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

[Hotwetrat]

Not only has MQA has not provided evidence. They prevent you from gathering your own.

I saw this and really that's enough for me. I can make an experienced guess this is to slow informed information from spreading around the internet (as this is what happens these days thank goodness!) while they rip off as many good folk as they can before it becomes common knowledge.

I'm sure they'll make a fortune in the time they are able to sustain the facade

Same old skullduggery rife amidst todays corporate world

Nothing to see here - thanks ASR!

 

[dmac6419]

One of the reason ASR is very important, if true. Facts are not a popularity contest.

But his assessment is not facts

 

[Deleted member 13028]

But his assessment is not facts

And you can discuss that here! Isn't an open discussion forum wonderful?

 

[voodooless]

Glad your motivation behind this whole discussion was brought up, (wasting) money.

You can also pay for your MP3 decoder if you like, it gives you the exact same access. In that case, the choice for a free decoder is kinda obvious.

MQA is arguably less DRM than any other audio codec out there except FLAC.

Or OGG, Opus, Wavepack, Apple Lossless and many others as well.. We're not arguing the degree of DRM in MQA I think. Sure there are many much more restrictive DRM schemes. So what? We're not talking about them here.

 

[jensgk]

Oh and one other thing, this didn't take off on the other forums like it did here, that's why he's back here with the rehash,toast anyone?.

Its got nice traction on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/nllux5

 

[jensgk]

you don't have access to the full decode of an MP3 without an MP3 decoder either, but I see/saw no raised pitchforks over MP3 restricting access to content.

It was discussed heavily at the time. Now the patent is expired, so no problems anymore.

 

[TK750]

Let it die,why keep rehashing the same old tired argument,you have choices,Apple next month, Spotify soon,or you can just buy the physical format and be done with the BS.

Errm because they made a response full of, at best carefully worded sneaky statements and at worst straight lies? If anything I would have been very disappointed if he didn't make a response addressing what they have said. Companies are allowed to get away with shady behaviour far too easily all the time. You don't appreciate it, which is fine, why not just ignore it?

 

[PO3c]

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.

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."

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

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.

I could not care one second about MQA if it wasn't for this major problem. I can't block MQA content from Qobuz or other streaming services delivering what looks like a standard FLAC file. And yes, this is happening already.

Hence MQA function like a trojan horse which lower the fidelity in any high-end audio setup where there ins't a correct licensed decoder to adjust upsampling and filter to play back the content as intended from MQA. With only the ecoder mangling the audio signal what we play back is garbage as MQA also need the decoder to function as intended.

I do not agree with your sentiment that this feature is a positive thing about MQA. In fact it is what makes this debate worth doing. This feature only makes for a great business model for parties involved with us interested in good audio quality as the losing party.

 

[MDT]

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

If you're attempting to antagonise me, you have failed Just like you have failed to provide any evidence of the above and just like you have failed to make any sensible argument.

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

"Breaking news: Man who pays for access, gets access." If I give the file to someone who hasn't paid for access to a decoder they can't play the file.

EDIT: the fully unfolded file

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

You can use an Android phone without activation. Please stop embarrassing yourself. I just reset my spare phone and I've skipped any account sign-in or creation. I've installed a new web browser from APK mirror. I've installed the amazon app store and F-Droid app store. I can't speak for iPhone because I don't have one. But if you need an account to use it, then yes, I would certainly avoid that too. No hardware should require an account to function. When Facebook bought Oculus, those of us with some sanity avoided buying an Oculus headset and we warned against Facebook's practices, and that one day you would need a Facebook account to use their hardware. We were told repeatedly by those who owned Oculus hardware that that would never happen. Guess what? It did. And it's a ****** practice that consumers should speak out against.

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.

There is a clear distinction between free codecs and proprietary codecs. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous and argumentative. The kind of posting that we're told we should not do in this thread. Perhaps you should set an example!

 

[abdo123]

"Breaking news: Man who pays for access, gets access." If I give the file to someone who hasn't paid for access to a decoder they can't play the file.

you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, MQA is backward compatible and doesn't require a decoder to play a file.

 

[MDT]

you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, MQA is backward compatible and doesn't require a decoder to play a file.

If you paid attention to the context you would understand that I was talking about the fully unfolded file. I've edited my post for those who feel the need to read selectively and feel "right" about something.

 

[pkane]

you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, MQA is backward compatible and doesn't require a decoder to play a file.

I have plenty of software that requires me to pay to unlock it, but provides only crippled, trial-mode functionality before I do. This is what MQA does with the reduced resolution in the 'backward-compatibility' mode. This is called crippleware in the industry.

Then, again, with MQA it's not clear that you're really getting what the company claims you are, even if you pay for it. So, there's that.

 

[mansr]

Then, again, with MQA it's not clear that you're not really getting what the company claims you are, even if you pay for it. So, there's that.

FTFY

 

[PO3c]

you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, MQA is backward compatible and doesn't require a decoder to play a file.

This is the main problem with how streaming services implement MQA. It plays back a lossy representation of the the original, even when one order lossless CD quality.

Remember what BS is telling us. "MQA take control of the full chain from the studio to the DAC". Hence what we play back without the license is a representation of the original where only the first stage of the filter are implemented.

You find many in opposition to MQA do not plan to implement the licenced DAC but unwillingly are feed lossy MQA content from content holders passively supporting MQA.

 

[Soniclife]

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.

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."

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.

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.

I prefer the concept that this is basically a modern Dolby B on CC, plays without the dolby licenced circuit, is technically more correct with it. A lot of people preferred Dolby off to on, for the added top end. You could also copy cassettes with or without Dolby, keeping or correcting it as you did so.

 

[raistlin65]

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.

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."

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.

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.

I think we need a DMCA lawyer to address whether or not MQA content qualifies as having DRM protection.

If someone were to develop an alternative decoder to completely unfold the MQA content, MQA might claim that the content was encrypted. And if the courts found that to be true, the use of the alternative decoder would be a DMCA violation.

 

[dadregga]

It's HDCD but with a more colorful and dishonest marketing department.

Technical aspects of the codec aside, their responses to all of this are shoddy and stupid - at this point I've seen enough to know I will be avoiding the format and all branded DACs.

 

[Katji]

Yes, I was just now thinking about that again. DAC... Is it implemented in the actual DAC chips? What about XMOS? (JohnYang1997 recently said something in one of the long DAC threads that indicated that XMOS was involved too - if I understood right, or it depends on implementation.)
I was wondering if we could make a list - or table - showing which DACs / DAC chips support MQA.

 

[voodooless]

Yes, I was just now thinking about that again. DAC... Is it implemented in the actual DAC chips? What about XMOS? (JohnYang1997 recently said something in one of the long DAC threads that indicated that XMOS was involved too - if I understood right, or it depends on implementation.)
I was wondering if we could make a list - or table - showing which DACs / DAC chips support MQA.

Ess has a few chips that include the MQA decoder, most implementations however offload this to a separate CPU like the XMOS. I think there are even implementations running on a STM32F3 series CPU. That’s comparatively a low-ish end embedded CPU with not a whole lot of computing power.

 

[PO3c]

Yes, I was just now thinking about that again. DAC... Is it implemented in the actual DAC chips? What about XMOS? (JohnYang1997 recently said something in one of the long DAC threads that indicated that XMOS was involved too - if I understood right, or it depends on implementation.)
I was wondering if we could make a list - or table - showing which DACs / DAC chips support MQA.

MQA decoder is just software code. For Topping model selling with and without MQA it is just a more powerful SoC (system on a chip) that differs.

Hence people talking about MQA as a DSP effect. You could put the encoder code inside as well and have the full montage without having to bother others with MQA files at all Blue LED are pennies these days.