advertisement


MQA pt II

mansr said:
The patents cover the process, not the data. This is no different from MP3 (before the patents expired) or AAC. However, since MP3 and AAC are ISO standards, the patent holders are required to offer licences under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. MQA is not a published standard, so they are under no such obligations. Until the patents expire, you are entirely at their mercy, of which they have very little.
Click to expand...
They spared you any legal trouble, haven't they?

Has MQA ever sued anyone?
 
Thanks Jim for your leg and brain work on MQA. Interesting article that contains verifiable and repeatable tests of MQA.
...
mansr
DZ does ask questions meant to offend here, but don't get banned from every thread about MQA.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
OK, here is a starter dealing with what I'm doing:

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/investigated/MostlyQuiteHarmless.html

Note that it is just the starter, and focusses on a specific area. More to come later taking a wider scope. There will be typos, etc, that I'll eventually fix. (I have 'Liz Dexia' to some extent so can only see some typos, etc, once my brain has time to 'forget what I wrote' and lets me read what I *actually* typed. )

I have to finish something else I'm writing, and then will get on with the next stage of investigating MQA.

What statement from 'Amir' was being referred to earlier? I've not been reading ASR as I've been busy. But will have a look.

I noted the comment in one posting about pre-ringing being removed. That might tie in with the dispersion filtering found on GO's output file.

BTW 'lossy' for a codec means that we can expect information to be discarded, but if the codec is a good one, and you use a high rate, the effect of the loss may not matter (much) or even pass un-noticed. As R3 listeners may know, their 320k aac is pretty good. FWIW when they also ran a flac stream of the proms I ended up agreeing with their engineers that the two were essentially indistinguishable. Although one of them after repeated tries could spot some differences in a particular case.

However with MQA the issue isn't simply 'loss' it is the *addition* of things not in the source. Waving hands over a 'magic triangle' where 'no music can possibly be' actually in IT terms implies an *inefficiency* in MQA as well as adopting the same stance as 'lossy' encodings of assuming some things can be discarded. This may not matter in practice if no-one can hear the losses or additions, but it makes it shaky in IT terms to say 'lossless' to mean more than a personal opinion on the basis of your individual hearing and experience of the content *when you can judge by comparision* with the same source material conveyed by formally lossless, etc, means. One of our problems here is that last bit.
Click to expand...
Very nice work.

However, you raise various suppositions regarding 2L file status and provenance based on your suppositions of MQA's encoder susceptibility of being back engineered. This is further confirmed by your interest in the subject here.

Would it not be easier (and nicer) to ask the owner of 2L these questions before publication?

And no, there was no MQA encoder available in 2006.

I will provide your link to the ASR thread - this is what I posted:

On a parallel thread at PFM, JimAudiomisc, a storied engineer, professor and writer has turned his considerable analytic skills to MQA. This is a first installment of his work, focusing on MQA content played on non-MQA equipment - a topic of discussion here as well.

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/investigated/MostlyQuiteHarmless.html
 
@Jim Audiomisc
A few good tidbits can be found on ASR. For example the "pre-ringing" filter suggestion, resistance to buying into MQA as being neither (mathematically) lossless (because in that sense it is lossy), nor perceptually lossless, yet still somehow a different kind of lossless, as well as good points about MQA contaminating the well of streamed cd-quality and hi res music. I will include those observations in my list of grievances when I have found an elegant way to present them.

I will also make sure to include the findings in your article when I have mulled them over a few times.

EDIT: your article features there now. It is not maligned in any way. But be ready to read fast as the thread there has many comments added every hour.
 
Rosewind said:
@Jim Audiomisc
A few good tidbits can be found on ASR. For example the "pre-ringing" filter suggestion, resistance to buying into MQA as being neither (mathematically) lossless (because in that sense it is lossy), nor perceptually lossless, yet still somehow a different kind of lossless, as well as good points about MQA contaminating the well of streamed cd-quality and hi res music. I will include those observations in my list of grievances when I have found an elegant way to present them.

I will also make sure to include the findings in your article when I have mulled them over a few times.

EDIT: your article features there now. It is not maligned in any way. But be ready to read fast as the thread there has many comments added every hour.
Click to expand...
Your list of grievances is growing!

As if you even remotely inconvenienced by MQA...

One can't make this stuff up....
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Overall, accepted. But still doesn't clarify a point.

The patents don't specify the filter *coefficients*, for example. Just give a wavy 'example'. So the coefficient *values* are not patented. *A* method of using them is patented. What if someone finds out the coeffients and makes them available.

Can someone else use a process to then decode MQA using them, albeit by working out an alternative approach to the patent?

I'm asking this as a legal point, not a technical one as I'm not sure of the law on this and wonder which might be 'legal'. Regardless of if it is actually possible in technical terms.

Reason being that I object to the way people play the "bun AND the sixpence" with such matters by patenting some parts to hold control for mumble years and also keep critical details trade secrets so they can go on blocking competition and development later when the patent lapses. Makes a mockery of the reasons patents were devised and made law in the first place.
Click to expand...

To determine whether an act might infringe a patent you need to study the claims, specifically the independent claims. If you do something that lies within the scope of one of these claims, then there is prima facie infringement. However, there are exemptions. One exemption is for legitimate experimental use in connection with the invention. This means that you can do things that lie within the scope of the claims if you do so for experimental purposes for finding out how the invention might be worked in practice. It might be the case that some of the work on MQA reported here amounted to legitimate experimental use (or use for private non-commercial purposes - another exemption from infringement). For specific advice, people should consult a patent attorney (I am one but this is not my technical area. However, PM me if you would like a chat).

Although it is fashionable to allege the contrary to be the case, it isn't true that that patents that claim subject matter that is neither novel nor inventive cannot be successfully challenged, or that patent offices grant patents for subject matter that is clearly lacking in novelty or entirely obvious. One reason for this belief being popular is lack of knowledge of how to interpret the scope of patent claims and of how to determine whether a particular act is likely to amount to infringement. No slight intended here, it's not easy!
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Overall, accepted. But still doesn't clarify a point.

The patents don't specify the filter *coefficients*, for example. Just give a wavy 'example'. So the coefficient *values* are not patented. *A* method of using them is patented. What if someone finds out the coeffients and makes them available.

Can someone else use a process to then decode MQA using them, albeit by working out an alternative approach to the patent?

I'm asking this as a legal point, not a technical one as I'm not sure of the law on this and wonder which might be 'legal'. Regardless of if it is actually possible in technical terms.

Reason being that I object to the way people play the "bun AND the sixpence" with such matters by patenting some parts to hold control for mumble years and also keep critical details trade secrets so they can go on blocking competition and development later when the patent lapses. Makes a mockery of the reasons patents were devised and made law in the first place.
Click to expand...
If I understand you correctly, you are complaining that patent law is preventing you from putting the invention into the public domain and denying the patent holder licensing fees?

If that's the case, the law seems to be working just fine.
 
DimitryZ said:
If I understand you correctly, you are complaining that patent law is preventing you from putting the invention into the public domain and denying the patent holder licensing fees?

If that's the case, the law seems to be working just fine.
Click to expand...

I think Jim is asking how it might be possible to design around the MQA patents; designing around patents is a perfectly legitimate enterprise.
 
Timcat said:
I think Jim is asking how it might be possible to design around the MQA patents; designing around patents is a perfectly legitimate enterprise.
Click to expand...
Sure. But patents are specifically written to prevent it. Especially so with MQA which is essentially code.

And in this case the answer seems no, because MQA uses crypto to authenticate the decoder - to prevent open source advocates doing to them what was done to HDCD (That's what Bob said publically recently). A clean room decoder will not handshake with the code. I guess that can be broken too, but that seems legally dubious...

At any rate, mansr has already repurposed a Bluesound firmware (MQA licensee) into a standalone software MQA decoder and has avoided any legal consequences. So a free public domain decoder has been available for years. And ostensibly works just fine.
 
Last edited:
This is what I wrote just now about mansr on ASR:

I stipulate that Mansr's decoder is perfectly fine, if a bit old. He is technically excellent, though he hates MQA. His technical work should be beyond reproach. Him and I agree on nothing, but I fully endorse his technical expertise and engineering honesty.

I chose my words carefully. Peace?

C'mon dude. There is common ground here. And I don't make friends easily - just look at this thread, right?
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Overall, accepted. But still doesn't clarify a point.

The patents don't specify the filter *coefficients*, for example. Just give a wavy 'example'. So the coefficient *values* are not patented. *A* method of using them is patented. What if someone finds out the coeffients and makes them available. ...
Click to expand...
AIUI (IANAL so this is not legal advice) on both sides of the North Atlantic provided you have properly acquired information that is a trade secret then there is nothing to stop you either using it or further disclosing it. The detail of "properly" (and "improperly") matters. But, again AIUI and IANAL, acquiring the information through reverse engineering per se is not a problem.

Apparently credible supporting evidence:
But of course defending against an allegation of impropriety may be an expensive matter.
 
Last edited:
John Phillips said:
AIUI (IANAL so this is not legal advice) on both sides of the North Atlantic provided you have properly acquired information that is a trade secret then there is nothing to stop you either using it or further disclosing it. The detail of "properly" (and "improperly") matters. But, again AIUI and IANAL, acquiring the information through reverse engineering per se is not a problem.

Apparently credible supporting evidence:
But of course defending against an allegation of impropriety may be an expensive matter.
Click to expand...
I think in this case, properly would hinge on patent holder taking legal action against disclose (crypto authentication).
 
DimitryZ said:
My CV is nowhere as illustrious as your but I also have many symposium papers...always peer reviewed.
Click to expand...

TBH I always sent my PostDocs or PhD students to give papers at conferences. I also put their names first in papers. Always felt that doing this would help them more than it would bother me. I hated the way Jocelyn Bell-Burnell was treated by Hewish and the way he behaved afterwards. Maybe it was because my own initial PhD 'supervisor' was crap, and my later boss was wonderful when I finally got the fud so Mum could put a bit of paper on the wall.

And I guess I was an odd 'academic' as I preferred getting money to invent/develop useful equipment and techniques and devices people would pay for and *use*. Found that more enjoyable that writing journal papers only two people I knew would read.

YMMV
 
Rosewind said:
@Jim Audiomisc
A few good tidbits can be found on ASR. For example the "pre-ringing" filter suggestion, resistance to buying into MQA as being neither (mathematically) lossless (because in that sense it is lossy), nor perceptually lossless, yet still somehow a different kind of lossless, as well as good points about MQA contaminating the well of streamed cd-quality and hi res music. I will include those observations in my list of grievances when I have found an elegant way to present them.

I will also make sure to include the findings in your article when I have mulled them over a few times.

EDIT: your article features there now. It is not maligned in any way. But be ready to read fast as the thread there has many comments added every hour.
Click to expand...

As per previous comments. I'm pleased they know about it. But I doubt I'll try to keep up with reactions there as I find even *one* forum soaks up time. I'm more interested in catching up with a couple of other things and working on 'part 2' of the new bumf on MQA. Analysis takes time because each set of results tends to lead to wanting a different analysis to be done, sometimes meaning I have to mod or write a program, etc. It is fun (yes, I'm mad 8-]) but takes time and patience, and I'm even slower than I used to be. Sign that my 70th birthday is looming...
 
DimitryZ said:
If I understand you correctly, you are complaining that patent law is preventing you from putting the invention into the public domain and denying the patent holder licensing fees?
Click to expand...

No, you don't understand correctly. I was asking some questions about the scope of modern patent law coverage and contrasting it with the original intent of patents.
 
Timcat said:
I think Jim is asking how it might be possible to design around the MQA patents; designing around patents is a perfectly legitimate enterprise.
Click to expand...

Yes. I was asking precisely because I am NOT a lawyer. But it is the kind of question I used to ask when I worked at Uni and we either wanted to patent something or see if we could use/patent something that *might* run into such problems.

However as a 'moral' point I regard some of the current use of patents to be wrong. Just as I regard copyright details like extending cover of written works for such long periods to be unreasonable, etc.
 
I'll add another dimension to this which occurred to me yesterday as I read the June issue of HFN (plug! :) ) Their loudspeaker response sweeps now go up to about 60kHz. if you look at the parts from 20 to 60kHz for each speaker reviewed you get a shape that looks more like an outline of a view of The Alps than being flat. Given this context, isn't 'de-blurring' an ADC perhaps an odd concern to worry about. 8-]
 
DimitryZ said:
Sure. But patents are specifically written to prevent it. Especially so with MQA which is essentially code.

And in this case the answer seems no, because MQA uses crypto to authenticate the decoder - to prevent open source advocates doing to them what was done to HDCD (That's what Bob said publically recently). A clean room decoder will not handshake with the code. I guess that can be broken too, but that seems legally dubious...
Click to expand...

Agreed, patents are drafted with a view to preventing design arounds. However, this doesn't mean that it can't be done. I don't know about the specifics of the MQA patent(s), so I can't comment (I shouldn't do so on a public forum anyway). I am sure you know this, but just in case, you need to look at the claims in the granted patents, not those in the original International application, to determine the scope of protection they afford.

DimitryZ said:
At any rate, mansr has already repurposed a Bluesound firmware (MQA licensee) into a standalone software MQA decoder and has avoided any legal consequences. So a free public domain decoder has been available for years. And ostensibly works just fine.
Click to expand...

Without commenting on the specifics, please see my comments on legitimate experimental use of patented inventions (in the UK).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top