see how far we get if we compare some of the DRM technologies as listed in Wikipedia:

What does MQA not do: product keys, Limited install activations (not for the decoder anyway), Persistent online authentication, Encryption (might be something that is configurable),

What does MQA do:
- Access control: Only a licenced decoder can do the core and full decodes. So yes, as long as they are not freely distributing it, or make a free implementation available (like there are many for Dolby), it's restrictive.
- Copy restriction: I can copy the files, but I cannot copy the content, because that is only available after full decode. This is the major point that makes it a DRM solution
- Anti-tampering: they use authentication to validate that the MQA file is actually valid.
- Watermarks: same as above. The authentication is in essence a digital watermark.

Now the last two don't make it DRM really. Many other technologies use it without being DRM, but in combination with the first two, I think we have a strong case to can MQA a DRM technology.

Let's hope you don't need another 1000 or so posts before commenting on these things again

 

[JSmith]

does not look particularly good on ASRs part

Not not trying to start a major drama here and totally respect the work you put into this etc., so this is not about that at all... I have no respect for MQA and have made my thoughts clear during this thread.

However making the above quoted comment and yet making poor comments about ASR/Amir on other forums is also not a good look for you and detracts from your intent here, so maybe that also needs to be reconciled. Keep in mind many members read other forums and see what goes on. There's an old saying... don't piss in your own pond.



JSmith

 

[abdo123]

This is a very narrow definition of DRM. The point of copy protection is to prevent unauthorised copying, which means that, there is a form of authorised copying, which is when a fee has been paid. If a file cannot be played without a licensed decoder, I don't see how this differs in practice.

I can make as many copies of encrypted files as I like, but I cannot access the content without paying for the encryption keys. If I cannot play Dolby audio files without paying for a license to access the decoder, this is no different in practice.

it is different in practice because you pay for the codec not for the file or the content. and you pay for it once.

 

[voodooless]

it is different in practice because you pay for the codec not for the file or the content. and you pay for it once.

Who pays for what is kinda irrelevant in term of the DRM definition.

 

[abdo123]

Who pays for what is kinda irrelevant in term of the DRM definition.

no it's not. as long as i can fully capture the content in any stage of the decoding process without much effort then it's not protected.

Blu-rays are protected, streaming services are protected, MQA files are not. If they were then we wouldn't have had the body of evidence we have now against them.

 

[voodooless]

no it's not. as long as i can fully capture the content in any stage of the decoding process without much effort then it's not protected.

But we can't.. How can you give us access to a fully decoded MQA file?

Blu-rays are protected, streaming services are protected, MQA files are not. If they were then we wouldn't have had the body of evidence we have now against them.

We have access to Blu-ray content as well. Same way as we have access to MQA files: by jumping through a whole lot of hoops. And the we still only have core decode access, not the full decode.

I still don't hear an argument for the importance of who pays..

 

[MDT]

no it's not. as long as i can fully capture the content in any stage of the decoding process without much effort then it's not protected.

Blu-rays are protected, streaming services are protected, MQA files are not. If they were then we wouldn't have had the body of evidence we have now against them.

Genuinely laughable. I can stream flac from Deezer and access the full content. I can stream MQA from Tidal but I can't access the full content unless I've got the full decoder.

But sure, streams are protected by MQA isn't

 

[abdo123]

But we can't.. How can you give us access to a fully decoded MQA file?

feel free to buy any of the recommended ADC/DAC interfaces on the forum and not only will you be able to capture MQA files but you will be able to capture any (non-object based) Audio on the planet.

I still don't hear an argument for the importance of who pays..

it's not about who pays it's about what you're paying for.

MQA is charging you for MQA to make money, it's not charging you for the content and thus the content is not protected.

 

[voodooless]

feel free to buy any of the recommended ADC/DAC interfaces on the forum and not only will you be able to capture MQA files but you will be able to capture any (non-object based) Audio on the planet.

Yes, I can also get a VHS and capture a blu-ray. That's not the same thing. I do not have access to the fully decoded digital stream. If I want to do EQ on that stream, I can't without an additional ADC/DAC step.

it's not about who pays it's about what you're paying for.

MQA is charging you for MQA to make money, it's not charging you for the content and thus the content is not protected.

That's non-sense. Just because you don't pay for the content, doesn't mean it's not DRM. HDMI Content protection is also something that you pay for. It's a licence paid to HDMI for every device sold, not to the content provider. They only use it to restrict access to the content.

 

[abdo123]

Yes, I can also get a VHS and capture a blu-ray. That's not the same thing. I do not have access to the fully decoded digital stream. If I want to do EQ on that stream, I can't without an additional ADC/DAC step.

I don't think you understand how MQA works, the final step of decoding occurs in the analog domain with their Bullshit™ filter, so to capture a fully decoded MQA file you have to do it in the analog domain. if you want to do it in the digital domain then that file is not fully decoded.

As for the first digital decoding step it's just as easy to capture that content as well in the digital domain, no protection whatsoever.

 

[abdo123]

doesn't mean it's not DRM.

okay lets get our phrases together, the digital rights of the MQA codec are being managed by the MQA codec, MQA does not restrict access to the intellectual property inside that file whether you paid for the codec or not.

 

[voodooless]

I don't think you understand how MQA works, the final step of decoding occurs in the analog domain with their Bullshit™ filter, so to capture a fully decoded MQA file you have to do it in the analog domain. if you want to do it in the digital domain then that file is not fully decoded.

It's the first time I heard that the final step in the decode has an analogue component? Where did you get that information from?

 

[voodooless]

MQA does not restrict access to the intellectual property inside that file whether you paid for the codec or not.

So how do I get access to the fully decoded digital stream then?

 

[amirm]

This is a very narrow definition of DRM. The point of copy protection is to prevent unauthorised copying, which means that, there is a form of authorised copying, which is when a fee has been paid. If a file cannot be played without a licensed decoder, I don't see how this differs in practice.

I can make as many copies of encrypted files as I like, but I cannot access the content without paying for the encryption keys. If I cannot play Dolby audio files without paying for a license to access the decoder, this is no different in practice.

Other than being wrong about everything you said, you are doing good!

You can buy an MQA file then give it to me and I can play it with my mqa decoder. Content owner won't even know about it let alone get compensated for it. Ergo there is no copy protection whatsoever.

You can't use an iphone or android without activation. You are going to say that is DRM too so should be avoided too?

Like any other codec MQA requires a licensed decoder. Get that and you can play that content like any other. If that means it has DRM then everything has DRM which of course is nonsense.

 

[abdo123]

So how do I get access to the fully decoded digital stream then?

the fully decoded digital stream is not an intellectual property, and thus has no digital rights to be managed. the 13th bit in a song does not have rights. the song does, the content does.

As a result, as long as MQA is backward compatible and there is no evidence that the undecoded version is perceptually worse than the decoded one then MQA is not effectively adding any DRM whatsoever.

 

[KSTR]

If I want to do EQ on that stream, I can't without an additional ADC/DAC step.

This THE killer argument for MQA.

It cannot be used with ANY kind of digital processing before full unfolding, even as simple as digital volume setting or a bit of EQ, let alone things like DSP crossover or room correction. The MQA detection watermark is destroyed by digital processing.

I might of course be wrong and there are software unfolders available (as plugins, etc) that can process the raw stream before it hits any further processing.

 

[abdo123]

It's the first time I heard that the final step in the decode has an analogue component? Where did you get that information from?

basically the 2nd decoding process is upsampling the content to the highest sample rate the DAC can support AND the application of the MQA™ DAC filter.

 

[amirm]

If I want to do EQ on that stream, I can't without an additional ADC/DAC step.

Nope. I do that all the time in Roon.

 

[KSTR]

Nope. I do that all the time in Roon.

How would you do in a normal player or DAW?

 

[voodooless]

You can buy an MQA file then give it to me and I can play it with my mqa decoder. Content owner won't even know about it let alone get compensated for it. Ergo there is no copy protection whatsoever.

Yeah, just like a DVD or Blu-ray has no such protections? I can buy a Blu-ray, and give it to you, and guess what, you'll be able to play it as well.

You can't use an iphone or android without activation. You are going to say that is DRM too so should be avoided too?

Yes, it's DRM. I don't think very many people say it should be avoided? A personal opinion about whether DRM is good or bad is not really relevant, is it?

Like any other codec MQA requires a licensed decoder. Get that and you can play that content like any other. If that means it has DRM then everything has DRM which of course is nonsense.

Read my comments, I clearly spelt out the difference. But yes, using proprietary technology to access information is a form of DRM. Not sure why there is such an allergic reaction to calling something DRM. It's not all bad.