Apart from any issue of infringement of intellectual property rights it is open to MQA to impose a condition on any licence that the licensed device permit no further processing of an unfolded MQA track to occur save as approved by MQA. I understand MQA have good legal advice and would be amazed if this hasn’t been covered off to their satisfaction given events at CES 2016 Hi Fi show where Auralic were about to release their MQA solution and MQA pulled the plug. It would be very disappointing to see any repetition of that kind of miscommunication. One public relations debacle between two companies regarding a new technology could happen to anyone. Two seems excessive.
I think likely it will (1), as Auralic has demonstrated its Aries can indeed able to decode MQA at last CES 2016. So they supposedly have the code/keys to enable decoding process not just at 2x but up to 8x decode which is still possible if they were given full access to decode at the time of the demonstration.
Not sure I’m keen on the ethics of a company doing this. It seems underhand if true. Of course, we don’t know.
Think it may not be quite finished…
If de-burring is required it may be released with sharp edges…
Or perhaps a different process entirely?
1 Like
At least according to my understanding of the term, MQA themselves are proprietary in their approach; Auralic may be proprietary or not (they could decide to open source their implementation).
1 Like
Coming from the software development world, I find that statement bizarre, as I think it’s quite the other way around.
MQA is proprietary, and anyone is free to reverse engineer anything, and deal with patents and licensing as the applicable laws require.
I personally find different forms of DRM, which to my understanding applies to MQA as well, ethically questionable.
Here’s a thought.
Imagine you bought a sizeable library of MQA music files. Ten years from now MQA as an encoding has become obsolete, replaced by something else more du jour. Of course, MQA as a business is also dead, and their software libraries are no longer supported on current software operating systems and playback applications. Since the only way to get back your music fully is via official software, which is proprietary, and the proprietor defunct, I doubt it you’d still have the same view on the ethics of the situation.
2 Likes
There is no DRM in MQA. This has been officialy stated.
Also your last thoughts are not the situation now.
I would think re engineering is forbidden and correctly so. IMHO
If the work is carried out with the consent of the owners of the IP in MQA then there is no problem.
I expect that this would require cooperation of the software owners also as it’s their product that will no longer be Authenticated. A further can of worms here lol
What’s with the secret keys needed to do decoding then?
Also, that doesn’t cover my point at all. If the algorithms remain obscured, you’re stuck with with sub-par versions of your music (and according to analysis I’ve yet to see contradicted, worse than CD).
That’s not DRM. You buy a file (or stream it) you can play it on any equipment you have. You can copy it, play it in your car etc.
If you can’t decode it you get better than CD quality anyways. Software decoding will be readily available soon. It’s already on Tidal desktop and is coming to Roon. I don’t think it will stop there.
Again, this is NOT DRM. The owner of the file has the right to use it in any lawful way. When you buy any music file you don’t buy the rights of ownership you buy the right to use it. (Enjoy it).
If you play music, any music for business in the U.K. You have to pay PRS an agreed fee wether you own the music or not. In this scenario you are deemed profiting from the work of the Music producers by enhancing your business with its use.
Music isn’t free…
Chris, I specifically said “different forms of DRM”.
DRM stands for digital rights management, and although it is not an overly well defined term, your definition of being able to copy and play it in your car doesn’t mean much.
I won’t even dignify the implications of your closing “music isn’t free” remark.
I won’t go into that “what is DRM” debate though, not before you acknowledge the fact that as long as 3rd parties (such as Tidal, Auralic or Roon) depend on closed source libraries and security tokens to do full replay, you’ve bought into something that if the original company goes bust, you can no longer use - not the way it was sold, i.e. as the best achievable quality next to the master.
As I’ve said before, what you’d be left with then is arguably an inferior digital version compared to vanilla 16/44.
1 Like
MQA has to be coded and encrypted or we wouldn’t have it, period. Licences have to be paid to fund things. As I said, Music isn’t Free.
If all the Master digital files were free for people to just steal, the vaults would be empty, then where would future investment come from?
I want record companies, musicians, equipment suppliers streamers etc all profitable otherwise we have nothing.
They have to have strategies to monietorise their content and MQA is a part of this hence the so called encrytion that is not DRM (So why call it that?)
Since you are continuing to ignore my arguments, this will likely be my last reply to you, where I would like to address some of misguided things you’ve said in your last post.
Of course music isn’t free - nor is the Tidal HiFi stuff, for example, is it? If you download FLACs from Tidal they are encrypted on your playback device in order to prevent people replaying them someplace else, without having paid for it. Since this has worked just fine for Tidal until now, surely the extra layer in MQA is not necessary and would not lead to your overly dramatic visions of empty vaults and the industry in ruins. That argument makes no sense whatsoever.
I invite you to read the wikipedia page on DRM. It’s a much broader concept than you make it to be, as, among other things, DRM technologies attempt to control the use and distribution of copyrighted material. I think as you’ll see in my explanation below, MQA qualifies cum laude.
I’m going to try to explain this again. Back in the day, LPs were mono. When stereo ones were introduced, the designers of that process took care so that they can be replayed on existing equipment. A bit like MQA, right?
Maybe they didn’t sound just as good on mono playback equipment as a pure mono LP, but that’s progress, and again, a bit like MQA right? Now, what essential aspect of this story is not at all like MQA?..
That’s right - playback equipment, which is ubiquitous, well know, and devoid of legal impediments for its users and makers.
From my understanding of the situation, this is not the case with MQA.
The point is that 20 years from now there will quite likely be people building turntables for your new or old vinyl, and they’d be able to do so without having to worry about patents, but if MQA remains closed and proprietary, it’s debatable you’ll be able to reproduce purchased MQA encoded files at their full fidelity, as the software side is no longer supported, and the hardware side is being replaced with newer components that no longer license deprecated technologies.
So your solution is…
Wait, now there is a problem that needs a solution?
Yes, Master quality files easily streamed and available now based on the latest understanding in sound perception.
The challenge to the lowering of quality of audio with the easing of convenience. In contrast to the world of video.
Makeing high quality audio ubiquitous as opposed to the MP3 solution.
I’m sorry, I’m no longer replying to your series of unrelated replies.
Last reply was a direct answer to your question.
As I see it MQA is a development which will over time allow high quality audio (Higher than they have now) available to all. Many will be happy with the basic level of service others will want to explore and invest in equipment to achieve the very best available much as we do now.
Artist will know that their best work will be out there to be appreciated and this will stimulate the economy within the music business. Something badly needed by all.
No, it wasn’t a direct reply to anything I’ve written.
I’ve presented a situation where you’re effectively buying into a proprietary system and face it being obsolete and unusable relatively soon. After failing to acknowledge that, you finally retorted with the all too facile “so what’s your solution?” to which I pointed out that this implies you now think that I was indeed presenting a problem. But alas, you keep on with the second coming grade adulation of MQA as a saviour of the industry.
High fidelity audio has existed before MQA, and will continue to do so; you’re just making as if it was born yesterday, with MQA.
I’m done, you’re just not having a conversation.
In case you’ve missed it, read what Schiit and Benchmark Audio (link above) have to say about this.
You consider a valid question facile… ahh well. It just seems to me I am presented with all the problems and future scenarios in a way that suggests know one, least of all MQA Ltd along with major record labels, should bother to do anything at all. Well I just don’t see the world that way.
The Music industry wiil continue as you say and I hope MQA will be a major part of it. Vinyl will continue for those that want it and that’s not without issues too. I hear 8 track is also being collected by enthusiasts. (I love that idea).
We have nothing to lose with all of this, it’s just a way of distributing music and for me the future is looking great.
These in my eyes are protection of an investment in the A of MQA, also of possible benefit to artist and consumer and of course record companies. I think that it is unlikely to help smaller companies which perhaps we would all like to see.
MQA as I see it is a tech push product akin to the Sony Walkman, the consumer didn’t know they wanted it before it arrived. So no perceived problem/solution until it arrived.
I agree with Chris’ initial statement that on the ethics of a company that may or may not be using IP without permission. This is just a feeling or opinion that anyone is entitled to hold.
We can all agree! I happily pay for Tidal Hi-Fi, and use their offline service, I don’t buy physical media very often so am happy to keep paying (definitely a member of the streaming generation and this alters perspective for some). The tidal encoding DRM serves to protect their business because if it wasn’t there I wouldn’t have to subscribe to tidal for very long! I’m guessing this may also be a stipulation of record companies. Do you take issue with this DRM in the same way? This is designed to restrict access, I have no problem with this.
I can buy a CD with MQA on, I can play this where I choose, I can copy/rip it, I just choose to stream to different devices instead of taking it with me.
I have seen some criticism of undecoded MQA but for me it’s been as good as or better than 44.1/16, this is subjective and based on listening not graphs or other peoples opinions.
I don’t see how MQA controls distribution after all Tidal manage the distribution. What they do is manage their IP. As it stands Tidal already partially decodes MQA for free and I suspect would continue to do so if MQA, as a company ceased to exist. Although if it happened soon I’m not sure MQA would last!
The minds behind MQA have given much to Dolby and thus movie soundtracks, this was encoded. I for one have very much enjoyed Star Wars over the years! This technology has moved on but my BlueRay player still plays the old films…
Technology keeps moving on, I have Good Morning Vietnam on VHS… I’d love to see it again… Guess I’ll have to stream it! Probably on a proprietary licensed service.
Back in the day, the profit was in selling physical media and boxes, perhaps with a stereo turntable in. With software being available in the cloud and music online things have changed and I hope they continue to do so.
I have taken on board the views of Jason Stoddard and Mike Moffat and understand their argument and yes it’s proprietary, much in the same way DVD soundtracks work. There is of course a risk with early adopters, is it an risk you personally prepared to take? If not don’t do it. I have spent some time listening to MQA, I hope you have too. In my opinion there are audible benefits to MQA, if it does nothing but drive future investment in music and technology then it’s a win in my book… However as has been stated R&D costs need covering. There must be an element that ensures a recouping of costs. Standards have been used in different industries to great effect in the past to ensure quality across the board. I can see the artist and record company liking this.
Think there is still some way to go to truly understand what MQA will give, what it will cost and where we will end up. As I said I hope it drives on to greater things!
I hope I’ve addressed some of your points. Sorry if the reply is a little garbled I’m rushing off out!
Regards,
Matt
4 Likes