MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

53 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

this is why I wanted Lee S off this site. 

I must inform people that you had zero to do with Lee being banned from here. It was his own actions that got him banned. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

HDtracks.com is suing 7digital for failure to deliver services.  Remember the HDtracks press about an MQA streaming service in early June of 2017?  HDtracks.com filed this lawsuit in June of 2018.  The backstory of this is probably fascinating but this is why I wanted Lee S off this site. HDtracks Streaming was never coming  powered by 7digital and Lee has enough contacts with the Chesky's to know this.

 

Sources are 7digital's 2018 financial statements released today and PaceMonitor.

1) So that implies and confirms Scroggins was lying.

 

2) Aren't the details of all civil suits available as public record? Is it possible to dig up the particulars?

[The Computer Audiophile]

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/24906222/HDtrackscom,_LLC_v_7digital_Group_PLC

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

10 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

1) So that implies and confirms Scroggins was lying.

 

2) Aren't the details of all civil suits available as public record? Is it possible to dig up the particulars?

 

1) I would prefer to think Lee is less informed than he claims to be.

 

2) New York Southern District Court Case #1:18-cv05823

[Rt66indierock]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/24906222/HDtrackscom,_LLC_v_7digital_Group_PLC

 

 

 

That's where I got the information. I sat on the information until the case showed up in the 2018 7digital financial statements today.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

19 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/24906222/HDtrackscom,_LLC_v_7digital_Group_PLC

 

 

Wow. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Here is the gist: 

 

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, HDtracks.com, LLC (“HDT” or “Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned counsel, and for its Complaint against 7digital Group PLC (“7d” or “Defendant”) alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a civil action to recover damages, including consequential damages and punitive damages, for fraudulent inducement to enter into a contract, breach of express contract or in the alternative an implied-in-fact contract, a declaratory judgment, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff brings this action based upon Defendant’s failure to deliver a music streaming service to Plaintiff in violation of Defendant’s obligations and misrepresentations of material facts inducing Plaintiff to enter into the contract and perform.
2. 7d made assurances and representations to HDT in an attempt to convince Plaintiff to engage 7d to build, deliver, and support a high-resolution music streaming service. 7d proclaimed to have invested millions of dollars to develop a platform to build HDT’s high-
 1
Case 1:18-cv-05823-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 2 of 28
resolution music streaming service, and to have the manpower and capability to build this platform for HDT. After two years of negotiations and discussions, the parties reduced their agreement to a Term Sheet dated June 30, 2016. Even though termed “non-binding,” the Term Sheet became a binding and enforceable contract (“Contract”) upon the parties based upon: (1) the lengthy negotiations which occurred over two years to finalize the terms in which the parties would operate; (2) the Contract containing detailed terms outlining the scope of the work to be performed and the obligations of the parties; (3) the parties’ operating as set forth in the Contract, including 7d demanding payment to perform, and HDT performing in the form of two installment payments totaling $200,000 to 7d; (4) 7d’s acceptance of the $200,000 payments; and (5) 7d’s assurance that it was in fact performing to build and deliver a high-resolution music streaming service for HDT.
3. Over a period of nearly two years after both parties signed the Contract, 7d worked with HDT under the terms the parties agreed to in the Contract. The parties contemplated and agreed that Defendant would develop, build, deliver, and support the streaming service in an adequate and timely manner sufficient to allow HDT to be the first high-resolution and high- quality music streaming service to market in the United States and other countries. Despite the ongoing business relationship between HDT and 7d, 7d ultimately failed to deliver the high- resolution music streaming service as promised, breaching the Contract, and its promises.
4. At all times during the ongoing business relationship between HDT and 7d, the ultimate responsibilities under their Contract were the same. Namely, in exchange for 7d providing HDT with a fully functional high-resolution music streaming service, HDT would pay 7d total consideration in the amount of $250,000 in installments ($50,000 of which was only due upon launch of the service discussed below). The facts in this case demonstrate that there was a
2

Case 1:18-cv-05823-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 3 of 28
meeting of the minds between the parties sufficient to constitute an enforceable agreement, whether in the form of an express Contract, or a performance based implied-in-fact contract.
5. Plaintiff has suffered particular harm in the form of substantial future lost profits, in addition to the unknown effects directly flowing from Defendant’s breach. These substantial future profits were contemplated by the parties prior to and at the time of contracting. As a result, Plaintiff requests a declaration that Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiff whether express Contract or implied, that future profits were contemplated by the parties when entering into a contract, and that Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial harm as a result of the loss of its future profits. Plaintiff’s business reputation has also been damaged which resulted in lost business opportunities and partnerships. Plaintiff requests an award of all damages flowing from the breach, including but not limited to consequential damages in the form of future lost profits, lost opportunities, and damage to business reputation.
6. As set forth fully below, Defendant fraudulently induced Plaintiff to enter into a contract and perform thereunder based upon false representations concerning the resources and commitment that it had and would deploy to complete the project on time. Defendant made these misrepresentations to induce Plaintiff to enter into the Contract and to perform, and to use HDT’s success to build its own growth in the market. Plaintiff reasonably relied on these misrepresentations, which caused injury to the Plaintiff. Based upon this fraudulent inducement by Defendant, Plaintiff requests an award of all out-of-pocket costs and punitive damages.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just read the whole thing. Really interesting. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Here is the gist: 

 

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, HDtracks.com, LLC (“HDT” or “Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned counsel, and for its Complaint against 7digital Group PLC (“7d” or “Defendant”) alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a civil action to recover damages, including consequential damages and punitive damages, for fraudulent inducement to enter into a contract, breach of express contract or in the alternative an implied-in-fact contract, a declaratory judgment, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff brings this action based upon Defendant’s failure to deliver a music streaming service to Plaintiff in violation of Defendant’s obligations and misrepresentations of material facts inducing Plaintiff to enter into the contract and perform.
2. 7d made assurances and representations to HDT in an attempt to convince Plaintiff to engage 7d to build, deliver, and support a high-resolution music streaming service. 7d proclaimed to have invested millions of dollars to develop a platform to build HDT’s high-
 1
Case 1:18-cv-05823-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 2 of 28
resolution music streaming service, and to have the manpower and capability to build this platform for HDT. After two years of negotiations and discussions, the parties reduced their agreement to a Term Sheet dated June 30, 2016. Even though termed “non-binding,” the Term Sheet became a binding and enforceable contract (“Contract”) upon the parties based upon: (1) the lengthy negotiations which occurred over two years to finalize the terms in which the parties would operate; (2) the Contract containing detailed terms outlining the scope of the work to be performed and the obligations of the parties; (3) the parties’ operating as set forth in the Contract, including 7d demanding payment to perform, and HDT performing in the form of two installment payments totaling $200,000 to 7d; (4) 7d’s acceptance of the $200,000 payments; and (5) 7d’s assurance that it was in fact performing to build and deliver a high-resolution music streaming service for HDT.
3. Over a period of nearly two years after both parties signed the Contract, 7d worked with HDT under the terms the parties agreed to in the Contract. The parties contemplated and agreed that Defendant would develop, build, deliver, and support the streaming service in an adequate and timely manner sufficient to allow HDT to be the first high-resolution and high- quality music streaming service to market in the United States and other countries. Despite the ongoing business relationship between HDT and 7d, 7d ultimately failed to deliver the high- resolution music streaming service as promised, breaching the Contract, and its promises.
4. At all times during the ongoing business relationship between HDT and 7d, the ultimate responsibilities under their Contract were the same. Namely, in exchange for 7d providing HDT with a fully functional high-resolution music streaming service, HDT would pay 7d total consideration in the amount of $250,000 in installments ($50,000 of which was only due upon launch of the service discussed below). The facts in this case demonstrate that there was a
2

Case 1:18-cv-05823-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 3 of 28
meeting of the minds between the parties sufficient to constitute an enforceable agreement, whether in the form of an express Contract, or a performance based implied-in-fact contract.
5. Plaintiff has suffered particular harm in the form of substantial future lost profits, in addition to the unknown effects directly flowing from Defendant’s breach. These substantial future profits were contemplated by the parties prior to and at the time of contracting. As a result, Plaintiff requests a declaration that Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiff whether express Contract or implied, that future profits were contemplated by the parties when entering into a contract, and that Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial harm as a result of the loss of its future profits. Plaintiff’s business reputation has also been damaged which resulted in lost business opportunities and partnerships. Plaintiff requests an award of all damages flowing from the breach, including but not limited to consequential damages in the form of future lost profits, lost opportunities, and damage to business reputation.
6. As set forth fully below, Defendant fraudulently induced Plaintiff to enter into a contract and perform thereunder based upon false representations concerning the resources and commitment that it had and would deploy to complete the project on time. Defendant made these misrepresentations to induce Plaintiff to enter into the Contract and to perform, and to use HDT’s success to build its own growth in the market. Plaintiff reasonably relied on these misrepresentations, which caused injury to the Plaintiff. Based upon this fraudulent inducement by Defendant, Plaintiff requests an award of all out-of-pocket costs and punitive damages.

Triple Wow.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Is it possible to see what 7d's motion to dismiss and/or response was?

[The Computer Audiophile]

You can get all the docs available here for a cost. 

 

https://pcl.uscourts.gov/

[Rt66indierock]

22 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Is it possible to see what 7d's motion to dismiss and/or response was?

 

I'm not going to worry about motions while 7digital's ability to be operating in August is in doubt.

[FredericV]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Despite the ongoing business relationship between HDT and 7d, 7d ultimately failed to deliver the high- resolution music streaming service as promised, breaching the Contract, and its promises.

 

So in a nutshell, the second MQA streaming service the influencers have been bragging about failed, so MQA is still dependent on one service provider to stream it's lossy files, which is Tidal.



 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

35 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I'm not going to worry about motions while 7digital's ability to be operating in August is in doubt.

So in essence HDT's lawsuit may be moot if 7d goes belly up. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Just now, FredericV said:

 

So in a nutshell, the second MQA streaming service the influencers have been bragging about failed, so MQA is still dependent on one service provider to stream it's lossy files, which is Tidal.



 

We can also speculate that Deezer is in the same boat as HDT...they announced an MQA partnership which never moved forward.

[Rt66indierock]

18 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

So in essence HDT's lawsuit may be moot if 7d goes belly up. 

 

Correct.

[The Computer Audiophile]

35 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

We can also speculate that Deezer is in the same boat as HDT...they announced an MQA partnership which never moved forward.

Do you know if 7Digital is a content provider to Deezer?

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

20 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Do you know if 7Digital is a content provider to Deezer?

No, speculation on my part. But I do know that a former top director at Deezer took a seat on 7d's board at one point.

[crenca]

2 hours ago, FredericV said:

 

So in a nutshell, the second MQA streaming service the influencers have been bragging about failed, so MQA is still dependent on one service provider to stream it's lossy files, which is Tidal.
 

 

 

Someone or "we" should do a writeup on these secondary failures (to choose a phrase) that MQA and its supporters talked about and continue to do so.  As @The Computer Audiophiledocumented (I have as well deep in this thread) there are increasing numbers of MQA only albums/tracks on Tidal - yet we were repeatedly assured, in several ways, this would never happen.  

[mansr]

On 6/28/2019 at 7:31 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Looks like the Tidal app streams the CD quality pure PCM when HiFi is selected, but only via the Tidal app. I captured some of one track if anyone wants to examine..

HiFi-passthrough.flac 3.7 MB · 2 downloads

Master-Decoded-by-Tidal-app.flac 3.97 MB · 1 download

Master-passthrough.flac 3.75 MB · 3 downloads

How did you capture those? The Master-passthrough file is 44.1 kHz and only 16-bit while MQA is (usually) 24-bit. Even with the low 8 bits chopped off, it would still be identifiable as MQA, but this file is not. Master-Decoded-by-Tidal-app 48 kHz and still 16-bit. That's not right. A decoded file, ready for "rendering," is always 24-bit and double the source rate, i.e. 88.2/96 kHz. Your capture method seems to be mangling the data.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

How did you capture those? The Master-passthrough file is 44.1 kHz and only 16-bit while MQA is (usually) 24-bit. Even with the low 8 bits chopped off, it would still be identifiable as MQA, but this file is not. Master-Decoded-by-Tidal-app 48 kHz and still 16-bit. That's not right. A decoded file, ready for "rendering," is always 24-bit and double the source rate, i.e. 88.2/96 kHz. Your capture method seems to be mangling the data.

Using  Audio Hijack Pro. I’ll recapture. 

 

https://rogueamoeba.com/audiohijackpro/

[The Computer Audiophile]

Looks like Audio Hijack Pro is causing tracks not to play correctly on an MQA DAC either. Back to the drawing board.

[psjug]

15 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

We can also speculate that Deezer is in the same boat as HDT...they announced an MQA partnership which never moved forward.

Just a guess, but maybe Deezer just signed on so they could be ready in case MQA proved popular.  And since it hasn't caught on, Deezer is not bothering with MQA.

[lucretius]

On 6/29/2019 at 7:40 PM, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Finally Neil Young is given a shout out by a Qobuz managing director as being at the forefront of high rez.

 

So we can blame all this hi rez nonsense on old Neil?

[lucretius]

On 6/28/2019 at 7:24 PM, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

MLP was  just another failed Meridian idea destined for the scrap heap since day one. Like all other Meridian technologies. Stuart was utterly bereft of the ability to read the market. He was an anti visionary.  

 

Despite MLP, I would have preferred that DVD-Audio succeed over SACD.