TAS, MQA and the tone of discussion

[vmartell22]

I received Feb 2018's copy of the absolute sound -  Turning to the reader's letters section,  I noticed, as expected some comments re: MQA and saw  the published letters.

 

Both, in general, are negative towards MQA. However they are extremely curious.  First one, I like the most, raises a point which I missed completely: MQA in addition to everything wrong with it we have discussed,  also carries one more wrong: It is part of the strategy the labels would love to move to - a future with nothing but streaming. Think about it! It is positively dystopian! They want to condemn us to a future where we pay for life for access to the product!  No more ownership of a release! They want to do away with that pesky first sale principle!  Thanks to that writer for pointing it out - he called out TAS for helping them. HOWEVER - the writer added a somewhat inconsistent comment re: buying files. Guess what they chose to reply to - obviously to the strange comment at the end.  No comment on the very  smart point raised.

 

Second letter  came from a gentleman self-deprecatingly referring himself as old and extolling the romance of vinyl  - I don't disagree , I am as much of a vinyl enthusiast as I am a digital enthusiast. BUT the fact that this is what they chose to publish is telling. 

 

I would bet a significant amount of money that they have received letters from experts like the ones in this group. People that solidly demolish the MQA abomination and they are prepared not only to fight it in principle but also are knowledgeable enough to fight at at the technical minutia level. I know that you fine ladies and/or gentlemen have written to TAS, Sterophile, etc. I know that they don't have a response to reason and to resolute pro-consumer positions. (and I salute you,  pro-consumer warriors for that)

 

But is obvious that TAS is trying to shape the discussion. One of their arguments is that THIS IS PROGRESS - reject MQA and you are rejecting the future. Bullcrap.

 

 I made the point on a comment on a history at "The Audiophile Blog" - and the reply did not address the point.  TAS is not addressing it. We know what Sterophile is doing.  

I do think they are naive thinking that they can shape the conversation on their letters section.  Either they forget the power of the internet or they dismiss us as crazy cranks - hope they remember that when MQA fails - once the companies stop receiving those MQA licenses -  advertising will suffer.

 

The want to make MQA  the future - but a "1984" future.  Let's reject that. I will shout because it needs to be shouted - REJECTING MQA IS NOT REJECTING THE FUTURE - IS THE LOGICAL STANCE OF ANYONE ON THE CONSUMER'S SIDE.

 

thnx!

 

v

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NOMBEDES]

I can imagine a “Black Mirror” future where all is digital, no physical media allowed, a “Fahrenheit 451” future where old vinyl and CDs are burned by the Digital Rights Management Police. A future where you pay for each byte consumed, a COMCAST future where you have to buy a bundle of music to get the music you want.  Oh brave new world.  MQA will be the least of our problems.

[semente]

14 hours ago, vmartell22 said:

I received Feb 2018's copy of the absolute sound -  Turning to the reader's letters section,  I noticed, as expected some comments re: MQA and saw  the published letters.

 

Both, in general, are negative towards MQA. However they are extremely curious.  First one, I like the most, raises a point which I missed completely: MQA in addition to everything wrong with it we have discussed,  also carries one more wrong: It is part of the strategy the labels would love to move to - a future with nothing but streaming. Think about it! It is positively dystopian! They want to condemn us to a future where we pay for life for access to the product!  No more ownership of a release! They want to do away with that pesky first sale principle!  Thanks to that writer for pointing it out - he called out TAS for helping them. HOWEVER - the writer added a somewhat inconsistent comment re: buying files. Guess what they chose to reply to - obviously to the strange comment at the end.  No comment on the very  smart point raised.

 

Adobe no longer sells perpetual licenses to their software. It's subscription only.

I say, get'em while you can!

[Sonicularity]

46 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Adobe no longer sells perpetual licenses to their software. It's subscription only.

I say, get'em while you can!

 

I can understand a subscription to Adobe or Microsoft Office, as there would be incentive for the developer to improve the software, which can be quite complicated and often has to run on a multitude of different platforms.  Music is more like a file that opens with Adobe, not Adobe itself.  Having a subscription over ownership of a file does not appear to have any benefit to the consumer.

 

Perhaps there can be a compromise for music in a similar way that video has UltraViolet?  

[realhifi]

Maybe all it will be is digital streaming and the opportunity to purchase lps. 

[Dr Tone]

17 minutes ago, realhifi said:

Maybe all it will be is digital streaming and the opportunity to purchase lps. 

 

LPs cut from MQA, that won’t cause an uproar.

[realhifi]

10 hours ago, Dr Tone said:

 

LPs cut from MQA, that won’t cause an uproar.

 

That would taken care of the DRM issues folks are complaining about with MQA wouldn’t it?

[Sonicularity]

3 hours ago, realhifi said:

 

That would taken care of the DRM issues folks are complaining about with MQA wouldn’t it?

 

The DRM issue with MQA is more about the concern that an arbitrary quality level is at the mercy of whatever MQA wants to impose, which is a major concern if this becomes the only format available to purchase.  The format has already been shown to be technically inferior to formats that already currently exist for purchase.

 

It is one thing to make light of the issue in the current environment where consumers still have a bountiful number of choices available, but things could be very different if MQA takes root and become the only official format distributed by all the major labels in the industry.

 

If all the streaming services have a more expensive tier for MQA, all the DACs have to include an MQA license to get the highest quality, and all the files have MQA integrated within them, nothing would prevent MQA from adjusting the quality level for non-licensed playback to the point where more people would be willing to pay more to unlock the potential.   When the consumer's choices are more limited, it will be too late. 

 

This is an industry with a deplorable track record on the consumer front.  If given the opportunity, they will create a climate where piracy becomes a more viable option to many and send hordes of lawyers to lobby for draconian rules to be enforced, all while taking advantage of and neglecting the artists that mostly have no other options.  This would not be the first time this behavior has been witnessed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[crenca]

5 hours ago, realhifi said:

 

That would taken care of the DRM issues folks are complaining about with MQA wouldn’t it?

 

To add  to Sonicularity's excellent response, and to respond more directly to you snarkiness, I and many others don't rub two sticks together to make fire, and thus your solution is a non-solution...but then, you already knew that.

[Miska]

On 1/14/2018 at 9:24 AM, vmartell22 said:

But is obvious that TAS is trying to shape the discussion. One of their arguments is that THIS IS PROGRESS - reject MQA and you are rejecting the future. Bullcrap.

 

I have to wonder also why there is total radio silence on all the very similar alternative technologies. Similar in way that they offer "baseline low-bandwidth compatibility layer" and higher resolution add-on.

 

Like:

 - WavPack Hybrid

 - OptimFROG DualStream

 - MPEG-4 SLS

 - DTS-HD Master Audio

 

If I'd have to guess what wagon Apple would jump on, it would be MPEG-4 SLS. They can easily add that as an extra layer on top of what they already do with iTunes store / Apple Music where they use AAC already. Although they also have ALAC.

 

Not that any of this would be really needed for streaming or anything else. That works all fine through standard FLAC like Tidal has been doing for HiFi since the beginning. But with these, streaming providers could provide two quality levels from the same set of files, at two different bandwidth usages. Unlike with MQA.

 

[Ralf11]

who wants to script a SciFi movie series where an evil corporation achieves world domination by threatening to push the big red button that instantly downgrades all music on-planet into mp3?

 

only the members of the crew of the BattleStar GaWhutica survive the ensuing holocaust because the captain is old school and refused to network any music onto the ship, which relies on old-school vinyl LPs

[vmartell22]

7 hours ago, Sonicularity said:

 

The DRM issue with MQA is more about the concern that an arbitrary quality level is at the mercy of whatever MQA wants to impose, which is a major concern if this becomes the only format available to purchase.  The format has already been shown to be technically inferior to formats that already currently exist for purchase.

 

It is one thing to make light of the issue in the current environment where consumers still have a bountiful number of choices available, but things could be very different if MQA takes root and become the only official format distributed by all the major labels in the industry.

 

If all the streaming services have a more expensive tier for MQA, all the DACs have to include an MQA license to get the highest quality, and all the files have MQA integrated within them, nothing would prevent MQA from adjusting the quality level for non-licensed playback to the point where more people would be willing to pay more to unlock the potential.   When the consumer's choices are more limited, it will be too late. 

 

This is an industry with a deplorable track record on the consumer front.  If given the opportunity, they will create a climate where piracy becomes a more viable option to many and send hordes of lawyers to lobby for draconian rules to be enforced, all while taking advantage of and neglecting the artists that mostly have no other options.  This would not be the first time this behavior has been witnessed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed - not sure if the funny replies come from MQA supporters - but one thing is clear  - I do not put it above the industry to endeavor for the an end game that is the  most damaging for the consumer - and they will work towards that. MQA is the latest tool and attempt... 

 

Right now  the point maybe be considered alarmist, since, as Sonicularity pointed out, we still have choice.  - but they have stated their goal is MQA everywhere - there is not guarantee we will still have those choices in 10 years - specially if MQA is, well,  everywhere...

 

I am currently listening to a CD I bought used 10 years ago. I am pretty sure those industry jerks hate that. I hope I don't have to say I told you so when a subscription becomes the only way to listen to music.

 

v