Stereophile Series on MQA Technology

[Ron Scubadiver]

With digital downloads there is no inventory.

[Ron Scubadiver]

7 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

The files on the server are the inventory.

Do you think there is no cost involved in maintaining and distributing a  library of tens of thousands (or even millions) of files for download (including duplicate/redundant servers) and efficiently serving them to customers (which includes server and bandwidth costs)? Or for the record labels in storing and maintaining them? 

 

There are albums that appear in the high -res download sites in 6-8 versions in various types of hi-res. Some of them are quite large in size. One of the attractions of MQA for the industry is that if it becomes the standard, your inventory would be one file instead of those multiple files you store and sell today 

It isn't inventory because it is intangible personal property.  Inventory is required to be tangible.  The costs of distributing digital downloads are miniscule.  Even now, the same file is offered in multiple formats.  If you are a fan of MQA please accept my condolences.  You are definitely not one of my fans.

 

I do view the hi-fi industry with skepticism.  Is that bad? 

[Ron Scubadiver]

Allowing only part of the "unfolding" to take place in software is a gimmick to increase royalties by roping hardware manufacturers into the scheme.  I bet it could all be done in software if allowed.  Eventually, someone is going to hack this.

[Ron Scubadiver]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

Your first few points are all incorrect, especially about costs.

Offering multiple formats is clearly a cost. If you can use MQA and then only offer one      

File instead, it saves money. That’s one of the reasons the labels like it. 

 

I’m not sure how any of this translates to me being a fan of MQA -seems like you are making all sorts of assumptions based on your own preconceptions, but not based on any facts. 

 

In spite of that, I probably agree that I won’t be a fan of yours.

 

Nothing bad about skepticism, as long as it doesn’t develop into weird conspiracy theories and the like. 

I actually have professional expertise in just what the definition of inventory is, but I am not going to waste any more time on you.  Believe what you want.  Do you have any facts?

[Ron Scubadiver]

12 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

But is an MQA  download any more "intangible personal property" than other music downloads (ITunes for  example)   Your point may be well made, but its not a MQA-specific point and is thus misleading when phrased as such.

 

It's not one bit misleading.  MQA promoters are pitching their system as providing significant business efficiencies unavailable with other types of music downloads, but that is clearly an exaggeration.   They are the ones who are engaging in misleading conduct.  MQA isn't any different from iTunes or HD Tracks except the objective is to extract licensing fees from software and hardware vendors and increase download sales by pressuring people to duplicate their existing libraries.

[Ron Scubadiver]

Just now, firedog said:

You are probably referring to some accounting type definition of inventory, which is irrelevant to the discussion. Just as most of accounting tends to have little relation to reality. 

LOL.

[Ron Scubadiver]

I am starting to think that unfortunately MQA is here to stay.  It allows streaming delivery of higher quality than would ordinarily be available from a 24/48 stream, and streaming is now the main way music is delivered.  Whether it replaces non MQA high res downloads is yet to be seen.  I hope that doesn't happen.

[Ron Scubadiver]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

True, the labels have an interest to foil DRM on an unsuspecting consumer, but even they have to see value and I don't think MQA offers it.  They can just as easily DRM their streams without MQA.  

 

In any rational market, MQA dies rather quickly. Not that irrational forces could prevail but I suspect (this is all crystal ball stuff) MQA time to stick against the audio wall has come and gone...

 

I hope you are right.  Replacing the 24/96 and 24/192 true high res downloads we have now with 24/48 MQA would be a disaster for the audiophile community.

[Ron Scubadiver]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

No, it doesn't.

So, are you saying categorically MQA fully unfolded does not sound better than a straight 24/48 stream?  Perhaps you could elaborate, because this is no better than anyone else's naked opinion that MQA does sound better.

 

I should have worded my post a little differently because it comes off as if I am making a claim, but it is too late to change it.  Taken in context with everything else I have said about MQA a careful reader would realize I meant that MQA allowed it's proponents to claim their product sounded better than a straight 24/48 stream.