Will Roon ever be supporting MQA? [Answered - Now Live Roon 1.5]

Tell you what, I’ll buy a copy and rip it then put it up on the net. This is what happens now with no rights management and a lot of people sharing music almost as a public service. You are appealing to the honest most of whom here have chosen to part with quite a lot of money for Roon. We aren’t the people you need to convince and sadly perhaps DRM is the right answer for those who don’t care.

3 Likes

I couldn’t agree more. I buy CD’s direct from the artists. I volunteer at a small music venue as a further form of support, my good friends Jon and Lyn started it all and people like this are the lifeblood of the music industry at grass roots level.
Buy the CD, stream the recording when you can is the way to max Artist income.

2 Likes

At least it will incur an extra cost, more money disappearing in the middle between end customer and artist…

So far, Tidal/Spotify use of free codecs has been beneficial from that standpoint.

Well if you want to break the law to prove a point, go for it. That said, streaming probably presents a bigger risk to the music industry than the estimated lost sales the industry loses from illegal downloading.

Sure the number looks to be bigger (not sure how they truly calculate it…you know, it’s kind of like making up evidence of, say, weapons of mass destruction to support an outcome you want) at $12B per year, but CD sales were $9.4B in 2006 (actual money in the industry’s pocket) and were down to $1.5B in 2015 due to streaming and probably down even more today (don’t have the time to look for it).

(Like I said, I don’t know how the industry’s estimate of lost revenue to illegal downloading can be higher than the actual sales of CDs, but again, I don’t have the time to look now.)

Now compare this with streaming – “freemium” services only pay a blended average of $0.008, so an artist has to get 1,875 plays to equal the revenue from a $15 CD. Guess that’s better than what they’d get from a ripped CD, but not a whole lot better.

Back to DRM - like my high school principal used to say when he’d put in new rules “you can thank the rotten 2% for me having to do this”, same with DRM, the majority of us shouldn’t have to pay for what the small minority is doing. The reality is the industry is in bad shape due to lost revenue and they’ve largely done this to themselves.

“Free” streaming services as agreed to by the labels sets the price that people are willing to pay for music, so the business model is f***ed and the industry itself is complicite in it.

Think about it - we pay about the price of a CD for Tidal each month and have access 40 million songs! Now compare that to what you pay for your phone or cable service…or even what you pay for coffee each month, the number is too low and that’s not because of illegal downloading.

Luckily there is no DRM in sight for now, but don’t fall for the hype if they start claiming that they have to do it because of illegal downloads. The bigger cause of the state of the music industry is the industry has made music content a commodity and put a lower value on it than it truly deserves.

The important point you Made is there is no DRM in sight for now! So we can accept it’s inclusion in to this discussion was something of a red herring. As are the continuous references to lossy formats and the dishonesty of those leading the MQA charm offensive. MQA like any format will live or die on one major factor. Will people be happy listening to it. And seeing as there are plenty out there ok with 128kb MP3, there is a good chance they will be. We have to accept we are a small minority.

Hardly a red herring and the misleading information from the MQA camp about what it is, does and is good for is well documented. Hopefully it will go away soon.

1 Like

You could say the same about global warming. Amsterdam and Venice aren’t flooded yet, so let’s not worry about it until they are…

You can be a Meridian fanboy if you want to, but their claims have been disproven. It is either lossy or it is not. This idea that something is lossy but acts lossless in practice is the red herring.

We do?

1 Like

Streaming as a form of delivery for either HD Video / Audio is the form that most consumers like and want, the music industry / Artists have to re-calibrate their economic expectations due to the paradigm shift in both technology and consumer behaviour (before streaming artists were getting nothing due to CD rips and torrents downloads, at least now this form has stabilised the industry). There is no way that the mass consumer are going back to buying CDs, my teenage kids have never used one, so we must accept those days are long gone

MQA to me appears a streaming format that offers DRM protection and is creating enthusiasm for quality recordings - the mass market consumers perceive this as audiophile quality recording (I respect the debate about lossy formats etc). Importantly the record companies are behind it. This is a good thing as it will hopefully mean the record companies will encourage this format for streaming more broadly which I hope is embraced by the likes of Spotify / Apple. The sentiment in the industry is embracing this form of streaming for Hi Res content - I hope this format gathers momentum and is economically viable.

Last time I saw this interest in Hi Res music was with the invention of SACDs and DVD-A formats (much like 3D TV broadcasts) - but the appeal was very narrow therefore not economically sustainable and the format is now sitting in a different form on my server as HI Res data file.

Given that streaming is how most people are now listening to music, (particularly the younger generation) I hope this format is economically viable - full credit to the patent holders to get the support of the record companies (I imagine that would been hard work) - I am hopeful this will trigger new interest from engineers to look at better formats for streaming. It is happening in video streaming (see below link in below paragraph on discussion on video streaming).

The last few years we have had some excellent innovations in audio for example with speakers (http://www.audiopixels.com.au/index.cfm/audio-pixels/) Roon software in terms of audio player that has made my SACD / DVD-A player redundant (in the sense I rarely use them now) , DAC Amplifiers that are networked with HD data servers, for streaming - I am all for Tidal/ MQA integration (and happy not to rely on NAS servers). I am hopeful this will get the next generation excited about quality audio as most of younger generation rely on streaming.

This is similar to video with 4k streaming via Netflix/ Amazon and there new inventions with visual video file that is streaming friendly (https://www.linius.com) - I see the latter patent/ technology disrupting MQA, as this in my is another paradigm shift in how data is delivered with requisite protection to mitigate piracy. This technology is far superior to MQA, I was blown away with the specs and protects artists work not being pirated.

Bottom line - I am very hopeful and excited about the options / choices that we shall have in the next few years in both audio and video and looking forward to including MQA DAC purchase in my set up.

2 Likes

I certainly want to have a choice between Roon version that supports MQA and that does not. I do not care about MQA “scientific” claims, that is enough written about this. For me MQA is an attempt to monopolize the music production and distribution chain by forcing a single encoding format on the industry, with a help from big labels. I will not use any product that would require me to pay MQA fees, hardware of software.

2 Likes

Same was said about Uber (essentially a tech platform that connects drivers to passengers via a mobile platform) - and that technology disrupted the taxi industry. Now uber is now easyly being disrupted by other players . It lost out in china and other countries to Taxify and Ola

MQA is just the beginning of what is to come in terms of H Res audio - it has created excitement in the industry, I think this will trigger other forms of streaming technology which will either disrupt or complement MQA.

There is little or no chance of MQA monopolising the space, it simply cannot be done in this day and age of technology where one cannot keep up with innovations (see my examples in the video space which will completely change how data is streamed or speakers that will enerate sound waves directly from a digital audio stream using low cost micro-electromechanical structures (MEMS)).

MQA is just the spark the industry needed as streaming is now the main form of delivery of audio to the mass market - we will see much more in this space, and I attribute this to MQA.

1 Like

The record labels will do what’s best for their interests. If they decide to force feed the consumer MQA there will be little we can do about it except not buy it. Unfortunately 99% of consumers won’t know the difference and will just start buying MQA blindly. Technology and Innovation really have nothing to do with it, the Labels have the control.

There is nothing exciting about this part of MQA unless you are Bob.

1 Like

Records labels are commercial - the future formats in terms of streaming in my view will be another source of income from the same content - so why back one horse when you can create revenue say if Apple adopts another form of streaming. Also they do not have distribution to retail and are reliant on platforms like spotify / apple etc to get to clients. Also consumers are not that blind, the younger generation are much more questioning and informed than what we assume - one thing is for sure Vinyl and MQA has sparked their interest in quality sound. I am excited because this in my view is a start of more innovation in the streaming space and MQA has sparked the imagination of what is possible.

1 Like

I sure hope that’s true. I’m not against anything sparking interest in higher quality, among the millennials, the record companies, or anyone else.

I just wish that end-to-end thing wasn’t there. I understand that Blue Light is supposed to release some endorphins because I know that somehow this version is accurate to what was blessed by the artist or mastering engineer. But there are so many ways that people like to listen to their music, through various chains of technology, that this end-to-end requirement disrupts, I would just prefer that process be built into the music data from the outset.

In other words, if fixing timing errors and a quality remastering job are the big things here, then fix the timing errors in the darned thing, do a good remastering job, and release it. Don’t require authenticated hardware/software to do it at the user end.

I don’t get it. People say MQA may be sounding better because of the Re Mastering and it’s not MQA really. (Fair point)
Then they say, we don’t want ‘End to End’ when End to End is the only way you could say the output is analogous to the input. Think about it. You control it all or you control nothing and you couldn’t make that claim.
Then it’s commonly said, “We can’t use DSP etc as it messes up MQA”. The very MQA the critics don’t believe in anyway.
If you don’t want the MQA sound and consider your DSP does a better job in your environment (a justifiable claim) then just do that and ignor MQA.
If you want MQA, for best results it’s an End to End system. (Fact). First unfold is and will be even more freely available.
There is nothing stoping anyone listening to first unfold or no unfold and applying there own DSP to taste. Ok it may not be MQA anymore but if you like the sound better, what’s the worry.

Think of all those listening test sessions you can enjoy.

3 Likes

Hi Chris. I think you are conflating various people’s different concerns or objections together to create this apparent internal contradiction in the logic of concerns about MQA. I’d suggest that you have to look at each person who posts any concern or objection and address only their logic. I have not agreed with everything posted by the anti-MQA contingent either, but I do share, strongly, a subset of their concerns.

To me, I do not like the control, even if the well-meaning version of that control is to validate the output. That is the point. It already feels like DRM in that sense of control and DRM hasn’t even been introduced, albeit the potential is there. Control is different from quality output. In this case, control is just validating that output, which we could just do with our ears. Control that is not just validating the output is what has me concerned, and that could (will?) come later.

I don’t think that is fact. If MQA is better quality than just another remastered version, according to MQA’s claims as I understand them, it is because of these proprietary processes in the remastering that undoes alleged damage caused by the A2D conversion when the music was originally mastered for CD, yes? Otherwise it is just another attempt at a remaster, combined with some form of file compression, right? I’m discounting the file compression because it seems to solve a problem we don’t really have anymore, or at least it has nothing to do with why Roonies are interested in MQA through Roon. (It might be more relevant for use in mobile settings.)

So we have this one real potential benefit that Meridian says remedies damage caused by obsolete ADCs. But this doesn’t need to be tied to the end-to-end piece. Just fix that problem and release it in FLAC, on CD, stream it, whatever. Don’t tie it to this grand licensing scheme and end to end control.

This second unfold, about the selected filter in the DAC, well that seems like it could be easily configured by the user if desired. That’s not some custom piece to each track or title and thus doesn’t need to be dictated by MQA on the fly for your DAC. It’s just a setting you can have on your DAC if you want. AND I would add that right now that filter specification appears to be more of a problem than a benefit with several popular MQA DACs right now, in that the filter seems to stick after an MQA file is played and that degrades the quality of what follows if it is not MQA.

Chris, you and others in the pro-MQA camp are free to like the format and free to believe that the record companies have no hidden agenda here… I personally like the sound, or at least I’ve enjoyed it often enough, but I am suspicious on the hidden agenda part. That’s because the main benefit of MQA can apparently be had without the end to end part that gives rise to DRM possibility.

Finally, just to be clear, if DRM were only about copyright enforcement, I’d have no issue with it. But DRM implementation has historically carried other problems with it, and it is hell for us tinkerers that want to chain 15 pieces of software and hardware together to do whatever our weekend objective is. And DRM can unwittingly degrade quality when the tech is not implemented perfectly…

The overall message I feel from the record industry when I see solutions like this is “we can fix the defects in what we’ve sold you, but you’re going to have to buy it again, AND as part of that process, we are going to implement DRM to stuff that genie back in the bottle.” I just don’t like that. I don’t.

3 Likes

You are so into it:
“If you don’t want the MQA sound and consider your DSP does a better job in your environment (a justifiable claim) then just do that and ignor MQA.”
That’s exactly what MQA, the corporation, UMG, etc want you to tell us. And you are doing a great job. In the meantime MQA is trying to make a deal with every major label to batch encode their music in MQA. All for the better sound quality and more customer choice. Of course.

3 Likes

Kudos to James and Andre, both excellent posts.

MQA is so appealing to manufacturers and publishers also as it is convenient. One file provides all levels of quality. This can be appealing to the masses as well, regardless of SQ issues.

If this continues, and I believe there is high risk that it will, almost all new music released will be MQA. This would give the powers that be all the power.

I do think you made some excellent observations in your post. I not wedded to MQA, I am excited of the possibilities, in that, this format is the start of things to come for the benefit of the consumer.

Record companies are always looking for new sources revenue leveraging of what is considered in “fashion” by the consumer - “fashion” now is streaming rather than downloading and the other is vinyls for young urban hipsters - however most of the market are now are consuming music and video on various streaming platforms.

Commercial imperatives and so called DRM protection rather than what is the best technology in Hi Res streaming is driving the record companies interest - in promoting MQA to the market they are also promoting Hi Res audio to a generation of consumers who are unaware that you can have better options in SQ in consuming music.

The agenda for record companies is simple and that agenda exists in whether it’s in banking or in the video industry - “how do I make a dollar from this new format from the same content/ work”?

MQA team did a great job marketing its Hi Res format and its big boost was to make it available on Tidal - that adoption by one streaming platform is in my view one factor driving the record companies “agenda” as they are hoping other platforms like Spotify or Apple will follow.

I hope one of the other platforms do adopt MQA or like format and get the consumer focus on “HD” quality music and is commercialy viable.

Given the rapid innovations in technology My view is that MQA is just the start and if consumers go for the concept (or fad) in the space of Hi Res streaming. I think you will see this form easily disrupted by other streaming formats as long as consumers embrace Hi Res streaming content much like HD video ( see my earlier posts in video virtual streaming technology).

However the latter will be driven by platforms like Spotify or Apple who now control how music is distributed - record companies are looking for platforms who will embrace new streaming format whether it is MQA or like Hi Res format as it provides another opportunity to sell the same content - nothing wrong with that as the artist also obtains another source of income

I am excited because MQA has sparked interest in Hi Res streaming format and has signed up one platform namely Tidal / if this is commercially viable (which is yet to be played out) then you will see money invested in other innovation in Hi Res streaming. Can you imagine Apple investing in a MQA alternative format - record companies will jump ship to this format.

If MQA fails like SACD then my fear is that innovation in streaming technology will stop in the short term and Streaming will remain in its current pedestrian form that is currently supported by Spotify / Apple.

I am hoping MQA will spark interest and drive innovation in the Hi Res streaming space (this technology in my view can be easily disrupted) and am hoping other platforms like Spotify focus on a MQA or MQA alternative for Hi Res content.

If the larger platforms support Hi Res streaming then you will see more innovation- but innovation does not result in a vacuum- commercial imperatives and consumer sentiment drives funding for innovation.

I see MQA triggeing further innovation if the consumer embraces it (losses by companies can be sustained in tech as long as consumers embrace hi res streaming) - this in my view this will be a benefit for the consumer, artist and record companies. So here is too hoping!

1 Like

Absolutely! The future you paint would be great.

Honestly I think the younger folks will come around. Or at least enough of them to support the continued improvement of streaming audio quality. Two weeks ago my 12 year old son eagerly helped me bi-amp my speakers with an active crossover. He was fascinated by the concept but he was awestruck by the difference in sound. My 9 year old asked for his own stereo yesterday (which I could piece together with extras in 10 mins). So, I am doing my best to push in that direction!

3 Likes

MQA is not needed for hires streaming, even if you want DRM and all.

There are standard formats like AAC that can be amended with MPEG-4 SLS for multi-rate streaming from the same container with backwards compatibility with players that support just AAC. If Apple would do hires streaming, this is likely what they’d use. Difference is that this one is official standard and everybody can inspect and study it’s innards and how it works.

Of course if you don’t need DRM, there are many different alternatives for doing hires streaming.

I see it only hampering innovation because it is trying to restrict user’s ability to utilize DSP processing and such on the media content. I cannot see how it could trigger any further innovation, quite the contrary.