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

[amirm]

I have never had stuttering or any difference playing MQA and non-MQA files with EQ in Roon.

 

[RichB]

There is no need to save anyone . People will make their own, adult decisions.

If MQA convinces 3 labels to distribute only MQA, then 75% of the HD music sources will dry up with Redbook CD quality falling next.
Examples MQA CD and 44.1/16 bit MQA for which there can be no argument is a degradation from Redbook.

I made the decision to avoid MQA where possible by subscribing to QOBUZ. The catalog look quite deep.
MQA plans removes marketplace choice, so I want them to fail.

I'd like to to see downloadable options for HDR (High Dynamic Range) Audio.
That could be 44.1/16 or greater. If given the choice between DR 16 CD and DR 10 HDR 192/24.

We cannot hear ultrasonics but we sure can hear dynamic range.
I'll bet anyone with a decent system and normal hearing could pass a blind between DR 10 and DR 16 mastered tracks.
No one in their right mind would make that bet for MQA from the same master.

- Rich

 

[TK750]

Fine, but obviously many audiophiles feel that MQA adds value to them and are willing to pay $0-100 extra for it.

Massively disagree with this, the first half at least. I would imagine for the relatively unaware majority it's more a case of 'oh what the hell, may as well chuck in $100 just to have it covered' sort of thinking. Obviously neither of us can really prove it either way though.

 

[DimitryZ]

Massively disagree with this, the first half at least. I would imagine for the relatively unaware majority it's more a case of 'oh what the hell, may as well chuck in $100 just to have it covered' sort of thinking. Obviously neither of us can really prove it either way though.

I think in recent polling, a quarter liked MQA, a quarter didn't and a half never heard of it.

 

[tmtomh]

Individual consumers' market decisions are heavily shaped by:

• The amount and quality of the information available to them to inform their decisions;
• The degree of ability they have (or don't have) to choose one alternative and not another with their purchasing decisions.

If you are a consumer and you believe that Tidal is unique because it contains Master Quality Authenticated content, playable in up to 24-bit, 352.8kHz HD resolution, using special technology and authentication to ensure you're hearing true master-quality music with enhanced clarity exactly as the artists and producers intended it to be heard, then your decision to choose Tidal is based on bad information.

If you are a consumer and your streaming subscription choices (regardless of provider) are based on different tiers of file quality/resolution and not on different codecs/formats, then no matter how good your information is, you are unable to exercise your purchasing power to choose or not choose a particular format/codec.

 

[RichB]

Massively disagree with this, the first half at least. I would imagine for the relatively unaware majority it's more a case of 'oh what the hell, may as well chuck in $100 just to have it covered' sort of thinking. Obviously neither of us can really prove it either way though.

This is the same thinking that if advertisers were only allowed to post the price with tax included, it is not taxed.
I think our friends outside the US understand this very well.

- Rich

 

[DimitryZ]

If MQA convinces 3 labels to distribute only MQA, then 75% of the HD music sources will dry up with Redbook CD quality falling next.
Examples MQA CD and 44.1/16 bit MQA for which there can be no argument is a degradation from Redbook.

I made the decision to avoid MQA where possible by subscribing to QOBUZ. The catalog look quite deep.
MQA plans removes marketplace choice, so I want them to fail.

I'd like to to see downloadable options for HDR (High Dynamic Range) Audio.
That could be 44.1/16 or greater. If given the choice between DR 16 CD and DR 10 HDR 192/24.

We cannot hear ultrasonics but we sure can hear dynamic range.
I'll bet anyone with a decent system and normal hearing could pass a blind between DR 10 and DR 16 mastered tracks.
No one in their right mind would make that bet for MQA from the same master.

- Rich

With three MQA-free hires services available, there should be no concern about their world domination, if there ever was one.

 

[RichB]

With three MQA-free hires services available, there should be no concern about their world domination, if there ever was one.

I have 6 sinks . If the water is turned off, then the choice of sink hardly matters.

- Rich

 

[DimitryZ]

Individual consumers' market decisions are heavily shaped by:

• The amount and quality of the information available to them to inform their decisions;
• The degree of ability they have (or don't have) to choose one alternative and not another with their purchasing decisions.

If you are a consumer and you believe that Tidal is unique because it contains Master Quality Authenticated content, playable in up to 24-bit, 352.8kHz HD resolution, using special technology and authentication to ensure you're hearing true master-quality music with enhanced clarity exactly as the artists and producers intended it to be heard, then your decision to choose Tidal is based on bad information.

If you are a consumer and your streaming subscription choices (regardless of provider) are based on different tiers of file quality/resolution and not on different codecs/formats, then no matter how good your information is, you are unable to exercise your purchasing power to choose or not choose a particular format/codec.

I guess I am an unusual consumer, since I never read advertising and subscribe to all streaming services, including Nugs.net.

 

[TK750]

This is the same thinking that if advertisers were only allowed to post the price with tax included, it is not taxed.
I think our friends outside the US understand this very well.

- Rich

Gotta be honest I'm not entirely sure if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing there haha (must be the beer hitting me)? But I'm not from the US and can confirm whenever I visit the whole prices without tax thing is very confusing/annoying .

 

[amirm]

I have 6 sinks . If the water is turned off, then the choice of sink hardly matters.

- Rich

There is no reason to remotely think the water is going to be turned off. Mistakes and rare incidents, sure. Anything else is fearmongering to get support for a point of view, not reality.

 

[amirm]

If you are a consumer and you believe that Tidal is unique because it contains Master Quality Authenticated content, playable in up to 24-bit, 352.8kHz HD resolution, using special technology and authentication to ensure you're hearing true master-quality music with enhanced clarity exactly as the artists and producers intended it to be heard, then your decision to choose Tidal is based on bad information.

Such customers are shopping on spec and "what their ears tell them." If the latter says it sounds better, the job is done and that is why Tidal has created the success it has.

 

[RichB]

There is no reason to remotely think the water is going to be turned off. Mistakes and rare incidents, sure. Anything else is fearmongering to get support for a point of view, not reality.

It's an analogy that seems to have provoked emotional response.
That was not the purpose, the purpose was to focus on the point that access to the master is at stake.
MQA is not the master, this cannot be honestly denied.

MQA is courting the major labels to remove access to the masters and replace an open unrestrictive format with a proprietary format.
If they succeed, where then will you get Hi-Res music or Redbook music for that matter?

- Rich

 

[levimax]

If MQA convinces 3 labels to distribute only MQA, then 75% of the HD music sources will dry up with Redbook CD quality falling next.
Examples MQA CD and 44.1/16 bit MQA for which there can be no argument is a degradation from Redbook.

I made the decision to avoid MQA where possible by subscribing to QOBUZ. The catalog look quite deep.
MQA plans removes marketplace choice, so I want them to fail.

I'd like to to see downloadable options for HDR (High Dynamic Range) Audio.
That could be 44.1/16 or greater. If given the choice between DR 16 CD and DR 10 HDR 192/24.

We cannot hear ultrasonics but we sure can hear dynamic range.
I'll bet anyone with a decent system and normal hearing could pass a blind between DR 10 and DR 16 mastered tracks.
No one in their right mind would make that bet for MQA from the same master.

- Rich

I agree but not much we can do..... they have one of the 3 labels on board and it will be interesting if Sony and Universal jump in.... apparently they have some equity interest in MQA (@amirm says they got warrants for free). Longer term I am very pessimistic about how streaming is going to work out.... right now it is cheap and getting cheaper but whether it is MQA or some other scheme or sophisticated financial institutions buying up desirable publishing rights I think that choice (especially in mastering choice) is going down and cost is going up for top quality content. I have hundreds of CD's and LP's and other discs and I am adding to my CD collection as they are cheap and reliable and sound great and they can't be taken away at the whim of a few internet monopolies. I have noticed that the more desirable CD's (original versions / know good mastering's) of famous albums are starting to go up so I would buy as many CD's as you can before it's too late (like it is for LP's).

 

[RichB]

Such customers are shopping on spec and "what their ears tell them." If the latter says it sounds better, the job is done and that is why Tidal has created the success it has.

Clearly MQA cannot deliver 24-bit, 352.8kHz audio so that is a false specification.
Folks say many things sound better. MQA does not measure better which is why statements like these are odd.

Any DAC with only the MQA reconstruction filter would receive a negative comment from ASR.
Yet, restricting music to use such a filter is just fine.
This is an obvious inconsistency that is perplexing.

- Rich

 

[noobie1]

MQA is courting the major labels to remove access to the masters and replace an open unrestrictive format with a proprietary format.
If they succeed, where then will you get Hi-Res music or Redbook music for that matter?

- Rich

Can the labels really force MQA on everyone if Apple is not onboard. And why would they? They can outlast everyone else in the streaming game. I’m switching to Apple Music the moment their library is converted to lossless. It’s cheaper and the apps are way better than Qobuz.

 

[RichB]

Can the labels really force MQA on everyone if Apple is not onboard. And why would they? They can outlast everyone else in the streaming game. I’m switching to Apple Music the moment their library is converted to lossless. It’s cheaper and the apps are way better than Qobuz.

Apple gets a FLAC/WAV/ALAC container that it plays, will they really care?
Apple needs the content and if they can market it perhaps, they will go along.

The fact that MQA distributes 44.1/16 files and CDs and much of the audio press does not recognize or comment on this clear reduction from Redbook quality is a disappointment.

- Rich

 

[levimax]

Can the labels really force MQA on everyone if Apple is not onboard. And why would they? They can outlast everyone else in the streaming game. I’m switching to Apple Music the moment their library is converted to lossless. It’s cheaper and the apps are way better than Qobuz.

The pitch for the record labels and the streaming services is that you can use one file and can sell it 3 different ways... Unfolded (good), 1st unfold (better), full unfold (best). The record companies get to "protect" their masters and the streaming services get to save some bandwidth as added bonuses. MQA's consumer marketing ties it all together. Obviously if MQA cuts a deal with the big boys they are not going to get to charge much if anything but you don't need to make much if you have the majority of a huge market.... maybe just encoder royalties and "blue DAC light" royalties are enough. I think it could go either way with MQA and right now with Apple and Spotify announcing "lossless" it is pretty much "do or die".

 

[tmtomh]

Such customers are shopping on spec and "what their ears tell them." If the latter says it sounds better, the job is done and that is why Tidal has created the success it has.

RE the reasons people might be choosing Tidal: Is your claim that customers are making these decisions solely with their ears, and that their listening experiences are in no way influenced by the technical information provided about each streaming service's content?

RE the point of my prior comment: Even if people are choosing with their ears in the way you describe, that does not change my point that customers cannot choose a format/codec if the subscription includes files in different formats/codecs. You yourself have been actively involved in a sub-topic of this thread that has shown Tidal's MQA offerings comprise about 2% of their total available streaming catalogue, and so they are not choosing (or refusing to choose) MQA or any other format, since they are not able to make that choice.

That also means that about 98% of what Tidal customers are hearing is straight-up PCM, no different than the offerings of other streaming services with lossless/high-res tiers. So if customers are hearing something better with Tidal, wouldn't our first hypothesis have to be that confirmation bias is more likely to be the cause?

 

[raistlin65]

You are the lay person, not me. I spent a lifetime meeting with record label executives and their lawyers as they attempted to force operating systems/players to limit playback of their content. Most of their execs come from licensing department so are lawyers as well. I have explained repeatedly how Steve Jobs convinced them to distribute their content without any copy protection. And how you can go to sites like HDTracks, and download millions of high-res audio tracks with zero content protection in your favorite (non-MQA) format.....Really, if you are a lay person with no knowledge of the law or industry, I suggest not even engaging in this topic.

Really? Because you are the person who repeatedly asserted that MQA is free to users, which shows a lack of understanding of intellectual property licensing. How could you not know, based on your claimed experience, that such intellectual property licensing costs are passed onto consumers? And you were invited to explain your statement, or admit it was a mistake, and you did neither. Reliable experts are people who will admit when they are wrong.

For that matter, your frequent ad hominem attacks against others which are self-appeals to authority may certainly make you feel better. And in this instance, you seem to be using it to bully a conversation and shut it down.

Logical fallacies are what people use when their arguments are weak. Experts do not need to do that.

It may help you to read it: "You may come across digital works that contain copyright controls, such as digital rights management (DRM) technology or a software copy protection system."

We are no talking about digital works that have DRM or content protection. As I explained, the MQA file is transmitted in the clear and can be readily copied with no restrictions whatsoever.

You are once again bringing up copying protection, which shows a limited understanding of copyright. The copyright holders' rights go beyond simply content copying, but also include other rights as well. The fact that you are still bringing up copying demonstrates a lack of expertise in this or an attempt to limit the discussion to what you feel you can argue.

"Access" doesn't always have to be about deterring copying. For example, the DMCA was used to stop people from using DeCSS to view DVDs from regions different from where they lived. Which has nothing to do with making copies.

So, if MQA or the rights holders make some kind of case that the encoding/decoding process acts as a TPM, that's going to court unless there's some case law that would allow someone to immediately squash such a suit. Maybe they could also tie it to how MQA authenticates the file during decoding. They have the right to be the authenticator? I don't know. IANAL and am just speculating. Not insisting what I say is fact, as you seem to be.

Case law is a large part of intellectual property law. If you would like to use your "claimed" expertise to provide such case law that shows MQA/rights holders could not easily make a TPM claim, then we could talk about it. Or you can drop the expertise claim.

Lessig went through a painful battle with the labels which he lost when labels cared about content protection and cared a ton. Since then Lessig has become enemy of anything related to copy protection. So if you want to read a one-sided argument, sure, go ahead and read it. But even he wouldn't tell you that you have a case here when the content itself lacks any form of copy control or protection.

I have no doubt you feel you can speak for Lawrence Lessig. But I think you have a long ways to go to prove to other people that you can.

Meanwhile, to echo what I said previously, corporate intellectual property holders often initiate copyright infringement or DMCA notices because they know many individuals (or small startups) do not have the money to fight for their rights, even if their claims are dubious of having the rights. And that is something that Lessig has stated repeatedly. I've read it, and I have heard him say it in person.

Now maybe you could answer these questions honestly: Do you expect us to believe that if you came up with your own MQA decoder, and a way to monetize it and make a crapload of money, that you would not consult a good intellectual property attorney before proceeding to release it commercially? You would throw caution to the wind, and go with your own "expertise?"