MQA is Vaporware

[miguelito]

One more digression if I may...

 

Firstly, lets assume the following is true: Streaming is IT. No meaningful revenue will come to record labels from selling their content.

 

If this is the case, who cares about DRM? Noone other than MQA so they can charge licensing fees.

 

Then the question is why would the music industry support this long-term? There is no reason. 

 

Why is the music industry supporting this now? I think they don’t quite understand all the implications, but in essence it is an (almost) free option to see if this works out in their favor and how. I would also argue that many of the labels have “signed up” as a “me too” effect, you don’t want to be telling your management board that you didn’t sign up because it was bull, just in case some profit can potentially be derived from this.

 

What’s wrong in my reasoning?

[miguelito]

18 hours ago, Dr Tone said:

Personally I doubt Tidal will be around much longer, you can only hemerage for so long.

This is a bit puzzling to me... How can one streaming service hemorrage money while others not so much?

[rickca]

16 minutes ago, miguelito said:

This is a bit puzzling to me... How can one streaming service hemorrage money while others not so much?

Spotify is losing money big time.   Their IPO filing says

We have incurred significant operating losses in the past, and we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to be profitable, or to generate positive cash flow on a sustained basis.  In addition, our revenue growth rate may decline.

 

Spotify generated revenue of €4.09 billion last year, up from €2.95 billion the year prior, for growth of 39%. The company’s losses, however, more than doubled, reaching €1.24 billion in 2017 versus €539 million in 2016. 

 

 

[miguelito]

22 minutes ago, rickca said:

Spotify is losing money big time.   Their IPO filing says

We have incurred significant operating losses in the past, and we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to be profitable, or to generate positive cash flow on a sustained basis.  In addition, our revenue growth rate may decline.

 

Spotify generated revenue of €4.09 billion last year, up from €2.95 billion the year prior, for growth of 39%. The company’s losses, however, more than doubled, reaching €1.24 billion in 2017 versus €539 million in 2016. 

The market still thinks this equation will work out. It is a very leveraged business. Assuming your numbers are correct, given profit=revenue-cost, then cost is EUR 5.33. 

 

Two things in favor of this improving:

1- While revenue scales with number of users, cost does not

2- Cost might be able to be reduced slightly - given the leverage this can have a big impact

 

So roughly speaking if they increased their paying user base by about 35%, they ought to be flat (allowing for a small increase in cost but not linear with user base). Another venue is getting more revenue from non-paying users advertizing - doubt that is going up.

[Dr Tone]

1 hour ago, miguelito said:

This is a bit puzzling to me... How can one streaming service hemorrage money while others not so much?

 

They all do, who knows maybe Apple, Google & Amazon will be the only survivors.   Unfortunately they may never offer CD or greater quality and most likely never integrate into Roon.

 

In my opinion, if you really want to show your support for real HD streaming and not for MQA you need to ditch the top tier Tidal subscription.  Having that subscription still tells anyone monitoring progress that you support what they offer.

 

Until I back-doored a Qobuz subscription, I didn't realize how bad Tidal's apps really are.  The Qobuz app is great, it makes integration in Roon far less important to me but I also have hardware that will seamlessly switch between Roon and Qobuz while all controlled from my iPad.

[miguelito]

3 minutes ago, Dr Tone said:

 

They all do, who knows maybe Apple, Google & Amazon will be the only survivors.   Unfortunately they may never offer CD or greater quality and most likely never integrate into Roon.

Just very unlikely as it requires a substantial periodic data dump from the streaming service

 

3 minutes ago, Dr Tone said:

 

In my opinion, if you really want to show your support for real HD streaming and not for MQA you need to ditch the top tier Tidal subscription.  Having that subscription still tells anyone monitoring progress that you support what they offer.

That would simply be too painful for me right now.

 

3 minutes ago, Dr Tone said:

 

Until I back-doored a Qobuz subscription, I didn't realize how bad Tidal's apps really are.  The Qobuz app is great, it make integration in Roon far less important to me but I also have hardware that will seamlessly switch from Roon and Qobuz while all controlled from my iPad.

I actually could have a Sublime account. I don’t use TIDAL’s apps much other than basic streaming to my phone or searching for albums - I find it easier on the app than Roon. Moving out of Roon for streaming will completely destroy my experience.

[rickca]

@miguelito I agree that Spotify's infrastructure and management costs probably aren't linear with user growth, but streaming activity certainly is and royalties are their biggest cost.

[miguelito]

14 minutes ago, rickca said:

@miguelito I agree that Spotify's infrastructure and management costs probably aren't linear with user growth, but streaming activity certainly is and royalties are their biggest cost.

Fair. I am sure there are plenty of informed models out there... I don’t think the market is uninformed in this regard, there are likely scenarios where this all works out. I wonder if there are some easy to read analyses and comparisons between Spotify scenarios and those for wider services companies like Apple or Google.

[labjr]

I received my copy of the April issue of Stereophile yesterday and read the Jon Iverson opinion this morning. I wonder if writers are starting to be haunted by the ghost of Charley Hansen.

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

27 minutes ago, labjr said:

I received my copy of the April issue of Stereophile yesterday and read the Jon Iverson opinion this morning. I wonder if writers are starting to be haunted by the ghost of Charley Hansen.

 

 

...check the letters section....

[labjr]

3 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

...check the letters section....

 

I read the Letters today. Looks like they're getting reamed by everyone. I guess they had it coming. But what were they thinking in the first place?  Reminds me of that District Attorney trying to prosecute the Duke lacrosse team. Didn't want to hear the truth. 

 

 

[mcgillroy]

40 minutes ago, labjr said:

 

I read the Letters today. Looks like they're getting reamed by everyone. I guess they had it coming. But what were they thinking in the first place?  Reminds me of that District Attorney trying to prosecute the Duke lacrosse team. Didn't want to hear the truth. 

 

 

 

Who else besides Tony Faulkners letter is printed there?

 

Atkinson is trying to unbury his reputation by acting generously towards MQA critics. One has to remember that he always fights on two fronts: readers and advertisers.

 

After fours years of increasingly well informed MQA criticism by readers (!) the editor himself finally understood that advertisers don’t value a tainted mag. Readers announcing doubt in droves are a bad sign.

 

But one has to respect the preversance with which Atkinson tried to push back the tides of MQA criticism - to this day. Advertisers will take notice of that too. An important skill in the business of selling luxury goods where you don’t want customers to be to well informed

 

 

 

[beetlemania]

22 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

One has to remember that he always fights on two fronts: readers and advertisers.

 

I don't think that's fair. MQA doesn't advertise directly in Stereophile (and even if they did, this line of criticism seems dubious). And with few exceptions (Mytek?) most manufacturers are lukewarm on MQA, if not outright hostile. My guess is that JA has outsized admiration for BS (pun intended) and MQA's claims appealed to him.

[labjr]

54 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

 

Who else besides Tony Faulkners letter is printed there?

 

Atkinson is trying to unbury his reputation by acting generously towards MQA critics. One has to remember that he always fights on two fronts: readers and advertisers.

 

After fours years of increasingly well informed MQA criticism by readers (!) the editor himself finally understood that advertisers don’t value a tainted mag. Readers announcing doubt in droves are a bad sign.

 

But one has to respect the preversance with which Atkinson tried to push back the tides of MQA criticism - to this day. Advertisers will take notice of that too. An important skill in the business of selling luxury goods where you don’t want customers to be to well informed

 

 

 

 

All the Letters this month were regarding MQA. Of course JA posted a couple letters from readers which seemed to be supportive of his February "As We See It" column. There is also a letter from Rob Robinson of Channel D  which seems critical of MQA.

[eclectic]

55 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

I don't think that's fair. MQA doesn't advertise directly in Stereophile (and even if they did, this line of criticism seems dubious). And with few exceptions (Mytek?) most manufacturers are lukewarm on MQA, if not outright hostile. My guess is that JA has outsized admiration for BS (pun intended) and MQA's claims appealed to him.

 

I suspect Stereophile (and Meridian) were viewing the development of MQA as a "paradigm shift" in how we listen to recorded music. JA's comments about " the birth of a new world" are particularly relevant.

 

My guess is they recalled the massive change and the enormous business opportunities that the development and release of Redbook CD brought to the industry and were hoping for a new wave of consumer spending. Everyone going out to buy an MQA DAC or an MQA CD player, with models being produced at all levels in the hifi chain, from budget to the ultra high end.

 

This would create plenty of new advertising for the magazines, a rise in sales as people bought copies for advice and licensing fees for MQA. To achieve this would mean there would need to be a gradual phasing out of Redbook, making MQA the de facto standard. They've done this before. Vinyl was effectively unavailable for decades to the average consumer.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, beetlemania said:

 

I don't think that's fair. MQA doesn't advertise directly in Stereophile (and even if they did, this line of criticism seems dubious). And with few exceptions (Mytek?) most manufacturers are lukewarm on MQA, if not outright hostile. My guess is that JA has outsized admiration for BS (pun intended) and MQA's claims appealed to him.

SIgh. Wrong perspective...And this has been pointed out on numerous occasions...MQA does NOT have to advertise...Stereophile has enjoyed revenue from "MQA partners".  That is where the pay off is...

[Brinkman Ship]

15 minutes ago, eclectic said:

 

I suspect Stereophile (and Meridian) were viewing the development of MQA as a "paradigm shift" in how we listen to recorded music. JA's comments about " the birth of a new world" are particularly relevant.

 

My guess is they recalled the massive change and the enormous business opportunities that the development and release of Redbook CD brought to the industry and were hoping for a new wave of consumer spending. Everyone going out to buy an MQA DAC or an MQA CD player, with models being produced at all levels in the hifi chain, from budget to the ultra high end.

 

This would create plenty of new advertising for the magazines, a rise in sales as people bought copies for advice and licensing fees for MQA. To achieve this would mean there would need to be a gradual phasing out of Redbook, making MQA the de facto standard. They've done this before. Vinyl was effectively unavailable for decades to the average consumer.

Atkinson helping "birth" MQA was strictly about creating new advertising revenue..nothing else.

[rickca]

16 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Atkinson helping "birth" MQA was strictly about creating new advertising revenue..nothing else.

The industry was so thrilled at the prospect of re-energizing sales that they glossed over the technical merits of MQA and didn't pause to question whether anybody really wanted it.  

[Brinkman Ship]

8 minutes ago, rickca said:

The industry was so thrilled at the prospect of re-energizing sales that they glossed over the technical merits of MQA and didn't pause to question whether anybody really wanted it.  

That may be the understatement of the year! But yes, exactly.

[rickca]

1 minute ago, Brinkman Ship said:

That may be the understatement of the year! But yes, exactly.

I leave overstatement to the audiophile press.

[beetlemania]

41 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Stereophile has enjoyed revenue from "MQA partners".

 

Disagree. Weeks ago you asked to know how often "MQA" showed up in S'phile's adverts. Without counting, I would characterize it as "not often". Other than, maybe, generating interest to increase sales at the newsstand I don't see how this is any kind of windfall for S'phile. All the more so given the fierce blowback on pretty much every online forum.

[semente]

5 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

Disagree. Weeks ago you asked to know how often "MQA" showed up in S'phile's adverts. Without counting, I would characterize it as "not often". Other than, maybe, generating interest to increase sales at the newsstand I don't see how this is any kind of windfall for S'phile. All the more so given the fierce blowback on pretty much every online forum.

 

To me it appears that they were actually trying to sell MQA. Elegantly.

After all, they are salespeople.

[labjr]

Just the way they all jumped on board with MQA seemed strange. They took Bob Stuart's word for everything and even repeated in it verbatim in their articles. And seemed to ignore legitimate concerns people had including people like Charley Hansen as brilliant as he is.

 

My concern was never about sound quality. It about was the Pied Piper trying to corner an entire industry. 

[Brinkman Ship]

44 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

Disagree. Weeks ago you asked to know how often "MQA" showed up in S'phile's adverts. Without counting, I would characterize it as "not often". Other than, maybe, generating interest to increase sales at the newsstand I don't see how this is any kind of windfall for S'phile. All the more so given the fierce blowback on pretty much every online forum.

I will take a look at some recent issues and see what the number are..the last time i looked I remember several pages with MQA logos very prominently displayed in ads. So, no I am not wrong at all..

[Brinkman Ship]

53 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

Disagree. Weeks ago you asked to know how often "MQA" showed up in S'phile's adverts. Without counting, I would characterize it as "not often". Other than, maybe, generating interest to increase sales at the newsstand I don't see how this is any kind of windfall for S'phile. All the more so given the fierce blowback on pretty much every online forum.

..Screen shot from ten minutes ago on the Stereophile site...so...rethink your position.

 

Here are dollars spent by an "MQA partner"...Cary Audio..another company added to my do not buy list...

MQA decoding featured on the top line of the feature list...