MQA is Vaporware

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Thanks or the comments. They go a long way toward a good discussion. I like that you really haven't speculated about the world coming to an end because of this. 

 

I don't like lossy compression either. However, we've all managed to accept the lossy CD quality music for years. Not many recordings were made at 16/44.1. Anything made above that and delivered on CD should be considered lossy. I don't believe there is a need for lossy compression either, but I wish I had some facts to support my belief (bandwidth and data plan cost globally etc...). The 4K were are streaming is incredibly lossy and via wired connections. 

 

I'm with you on the filtering, if this is 100% true. 

 

Yes, in the future there will be no way to play MQA with official hardware of software. It's not a question of if, but when. 

 

The DSP issue is one that I'd like further info on. I've been told that companies just need to work with MQA to solve the issue, but this information comes from MQA.

 

Bad for innovation right now, I agree.

 

 

 

I think the reasons for supporting MQA are much more flimsy and subjective from the consumer side of things. Then we get into speculation that it may be good for the rights holders and if it's good for them does it have to be bad for us? Most people believe that if something is bad for artists it's bad for us, so does the reverse hold true? There are tons of unknowns. 

 

 

 

Chris, a convincing case for MQA has not been made. If got a few of the albums available in Europe that I own multiple versions of in MQA I could write an article John Atkinson at Stereophile would not have a problem publishing. My opinion would not be significantly different from his, Kal Rubinson’s or John Darko’s on the sound quality. The difference is probably undetectable listening casually with background noise about 40dB in my office. Differences still would probably be undetectable when the background noise drops to 30 to 33 dB on a quiet evening listening casually.   Only when I’m in professional mode on a quiet evening would I expect to hear differences and they would be slight. John Darko reports more space between the instruments and Kal’s comments seem to imply there is is some DSP in MQA but I won’t know until I listen. And you have to put the differences in a context of are they better or just different? I don’t know.

 

As for the interests of the artists, streaming is bad for them and good for the consumer. Would consumers pay more if the artist got more revenue from streaming? Nothing in the current market says this would happen.

[Rt66indierock]

44 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I believe there is actual research, yes.  But life being busy at the moment, perhaps we could reach a resolution faster this way:

 

@Miska has said he can perceive differences in the sounds of his filters, which vary from each other in the sorts of characteristics I mentioned.  Do you believe him?  If so, these things are indeed perceptible.  Accuracy of those perceptions will then be a matter of training.

 

I do one of the reasons I want to control the filters not Bob Stuart. I've written about ultrasonics and how I perceive them. And yes training will be necessary for any level of accuracy. 

[Rt66indierock]

Keep it.

[Rt66indierock]

53 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I don't disagree labels like MQA, but I can't figure out why they all wouldn't be onboard if it's as cut and dry as everyone thinks. 

 

To encode music in MQA will cost money. The question then is how do they recover these costs? Every large company has an internal rate of return (similar to interest). So is there a solid predictable stream of cash that will meet or exceed their internal rate of return for investing in equipment to encode MQA? That question may be hard to answer.

[Rt66indierock]

4 hours ago, rickca said:

Perfect question ... what is the business case for converting your catalog to MQA?

 

The labels can easily get a good ROI by combating piracy.  Many companies spend a lot of money on tracking down the source and distribution of counterfeit products.  So if it isn't MQA, it's counterfeit once you no longer authorize distribution of anything but MQA.  What if the free tiers of music services were no longer viable in an MQA-only world, and many of those listeners signed up for a paid subscription?

 

Good comments

 

Piracy is two components. One is individuals copying files and sharing them. Two is the more troubling one industrial piracy. Look at all the people who say MQA isn’t DRM because I can make a copy of it. If true then here is nothing in MQA to stop individuals from sharing files and is not a solution for this kind of piracy. On the industrial side of piracy unauthorized copies are made of music, the music is distributed, these copies enter retail channels and the label receives no compensation. If you can get a copy of the MQA file by whatever means you can still presumably copy it the same way an individual can so there is no gain to the label. The labels still have to spend money to track the sources and distributors of your illegally copied music. Nothing has changed.

The problem with a lot of the industrial piracy in the music business is places actually authorized to make copies of music just make a few more. Then sell them themselves. This is very hard to track down.

 

Now if the DRM in MQA can track the path of the file to ensure its authenticity then that is an entirely different matter. You would know someone is copying your files and you could trace it back to them.

 

If MQA made free streaming unviable then the royalty payments might change a bit. But remember the free services still pay royalties for music and nobody is making a profit streaming with a subscription model. Spotify for example can’t go public (sell its stock on an exchange) because royalty payments make it impossible to make profit and return value to the shareholders. Finally in the United States free services can always go back to a radio style model which is protected by statute.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Got it.  MQA does not prevent piracy, and it contains no mechanism for tracing illegal copies back to their bootleg sources, as far as any public explantanations to date of MQA technology are concerned.  It does, as we know, certify "authenticity" of a played or streamed copy to the user during playback.

 

So, how is it then DRM as so many insist?  Sorry, I do not follow that logic, at the risk of being pelted from all sides here.  But, though many proclaim this is as obvious as 1+1=2, I just do not get it.  I am trying to be rational and objective, not trying to reopen old wounds or debates.  Call me an idiot.  But, though repeated over and over with great fury and alarm, the charge falls completely on its face,  IMHO.  Especially, given the lynch mob fervor of the nay sayers.

 

You also seem unsure of the question of whether an MQA recording can be copied.  All the evidence that I have seen suggests it is just a file in a normal FLAC/PCM wrapper, so it can therefore be copied with existing technology.  Do you have evidence to the contrary? Does anyone?   Again, I do not see DRM here.  

 

 

 

If you were trying to be rational or objective you would have read the original post at least so let me summarize. A file has to be encoded to the MQA format. This requires purchase of licensed hardware and payment of royalties. The license and the hardware at this stage are managing digital rights. To playback an MQA file requires a licensed hardware or software decoder the payment of license fees and royalties. Again this is managing digital rights.  Utimaco created the encryption to “secure and safeguard end-to-end transmission of intellectual property.” That encryption is managing the digital rights in the licenses.

 

When there is an album I want (a prior post has a list available in Europe) encoded with MQA available in the United States I will buy it. Then I will make a copy and put it on my music laptop. I will make no claims about coping MQA files until I actually copy one. You aren’t supposed to see DRM in the file that’s why all the people claiming there isn’t DRM say look here. I’m just one of the first who looked at the encoders and decoders and saw DRM.

 

I’m also the first person to question the master part of MQA last year with The Doors “Riders on the Storm.” There is no master. I had a pretty good source the guy who played keyboards in The Doors.

 

Please don’t twist my words I have been specific about the DRM in MQA since I found the Utimaco case study shortly after T.H.E Show in Irvine last year. The DRM in MQA is very similar to the DRM required by the IRS to be in 2016 professional tax programs. In the tax programs its software at both ends nobody denies it’s DRM.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Ok, I have looked up the wiki article, and I am as perplexed as ever. Those first two sentences seem to revolve around the phrase  "restrict usage" and its implications.  But, it seems to me that every playback format "restricts usage" by the very nature of its unique specifications and requirements, whether it is encoded via special, licensed access privileges or not.  You can't play an LP on a CD player.  But, is that restriction sufficient to call the CD an example of DRM?  Clearly, no. So, the definition in those first two sentences is insufficient to fully define what DRM is.

 

So,  we are back to the chasm between you and me.  You think MQA is QED provable to be DRM, but I do not agree completely.  MQA = DRM? Yes and no.  

 

And, please, you are exaggerating to mind numbing proportions if you believe that MQA can encapsulate sufficient information in the 8 bits or so of noise floor it consumes to link DRM to user biometrics, like iris scans.  You may be right about scary DRM's of the future, but that speculation has nothing whatsoever to do with the MQA of today.  What is your point?  MQA is like big brother?  That is just ridiculous posturing and baseless scare tactics.

 

I do know what DRM is.  I have thousands of SACDs on my NAS, in Mch, I might add.  Now that WAS a robust DRM, which took experts many years to crack, involving both hardware and software.  I capitalized the WAS in the last sentence,  because, as we know, it, too, was cracked years ago, difficult as that was.

 

MQA parallels Sony's sophisticated "hybrid" DRM of SACD in many ways.  Neither "restrict" access to the RBCD layer.  No DRM there.  Both, however, attempt to "restrict" access to the hi rez "layers" of the playback stream to only licensed players.  SACD is actually even more restrictive, in that the output of a licensed player in hi rez could ONLY be via analog or via HDMI with HDCP.  MQA is actually somewhat less restrictive.  The hi rez layers are also available purely through software and/or hardware, as the Tidal PC app demonstrates.  To me, it is a given that it is only a matter of time before that software app is cracked allowing most everyone to have free access to the folded hi rez layers of MQA streams, though not with full MQA processing in their DACS.

 

There is also an interesting and very telling point you made early on that reveals your true agenda.  "DRM is about managing any and all consumer rights".  What "rights" do consumers really have, though they have paid no license or other fees to access hi rez program material contained in MQA streams or files?  My opinion is they have none, as in zero.  You seem to think their rights to that material for free is a given.  

 

I think viewing the world as utopian as though all doors should be unlocked, all goods and services should be free and available to all is very noble.  Unfortunately, not here on earth with real human beings.

 

 

 

Let’s talk about a few things. First when you buy a Mytek Brooklyn ADC part of what you are paying for is licensing and royalties on the MQA Kernel. When you purchase an MQA download part of the cost is a royalty to MQA. When you listen to the file on a Mytek Brooklyn DAC part of the cost of the DAC is licensing and royalties on the MQA hardware decoder. So as a producer and consumer you are paying for the right to use MQA.

 

I do wonder now about your agenda. You are doing everything possible to avoid connecting MQA and DRM. Including admitting you violated the law with your SACDs. This must be vital to you in some way.

 

What you are saying is if you buy one my videos you can do whatever you want with it. When the reality is I have restricted your right to modify it. You can make as many copies as you want to give to staff or clients and I’m fine with that. You take 10 minutes out and you have violated my right to keep the file unmodified. And of course the copyright laws of the United States which I will enforce.

[Rt66indierock]

11 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Claimed here like a lot of things, but unproven.  I very seriously doubt it.  Unless independently proven, I think it is "fake news".

 

If Stuart and Craven can cram enough information into those low order 8 bits to do that plus pull up to 356/382k resolution from a 44/48k-24bit file, it will be one of the greatest technical feats of all time.

 

I'm not doubt MQA does this because the DRM at both ends and the encryption seems to be sufficient in their eyes. But I can say my 2016 Tax software does this. 

[Rt66indierock]

6 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

When I bought my first CD player in 1983, there were royalties included in the price of that player that its maker paid to Sony/Philips.  Each time I bought a CD to play in it, there were royalties included in the cost of that.  Also, for a very long time, there was no way for an average consumer to copy or "back up" his CD collection to other media, such as a PC.  

 

There were licensing and royalty agreements across the industry covering the use of CD technology.  As a consumer, I paid a price to use the technology of CD.  If I wanted to use the technology, I paid the price, including bundled in licensing fees.  But, was there DRM?  No.  How does this differ from MQA?  You seem to be saying that these agreements and fee payments alone are evidence of DRM.  But, the above example would indicate that is not true.  

 

The point is I think arguments about what is or is not DRM are not simple, as is the unfounded claim that I am "violating the law". They are complicated and legalistic and beyond anyone's expertise in this forum, including me.  So, the simple-minded claim  MQA  = DRM is not as clear cut as many here want to make it, in my view.

 

My agenda?  I have no personal plans for MQA at the current time.  I am just watching the technology to see if it develops into something I want.  In the mean time, I just hate to see a mob that does not have all the facts, is speculating and rushing to judgement clog the airwaves of this forum with stuff that may not be true.  My agenda is let's see what MQA can do when we have more information and it gets wider market exposure.  In other words, I support Chris's view, and I question factual inaccuracy when I think I see it.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said consumers don’t pay license fees in a prior post for MQA, I corrected you.

 

DRM is not as complicated as you want to make the discussion. I’ve personally been around the issue since 1982 and there are simple types of DRM like copy detection of software (you need a different serial number for each computer on a network) or not allowing you to alter a digital book. There are more complicated types that require the expertise of companies like Utimaco to implement like MQA. In any case Gordon Rankin disclosed that the software to decode MQA has a library of known MQA devices. So just as I’ve stated an MQA ADC encodes a file as MQA with information about it and the music. An MQA decoder accesses a library, pulls information and in his words “they match the interface to each device so it correct and aligns everything going to that particular DAC.” Hardware DACs that fully decode an MQA file must perform the same functions to fully decode the MQA file. That is managing digital rights.

 

Back to that agenda of yours, you fill your posts with inaccuracies. Take for example; “also, for a very long time, there was no way for an average consumer to copy or "back up" his CD collection to other media, such as a PC.” Of course there wasn’t any way to backup CDs onto a PC. A CD is 700 MB. The 528 MB barrier for hard drives on a PC wasn’t broken until 1994 so you couldn’t put a CD it. Did you not know this or was your comment just clogging this forum with statements intended to misrepresent well known facts?

 

This post calling MQA is Vaporware is not a mob. Mobs don’t have lists of information to be discussed this post does. The only time it even approached being a mob was on an unrelated topic that I can’t comment on. I posted fairly regularly on that topic and stopped a year and a half ago. NDAs will do that.

 

In my case MQA lost the benefit of the doubt at RMAF 2016 when I was told information similar to what Srajan Ebaen at 6moons just posted about MQA.

[Rt66indierock]

5 hours ago, Melvin said:

 

Sal .. do you honestly believe the audiophile community can stop this MQA juggernaut? I do not. All this gnashing of teeth over MQA seems much ado about nothing for audiophiles who are moving past music acquisition and into streaming. For those folks who still want to purchase premium-priced high-res music beyond what they already own, yes, it may be a concern. Maybe. Seems to me the big music labels couldn't care less about audiophile wants/needs and see their future in streaming. MQA allows for them to produce 1 file for distribution (streaming, downloading, and MQA CDs) for all types of music lovers from audiophiles to casual listeners. From my perspective it seems to be a good business decision for them and plenty of audiophiles like what they hear. Like it or not I think it's here to stay.

 

Melvin,

 

What MQA juggernaut?  There is no MQA music to buy in the United States. There is no evidence any significant or mainstream recording in MQA will happen in the next couple of years. None of the major streaming players (Spotify, Apple, Deezer) have shown any indication their subscribers want even CD quality streaming. And that is over 70% of the paid streaming market.

 

What you are seeing is a product trying to get a toehold in the audiophile market. After two and half years what have they accomplished? MQA has less than 3,000 albums on TIDAL a streaming service with 1% of the market. Licensing agreements with the major labels seem like a big deal but as I wrote last year if MQA was really something that would help them the majors would have crushed Bob Stuart like a bug.

 

MQA needs the labels and the mainstream distrusts labels. Audiophiles are arguing about the sound quality of MQA so why should the mainstream music buyer care about it. And finally the mainstream music buyers listen to music in ways that make any high resolution music a poor value.

[Rt66indierock]

4 hours ago, Confused said:

In fairness, I have a 24 bit 'remaster' of Led Zeppelin II that sounds terribly shrill versus a many year old CD version I have of the same.  I'd love to hear a MQA vs 24 bit version of the same master, but these things are difficult to verify.

 

One of my mentors in audio was fond of saying listen to the analog tape later in the day after you recorded it and it will sound different. All those electrons are moving around the moment you finish recording. Imagine the movement between 1969 and when they made the digital master.

[Rt66indierock]

56 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Should be another content related announcement Wednesday. 

 

Even I'm hoping for something to buy that is mainstream in the United States.  

[Rt66indierock]

Chris,

 

This is interesting news. On Bruce’s website the MQA file is priced the same as FLAC-HD and ALAC-HD $24.95. If you want a DSD however it will cost you $49.95. On Metallica’s website The MQA costs the same as the FLAC-HD and ALAC-HD files $17.95. These are two good places to get data points on the market for MQA among the mainstream music buyers.

 

You have wonder what deals have been made especially on “administration” of royalties due MQA.

 

And the Metallica site’s FAQ has some good information about geographical restrictions and limits to supply.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, mjb said:

I get the impression there's some big money pushing all this MQA stuff. We don't need it, but we're gonna get it. Hopefully consumers won't allow themselves to be duped.

 

In Bruce’s case he has five formats available for download. Metallica has six formats available. MQA is available if you want it is all they are saying. MQA is not catching on for any artists recording now. Mainstream music buyers are showing no interest in any format above CD quality. There is percentage of audiophiles interested but even if every audiophile embraced MQA that is too small a number to matter. DAC manufacturers are pretty evenly split between: we won’t do MQA, we’ll do it the markets forces us, we’ll do it if it looks like its catching on and we want to make DACs with MQA. A good percentage of audio journalists are pushing it for fear of losing insider status or trying to get insider status.  The professionals have known how to make good recordings for as long as I can remember 1966 (Pet Sounds) so they don’t need it to make stuff sound good.

 

Sony pushed SACD hard and it got them nowhere. I personally believe the people pushing MQA will prevent it gaining acceptance even in the audiophile market.

 

When I made the turn onto the toll road last year going to T.H.E Show in Irvine I said to myself “the clock is ticking and as of now I’m keeping score.” Now more people are keeping score.

 

I haven’t begun to ask hard questions yet about MQA. But I have been compiling them.

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Agreed.  One of MQA's huge problems is that much of its "advantage" relies on psychoacoustics and the science of audible perception, of which Bob Stuart is one of the acknowledged world class masters. In all the literature, papers, etc., I do not think MQA reliance on psychoacoustics is a secret.

 

 @Sal1950, you do know that our mutual friend AmirM attests to that and considers Stuart at the top of the psychoacoustics game.

 

But, traditionalist audiophiles have big problems with psychoacoustics, which they do not understand and which often defies traditional measures, hence much of the over the top,  "man the barricades", anti-MQA rhetoric we have been constantly barraged with. 

 

Personally, I think much of audio today using tradional measures and approaches has come so close to the asymptote of the ultimate performance achievable. It is hard to envision improving audio much more in that traditional way, unless other more sophisticated approaches, like psychoacoustics, come into consideration.  I mean, can we have even flatter frequency response over ever more KHz or lower distortion and noise in electronics, and, if we did, would it be audible to anyone?  However, psychoacoustics is newer and more controversial.  MQA seems therefore perhaps a lightning rod for that controversy just because it is taking that untraditional approach.

 

Let’s see Bob is an expert so we should all just follow his ideas? Ideas that take decisions about psychoacoustics out of the user’s hands and issues leading to greater to overall satisfaction cannot be implemented such as DSP. Sorry but I want to make my own decisions on psychoacoustics.

 

The over the top rhetoric is okay with me if MQA is being jammed down people’s throats. Audiophiles need to think for themselves like they did in the distant past. There is too much reliance on perceived experts today and if a few people get their feelings hurt on the MQA threads while audiophiles relearn to think for themselves I’m fine with it.

 

I disagree with final paragraph. I don’t think we are even close to achieving what is possible with conventional approaches. But then I like Americana and most high end equipment can’t play it.

[Rt66indierock]

The Vaporware Trails May update

 

Let’s start with some speculation or as Newt Becker would say an informed estimate. Jeff Toig was fired partly because MQA was not bringing in enough new subscribers to cover the costs of streaming MQA. TIDAL starts streaming MQA and the CEO is gone in less than three months. I’m hearing whispers and rumors that the million mark for paid TIDAL subscribers may be inflated. I don’t have the contacts in the hip hop and go go world in the Valley of the Sun I had in Washington, DC to readily confirm this but I’m working on it.

 

Adding MQA versions of concerts this month covered the culling of duplicates in the MQA list so I’m estimating there are still fewer than 2,800 albums and concerts converted to MQA.

 

There still isn’t any mainstream music to download in the United States.

 

I’m still looking for interest in recording using MQA without success but I keep looking.

 

On the music business side Spotify has signed an agreement with Universal to reduce royalty payments, Warner is expected to complete its agreement in June and Sony has yet to start similar negotiations. These agreements are far more important to streaming companies reducing their losses than any subscriber gains from new formats.  If you wondered why the MQA Sony licensing agreement didn’t receive any fanfare, Sony has history of dragging its feet. They have signed a license agreement to protect them but probably have no plans to convert any of their catalogs anytime soon.

 

The month of May for MQA can be summed up with press releases to keep audio journalists thinking there is progress but missing that all the new product partners hadn’t been certified as of the press release date. And there are some new licensing agreements without anything actually being done to convert enough music to MQA to matter.

 

Finally rest in peace Gregg Allman you will be missed.

[Rt66indierock]

On 5/27/2017 at 7:31 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

You are right, your sources aren't what they used to be. You're off by quite a bit. 

 

Sorry Chris, I like to have both accounting and music sources before post something but I posted when I did because Digital Music News reported the same subscriber number on May 26^th, less than a million.

 

In April 2016 TIDAL reported 850,000 paid subscribers to the labels.  Later in the year they reported 1.1 million paid subscribers to the labels. Former TIDAL employee Arthur Sund has alleged that 170,000 inactive accounts were turned on in October of 2016. That is a pretty good basis to say TIDAL has less than a million paid subscribers.

 

Other than press releases what supports any number higher than around a million paid subscribers?

[Rt66indierock]

On 5/27/2017 at 8:25 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

You should research when Sony actually signed the deal with MQA. You may change your story. 

 

Actually it strengthens my story but then I’ve actually negotiated with them. See posts about rights holders being family partnerships. Some negotiations were with Sony and they never moved quickly.

 

Besides what economic reason would cause Sony to get MQA music to the market in the next few months?

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Later in the thread I clarified that I was talking specifically about a band making a business success of its own recording label.  The vast majority don't, and that includes the Beatles and Dead.

 

More generally speaking, the Dead were forerunners of the current business model that uses recordings as advertising for the tours that make the money.

 

I’ll get my shot at the Grateful Dead archive later this year. I wanted to write a fun type accounting article and get some information to spice up my tax presentations (they are a little dry). I’m getting some pressure to write a scholarly article so various professors can go to their Deans and say see CPA profession considers this important so you should too. One of the questions I hope to answer is did the Dead get out of the record business because it was unsuccessful or did they get out because it was messing up the chemistry of the band?

[Rt66indierock]

6 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

I might be able to help.  I saw the Dead once in the early nineties in Chicago at Soldiers.  There defiantly was some "chemistry" involved.  Oh wait, that does not help...  

 

They didn't want to be Blind Faith or the Eagles. Can't blame them for that.

[Rt66indierock]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I highly recommend against using Digital Music News as a source for anything other than half true salacious headlines. 

 

Digital Music News published the same information I have access to. I don't like to be the first write things.

[Rt66indierock]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I disagree. You said Sony dragged its feet. That's far from true. 

 

Then were is the music?

[Rt66indierock]

7 hours ago, mav52 said:

 

"" Jeff Toig was fired partly because MQA was not bringing in enough new subscribers to cover the costs of streaming MQA."

 

Can you actually prove this was the cause. Provide us a link from Tidal noting he was fired because of MQA.  

 

 

 

Did you read the first sentence? In any case a CEO is generally fired for the following reasons: Can’t get along with ownership, isn’t meeting marketing goals, isn’t meeting revenue goals or isn’t containing costs.

 

So as I said let’s start with Jay Z is difficult to work with. Not hard to believe friction didn’t exist between the two. In February Tony Gervino and Elliot Wilson were hired to help fix the subscriber numbers so it isn’t a stretch to believe Jay Z felt he was falling behind the market leaders. There is only one good reason to stream MQA and that is to bring in more paying customers. It is not unreasonable to think there are costs to add MQA streaming.

 

If you’re with me so far then you have to ask why did Jeff leave in March and why was it kept quiet until now? If you remember budgeting then TIDAL would budget revenue for MQA. My speculation is amount MQA streaming was below the budgeted number. Probably because the number of available albums is small and MQA wasn’t a draw get people to either upgrade to a $20 a month plan or subscribe for $20 initially. Now if the costs exceed budget for MQA streaming then you may have to use other resources to pay these costs or not pay the bills. And software like the TIDAL app could go over budget pretty easily.

 

Pretty easy to speculate MQA was part of the reason Jeff is no longer with TIDAL. Unless there are reasons other than marketing, revenue and costs for his departure.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Ask your "sources."

 

Let’s cut to the chase about TIDAL. What do think is going right with marketing and finance in the company?

[Rt66indierock]

On 5/29/2017 at 1:37 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Again, get a source inside the company to hear how they think about the business. Given your thoughts so far, I believe it would blow your mind. 

 

I almost always enjoy your responses Chris. First if I had a source inside TIDAL the information I received would be confidential and I be violating professional standards by disclosing it. Second to hear how you think TIDAL employees feel about their company would no doubt be fascinating but can they execute? They have not been able to execute their business plans since day one but now they can? The market forces in streaming are not in favor of any company with a smaller market share than Deezer or companies with deep pockets and revenue from other sources to cover the losses.

 

I find it odd that you have no friends at TIDAL and receive no advertising revenue from them anymore but you are certain my view of the company is wrong. Looking at 2017 so far you can see the following.  It gets down to do you believe Midia Research numbers about subscribers or press releases? Next did Sprint have a good reason to make an investment in TIDAL or is it just another bad decision by a company that has history of making bad ones? As for the reported price for a third of TIDAL the terms were not disclosed. Terms assume a greater importance when Norway’s Tax Office registers a claim for taxes of approximately $1.7 million against Tidal Music SA four months after Sprint’s investment.  Add the change in CEO and what do you have? I see a company with instability in management, unable to pay its obligations in a timely manner, in market where it is currently impossible to make a profit and losing market share to the industry leaders. How is me having a source inside TIDAL going to change any of this? But maybe asking a few questions  would not be a bad idea. I know enough Norwegians somebody must know one of the employees  at Tidal Music SA. They can ask them how they feel about their employer not paying payroll taxes.

 

The part of your responses I didn’t enjoy was your belief that a business plan would blow my mind. Why? I see business plans all time. I saw a really good one this spring and in July we do our annual update to a very successful business plan for a group.