MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[Lee Scoggins]

1 minute ago, Kyhl said:

I noticed that you left artists out of the benefactor list for this to be a success.

 

I have already discussed their benefit before.  But in the ecosystem, MQA does not have to reach out to them as that is between the labels and streaming services. 

[Shadders]

6 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

It's sort of a push/pull situation.  One key (pull) is for there to be consumers who want the full unfold quality.  The second key (push) is streaming services offering it.  Then it become ubiquitous and we see how many consumers want to get the higher quality tier.

 

Like I mentioned earlier: it has to offer value to everyone in the ecosystem for it to work: labels, streamers, consumers, and hardware makers.

 

As for cost to add MQA: that is not an issue as it's a small royalty far less than the additional tier revenue and then the some encoding done in the cloud.

Hi,

As far as i know, nobody really much cares for high resolution in the hifi world, and i do not know anyone who cares about high resolution in the non-hifi world.

 

There is no pull. If people like MP3 as they already do - then MQA will provide no push because customers won't sign up to it.

 

As an aside, i pay £10 for a newly released CD. It probably costs 50pence to make in its entirety. Why are the labels losing money on this ?

 

If streaming is not already making the labels money - then how is MQA going to help ?. Prices will have to go up significantly.

 

If music labels are not making money from streaming, then surely they should remove access to their catalogue ?

 

Does it not seem odd to you that we have a thriving music industry, and it is alleged that no one is making any money from music sales or streaming ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[KeenObserver]

The labels have a right to protect their property.  The consumer has a right to protect their own interests.  They do this by exercising their buying power.  The music loving public should shun MQA like the plague

 

I, for one,  will never buy a product that has been infected with MQA..

 

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

Considering the failure of DSD or even lossless PCM codecs to be adopted by main-stream consumers,

 

Main stream consumers use DSD/SDM behind the scenes every time they listen to digital music.

Main stream consumers use CD and Apple Lossless.

Main stream consumers largely don't care about the codec details and certainly not MQA, but they don't care that their DACs are using DSD (really SDM) behind the scenes. No one told them that R2R DACs are largely legacy and they don't care.

 

Quote

 

the only chance MQA would have is if were forced upon consumers.  

 

Yeah, but who? I guess I could get an MQA DAC for use with my iPhone, but I've got Spotify and Qobuz and Amazon Prime and Apple ... yes all of those, so Tidal is ... ??? Um is that for listening to Jay-Z with MQA ???

 

Quote

Most people, having to choose between a lower-quality accessible format and a higher-quality but limited-access format, will choose the low quality one, simply because they don't hear a difference (or improvement), or at least not enough of one to justify the added expense and inconvenience (attributes that audiophiles consider positives, but everyone else sees as a turn-off). In the case of MQA, the claims of improved sound quality are demonstrably false, so the case becomes even less compelling.   

 

 

No one wants a non standards track codec in this century.

 

Sony tried and tried and tried and failed and failed and failed last century. MQA isn't Sony. Its really irrelevant. What ever happened to DVD-A? We've seen many proprietary compression formats come and go. The labels have been able to release their property as SACD and Blu-Ray Audio and if these were off the charts the labels could stream. Heck Netflix and Amazon Prime and Hulu already have a high bandwidth streaming infrastructure which connects to in-home surround. 

 

My only reason for continuing to post on this DOA topic, is to reemphasize the importance to anyone from Apple or Amazon or Netflix who might be listening that we don't need no stinking proprietary formats in this century. Don't be evil. Sony: if you can learn from your past mistakes, you won't be evil either.

 

 

[Lee Scoggins]

17 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

The labels have a right to protect their property.  The consumer has a right to protect their own interests.  They do this by exercising their buying power.  The music loving public should shun MQA like the plague

 

I, for one,  will never buy a product that has been infected with MQA..

 

 

Let's let the music consumer determine what value MQA is to them.  Using over the top language like "plague" is an opinion.  My dems have been convincing on the musical value of the MQA filters.

 

Ultimately I think if a streaming service picks up MQA then Bob's company will be in good shape financially.  However, the ultimate success of MQA may be how premium subscriptions from Tidal or Apple or Amazon get sold.  So really it is about the consumer.  MQA and its ecosystem partners have to do a good job of marketing the value of MQA to consumers.  

[Lee Scoggins]

4 minutes ago, jabbr said:

My only reason for continuing to post on this DOA topic, is to reemphasize the importance to anyone from Apple or Amazon or Netflix who might be listening that we don't need no stinking proprietary formats in this century. Don't be evil.

 

These streaming services are not likely to be influenced by a niche group of computer audiophiles.  They are more likely to look to the labels who have tested MQA and signed off on it.  And they are likely to think about the value of premium pricing.

 

If a bunch of people here don't like then that's okay too but no one is putting a gun to your head to buy it.

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Ultimately I think if a streaming service picks up MQA then Bob's company will be in good shape financially.

 

A streaming service did pick it up.  How’s Bob’s company doing?  Far more important to whether other companies will bother to pick it up, how’s the streaming company doing?

[jabbr]

 

17 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

These streaming services are not likely to be influenced by a niche group of computer audiophiles.  They are more likely to look to the labels who have tested MQA and signed off on it.  And they are likely to think about the value of premium pricing.

 

??? That's clueless.

 

Apple and Amazon and Netflix are technology companies that don't look to labels -- they buy labels or create their own labels.

 

More importantly they are actively working on removing dependence on third party proprietary or IP laden media standards e.g.  MPEG. They don't want to pay another MPEG let alone MQA. And for what? Its not even better than anything otherwise available.

 

Moreover, if its a "niche group of computer audiophiles", then the MQA market is at best niche... and its not even doing well in the niche ... DOA.

[KeenObserver]

In my "ecosystem" plague is not over the top language.

[MikeyFresh]

13 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

MQA and its ecosystem partners have to do a good job of marketing the value of MQA to consumers.   

 

Epic fail there so far, nothing of any substance, just a lot of double talk to consumers complete with half truths and outright lies. Obviously a ton of worry about what partners might say to consumers too, therefore the lock down NDA tactics.

 

But MQA et all don't even seem concerned with doing that good job of marketing to consumers you speak of, instead they take a very consumer oriented show like RMAF and turn their presence there into a farce, instead of book their own informative session?

 

Like I said, epic fail.

[Thuaveta]

15 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

These streaming services are not likely to be influenced by a niche group of computer audiophiles.  They are more likely to look to the labels who have tested MQA and signed off on it.  And they are likely to think about the value of premium pricing.

 

If a bunch of people here don't like then that's okay too but no one is putting a gun to your head to buy it.

 

God this is starting to become circular. You must've gone through some sorts of business or economics program to do what you do, so I've got to wonder if you've suffered traumatic brain damage since then, or if you're just being dishonest when you purportedly and repeatedly ignore that the music industry isn't a free market, to a level that's bad enough that the DOJ considered anti-trust action against some of its practices.

 

So, for the nth time: you're either lying, or deluding yourself, when you're saying "it's ok if you don't like MQA no one is going to force you to use it if it succeeds". Please respect the investment made by many in your education and reconsider that course of action.

 

You've already wasted someone else's time today over your refusal to learn what the words Digital Rights Management mean, despite being reminded of that multiple times. Please respect the few people here who are actively trying to engage with you in good faith, and don't make them regret it. If your need to have things explained to you slowly, and multiple times, comes with added dizziness, loss of focus, motivation, or any other cognitive or physical impairment, including but not limited to tingling, blackouts, or erectile dysfunction, please quickly make an appointment with a medical specialist (given the belief systems you've expressed, I do feel the need to add "preferably not a homeopath").

[Anodyne Jones]

MQA=Mp3 Turbo. End of discussion.?

[Anodyne Jones]

I for one, will continue to support labels and vendors that produce TRUE HIREZ music..including Intervention Records, Mobile Fidelity, Analogue Productions..as well as artists that offer direct downloads of 24 bit PCM.

[Shadders]

4 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

tingling, blackouts, or erectile dysfunction

I have one of those. Not saying which. What should i do ?

[Anodyne Jones]

4 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

 

God this is starting to become circular. You must've gone through some sorts of business or economics program to do what you do, so I've got to wonder if you've suffered traumatic brain damage since then, or if you're just being dishonest when you purportedly and repeatedly ignore that the music industry isn't a free market, to a level that's bad enough that the DOJ considered anti-trust action against some of its practices.

 

So, for the nth time: you're either lying, or deluding yourself, when you're saying "it's ok if you don't like MQA no one is going to force you to use it if it succeeds". Please respect the investment made by many in your education and reconsider that course of action.

 

You've already wasted someone else's time today over your refusal to learn what the words Digital Rights Management mean, despite being reminded of that multiple times. Please respect the few people here who are actively trying to engage with you in good faith, and don't make them regret it. If your need to have things explained to you slowly, and multiple times, comes with added dizziness, loss of focus, motivation, or any other cognitive or physical impairment, including but not limited to tingling, blackouts, or erectile dysfunction, please quickly make an appointment with a medical specialist (given the belief systems you've expressed, I do feel the need to add "preferably not a homeopath").

In my line of work, and on various forums, I find that people who are intellectually dishonest are a waste of everybody's time, and in general are puffed up wanna bees.

[KeenObserver]

Just for the record:

 

I have no investment in MQA.

No member of my family, to my knowledge, has investment in MQA.

I do not work for, or have any financial interest in, any publication that stands to gain from MQA.

 

I have, however, over the past 60+ years spent many thousands of dollars on music of various kinds.  I have strived to obtain the best quality recordings and hope that I will continue to be able obtain the best quality recordings in the future.

 

That is where I stand.

[mcgillroy]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

You are taking a very broad definition of DRM.  The above is for authentication.

 

Can a customer copy a file?  Yes.  Do they need to have a MQA device or software to unfold?  Yes.  But most new digital innovation requires new hardware and encoding/decoding devices.

 

Trying to narrow down the definition of DRM to copy-protection is part of MQA's marketing spiel. And you are playing along.

 

Such a definition does not adhere to the technological and legal definitions of DRM accepted in the industry, by IP-laywers and in academia. 

 

It's as intellectually dishonest as to relabel accepted technical terms like dispersion into "blur" or lossless into "lossless in the air."

 

Marketing is marketing. But if you try to hide your intentions behind semantic operations of that magnitude you have something profound to hide. You are also underestimating your audience.

 

So again Lee: is MQA DRM or not? Simple question, simple answer.

 

Thank you.

[SoundAndMotion]

Do the three letters D..., R...., M.... and whatever the definition is, one way or the other, really matter for the discussion? If “DRM” tasted like honey and cured cancer, I’d say it’s a good thing!

Why not just discuss the reality we can agree on? MQA has RLH... it requires licensed hardware. If I buy MQA media/files, I will forever have to buy/have licensed hardware, whereas now I don’t. Argue about that and any other pros/cons, not definitions of terms.

[KeenObserver]

Some people are completely oblivious to what's happening to them and the realities of the world around them.

 

Some people need a blue light to come on to tell them that they have just been screwed.

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

These streaming services are not likely to be influenced by a niche group of computer audiophiles.  They are more likely to look to the labels who have tested MQA and signed off on it.  And they are likely to think about the value of premium pricing.

 

If a bunch of people here don't like then that's okay too but no one is putting a gun to your head to buy it.

 

This "niche group of computer audiophiles" and others like us are the only ones who understand the value of high rez music and who are willing to pay money for it.

 

If MQA fails in this market, there is no hope for it anywhere.

[Shadders]

Hi,

I had a quick search on the percentage of music which belongs ot the main 3 record labels and independents.

 

For the US it was 2/3 of music was owned by Sony, Warner, Universal, and the remaining 1/3 by independents

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/08/03/two-thirds-music-sales-come-three-major-labels/

 

For the UK (yay) it was 1/4 independent.

 

I checked some of the bands i like and they are all independent labels. Which is great - hopefully MQA will miss those and normal CD's will be available all the time.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

Many of the labels carry heavy debt loads.  As a result they are focused on revenue growth.  MQA is a way to sell premium pricing in exchange for better quality sound.

 

It's not like the labels' contracts with bands resulted in bands accumulating debt with every release thanks to promotional costs, recording bills and advances labels recoup?  And it's not like the labels have treated consumers as poorly as they’ve treated artists?

[Shadders]

Old bloke (80 years old) goes to the football stadium (soccer for the US people) to watch his favourite team who he has not seen in 40 years.

 

He gets to the ticket office and asks for a seat in the lower stadium.

 

The ticket office employee says "That will be £100".

 

The old bloke says "£100, i could get a good woman for that".

 

The ticket office employees says "Yes, but you don't 45 minutes each way, and a brass band at the interval".

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour ago, KeenObserver said:

Just for the record:

 

I have no investment in MQA.

No member of my family, to my knowledge, has investment in MQA.

I do not work for, or have any financial interest in, any publication that stands to gain from MQA.

 

I have, however, over the past 60+ years spent many thousands of dollars on music of various kinds.  I have strived to obtain the best quality recordings and hope that I will continue to be able obtain the best quality recordings in the future.

 

That is where I stand.

 

The same here.  No financial interest, investment, or any compensation in MQA at all.  I've just heard a proper demo and find it to enhance good recordings.  And as a hirez fan, I think it is providing a path to more hirez.

[Lee Scoggins]

33 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

It's not like the labels' contracts with bands resulted in bands accumulating debt with every release thanks to promotional costs, recording bills and advances labels recoup?  And it's not like the labels have treated consumers as poorly as they’ve treated artists?

 

Straw man. No one is arguing that the labels have not been bad actors.