MQA Bad For Music

[amirm]

I agree with the workaround. The problem for Roon may be that they have already sold lifetime subscriptions. So, they might not like the idea of having to go back to subscribers for additional fees for that optional added feature in order to pay MQA for the licensing. OTOH, MQA might not like the idea of a potentially hackable separate software plugin.

Ah, yes, I forgot about the lifetime subscription (which I have). Personally I would be OK with MQA being optional but I can see major cries from others as every other feature release has been free.

We used to have that problem with Dolby and MPEG licenses. Only tiny fraction of Windows users would play DVDs and needed those but the licensing required that we pay a royalty on every copy of Windows which of course we were not willing to do.

 

[Cosmik]

Ah, yes, I forgot about the lifetime subscription (which I have). Personally I would be OK with MQA being optional but I can see major cries from others as every other feature release has been free.

We used to have that problem with Dolby and MPEG licenses. Only tiny fraction of Windows users would play DVDs and needed those but the licensing required that we pay a royalty on every copy of Windows which of course we were not willing to do.

So Microsoft forced the punters to install dodgy DVD player software (as I seem to remember) containing adverts and malware and goodness knows what, just to play DVDs? Not a very satisfactory solution! Couldn't they have made it so that every time a DVD was played, the fact it had been played got sent to MS via the internet, so they could make the appropriate payments to Dolby and MPEG? As you say, you were happy to pay for just the small proportion of customers who wanted to play DVDs. Couldn't a similar arrangement be made with Roon and MQA?

 

[amirm]

So Microsoft forced the punters to install dodgy DVD player software (as I seem to remember) containing adverts and malware and goodness knows what, just to play DVDs? Not a very satisfactory solution! Couldn't they have made it so that every time a DVD was played, the fact it had been played got sent to MS via the internet, so they could make the appropriate payments to Dolby and MPEG? As you say, you were happy to pay for just the small proportion of customers who wanted to play DVDs. Couldn't a similar arrangement be made with Roon and MQA?

Answering the last part first, as I mentioned, there can be a real expectation from lifetime owners of Roon to get all future updates for free. I have to read their license to see if there is an exclusion but even if there is, what matters is the user expectation. Roon is still a small company/effort and can't alienate its best customers (i.e. lifetime subscribers).

Back to Microsoft, we hated the fact that people had to resort to those buggy and crapware loaded software to play DVD. We had all the logic in the media player for years. Just the license was the problem. MPEG-2 required $2.50/copy. Imagine the cost of that per year: 400 million copies of Windows * $2.50= a cool one billion dollars!!! And we have not yet accounted for Dolby license. No way was it worth it to pay that kind of fee. So yes, it sucked either way. Later one in the Media Center edition that license came with it (but royalties also went up).

As I said, personally I don't mind pay $2 or whatever for MQA license. But it may be a tough sell for other customers.

 

[Sal1950]

As I said, personally I don't mind pay $2 or whatever for MQA license. But it may be a tough sell for other customers.

Just looking forward to the day when the whole process gets cracked, reverse engineered, what ever.
Here's a toast to the community of Linux crackers, Hip Hip Hooray.

 

[NorthSky]

If it's free I'll buy three of them.

 

[amirm]

Just looking forward to the day when the whole process gets cracked, reverse engineered, what ever.

My guess is that if it achieves any level of popularity that will happen with ease. The community has broken far, far stronger encryption systems. All they have to do is trace a software decoder and the answer is right in there.

 

[Ron Party]

My first experience with an MQA CD; thought this was interesting. This the back cover of Camille Thurman's album Inside The Moment from earlier this year:

The fine print in the lower left corner states: "MQA CD plays back on all CD players. When a conventional CD player is connected to an MQA-enabled device, the CD will reveal the original master quality. For more information visit www.mqa.co.uk."

FWIW, I did not even realize this CD was MQA cooked when I acquired it, notwithstanding it's right there on the front cover art as well:

 

[amirm]

I think it is a positive thing for CDs as they can advertize master quality much like HDCD did to some extent.

 

[Sal1950]

The fine print in the lower left corner states: "MQA CD plays back on all CD players. When a conventional CD player is connected to an MQA-enabled device, the CD will reveal the original master quality. For more information visit www.mqa.co.uk."

I think it is a positive thing for CDs as they can advertize master quality much like HDCD did to some extent.

But without decoding you now get what, a lossy compressed version of the original bit perfect data stream?

 

[RayDunzl]

But without decoding you now get what, a lossy compressed version of the original bit perfect data stream?

You get the same recording as you might otherwise get on CD, but the lowest three bits are (shaped?) noise, as I interpret the coding scheme.

I calculate my somewhat quiet room (36~42dB) is 6~7 bits worth of noise, when playing a CD at 100dB or so.

 

[amirm]

But without decoding you now get what, a lossy compressed version of the original bit perfect data stream?

I meant in the context of marketing New cd.

 

[Cosmik]

You get the same recording as you might otherwise get on CD, but the lowest three bits are (shaped?) noise, as I interpret the coding scheme.

I calculate my somewhat quiet room (36~42dB) is 6~7 bits worth of noise, when playing a CD at 100dB or so.

So at face value, the entire market for MQA is those listeners who care about an *imaginary* audible difference between the sound of 'CD' and 'something better'. In other words, no one is ever going to hear an MQA track and demand to know how they can buy this experience for themselves. No non-audiophile will be put off by the thought of the lower three bits being noise if they can't hear the difference. Selling MQA will be entirely down to marketing and persuasion and expectation bias, etc. How big is that potential market? Surely pretty tiny.

I would assume that the megabucks would only flow if MQA becomes the universal streaming medium *and* has DRM applied to prevent listening to the non-hi res version.

 

[Soniclife]

I calculate my somewhat quiet room (36~42dB) is 6~7 bits worth of noise, when playing a CD at 100dB or so.

That's always been my thoughts, but how would this approach work with headphones, I don't know how quiet the background could get with closed cans.

 

[amirm]

That's always been my thoughts, but how would this approach work with headphones, I don't know how quiet the background could get with closed cans.

Innerfidelity site has measurements of this more many headphones. Here are some examples:

I have circled the key area where our hearing is most sensitive. As you see, it is a significant reduction in that region regardless of type.

 

[NorthSky]

Sorry for the small distraction (headphone topic); this old nine months old news:
° https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music

I was born in the fifties, when cars where made of solid steel with Cuban designs...way of speech to say that Cuba is the place where they are cherishing them cars. I ain't alone, that's the point. We are billions of us with money to spend over and over and over for the continuation of our Rolling music economy. ...The new and the old; MQA is already implemented and nothing we can say is going to chase it away, just no way Jose...the music forces of the industry cannot be stopped by a bunch of audio scientists/fanatics/addict audiophiles. It don't matter anything but audio money being constantly rolled over and over to guarantee a steady income of music flow cash in the coffins of all who work in the music business.

So, good or bad that is not the question. It's always all good, even when it's bad. Just listen .... Hey, this is new Pink Floyd music with MQA encoding and recording. ...Listen clearly well ... can you tell.

 

[RayDunzl]

It don't matter anything but audio money being constantly rolled over and over

I have two discs coming from Brazil, the purchase decision based entirely on Who and New.

I wonder if they will be defiled by the MQA algorithms?

Oh wait, there are three...

 

[NorthSky]

Let us know Ray; we want it all ... au naturel.

 

[Soniclife]

Innerfidelity site has measurements of this more many headphones. Here are some examples:

I have circled the key area where our hearing is most sensitive. As you see, it is a significant reduction in that region regardless of type.

My understanding from that is if using isolating headphones in a quiet room, and listening at 100db, you will need around 16 bits, so undecoded MQA will have less than ideal bit depth. Have I got that right?

 

[Vincent Kars]

German politeness written in international English but a nice analyses of what is going on under the hood of MQA:
https://www.xivero.com/downloads/MQA-Technical_Analysis-Hypotheses-Paper.pdf

 

[Sal1950]

German politeness written in international English but a nice analyses of what is going on under the hood of MQA:
https://www.xivero.com/downloads/MQA-Technical_Analysis-Hypotheses-Paper.pdf

Although most of the paper is over my head I understand and agree with the conclusions completely.
"Dear responsible operators of download platforms please provide us audiophiles with FLAC encoded native high resolution
audio file downloads that are not altered in anyway by applying technologies like MQA."
AMEN to that!