I have to keep repeating myself as you keep repeating the same myth. There is no DRM in MQA.
MQA is does not have DRM, MQA is DRM. It’s the software “freemium” model. Again, not the thread. See MQA and Digital Rights Management
Just because it’s not copy protection it doesn’t mean it’s not DRM. From Wikipedia:
DRM technologies try to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyrighted works (such as software and multimedia content), as well as systems within devices that enforce these policies.
There’s little doubt MQA does control use, 13 bit unless you’re using licensed gear, and qualifies.
DRM, digital rights management stopped you copying music. You can copy MQA files all you want. If you own the file, you can play in on any equipment you have.
It’s an end to end system because that’s how it works.
‘Maybe it’s DRM Jim, but not as we know it…’ ?
Again (and again and again) not the thread. You equate DRM with strong encryption/copy protection measures. Those are specific implementations of the much larger concept of DRM. Take your limited understanding elsewhere: MQA and Digital Rights Management
It’s widely recognised that HDCP 2.2 constitutes DRM.
If that definition is applied to audio streams/files, then it could be argued that the MQA ‘standard’ does indeed incorporate some form of DRM.
Not in any practical way that stops people enjoying the music in any way they wish.
It’s just a non issue that seems to be blown up beyond reason, by some with, what seems to me, like an agenda to mislead people about MQA
You can’t enjoy 4K/HDR TV without complying with HDCP 2.2.
You can’t enjoy MQA music without an ‘MQA Approved’ decoder & renderer (DAC).
Do you see the similarities?
Of course it stops people from enjoying the music in any way they wish. MQA manages the end users digital rights, by its very design. Can I hear the “premium” content of an MQA file (or even the 16/44 portion of the file unmolested by high the HF distortion introduced by the folding process) without MQA permission and software/hardware decoder, at least legally? No. Does PCM (or even MP3 or AAC) impose the same digital restrictions on my rights? No.
This however has already been explained to you over at: MQA and Digital Rights Management
I just use my ears and it all sounds lovely, so there we are…
what was that quote? If it measures wrong and sounds right… you are measuring the wrong thing
I like the sound too
However, I just think it’s ‘fair’ to ensure consumers know what MQA is, and what it isn’t.
This quote bugs me slightly as measurement and liking the sound of something are two different things. Many people profess to prefer the sound of vinyl but there’s no doubt it doesn’t measure as well as a good quality digital playback chain. By measure well I mean fidelity to the original source. For what it’s worth I’ll happily concede that it’s what you like that’s important regarding the equipment and formats you choose. I feel the quote should read “If it measures wrong and sounds right you like the sound of insert characteristic here”
Measure? You can’t even get the subjectivist counter to “measurements” right. DRM and more general software design (you do realize that MQA, PCM, DSD, MP3 - its all software) are not “measured” in an audio(phile) sense…
Music can be measured:
I wonder how MQA would ‘measure’?
Poorly. See Archimago’s site, Miska’s published measurements here, or numerous threads at Audiophile Style.
As has already been stated, vinyl ‘messures’ relatively appallingly, to even RB digital. Yet it still sounds fantastic.
Maybe MQA is in the same ‘camp’ as vinyl?
Ouch, what exactly do you mean? That Roon are trying to force MQA on their customers? Thanks for pointing that out.
Really? What do you know Barrowboy…say more, say more…