MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[Lee Scoggins]

10 hours ago, wklie said:

 

Lumin supports MQA for a very specific reason: Tidal.  We try our best to support whatever format designated by streaming services.  Qobuz Hi-Res uses FLAC, that is good, there's very little extra work for us.  Hypothetically, if Tidal adopted a proprietary and new version of WMA Hi-Res (instead of MQA) and offered those Hi-Res music at no extra cost to existing lossless subscribers,  then we would have to support that as well.  We support MQA not because of certain features of MQA - we support MQA because it is designated by Tidal.  (Back then I did not expect there would be MQA CD, but now that MQA CD is a reality, this would have been a factor to drive us to support MQA as well.)

 

We did not fear of becoming irrelevant.  We did fear our customers could not play the music they wanted to play at the best possible quality using our products, regardless of whether it is Tidal Master or MQA CD.  Unlike many network DAC, Lumin does not have any digital input whatsoever.  We could not even tell Tidal customers to use Tidal desktop app for MQA Core decoding, because without digital input our products cannot be used with Tidal desktop app.  Back then no third party add-on solution existed for our products to decode Tidal Master, so we had to implement it by ourselves.

 

There are members here who do not believe there are customers who ask for MQA.  Check out the old threads in Roon forum and you'll see there were many, before Roon added MQA support in version 1.5.  I explained there people wanted that because at that time Tidal is the only streaming service Roon integrated with, and Tidal Master is free to existing lossless subscribers.  Free music is important for many people, although @crenca disagreed and I respect that.  Some may question how long can Tidal offer Tidal Master at no extra cost, or even how sustainable their business is, or it may become less important if it is integrated to Roon as rumored and then everybody switches to Qobuz Sublime+ (EUR299.99 annual), but those possibilities are in the future.  At this point in time, there are people who use Tidal.

 

Indeed, this reply supports my view that building the ecosystem is the top priority for the MQA team.  If hardware makers believe they need to offer MQA playback/compatibility then that list of participants will grow.  In business strategy there is a concept of a "virtuous cycle".  It might look something like this for MQA (it's often not linear but you get the idea):

 

1.  Consumers want more hirez or better quality music in 16/44, etc.

2.  Labels test MQA approach, like it, and start mastering back catalog.

3.  Better quality music now available on Tidal through Masters.

4.  Consumers pay a little extra for Masters.

5.  Hardware manufacturers see interest in Tidal Masters, decide to offer MQA playback on next series of DACs.

6.  Labels notice and step up mastering effort to bring more content to Tidal.

7.  Apple notices and considers offering better quality/hirez option.

8.  Wider swath of consumers now has option to buy better quality/hirez music.

9.  Labels make more financial commitment on mastering side; more hardware manufacturers sign on.

10.  Music "standard" now established.  More streaming services sign on.

 

The hardest part may be getting an Apple or Amazon or Google or Spotify to sign on.  But MQA is a small startup really and the license fees from one service would probably establish profitability for them.  License revenue is also important.

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

I asked about the hardware license fees and they are generally very low and depend on volume of product.

 

One must sign an NDA to obtain the real license fees.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Indeed, this reply supports my view that building the ecosystem is the top priority for the MQA team.  If hardware makers believe they need to offer MQA playback/compatibility then that list of participants will grow.  In business strategy there is a concept of a "virtuous cycle".  It might look something like this for MQA (it's often not linear but you get the idea):

 

1.  Consumers want more hirez or better quality music in 16/44, etc.

2.  Labels test MQA approach, like it, and start mastering back catalog.

3.  Better quality music now available on Tidal through Masters.

4.  Consumers pay a little extra for Masters.

5.  Hardware manufacturers see interest in Tidal Masters, decide to offer MQA playback on next series of DACs.

6.  Labels notice and step up mastering effort to bring more content to Tidal.

7.  Apple notices and considers offering better quality/hirez option.

8.  Wider swath of consumers now has option to buy better quality/hirez music.

9.  Labels make more financial commitment on mastering side; more hardware manufacturers sign on.

10.  Music "standard" now established.  More streaming services sign on.

 

The hardest part may be getting an Apple or Amazon or Google or Spotify to sign on.  But MQA is a small startup really and the license fees from one service would probably establish profitability for them.  License revenue is also important.

 

I think your #1 is a bit far off of reality. Sure us audiophiles always want something better, but given Tidal's abysmal numbers I don't think many consumers want "more hirez or better quality music in 16/44." 

[Thuaveta]

6 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

The hardest part may be getting an Apple or Amazon or Google or Spotify to sign on.

 

Astute, technologically competent companies aren't interested ? You don't say...

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Thuaveta said:

 

Astute, technologically competent companies aren't interested ? You don't say...

Perhaps they also consider consumer demand  :~)

[MikeyFresh]

43 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

It might look something like this for MQA (it's often not linear but you get the idea):

 

1.  Consumers have both hi-rez and music in 16/44, etc. via Qobuz streaming, downloads, and physical media.

2.  Labels test MQA approach, like it, and envisage stealth DRM Trojan Horse scheme.

3.  Worse quality (adulterated) music now available on Tidal through Masters.

4.  Consumers won't pay a little extra for Masters.

5.  Hardware manufacturers see little interest in Tidal Masters, decide to cease MQA support on new DACs.

6.  Labels notice and walk away from MQA when the prospects for fast easy money appear bleak.

7.  Apple barely notices at all and never considers offering MQA.

8.  Tiny swath of audiophiles now abandoned with yet another dead format.

9.  Labels go back to the drawing board searching in vain for the next big profit maker.

10. Music "standard" already established, most consumers just fine with lossy streaming as a convenience.

11. Tidal never turns a profit and is liquidated.

12. Stereophile/TAS industry influence further diminished (Lee never had any to begin with).

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

P.S. I asked about the hardware license fees and they are generally very low and depend on volume of product.

 

A completely meaningless statement that, without specifics, offers absolutely no information about what the fees actually are.

[Rt66indierock]

43 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

 

The hardest part may be getting an Apple or Amazon or Google or Spotify to sign on.  But MQA is a small startup really and the license fees from one service would probably establish profitability for them.  License revenue is also important.

 

The license fees from one service probably wouldn't establish profitability for MQA Ltd their revenue model is based on hardware licensing. But I have a better source than you do Mike Jbara CEO of MQA Ltd.

[gdpr]

10 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

The license fees from one service probably wouldn't establish profitability for MQA Ltd their revenue model is based on hardware licensing. But I have a better source than you do Mike Jbara CEO of MQA Ltd.

Any guess how much such a license would cost a DAC manufacturer?

I even do not understand how such a business model would work for DAC manufacturers.

For a a high end manufacturer such as DCS, Mark Levinson, McIntosh, ..... selling hundreds of DAC’s yearly , an extra cost of 100$ (just a number !) is easily to calculate in their selling price.

Low price DAC manufacturers - IFI, Pro-ject, ..... will never be able to carry such costs forward ( they probably got a very god deal as first entrants ...)

 

Do you have an idea how may DAC’s are sold yearly worldwide?

 

Dirk

 

 

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Indeed, this reply supports my view that building the ecosystem is the top priority for the MQA team.  If hardware makers believe they need to offer MQA playback/compatibility then that list of participants will grow.  In business strategy there is a concept of a "virtuous cycle".  It might look something like this for MQA (it's often not linear but you get the idea):

 

1.  Consumers want more hirez or better quality music in 16/44, etc.

2.  Labels test MQA approach, like it, and start mastering back catalog.

3.  Better quality music now available on Tidal through Masters.

4.  Consumers pay a little extra for Masters.

5.  Hardware manufacturers see interest in Tidal Masters, decide to offer MQA playback on next series of DACs.

6.  Labels notice and step up mastering effort to bring more content to Tidal.

7.  Apple notices and considers offering better quality/hirez option.

8.  Wider swath of consumers now has option to buy better quality/hirez music.

9.  Labels make more financial commitment on mastering side; more hardware manufacturers sign on.

10.  Music "standard" now established.  More streaming services sign on.

 

The hardest part may be getting an Apple or Amazon or Google or Spotify to sign on.  But MQA is a small startup really and the license fees from one service would probably establish profitability for them.  License revenue is also important.

 

1. That is debatable when Millennials and younger are fine with MP3's. MQA is not High res  anyway.

2. No - they would only do it to resell their catalog. No mastering involved, just mass conversion. Hence the MQA title is an oxymoron.

3. No - MQA does not sound better. Another way to get more money. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

4. NO - most don't care.

5. Tidal is dying - so why would manufacturers see that. They use it at shows because of convenience only and they don't have to bring music with them.

6. Nope - not if Tidal is dying - which it seems to be.

7. Apple could care less. They want to control the music , hence they have ALAC and AAC.

8. Option - not buying though. As I said in 1. MQA is not high res.

9. If labels would be concerned with mastering, we wouldn't have this continual loudness war.

10. What standard? Where? Each streaming service is unique as I cannot listen to, say Tidal while using Spotify software. Also, FLAC IS A STADARD BECAUSE IT IS FREE and does what we need to do w/o all the MQA mumbo-jumbo. MQA not so much. It is a step backwards.

 

Google and Apple could care less. They have users that like mp3's and other lossy systems. MQA is just a bump in the road.

 

License revenue is only important for MQA. FLAC is free.

[FredericV]

11. MQA hires key opinion makers

[rickca]

On 10/14/2018 at 4:15 PM, rickca said:

@Lee Scoggins your virtuous cycle will happen only if there is real end user demand for MQA at sufficient scale.  Where's the proof that such demand exists (or can be stimulated)?  Have DAC sales gone through the roof because of MQA implementation?  Has TIDAL had a surge in HiFi subscribers?  If Qobuz lures a bunch of TIDAL HiFi subscribers away in the USA, what would that indicate?

So @Lee Scoggins I think these are legitimate questions.  You never responded.

[crenca]

18 hours ago, Ryan Berry said:

Somewhat late to the thread, but accurately said, Barrows.  It's not the manufacturers that will determine what happens with MQA -- it's the consumers.  Though I will say that manufacturers have a role in giving the technology legitimacy to many consumers, so we have a part to play as well.  I appreciate technology and would love to have something new for the company to get to design around, but that technology has to also fit in with what Ayre believes in.

 

To back up Barrows, there's plenty of people -- both consumers and dealers -- that came to us in the early days of MQA and told us that if we didn't have MQA capabilities we wouldn't be able to sell any units.  Charley was obviously vehemently against the idea and single-handedly held the team back from moving forward, as the rest of us just saw it as offering another format to consumers to use or not, much like we did with DSD.  As time has gone on, those voices that I'm personally hearing have become quieter and has started to shift toward the, "If you add MQA, I'm NOT buying your product" crowd.  Anymore, I think we get asked about two or three times per show and maybe once a month about it.  How much has it cost us?  It's hard to tell.  Most high end manufacturers aren't great at getting those kind of metrics, and Ayre's no exception...we're inventors first, not marketers.  How much does what I am hearing reflect the overall market?  I couldn't tell you there either.  In the end, the dream is that we're still around and can keep doing what we're doing while people figure out what they want.  Even though this group is quite decided in their opinions, keep in mind that there's less technical users out there that just don't know one way or the other and only care about how it sounds to them.  We stuck our ground after wavering quite a number of times on the subject, so I can't blame those manufacturers that did feel the need to adopt the technology out of fear of remaining relevant and current, just as I can't blame those that have stayed silent while they've waited to see how things unfold (pardon the pun).  At one point, we were one of them.

 

13 hours ago, wklie said:

 

Lumin supports MQA for a very specific reason: Tidal.  We try our best to support whatever format designated by streaming services.  Qobuz Hi-Res uses FLAC, that is good, there's very little extra work for us.  Hypothetically, if Tidal adopted a proprietary and new version of WMA Hi-Res (instead of MQA) and offered those Hi-Res music at no extra cost to existing lossless subscribers,  then we would have to support that as well.  We support MQA not because of certain features of MQA - we support MQA because it is designated by Tidal.  (Back then I did not expect there would be MQA CD, but now that MQA CD is a reality, this would have been a factor to drive us to support MQA as well.)

 

We did not fear of becoming irrelevant.  We did fear our customers could not play the music they wanted to play at the best possible quality using our products, regardless of whether it is Tidal Master or MQA CD.  Unlike many network DAC, Lumin does not have any digital input whatsoever.  We could not even tell Tidal customers to use Tidal desktop app for MQA Core decoding, because without digital input our products cannot be used with Tidal desktop app.  Back then no third party add-on solution existed for our products to decode Tidal Master, so we had to implement it by ourselves.

 

There are members here who do not believe there are customers who ask for MQA.  Check out the old threads in Roon forum and you'll see there were many, before Roon added MQA support in version 1.5.  I explained there people wanted that because at that time Tidal is the only streaming service Roon integrated with, and Tidal Master is free to existing lossless subscribers.  Free music is important for many people, although @crenca disagreed and I respect that.  Some may question how long can Tidal offer Tidal Master at no extra cost, or even how sustainable their business is, or it may become less important if it is integrated to Roon as rumored and then everybody switches to Qobuz Sublime+ (EUR299.99 annual), but those possibilities are in the future.  At this point in time, there are people who use Tidal.

 

8 minutes ago, FredericV said:

11. MQA hires key opinion makers

 

The neat thing about this whole MQA episode is how it puts a spotlight on just who are "key opinion makers".   Yes, MQA played their cards well with the "Old Guard" trade publication/marketing apparatus, but it simply did not work.  Scoggins puts up his 10 point business proposal as if there is something to it but in reality it's just so much talk, air and wishful thinking. Why?  Well, besides the fact that MQA is a really thin sell under the best of circumstances, consumers in the end decide.  Pre-internet sure, how would consumers communicate?  The Old Guard sells apparatus might have worked in the past, or at least worked long enough for widespread MQA adoption to be $worth$ it.  Today the lay of the land is fundamentally changed.  Even an "objectivist" such as Amir over at ASR has to lock down threads when he himself tries to sell MQA over and against everything he is supposed to be about.  The speed of consumer thought is now much much faster - too fast for the Old Guard to keep up even when they have the competency with the subject (MQA revealed how technically/digitally ignorant they are).

 

Will there be another MQA, another Bob Stuart?  Of course.  Will companies such Ayer feel the pressure in the beginning when the Old Guard do what they do?  Yep.  However there will be many more voices saying "Patience young grasshopper, let the voices who matter speak" ?

[Magnaryder]

TheBobFather has debunked it and Schiit won't support it.

 

Good enough for me.

 

Put a fork in this bitch 'cause it's done

 

ray   

[mansr]

14 minutes ago, crenca said:

Even an "objectivist" such as Amir over at ASR has to lock down threads when he himself tries to sell MQA over and against everything he is supposed to be about.

That was bizarre.

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

Will there be another MQA, another Bob Stuart?  Of course.  

 

Indeed.

 

for further and broader context, some reading on the invasibility of mutualistic systems will be helpful

 

 

also, parasite host interactions...

[Rt66indierock]

4 hours ago, ddetaey said:

Any guess how much such a license would cost a DAC manufacturer?

I even do not understand how such a business model would work for DAC manufacturers.

For a a high end manufacturer such as DCS, Mark Levinson, McIntosh, ..... selling hundreds of DAC’s yearly , an extra cost of 100$ (just a number !) is easily to calculate in their selling price.

Low price DAC manufacturers - IFI, Pro-ject, ..... will never be able to carry such costs forward ( they probably got a very god deal as first entrants ...)

 

Do you have an idea how may DAC’s are sold yearly worldwide?

 

Dirk

 

 

 

Dirk,

 

The licensing costs of MQA and the number of DAC's sold are not information I'm seeking out because it would be confidential and my profession has strict rules about disclosing information told me with an expectation of privacy.

 

This business model probably isn't working for Onkyo, Pioneer and Integra  they are restructuring and moving towards OEM. Oppo is gone. LG mobile is on pace to loss alarming amounts of money about $400 million dollars is the current projected loss for the division this year. The better question is who is actually doing well after licensing MQA. 

[Rt66indierock]

17 hours ago, wklie said:

 

Lumin supports MQA for a very specific reason: Tidal.  We try our best to support whatever format designated by streaming services.  Qobuz Hi-Res uses FLAC, that is good, there's very little extra work for us.  Hypothetically, if Tidal adopted a proprietary and new version of WMA Hi-Res (instead of MQA) and offered those Hi-Res music at no extra cost to existing lossless subscribers,  then we would have to support that as well.  We support MQA not because of certain features of MQA - we support MQA because it is designated by Tidal.  (Back then I did not expect there would be MQA CD, but now that MQA CD is a reality, this would have been a factor to drive us to support MQA as well.)

 

We did not fear of becoming irrelevant.  We did fear our customers could not play the music they wanted to play at the best possible quality using our products, regardless of whether it is Tidal Master or MQA CD.  Unlike many network DAC, Lumin does not have any digital input whatsoever.  We could not even tell Tidal customers to use Tidal desktop app for MQA Core decoding, because without digital input our products cannot be used with Tidal desktop app.  Back then no third party add-on solution existed for our products to decode Tidal Master, so we had to implement it by ourselves.

 

There are members here who do not believe there are customers who ask for MQA.  Check out the old threads in Roon forum and you'll see there were many, before Roon added MQA support in version 1.5.  I explained there people wanted that because at that time Tidal is the only streaming service Roon integrated with, and Tidal Master is free to existing lossless subscribers.  Free music is important for many people, although @crenca disagreed and I respect that.  Some may question how long can Tidal offer Tidal Master at no extra cost, or even how sustainable their business is, or it may become less important if it is integrated to Roon as rumored and then everybody switches to Qobuz Sublime+ (EUR299.99 annual), but those possibilities are in the future.  At this point in time, there are people who use Tidal.

 

One of the things I got confirmed to my satisfaction at RMAF 18 was more than a few people are asking to have MQA firmware removed from their DACs. 

 

As for Tidal the guy banging the table in Chris' seminar is upset at me for telling him Tidal is or was behind on taxes like payroll taxes to Norway, not paying royalties and not paying other bills. So I believe you about people asking for MQA on their hardware.

[Lee Scoggins]

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

One must sign an NDA to obtain the real license fees.

 

I was provided some indicative pricing numbers confidentially.

[Lee Scoggins]

6 hours ago, Thuaveta said:

 

Astute, technologically competent companies aren't interested ? You don't say...

 

My understanding is that several conversations are going on and they are making progress.  We will see what happens.

[Lee Scoggins]

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I think your #1 is a bit far off of reality. Sure us audiophiles always want something better, but given Tidal's abysmal numbers I don't think many consumers want "more hirez or better quality music in 16/44." 

 

I think those paying for hirez are likely to be a small percentage of the music buying public.  However, I think that if an Apple or Amazon signed on, that could create momentum among some for better quality 16/44 files that people would pay extra for...although it remains to be seen how much.

 

The business value of MQA is that you can contain different resolutions in one file.  That has advantages of single inventory and less bandwidth/storage required.  The biggest advantage may be the establishment of a higher pricing tier.  That creates more money for the labels and services and also a path to solve the serious problem of needing to provide more $ to the artists.

[Thuaveta]

7 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

My understanding is that several conversations are going on and they are making progress.  We will see what happens.

 

If I'm not mistaken, the MQA guys have been saying that for a while now (it was in an end-of-year shareholder report type thing in 2016 IIRC). Of course, that stuff takes time, but because it's been used as a carrot to the believers for so long, unless this is something you're specifically NOT sourcing from people on the MQA payroll...

[Lee Scoggins]

6 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

The license fees from one service probably wouldn't establish profitability for MQA Ltd their revenue model is based on hardware licensing. But I have a better source than you do Mike Jbara CEO of MQA Ltd.

 

My understanding from talking to both Mike Jbara and Ken Forsythe is that hardware license fees are only part of the revenue model.  I have also heard that fees from one streaming service would be fairly large and likely entice a second streaming service.

[Lee Scoggins]

2 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

 

If I'm not mistaken, the MQA guys have been saying that for a while now (it was in an end-of-year shareholder report type thing in 2016 if I'm not mistaken). Of course, that stuff takes time, but because it's been used as a carrot to the believers for so long, unless this is something you're specifically NOT sourcing from people on the MQA payroll...

 

I have been a beta tester for one MQA streaming service about to launch and I know of one major service discussing the addition of a hirez tier.  These things do take time.

 

I'm not just sourcing this from MQA team but other people in the music biz I know.

[Rt66indierock]

14 hours ago, Ryan Berry said:

 

Hi Peter,

 

While I appreciate your feelings, this is precisely why we haven't supported it.  It's vital to us -- and in our opinion, this industry -- that music is heard in its purist, most natural form to ensure the ongoing legitimacy of high end audio.  Financially supporting something that didn't do this, based on our listening and understanding, just seemed to be wrong for us.

I agree that there's more people that are looking for MQA than perhaps many people realize.  I imagine it's more than we at Ayre even know of, as our opinion is pretty clear on the topic so less people ask us about it.

 

Charley was a friend and one argument we had was he wanted to hit MQA Ltd with everything we had. And I told him if you do that what happens if they get up off the mat? Answer you have nothing. The better way is keep a steady stream of negative information flowing. Then you get what happened at Chris' MQA seminar which was priceless. 

 

And personally I've been working toward your opinion hearing music in purist most natural form but I'm glad you said it first here.  Because while MQA Ltd. is questioning whether Archimago was a competitor they weren't doing their homework to sniff out actual competitors in high end audio space. PS there is one coming. They have asked me about MQA Ltd.'s financial reports.