MQA - A clever stealth DRM-Trojan (CCC talk)

Must have preceded my active interest in all of this!, though I do remember it as a format (think my PC tried to use it as a default). Interesting.

 

I believe the idea is that some will pay slightly more for MQA or younger hard-core streamers will step up to better quality streaming as they age and have more disposable income.

 

For when they are listening at work while wearing one ear bud? They won't need it at home because ... lossless.

 

I recommend using both ear buds.

 

Lee, Is that really the Industry's grand plan? If so, they are rampantly clueless and the malaise they're in is not surprising.

If they did some rudimetary research, they'd notice that most of the young listen to music on phones through bluetooth earbuds and couldn't give a hoot about sound quality. Then the ones that do enjoy music as we did (an ever growing and substantial minority), through a decent stereo and with an appreciation for sound quality, are buying vinyl.

If one spends a bit of time in a record store or on Youtube (there are numerous podcasts by youngsters regarding vinyl) , this is obvious. Any thought that MQA will lure them away from vinyl is fanciful. There is simply no market for MQA unless it is arbitarily forced upon the consumer.

 

I still use WMA Professional. :luddite:

 

Are you paid to make these posts? Or are they a joke? I ask seriously.

 

I have been a supporter and user of Tidal/MQA from the inception. For streamers only, it is the best HiRez music option of present. The best commentary on this subject can be found on Dr. Mark Waldrep's HD Audio web site, and Archimago blog. It seems foolish to buy MQA lossy copies of full 24/96 original music files. MQA upsampling of old analogue music is mostly positive. My subjective experience is that there is a spacial imaging improvement on SOME tracts. As many of the naysayers have pointed out it is a temporary solution to a large file streaming problem. As bandwidth improves, I have Fibe unlimited, data plan, why not rent the music for $20 bucks a month. I have a entry level Bluesound Node DAC, and it works just fine. Dragaonfly, and Explorer 2 are other option. Most of the high end DAC's make it a optional turn on or off. I would not buy a DAC that would not play FLAC or full 24/96 or beyond, stand alone. Until full 24/96 streaming at a competitive price is upon us, MQA/Tidal is the best present option.

 

This seems true, except for a couple of hypothetical possibilities. The only reasons to buy would be if: (1) you are planning to decode in the future to get full resolution and the supposed benefit of time de-blurring offered, or (2) in the future it is the only alternative download format to MP3s. The second reason has many people worried about its widespread adoption by the record companies, particularly if they don't believe there is any sonic benefit from the process beyond what one could get from a plain FLAC or WAV file. Also, the unfolded MQA files will probably sound superior to MP3s, because of a more sophisticated compression algorithm in terms of psychoacoustics, not that that is likely to persuade people to buy.

 

Perhaps, time will tell I guess.

 

... And if/when that point comes, all the more reason to not be locked in to some obscure proprietary format; moreover one with questionable life expectancy.

 

This point seems to contain an internal contradiction, which makes me wonder if the alarm over MQA is fully warranted. If the format has questionable life expectancy, then by definition the audio world will not be locked into it. At the end of its life expectancy, it will be replaced. At most we will only be locked into it for as long as its life expectancy, which, if your prediction is correct, is likely to be highly finite.

Even if MQA is fully successful in becoming the standard delivery system for years owing to widespread consumer adoption, it will be succeeded by a superior delivery system once it is clear that there is a technology that is audibly superior--which I expect to happen! (Progress doesn't stop.) Conversely, if it takes a long while before MQA is bettered by another delivery system, that will be because it has proved satisfactory for that length of time.

 

This is what several music executives are telling me. They believe the world has moved to a music catalog in a pocket. They also believe that some consumers (time will tell how many) will pay extra for better quality. I think this is why most of the labels have committed to MQA masterings of entire catalogs.

I've been listening to the beta version of HDMusicStreaming and the sound quality is excellent and the user interface is a step up over Tidal HiFi. We will see how many albums the Cheskys can offer at the official launch.

 

A couple of observations:

1. MQA is focused on the ecosystem because if a true and solid standard gets established, then life expectancy is going to be long. I think some of the MQA critics are simply unaware of the progress behind the scenes.
2. New audio codecs get invented all the time...in researching MQA I am hearing of several from brand name players in tech. The question really hinges on how those new codecs get established. If the labels have their catalog in MQA, they may not want to spend more money to do additional mastering.

 

Can still lock in to something as an individual, and it can be kept artificially alive for a while longer. As to another delivery system, all we need is existing masters openly streamed/available easily at high res or even red book... ie it surely can be done with existing technologies and platforms, and we don't need a new proprietary system to do it! Moreover, there could be stronger provenance behind these files and more consumer choice...

 

Both of your points are what scare me.

Some here have said, who cares, it is just about streaming a few files but as your post points out, it is much more insidious. They want this to be the new standard and it is being done behind closed doors without review, or consumer input to be foisted upon the consumer. While it has been pointed out that there are flaws in the medium there has been very little acknowledgment from you regarding the flaws, and very few acknowledgments about the flaws by the audio press in general. It has been left to enthusiasts to research and ask questions while this is happening to our hobby without our consent.

This is our hobby. The casual consumer which makes up most of the spending does not care. We have to care.

 

I'm completely in sympathy with all of this. But hasn't it been the case for some time that audiophiles have been forced to buy masterings from "around the fringes" because what was coming down the mainstream pipeline wasn't good enough? Buying niche-market SACD versions, hi-rez versions, gold discs, SHM-CDs, "audiophile label" repressings, 45 RPM vinyl, direct-to-disc recordings, etc.? So if MQA becomes the new mainstream, won't the same market exist for "better than MQA" as now exists for "audiophile versions"? And if a market exists, won't suppliers satisfy it, as they do now?

 

One of the criticisms of MQA is that with MQA we may lose other, better formats. I seriously doubt that will happen as the "special markets" business of the labels make enough money licensing albums to niche labels to want to stop. Music labels remain entities with lots of debt so they need all the revenue they can get.

I doubt the labels will stop pressing LPs and offering hirez formats if they can make money on licensing it.

 

Sir, are you employed by MQA?

 

Sir this is false, please correct. 24/192 is only available as an upsampled out put. MQA CANNOT reproduce 192 Khz resolution, nor 24 bit.

 

Can someone explain what will happen to regular Redbook cds? Will they still exist in the same form they are today? Will there be a Hybrid MQA file, in addition, as there is on many of the SACDs? If MQA manipulates the Redbook format in some way, is it still Redbook? Sorry for the ignorance.

 

For CD, MQA is basically just standard 16/44 data with MQA control stream likely down at the 16th bit so the "authentication"/cryptographic signature and a few MQA instructions can be relayed to the player/DAC.

It would still play as a normal CD would play. Arguably we could say this reduces the absolute amount of resolution available since some of the available bits will be taken up for MQA information.

It should be transparent otherwise. From a sound quality perspective, hard to imagine what good this will do!

 

Outside of boutique circles, CDs days are numbered. Other than people on this forum, I don't know anyone that has purchased a CD in years. Download and streaming will be the future. For a few years I've only purchased CDs from two places. Boutiques that offer hybrid SACDs and Amazon for back catalog CDs at about $4 shipped, or used disks locally. The idea of buying a new CD from a retail store is already foreign to me. Primary digital arrives via downloads, purchased and streamed.
My vinyl budget is much higher than my digital budget.

From that point of view, CDs from boutique labels can probably still be without MQA. I'm more concerned that non-MQA downloads and streaming remains as an option.

There are also the piles and piles of CDs already manufactured that will continue to be available.

 

Piles? How about 250 million per yer?

That is a pretty big pile.

 

You are really concerned with this? MQA CDs are a joke, they make unicorns seem abundant. MQA CDs are vaporware on a disc. Gone next year.