MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[Fluffytime]

4 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Why would I do that for anonymous posters on an Internet Forum?

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

Eh, wow. That's not a good answer. Refreshingly honest I suppose, but not good.

 

This isn't 1995.

[jabbr]

10 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Why would I do that for anonymous posters on an Internet Forum?

 

 

John, with all due respect, and because I like you from what I know and Stereophile : PLEASE take a little break and figure this whole Internet thing out. The Web has transformed publishing in ways that you don't seem to grok.

 

Centralized top down publishing and control went out with the old AT&T in the 1990's. You aren't the editor here, you are an individual with an opinion and a voice.

 

Anyone can say anything about anything on the Web: BY DESIGN. This painful quote will be repeated time and time again in contexts that you don't intend and you've lost control of this.

 

YOU as the publisher of Stereophile.com get to set the rules of interaction on that site. Chris as the publisher of CA gets to set the rules of interaction HERE on this site. You are here as an individual. We aren't anonymous. Don't be a dick.

[Allan F]

14 minutes ago, jabbr said:

You are here as an individual. We aren't anonymous.

 

FWIW, the majority of posters are 'anonymous' by virtue of posting under pseudonyms. While you understandably might not like his reply, John's use of the term was merely reflecting a general fact.

[jabbr]

11 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

FWIW, the majority of posters are 'anonymous' by virtue of posting under pseudonyms. While you understandably might not like his reply, John's use of the term was merely stating a general fact.

 

Hardly a general fact here on the internet where identifiers are called URIs. URIs are the names on the internet. Your traditional name means nothing to me because we don't interact in person. There's actually a whole technology around this ... you need to understand how this all works to understand what I'm talking about, but trust me a URI is far more important on the web than your traditional given and surname.

 

Here, read this: http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/

 

I'll partially deanonymise myself by telling you that I've been called part of the "RDF Cabal" ???

[Lee Scoggins]

12 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I do not understand this.

 

Please correct me if i am wrong, but do artists make any significant money from streaming ? if they don't from normal streaming such as MP3, or other, then how is high resolution going to help them ?

 

From comments i have seen, streaming business is of little benefit to many artists.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

The theory is that with MQA, you establish a higher pricing tier on the streaming service. With the extra revenue, the labels can pay more to the artist.

 

If you talk to label people, they realize that they need to pay the artist more and they feel they have to solve that problem.  They realize this is a huge problem that is not healthy for the industry.

[Lee Scoggins]

12 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Can you point to one fact thst shows we have more high resolution access because of MQA?

 

Can you point to facts that artist will make more money?

 

Why is it the consumers’ responsibility to pay more for a broken business model? Artist sign contracts that give away almost everything. You want to help them earn more money, educate them rather than fleece all consumers and line the pockets of everyone except the artist. 

 

In terms of hirez availability, the major music labels have signed up to encode their entire back catalog in MQA.  That's already happening.  There are growing numbers of hirez files on Tidal Masters, some portion of which has not already been released on the download sites.  I am not sure how many incremental albums or tracks that is.

 

I just discussed how the artist will make more money under the plan but it really remains to be seen how that unfolds.

 

As for consumer responsibility, I think the consumer pays extra for a better experience in most other industries.  Why not in music?  It will depend on perceived quality and the overall customer experience.

[mcgillroy]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

.

 

I just discussed how the artist will make more money under the plan but it really remains to be seen how that unfolds.

 

Exactlly. You didn’t discuss how artist benefit, you suggested that higher streaming revenue could lead to better compensation for artists.

 

Note the “could” here and would you please elaborate how MQA solves - or at least alters - the principal-agent problem inherent to the artist-label relation?

 

Thank you.

[MikeyFresh]

46 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

The theory is that with MQA, you establish a higher pricing tier on the streaming service. With the extra revenue, the labels can pay more to the artist.

 

If you talk to label people, they realize that they need to pay the artist more and they feel they have to solve that problem.  They realize this is a huge problem that is not healthy for the industry.

 

But there is precious little if any actual evidence to support that theory. Paid tier music streaming isn't an easy sell at all, and paid + premium upcharge is even more elusive and very unlikely to appeal to anything but a small audiophile niche. So far it's a pie in the sky other than a supposed 200,000 strong portion of Tidal's subscriber base. 

 

Now toss in the overtly anti-consumer aspect of Master Quality Adulterated/DRM Ltd. and it becomes far less attractive to the music buying public. They'd be far more likely seeking out Qobuz, or similar, and not supporting the MQA royalties payment scheme at all. Master Quality Adulterated/DRM Ltd. will cost consumers more.

 

Still more far-fetched is the idea the labels wish to pay artists more. Your fake news there is even less credible when viewed in the context of how badly the labels have treated artists over the decades. Everyone knows the labels have been sued repeatedly to force their hand in this regard, they've cheated artists wherever they felt they could, and law suits by various artists are ongoing, with the labels only real defense there being "accounting difficulties". Pure BS.

 

So no... there's no evidence to suggest the labels now wish to suddenly turn 180º and become generous artist advocates. Their track record there is less than admirable, no one thinks they've turned a new cheek and wish to become more generous and fair in their treatment of artists.

 

The old model has of course been turned upside down, labels can no longer force artists to accept pennies per record sold. If things continue in the direction they are already moving, we will fast be upon the day that artists don't need the labels anymore at all. We've already passed the point that labels can tell artists they'll handle all record and tour promotion at extraordinary cost and through creative accounting methods.

 

The idea that the labels can cry poor in paying artists their rightful due until such time as a new paradigm exists, with extra revenue extracted from consumers thereby preserving the label's margins (or even enhancing them if costs for physical media vanish) in order to facilitate proper compensation to artists is all too convenient for the MQA cadre, if not absurd in an absolute sense.

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

58 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

There are growing numbers of hirez files on Tidal Masters, some portion of which has not already been released on the download sites.  I am not sure how many incremental albums or tracks that is.

 

 

Then why mention it at all? If you are unsure as to the numbers there ("some portion of which"), we can all safely conclude this too is fake news. Or maybe it's 1% or something completely irrelevant like that?

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

The theory is that with MQA, you establish a higher pricing tier on the streaming service. With the extra revenue, the labels can pay more to the artist.

 

If you talk to label people, they realize that they need to pay the artist more and they feel they have to solve that problem.  They realize this is a huge problem that is not healthy for the industry.

And what is stopping them from doing it now? Nothing. 

[bambadoo]

Regarding that hte artist "could" get more paid. I think that in best is naive. 

Linn said something in february 2017. 

Quote

A supply chain monopoly

MQA is an attempt to not simply sell the same content again at a higher margin, or to maintain audio quality in streaming ecosystems: it is an outright land grab. It’s an attempt to control and extract revenue from every part of the supply chain, and not just over content that they hold the rights for. It really is quite extraordinary. Let’s break it down:

 

Manufacturers of recording equipment will have to license the technology and adapt their products

 

$$$ MQA Gets Paid $$$

Developers of recording software systems will require certified software plug-ins

 

$$$ MQA Gets Paid $$$

Recording and Mastering engineers must purchase and use certified equipment and software

 

$$$ MQA Gets Paid $$$

Artists must use studios and engineers utilising certified equipment and new workflows; or even pay to have their back catalogue ‘remastered’ in MQA. The costs, of course, are borne by the artist, either directly or recouped from royalties

 

Digital distributors will have to license MQA and purchase/lease a ‘Hyper-Security Module’ to encrypt/encode/watermark files ready for delivery to download services

 

$$$ MQA Gets Paid $$$

Download and Streaming service providers will have to agree to commercial terms and become partners from which…

 

$$$ MQA Gets Paid $$$

Physical media manufacturers can use MQA to author on to CD and DVD, presumably there will be licensing agreement required for this too

 

$$$ MQA Gets Paid $$$

Hi-fi manufacturers and software developers will have to adapt their products and license the technology

 

$$$ MQA Gets Paid $$$

End customers, having paid a premium for MQA music via licensed content providers, will also have to buy MQA certified players at increased cost, with a license paid for each unit shipped

 

$$$ MQA Gets Paid $$$

https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music

 

Or are they lying"

[Don Hills]

4 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

... With the extra revenue, the labels can pay more to the artist. ...

 

Oh, look at that. A flying pig.

[Shadders]

5 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

The theory is that with MQA, you establish a higher pricing tier on the streaming service. With the extra revenue, the labels can pay more to the artist.

 

If you talk to label people, they realize that they need to pay the artist more and they feel they have to solve that problem.  They realize this is a huge problem that is not healthy for the industry.

Hi,

I still do not understand.

 

If people are happy with MP3, or the existing services, and MQA has a higher pricing tier, why would people pay more for MQA when they get what they want with MP3 or other ?

 

If streaming is a no win situation for the music industry - why do they persist with it ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[semente]

5 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

With the extra revenue, the labels can pay more to the artist.

Or put more money in their pockets.

I'm sure shareholders will love the MQA idea...

[Kyhl]

10 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

FWIW, the majority of posters are 'anonymous' by virtue of posting under pseudonyms. While you understandably might not like his reply, John's use of the term was merely reflecting a general fact.

FWIW, my anonymous name here is the same name used at SH forums for the last 10 years.  Originally signed up there under a different name in 2002 however it was changed to this name 10 years ago.

 

It is also the same name used on a local fishing site, if anyone cares.

Also signed into a few other audio forums using the same anonymous name however I do not frequent other forums.

 

It is the same name used in Linked-In and Facebook because it is my first name.  It was also the name on my lapsed Stereophile subscription if JA wants to look.  It shouldn't be difficult to find me because there probably aren't many in the US with that spelling.

 

I am an anonymous nobody hiding behind my first name.

[John_Atkinson]

10 hours ago, jabbr said:

Centralized top down publishing and control went out with the old AT&T in the 1990's.

 

Really? Yet Stereophile continues to thrive in the Internet Age. Obviously we didn't get the memo ?

 

10 hours ago, jabbr said:

You aren't the editor here, you are an individual with an opinion and a voice.

 

Of course. But I don't see any reason why I am obliged to send people I don't know on a site I have connection with the results of my hard work just because they demand it of me. As I wrote earlier, if posters to CA want to try the MQA files that Bob Carver was discussing, I would have thought that Chris Connaker would oblige. This is his site, after all.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[Shadders]

28 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

Really? Yet Stereophile continues to thrive in the Internet Age. Obviously we didn't get the memo ?

Hi,

I think this is because the old people do not use the internet and still subscribe to paper publications.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[semente]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I think this is because the old people do not use the internet and still subscribe to paper publications.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Or, free online viewers are numerous enough to justify advertising which is almost certainly the main source of income for the magazine.

 

That's how you thrive in the internet age.

[Shadders]

8 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Or, free online viewers are numerous enough to justify advertising which is almost certainly the main source of income for the magazine.

 

That's how you thrive in the internet age.

Hi,

Maybe - but at the same time, the influence of such publications is becoming smaller.

 

The younger generation do not care about hifi - hifi is in serious decline. Not sure how long they will last as being relevant - the tech magazines seem to be thriving - glossy publications, little detail, and minimal geek hifi content.

 

I think that the older publishing people as are the music industry are still living in the past - they had full control, but then the internet means people do not have to be told what to think.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[semente]

13 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Maybe - but at the same time, the influence of such publications is becoming smaller.

 

The younger generation do not care about hifi - hifi is in serious decline. Not sure how long they will last as being relevant - the tech magazines seem to be thriving - glossy publications, little detail, and minimal geek hifi content.

 

I think that the older publishing people as are the music industry are still living in the past - they had full control, but then the internet means people do not have to be told what to think.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

I think that some younger adults are interested in better audio, but not home audio (mostly because they are struggling to get one, home). But they buy decent headphones and sometimes even portable DAC-amps.

[MikeyFresh]

9 hours ago, Odd Magnus Bjerkvik said:

Regarding that the artist "could" get more paid. I think that in best is naive. 

Linn said something in february 2017. 

 

Linn's assessment circa Feb. 2017 seems rather strikingly dead-on accurate to this day, doesn't it?

 

Oh sure, Meridian/MQA cried bias slant from a direct competitor at that time... but, Linn's assessment circa Feb. 2017 seems rather strikingly dead-on accurate to this day, doesn't it?

 

If memory serves, this would also be another example of MQA's failure to provide any substantive response, none of any kind that I can remember.

[kumakuma]

2 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Really? Yet Stereophile continues to thrive in the Internet Age. Obviously we didn't get the memo ?

 

 

I guess that's okay if you're happy with being a big fish in a pond that slowly evaporating...

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Really? Yet Stereophile continues to thrive in the Internet Age. Obviously we didn't get the memo ?

 

 

I’m glad you’ve been able to adapt and thrive on what we’ve built. It’s pretty remarkable how we have been able to transform publishing. 

 

Information used to be locked behind paywalls. Nowadays anyone (read any of the anonymous unwashed masses) with a few bucks can register a name, and publish a website under that name. They can even get paid a few bucks for clicks.

 

That name is is called a domain name and “Archimago” is short for “archimago.blogspot.com” which is a domain name. That’s a real name. 

 

The MQA luddites don’t get this, and you’ve made comments but for me the “archimago” name and blog are a perfectly reasonable publication medium. Now there are levels that I trust and it’s not “nature.com” or “science.com” but neither is “stereophile.com” or even “aes.org” for that matter. Nonetheless it’s not anonymous.

 

Quote

Of course. But I don't see any reason why I am obliged to send people I don't know on a site I have connection with the results of my hard work just because they demand it of me. As I wrote earlier, if posters to CA want to try the MQA files that Bob Carver was discussing, I would have thought that Chris Connaker would oblige. This is his site, after all.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

Right, you have no obligation. That’s a much better way of staying it. One of the memes of this thread is about the dorks whose only criticism of @Archimago is that he/she/they are “anonymous” and that criticism has been thrown at CA. 

 

I’m just pointing out that this is the way we designed the Web/Internet to work and indeed it works rather well  

[John_Atkinson]

1 hour ago, semente said:

free online viewers are numerous enough to justify advertising which is almost certainly the main source of income for the magazine.

 

That's how you thrive in the internet age.

 

That was the thrust of a presentation I gave to Stereophile's then-owner's senior management in 2005.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[Thuaveta]

14 hours ago, jabbr said:

I'll partially deanonymise myself by telling you that I've been called part of the "RDF Cabal" ???

 

psst, @John_Atkinson: he inn't referring to Steve Jobs there.