I want to hear the art or maybe real life.
Bob Stuart, as usual with MQA, is telling only part of the truth and being deceptive.
At the same time as MQA was developed he and Peter also filed a patent on a type of DRM that is clearly designed to also work together with MQA. The code would control of the quality of playback of the MQA file (even degradation of quality), depending on your setup and if it is MQA certified, and at what level.
The code isnāt presently in MQA, it could clearly be added to MQA files without any problem, as soon as MQA and the record companies decide the time is right.
Obvious that this is part of the long term plan for an MQA rollout.
4 Likes
How about you guys start your own thread on the merits or otherwise of MQA rather than continually crapping on this one?
3 Likes
Tony - I am not sure why there such a strong ant- MQA bordering on defaming the patent holders. Itās simple if you are not a fan donāt buy the format and stick to the current Hi - Res formats.
Making references like the patent owners are ādeceptiveā is in my view is unnecessary and unhelpful if you wish to debate the topic - this is a serious allegation in a public forum which in my view should be withdrawn by the writer.
I am all for a format that is streaming hi-Res friendly and provides another optionality for prospective consumers like me and am happy to pay for it.
3 Likes
Iāll refer it to @danny2 as he made the reference to people being deceptive. There is a patent published. Where exactly is the deception if it is in the public domain. I will add that DRM was not conceived as a way to oppress the honest user. It is a line of defense against the unscrupulous. Those who share files illegally and those who would offer MQA decoding without licence. I am ok with that. And if I have a version of Roon that offers me access to MQA unfolded (fully or partially) I am covered, fully legit. DRM in the past was an imperfect beast and peopleās objections to it were not about the inability to share but losing access to your own files, being tied to brands etc. Those were legitimate concerns and they should be addressed if DRM is to make any sort of return.
1 Like
DRM does not mean only prevention of file copying - that is only one type of DRM. It also means any means used to control the use of digital files. You can have DRM that has zero to do with file copying - whether legal or illegal. This patent is by definition a patent for adding DRM-file control to playback formats. The description of what it does is right there.
As far as deceptive - it is simply an accurate description. Bob Stuart and others from MQA have repeatedly referred to the format as ālosslessā - and it isnāt. They should have said that they view it as āperceptually losslessā - but they didnāt say that until pressed. Itās not by chance - do you think they donāt know what ālosslessā means and were unaware of what they were saying?
They also were not forthcoming in interviews, etc., about other aspects of MQA. Thatās being deceptive. Thereās no reason I should remove that description b/c it is accurate. Simply read a lot of what Bob Stuart and others representing MQA have said since itās announcement in the last few years and you can find many instances where various statements about MQA are made in such a way that the reader will think it means one thing (like lossless) when in fact the truth is somewhat different. Their public slide demonstrations and ālistening testsā have also been shown to be full of haIf truths and misleading aspects. If you are trying to give people an incorrect impression - even if nothing you say is technically incorrect - you are being deceptive.
5 Likes
Have you ever seen a car advert that promises the open road 
1 Like
Yeah. Have you ever seen one where they say the car has a V8 when it has a V6?
Besides, Iām not talking about adverts. Iām talking about deception in interviews and in lengthy public presentations where they have all the time and the ability to present the facts.
3 Likes
Either way, car manufacturers make claims and car enthusiasts trash them.
Itās not just the tech here that bothers people. Itās the end to end scheme. Continuing with the car theme, imagine if a new type of gas required a new type of car or road, or both, even though the supposed benefits of that new type of gas could be available without that.
āPerceptually losslessā? Another ambiguous term trying confuse people again. Why ātheyā canāt acknowledge it is indeed lossy and get over it? May be the word ālossyā sounds like MP3?
Making use of the term āDeceptiveā is a very serious allegation - I would not be using that term loosely in a public forum like this unless you have the technical expertise as the person who has the patent. I hope you have a strong balance sheet to protect your banter here should the patent holders have notice of your views.
I am sure you can put forward your point about the technology without making personal attacks at the patent holder which in my view is not appropriate in a public forum nor helpful to the debate.
Itās great for consumers. You donāt have to buy any new hardware or software and the files sound better, The end.
1 Like
Not true. You do have to buy new hardware if you want to listen to a fully unfolded MQA file.
Frankly, itās just something we donāt need. Maybe years ago before gig speed modems in our homes there was a place for it (without the DRM switch please), but today, there is plenty of bandwidth to stream uncompressed hi-res files into your home. As for someone saying ābut I can listen to MQA on my phone or in my carā - with the high noise floor in your car or walking around with headphones or IEMs on, you donāt need hi-res.
Ultimately, if mastered correctly Redbook sounds just fine. All of the hi-res containers are just another way for record labels to separate you from your money. And MQA is just the latest example of this.
2 Likes
So, by this logic, copyright and using the legal system to maintain control is DRM. I think youāve gone a bit too far here.
2 Likes
Sure - the question is whether it is economically feasible for a record company to back this concept as per the stereophile review - I can see the anxiety of another MP3 rip so protection of the DRM is paramount for record companies to support technology that both economically and feasible in the new age of streaming. ,
I am excited from a streaming perspective consumers now have a choice. I know that technology is developing rapidly in the video space (https://www.linius.com) see the link to a company my business has some dealings - I can see the similar paradigm shifts resulting in audio where Hi-res/ MQA will become redundant but for now at least I give credit to engineers who working to meet the demands of consumers who want hi res streaming instead of downloading. So full credit to the patent holders who are getting the support of record companies.
1 Like
Credit to MQA?
Qobuz already has 80,000 hi-rez albums for streaming with out MQA. What is the MQA count now? 14,000?
I understand that MQA technology does not require as much bandwidth for streaming as does straight Hi-Res streaming - the MQA container mitigates how much bandwidth you require which is streaming friendly. MQA is simply another option to Qobuz - I prefer MQA with my Tidal setup. I respect that you prefer Qobuz. Good thing now is we both have a choice and an make a decision based on personal bias.
1 Like
You have to remember that MQA isnāt very binary compression friendly because of the folded data. 24/48 MQA in a Flac container isnāt 50% the size of 24/96 regular PCM in a FLAC container, more like 75%. The streaming saving that everyone keeps bringing up, simply arenāt there.
Of course since MQA canāt actually deliver 24/192, it only upsamples to it if the DAC is capable, the size comparison of MQA to 24/192 PCM in a Flac container isnāt apples to apples.
1 Like
Point duly noted. But I would still go with MQA streaming with Tidal than Qobuz. I have heard the music on both MQA and non-MQA - my ears cannot tell the difference on the outputs (in the same system worth over $70K) in fact on some re-mastering which the record companies are now supporting the format - MQA to me sounds better than my old HI res files.
This has nothing to with MQA but rather the attention to re-mastering has now become a focus as the executives are excited about the prospective economic benefits and they are now putting resources to it which is driven by MQA gaining currency in a commercial sense - to me this is a good result and am happy to see it succeed rather than fail as was the case with SACDs and DVD-A.
3 Likes
If you like the sound of MQA there is no argument from me.
But to believe that the studios are actually individually remastering albums might be a stretch. There has been no proof of that, and most believe itās a cooky cutter MQA algorithm with these large back catalogs. There is simply not enough time and itās far too costly to give each intimate attention. Going forward some day I suppose that could change.