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

[PO3c]

This is the same as any other codec. If my player just passes Dolby stream to an outboard decoder, then it can't EQ it either. If it wants to EQ said stream, it needs its own decoder to do so and then pass PCM out to downstream device. This is how Blu-ray players for example do bass management on their own and how they can be set to "bit stream" output or "PCM." The former won't allow any manipulates, the later does. And yes, this would incur extra license.

MQA has an advantage that the baseline format doesn't even need a decoder. So you can EQ it and play it as non-MQA content. You can't do this with any other codec.

Again, you ignore the actual problem. Streaming services serve MQA to users not ordering them. All other format you compare to need a dedicated codec which I as end user then have to adapt to. If MQA where like this I would be out of here. MQA are fed to me as it is lossless FLAC.

 

[GoldenOne]

I see why you are saying this but it is incorrect. MQA doesn't own Tidal and it was Tidal that took down your files. You misrepresented what you had uploaded to Tidal as being "music" when in reality it had test signals in it that could damage user equipment or at any rate, potentially make them go deaf listening to them. MQA likely notified Tidal of such and Tidal took down your content. Your beef therefore is with Tidal, not MQA.

In other words, you used deception to get your test clips into Tidal and once they figured this out, they took out your content. This is no different than Apple and Android store taking down apps that say they are one thing, but turns out they are something else.

You need to find another way to "get your own" data than than messing with Tidal as a service. They are not in the business of being your partner in this.

The use of the term "prevent" was mostly in reference to MQA's general practice. No ability to get full decoded output, no ability to encode files yourself etc.

There isn't any other way to get MQA files encoded unless MQA themselves gives it to you (which I've requested several times). And so we can either continue with just deciding whether we wish to trust MQA or not, or we can try to gather our own evidence via methods such as adding MQA tagging to our own files to examine how the core decoder and/or renderer works (such as with tools provided by MansR), or by what unfortunately HAS to be sneaky methods because MQA leaves no other option.

And regardless of if the method of getting files encoded in MQA was deceptive or not (which I do not believe it was, there is absolutely nothing in agreements I signed with the publisher relating to content of the files other than that it mustn't infringe on copyrighted works of others), that doesn't really change the results.

Even your own video recently showed MQA adding noise compared to the native version didn't it?

(EDIT: Also just want to say I'm not touching the DRM discussion as it seems that the definition of DRM and what it covers under its umbrella is debatable to say the least. Personally it's clear that MQA doesn't have copy protection. There's no issue there. But the requirement of a licensed player and/or hardware to "unfold" and play it 'properly' is.....iffy. But I don't think whether or not that can be called "DRM" actually changes any of the arguments about whether MQA's current practices are a good or bad thing. So I'm going to stay out of it as I don't think it's all that important.)

 

[Grooved]

No.

the reconstruction filter is always applied to MQA files regardless of what sample rate the master was created in.

if you feel an analog to digital conversion would not produce a representative of the original file then feel free to save it via reel-to-reel tape recording.

I was more talking about the file itself, like getting the final stage of the file like with a PCM file, then it leaves the filter to apply.
And never said a more analog capture would be more representative
I already done analog capture from MQA to test, it can clearly work, it doesn't change the fact that it's not the digital version of a fully decoded MQA file.

 

[amirm]

The DRM discussion makes me wonder; @amirm what makes you so sure about what DRM is and what it is not?

At Microsoft, we produced the first commercial DRM system. This is way before Apple came out with Fairplay DRM for example. To this day it is still used for Netflix streaming. We were also founding members of AACS which is the copy protection in Blu-ray (I was personally the executive representative to AACS). We held significant patent portfolio in this regard.

This is what I did professionally. I managed the team that developed this and other technologies for audio, video and imaging for Microsoft. I had a million meetings with major studios and record labels in everything related to copy protection from watermarks to DRM. There is not a person involved in these discussions that has a fraction of the knowledge I have on this topic having lived and breathed it for a decade and more.

Sadly DRM was used as pejorative word by general press to say everything that has it is bad. This is why people are trying to stick DRM to MQA to then say it must be bad too even though there is no trace of DRM in MQA.

Yes, all else being equal, you don't want DRM. You want to get content and do with it everything you choose. The challenge is then how to stop improper usage of such content such as giving it to the world for free. So tension is there between "protecting" the content and allowing freedom to use it. As an example of such freedom, I championed ability to make copies of Blu-ray discs on computers. Studios fought and fought this but eventually relented. Alas, they final specification was done so poorly that the capability never came to pass.

So the question is not how much I know about DRM. The question is how much you all know. In my book it is next to zero and that is what I am trying to change. Forget MQA. Be sure you don't abuse the word DRM and with it, make it look like you don't know what you are talking about.

I remember buying some CD's back in the end of last century, which had some protection which made it harder for average Joes to play those CDs (note: they were marked as CDs) with computers. This was called copy protection back when, and would have been considered DRM.

In the world of content protection there is strong distinction between DRM and copy protection. What you describe was a form of copy protection. You did not have a "license" that could be updated to change your rights as is the case with any system that can properly be called DRM: digital rights management. Copy protection existed well before the term DRM was coined. In a DRM system you get a generic encrypted file. You then get a separate license that says what you can do with that content. I could update that tiny file and instantly change your rights without having you download an all new file. This is NOT the case with copy protection like the example you gave. If I wanted to change something in that CD, I would have had to send you a new CD.

As I noted earlier, the press started to call all of these things "DRM" which is a mistake. There are tons of patents for example that apply to DRM but not to copy protection schemes.

 

[q3cpma]

This is the same as any other codec. If my player just passes Dolby stream to an outboard decoder, then it can't EQ it either. If it wants to EQ said stream, it needs its own decoder to do so and then pass PCM out to downstream device. This is how Blu-ray players for example do bass management on their own and how they can be set to "bit stream" output or "PCM." The former won't allow any manipulates, the later does. And yes, this would incur extra license.

MQA has an advantage that the baseline format doesn't even need a decoder. So you can EQ it and play it as non-MQA content. You can't do this with any other codec.

Aren't DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD with their DTS/AC-3 lossy cores similar? Sure, you need a (readily available) DTS/AC-3 decoder, but MQA does need a FLAC decoder too.

 

[voodooless]

This is how Blu-ray players for example do bass management on their own and how they can be set to "bit stream" output or "PCM." The former won't allow any manipulates, the later does. And yes, this would incur extra license.

Except MQA does not give access to the final bitstream, but only an intermediate format (core decode).

 

[amirm]

There isn't any other way to get MQA files encoded unless MQA themselves gives it to you (which I've requested several times).

You are saying no record label or mastering house has MQA encoding tools? Two second search shows that to not be the case: https://airshowmastering.com/what-we-like-about-mqa-high-res-format/

"What does Airshow Mastering offer?
Airshow has MQA encoding capabilities, and we can tailor the MQA encoder settings specifically for your project, and deliver MQA files for download and streaming. Additionally, we can encode MQA onto an audio CD master so that CD listeners with an MQA DAC can enjoy high-resolution playback from an otherwise ordinary CD."

So there are other ways. What doesn't exist is a tool for an average blogger to encode his own files. You should state it that way than generalizing improperly as you did.

As it is, your line there is being used differently by the readers to think that MQA is taking an active role in shutting down people's efforts to evaluate their technology. They did not do so with you. You got to do what you did until Tidal intervened, not MQA. I suggest editing your post to make it more clear.

 

[amirm]

Except MQA does not give access to the final bitstream, but only an intermediate format (core decode).

Which is all you need to do your EQ. The final step of upsampling is left to the DAC as without EQ. The final step is that way because the output is stipulated to be analog, not digital. So there is no bitstream to give you.

 

[GoldenOne]

You are saying no record label or mastering house has MQA encoding tools? Two second search shows that to not be the case: https://airshowmastering.com/what-we-like-about-mqa-high-res-format/

"What does Airshow Mastering offer?
Airshow has MQA encoding capabilities, and we can tailor the MQA encoder settings specifically for your project, and deliver MQA files for download and streaming. Additionally, we can encode MQA onto an audio CD master so that CD listeners with an MQA DAC can enjoy high-resolution playback from an otherwise ordinary CD."

So there are other ways. What doesn't exist is a tool for an average blogger to encode his own files. You should state it that way than generalizing improperly as you did.

As it is, your line there is being used differently by the readers to think that MQA is taking an active role in shutting down people's efforts to evaluate their technology. They did not do so with you. You got to do what you did until Tidal intervened, not MQA. I suggest editing your post to make it more clear.

No I'm saying there are no tools available to the average user.
Of course publishers and some firms involved in production and mastering will have access to it. But for many of the same reasons as manufacturers of audio equipment are not necessarily most interested in producing the best products or being entirely truthful about specs, those involved in music production are businesses too, and their interests will not be aligned with consumers.

Other SRC and DSP tools are much more open. Everything from stuff like HQPlayer or an M-Scaler to the countless DSP tools like iZotope Ozone are able to be tested to the user's content. Often for free.

Whether or not anyone thinks they are worth it or have any positive impact isn't the point, the point is that you can take any file you like, put it through and look at the output yourself.

MQA you cannot encode anything yourself, and even if you have a native original and MQA version of the source file you can't get a proper full decode other than in analog which inherently makes it next to impossible to properly compare anyway given as the hardware will almost certainly alter things more.

 

[voodooless]

This is what I did professionally. I managed the team that developed this and other technologies for audio, video and imaging for Microsoft. I had a million meetings with major studios and record labels in everything related to copy protection from watermarks to DRM. There is not a person involved in these discussions that has a fraction of the knowledge I have on this topic having lived and breathed it for a decade and more.

Do I hear an appeal to authority here? Don’t get me wrong, I really appreciate the input that this knowledge can bring to the discussion, but then please bring it.. so let’s see what comes next?

Sadly DRM was used as pejorative word by general press to say everything that has it is bad. This is why people are trying to stick DRM to MQA to then say it must be bad too even though there is no trace of DRM in MQA.

Let’s stick to the facts then. We can worry about good or bad later on.

In the world of content protection there is strong distinction between DRM and copy protection. What you describe was a form of copy protection. You did not have a "license" that could be updated to change your rights as is the case with any system that can properly be called DRM: digital rights management. Copy protection existed well before the term DRM was coined. In a DRM system you get a generic encrypted file. You then get a separate license that says what you can do with that content. I could update that tiny file and instantly change your rights without having you download an all new file. This is NOT the case with copy protection like the example you gave. If I wanted to change something in that CD, I would have had to send you a new CD.

This is all well and true. I think the biggest issue here is the definition of what DRM is. From my standpoint, what you described is just one aspect of what might constitute a DRM system. There are others as well. I’m guessing you would disagree on this is, which is okay. You might want to request a few wiki edits though

 

[abdo123]

which inherently makes it next to impossible to properly compare anyway given as the hardware will almost certainly alter things more.

Aah yes another stupid claim by MQA that is inherently false.

 

[amirm]

And regardless of if the method of getting files encoded in MQA was deceptive or not (which I do not believe it was, there is absolutely nothing in agreements I signed with the publisher relating to content of the files other than that it mustn't infringe on copyrighted works of others), that doesn't really change the results.

Not caring about results. I am caring about you saying MQA stopped you from testing their technology when it was Tidal and correctly decided to take down your content to protect themselves and their service. Your beef on that front should be with them, and not MQA. MQA pointed this out to you but you did not acknowledge as you should have in your second video.

You need to come clean on this if you are a fan of transparency and want to avoid sensationalism.

 

[amirm]

Do I hear an appeal to authority here? Don’t get me wrong, I really appreciate the input that this knowledge can bring to the discussion, but then please bring it.. so let’s see what comes next?

Huh? I was asked what I know about DRM and I explained that I did this professionally. Would you say after challenging your doctor what he knows about medicine, him explaining so is "appeal to authority?" That is an absurd debating tactic that I suggest we leave out of these conversations. Otherwise, it is what drags these conversations down to closure of the thread.

I post on this topic because so many misconceptions are being made as talking points here regarding DRM. Don't do that lest you want to invent your own notions of what "DRM" is. You want a discussions about proper "science?" Then understand and use the term correctly and not with a retort like that.

 

[abdo123]

Not caring about results. I am caring about you saying MQA stopped you from testing their technology when it was Tidal and correctly decided to take down your content to protect themselves and their service. Your beef on that front should be with them, and not MQA. MQA pointed this out to you but you did not acknowledge as you should have in your second video.

View attachment 132264

You need to come clean on this if you are a fan of transparency and want to avoid sensationalism.

he did acknowledge this in his second video... it was the very first thing he acknowledged.

I still think it's bullshit nevertheless, and that MQA just called Tidal to take it down since it happened almost instantly after he emailed MQA about the results.

 

[voodooless]

View attachment 132264

Technically the wording is kinda tricky here. No, they probably did not delete the file, and they might not have send a takedown notice. But they could have kindly asked, that way, the statement is still true, but they would still be behind the removal. I’m obviously not implying that this is the case, merely making an observation.

 

[amirm]

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.

Really guys? When you give me the DVD or Blu-ray, can you still play it? You can't, right? With MQA you can give me a copy and keep one for yourself against the wishes of the content owners. Ergo, there is no content protection of any sort. Period.

If you think MQA and Blu-ray are the same when it comes to content protection, then the plot is completely lost.

 

[GoldenOne]

Not caring about results. I am caring about you saying MQA stopped you from testing their technology when it was Tidal and correctly decided to take down your content to protect themselves and their service. Your beef on that front should be with them, and not MQA. MQA pointed this out to you but you did not acknowledge as you should have in your second video.

View attachment 132264

You need to come clean on this if you are a fan of transparency and want to avoid sensationalism.

I did clearly mention this in my video and clearly said "This could be true, it could be Tidal or the Publisher, and if it is indeed the case that MQA was not the one that requested their removal then I apologise for saying that."

But I'd also note that the wording in MQA's response is (as with their other points) VERY careful. They didn't delete my files. They weren't the one to press the button. But their statement does not say that they didn't request that Tidal or the publisher remove them.

In fact when I specifically asked the publisher if it was MQA that had requested the removal they did not answer...

As I said in my video, if it is true that MQA has NOTHING at all to do with the removal of my files. Then I sincerely apologise.

 

[amirm]

he did acknowledge this in his second video... it was the very first thing he acknowledged.

I still think it's bullshit nevertheless, and that MQA just called Tidal to take it down since it happened almost instantly after he emailed MQA about the results.

He is defending it here so no, he is not acknowledging that TIDAL had the total right to take down his content due to it being inappropriate. And that the the decision was Tidal's, not MQA's. If you watch the video you see that he leaves it as doubt as to what happened.

I agree the optics look bad but I think Tidal's actions are defensible to take down garbage content some blogger uploaded to their for-fee premium service.

 

[amirm]

I did clearly mention this in my video and clearly said "This could be true, it could be Tidal or the Publisher, and if it is indeed the case that MQA was not the one that requested their removal then I apologise for saying that."

Too many "ifs" in there. The facts here are very clear. Tidal took down your content and MQA has no ability whatsoever to do that. All you could complain about is MQA telling Tidal about it.

I responded to this because a poster incorrectly ran with your OP statement just today. You have created confusion on this front that is not backed by any facts. You want facts about MQA. Practice the same with your own statement. An apology that is based on more innuendo is not an apology.

 

[voodooless]

Huh? I was asked what I know about DRM and I explained that I did this professionally. Would you say after challenging your doctor what he knows about medicine, him explaining so is "appeal to authority?" That is an absurd debating tactic that I suggest we leave out of these conversations. Otherwise, it is what drags these conversations down to closure of the thread.

I post on this topic because so many misconceptions are being made as talking points here regarding DRM. Don't do that lest you want to invent your own notions of what "DRM" is. You want a discussions about proper "science?" Then understand and use the term correctly and not with a retort like that.

I’m not resorting to anything.. the comment was more jesting than anything anyway. The lines after that are far more important, because as far as I’ve seen many of the points others and me have made were not addressed properly. You mostly layed down your viewpoint. Which I think is quite clear and nothing wrong with. Your definition of what DRM is, simply differs from others.