MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

[Chrispy]

Warner is replacing all their music on Tidal with MQA. If the studios decide to only supply MQA, then you will no longer have a choice.

Only if you want to use Tidal and access the mqa bullshit there.

 

[scott wurcer]

Is it better than lossless? Yes, that's the sort of progress you should expect from the world-class team who developed lossless compression in the first place (30 years ago).

From the horse's behind, lies and appeal to authority. Why this stuff does not offend anyone interested in openly practiced science and engineering is beyond me.

EDIT - Lossless compression is far older that 30yr. and these guys had nothing to do with it.

 

[tmtomh]

No. Licensing for hardware decoding has nothing to do with rights management of the content. DRM is designed to protect the rights of the content owners, not hardware makers. To the extent you can freely copy any MQA content as purchased, then it has no "rights management."

Licensing to decode MQA is no different than license to activate Windows. Or use your phone on a carrier.

And you don't need to freely copy output of your DAC as that is analog anyway. You are free to give me a copy of said file and I can play it without paying the license holders. I can play that file without MQA decoding, or with.

The fact that you have issue with MQA making licensing fees has nothing to do with "DRM." Video codecs have licenses. Every TV you buy pays for these licenses. Every Blu-ray player pays for these license. They also then add DRM so the original content can't be distributed without authorization. No such thing exists in MQA yet you consume content on your PC/BD player, but complain about MQA?

Nonsense. MQA, which is 21% owned by the major labels, has been clear in public interviews that the attraction for the labels - the rights-holders - is that they can put out "high-res" digital music without "giving away the Crown Jewels" aka the unmolested PCM files. The entire purpose of MQA is to market "high-res" files that are simultaneously "as good as or better than" the original source and yet at the same time keep the full resolution of the original source locked up inside a proprietary format that cannot be "given away" aka can only be live-streamed through MQA-capable equipment that has an MQA tax built into it.

In Canada and many other countries you can freely copy digital music to blank media without paying the license holders - because there is a blank media levy and so the payment to the license holders is built into the cost of the blank media, just as it's built into the cost of an MQA-capable device. Except it's even worse with MQA because at least blank media taxes pay royalties to artists, whereas MQA's tax pays money only to MQA and to the major labels that own just over 1/5 of the company.

The reason I don't complain about Blu-Ray is that Blu-Ray did not insert itself into a pre-existing market of high-res digital discs that were freely copyable, better quality, and lower cost. But that's exactly what MQA has done with respect to PCM.

 

[amirm]

Hmmm. Nice meaning guys but 44 minutes of the presentation is on audio in general and nothing to do with DRM. The first presenter actually starts trying to justify that there is audible difference between audio cables! That all you have to do is listen for a while. I assume you post it due to the saying, "my enemy's enemy is my friend. :"

At the end there is a hand waiving claim of DRM which we have already discussed here and has no merit.

The two run a recording studio and naturally feel threatened by this new approach that MQA mastering is special and different. They don't have, nor bring any special knowledge, reputation or expertise to this topic.

 

[amirm]

Nonsense. MQA, which is 21% owned by the major labels, has been clear in public interviews that the attraction for the labels - the rights-holders - is that they can put out "high-res" digital music without "giving away the Crown Jewels" aka the unmolested PCM files.

They started giving away the "crown jewels" well over a decade ago. Where have you been? You have not been go HDtracks where you can get huge library of high-res files with zero copy protection?

The world of audio has changed. Record labels gave up on copy protection once Steve Jobs convinced them to distribute MP3s/AACs in the clear. Once they did, they no longer cared one bit about copy protection. All the execs that were trying to "protect the crow jewels" were fired and new regime could care less. You show up with a check to pre-pay MGs (minimum guarantees) and you too can start to distribute studio masters with zero copy protection.

Perhaps you have heard of the little company release HD masters that wall called Amazon?

You are repeating talking points from late 90s and 2000s. The people who say such things have zero experience in the field. I suggest not listening to them.

 

[amirm]

The entire purpose of MQA is to market "high-res" files that are simultaneously "as good as or better than" the original source and yet at the same time keep the full resolution of the original source locked up inside a proprietary format that cannot be "given away" aka can only be live-streamed through MQA-capable equipment that has an MQA tax built into it.

This is MQA's plan. It has nothing to do with record labels which continue to happily distribute normal PCM and in the case of smaller studios, DSD files.

Since the baseline MQA files are playable on any system, your assertion to the contrary is wrong anyway. Nothing is "locked" because the baseline PCM file plays everywhere. Since vast majority of people and I assume some of you could care less about high res files anyway, I am not sure why you would care that the MQA extension requires a license.

Importantly to the extent MQA is mainly available in a streaming service, you could not tap into that service without "DRM" anyway. The streams are proprietary whether they use MQA or not, requiring Tidal endpoint to play the content.

I predicted long time ago that major providers would get into this business without doing MQA and that is what happened with Amazon. Having proven right in that regard, I suggest not trying to second guess what I used to do for a living day in and day out.

 

[tmtomh]

This is MQA's plan. It has nothing to do with record labels which continue to happily distribute normal PCM and in the case of smaller studios, DSD files.

Since the baseline MQA files are playable on any system, your assertion to the contrary is wrong anyway. Nothing is "locked" because the baseline PCM file plays everywhere. Since vast majority of people and I assume some of you could care less about high res files anyway, I am not sure why you would care that the MQA extension requires a license.

Importantly to the extent MQA is mainly available in a streaming service, you could not tap into that service without "DRM" anyway. The streams are proprietary whether they use MQA or not, requiring Tidal endpoint to play the content.

I predicted long time ago that major providers would get into this business without doing MQA and that is what happened with Amazon. Having proven right in that regard, I suggest not trying to second guess what I used to do for a living day in and day out.

"The baseline PCM file" of an MQA file is a degraded, adulterated product. There is an unadulterated, non-degraded product (well, at least less adulterated and less degraded product) hidden in the same product, and it cannot be unlocked in a way that allows the consumer to do what they want with it. That's copy control, and it's DRM, period. You keep trying to narrow the range of scenarios of what counts as DRM, and on that basis claim MQA is not a DRM'd format. It's silly - and streaming is irrelevant since MQA is a format that exists on streaming services, purchasable digital files, and CDs.

If streams are are DRM, then MQA streams are DRM on top of DRM. Doesn't change the fact that MQA is DRM. And doesn't change the fact that it's a garbage format based on lies and misrepresentations, with a predatory business model. The fact that MQA's aspirations have not yet succeeded (and hopefully never will) does not change that.

 

[tmtomh]

They started giving away the "crown jewels" well over a decade ago. Where have you been? You have not been go HDtracks where you can get huge library of high-res files with zero copy protection?

The world of audio has changed. Record labels gave up on copy protection once Steve Jobs convinced them to distribute MP3s/AACs in the clear. Once they did, they no longer cared one bit about copy protection. All the execs that were trying to "protect the crow jewels" were fired and new regime could care less. You show up with a check to pre-pay MGs (minimum guarantees) and you too can start to distribute studio masters with zero copy protection.

Perhaps you have heard of the little company release HD masters that wall called Amazon?

You are repeating talking points from late 90s and 2000s. The people who say such things have zero experience in the field. I suggest not listening to them.

There you go again: Just because MQA's and the labels' reasons for the DRM are dumb doesn't mean MQA is not DRM'd.

 

[pjug]

All the execs that were trying to "protect the crow jewels" were fired and new regime could care less.

I wonder though. There is the question of watermarking those HR files. Personally I couldn't care less if the record companies keep the crown jewels. Just give us well mastered redbook and I'm happy.

 

[amirm]

The reason I don't complain about Blu-Ray is that Blu-Ray did not insert itself into a pre-existing market of high-res digital discs that were freely copyable, better quality, and lower cost.

Sure did. It mandated HDMI with HDCP copy protection which killed analog component video. We went from a format that just worked -- analog HD component video -- to a format that has been nothing but grief (HDCP in HDMI). Heck, they even mandated new audio formats in Blu-ray could not play through Toslink and Cox by edict! You can only get those streams through HDMI/HDCP breaking a bunch of other scenarios. Before that Dolby AC-3 and DTS could play through Coax/Toslink with no copy protection. So insertion of copy protection happened and happened good.

Furthermore watermarking was added to the content itself to detect the source of such content. Whereas before you could camcorder a video and put it on a disc and play, now a watermark check and detect the content to "not be authorized to be on blu-ray disc" and refuse to play.

Despite the world massively going towards ripping CDs to hard disk, studios did everything in their power to make this difficult if not impossible to do with Blu-ray discs.

Even the blu-ray drivers themselves have authentication logic that handshakes with the player. This is exactly what MQA does yet you seem to say you are cool with that.

 

[amirm]

Just give us well mastered redbook and I'm happy.

I think that is the real market that exists. Create a high-res master that is prior to compression for CD and online destruction. Sadly no one is championing this even though it is so easy to do. Ton of people who prefer LP to CD do so because of lack of such loudness compression in LP.

 

[amirm]

There you go again: Just because MQA's and the labels' reasons for the DRM are dumb doesn't mean MQA is not DRM'd.

Dumb? What is dumb about it? Record labels tried high-res+ copy protection in the form of SACD and DVD-A. Both formats failed and that was that. Dumb would be to forget that history and want to repeat it with some screwy scheme with MQA to go after the high-end of the audiophile market! Typical exec is worried about getting their artist high up on Spotify playlists not some scheme called MQA. And putting the Genie back in the bottle with DRM.

I honestly can't believe how people are rehashing these DRM arguments from pre-iPod era. The world moved on people. DRM was taken out of music just like it never was part of CD. No one can or is planning to take it away from you, much less king make a little company called MQA.

 

[levimax]

This is MQA's plan. It has nothing to do with record labels which continue to happily distribute normal PCM and in the case of smaller studios, DSD files.

Since the baseline MQA files are playable on any system, your assertion to the contrary is wrong anyway. Nothing is "locked" because the baseline PCM file plays everywhere. Since vast majority of people and I assume some of you could care less about high res files anyway, I am not sure why you would care that the MQA extension requires a license.

Importantly to the extent MQA is mainly available in a streaming service, you could not tap into that service without "DRM" anyway. The streams are proprietary whether they use MQA or not, requiring Tidal endpoint to play the content.

I predicted long time ago that major providers would get into this business without doing MQA and that is what happened with Amazon. Having proven right in that regard, I suggest not trying to second guess what I used to do for a living day in and day out.

Thank you for sharing your well informed perspective. In your opinion is MQA, from a consumer perspective, good, bad or neutral?

 

[Don Hills]

The MQA format has the option to audibly degrade the audio quality (greatly reduce the bit depth) of the encrypted files, to the extent that the music is recognisable but not of practical use. MQA decoders have the ability to decrypt this. I have no opinion as to why the labels would want to use the option or whether it could be considered as DRM. The only thing I do wonder about is why they purchased a (presumably expensive) license for a high-quality encryption system where a free algorithm would have performed as well.

 

[amirm]

Thank you for sharing your well informed perspective. In your opinion is MQA, from a consumer perspective, good, bad or neutral?

To the extent MQA is seeking better masters for their encodings, then it is a good thing. If not I think it is neutral.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Maybe more people will take part and show their listening results for these files where one has 5% distortion vs the purist two microphone original.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-5-on-a-music-sample.18217/page-2#post-595023

Makes one doubt MQA could be of any sonic benefit.

 

[Don Hills]

I think that is the real market that exists. Create a high-res master that is prior to compression for CD and online destruction. Sadly no one is championing this even though it is so easy to do. Ton of people who prefer LP to CD do so because of lack of such loudness compression in LP.

Indeed. If MQA were the only way that labels would release such material, with "white glove" mastering, I'd be all for it. But what is actually released is simple batch conversions of existing "destroyed" tracks.

 

[Emlin]

Let me turn around the question: why on earth is the community going after him instead of the countless people selling junk to audiophiles? Why don't they all get together and go after the people behind those products? After all, few if any of them have the credentials and contributions Bob has.

People really have the wrong guy here. Bob knows more about signal processing than all of these people going after him:

View attachment 12350

If these people have something to say that is proper and devoid of emotion, then they should write a paper and submit it to AES.

I will say this direct: this dog don't hunt. They should not go after Bob as an individual. He has more than enough qualifications here.

And his contributions in the case of MQA is significant. It is not easy to build a perceptual codec that is backwards compatible with PCM.

Indeed if people want to beat up MQA, they should build their own version of it. If that solution is open and free, then the market can rally around that and MQA will die assuredly.

Two points:

Of course people should be fighting on both fronts. And they probably are. But if they miss out on one, it doesn't invalidate what they do on the other.

There is no need for MQA, so why would people want to produce their own version?

 

[amirm]

There is no need for MQA, so why would people want to produce their own version?

Obviously others disagree and what is why MQA exists and hasn't closed shop. Fact is that high-res audio has some market credibility and MQA does as well. To the extent there is enough demand for said formats, there will be supply to meet them.

MQA has a precarious position in that if Tidal closes shop, they will go down with it. There are so few distributors for digital audio that they simply have little access to more of them. Apple is sure as heck not going to adopt it. Amazon has already gone with in the clear PCM. Will spotify use them? I say doubtful.

 

[tmtomh]

Sure did. It mandated HDMI with HDCP copy protection which killed analog component video. We went from a format that just worked -- analog HD component video -- to a format that has been nothing but grief (HDCP in HDMI). Heck, they even mandated new audio formats in Blu-ray could not play through Toslink and Cox by edict! You can only get those streams through HDMI/HDCP breaking a bunch of other scenarios. Before that Dolby AC-3 and DTS could play through Coax/Toslink with no copy protection. So insertion of copy protection happened and happened good.

Furthermore watermarking was added to the content itself to detect the source of such content. Whereas before you could camcorder a video and put it on a disc and play, now a watermark check and detect the content to "not be authorized to be on blu-ray disc" and refuse to play.

Despite the world massively going towards ripping CDs to hard disk, studios did everything in their power to make this difficult if not impossible to do with Blu-ray discs.

Even the blu-ray drivers themselves have authentication logic that handshakes with the player. This is exactly what MQA does yet you seem to say you are cool with that.

If "Blu-Ray killed analogue component video" = MQA seeking to supplant PCM is the argument you want to go with, fine by me - I'm happy to let that argument of yours sit there; others can judge for themselves if it's a sensible analogy.