MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[Thuaveta]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Lee - Have you ever seen a downside to MQA?

 

Yes ! If it used blockchain® technology, the labels could use it to pay artists !

[KeenObserver]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

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.

 

I am in awe of all the time and effort you put in defending, and putting out MQA fires!

 

All for the sake of Hi-rez music!

 

You,sir, are a truly noble human being!

[FredericV]

3 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

These streaming services are not likely to be influenced by a niche group of computer audiophiles.

 

So why are you still here? It does not compute. Unless you have some benefit or are getting paid for endorsing MQA.

[Lee Scoggins]

27 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Lee - Have you ever seen a downside to MQA?

 

 

 

Yes, you have to buy new hardware to do the full unfold.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Yes, you have to buy new hardware to do the full unfold.

OK. This is a downside for the consumer, but a major upside for the HiFi industry in the short term. 

[Lee Scoggins]

24 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

The independent music (labels etc) is on the rise :

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/independent-artists-music-industry-stormzy-aj-tracey-stefflon-don-hardy-caprio-major-label-streaming-a8110936.html

 

Essentially, the three majors are trying to stranglehold a declining market (for them).

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Merlin, the aggregator for most of the indies, has agreed to master their back catalog in MQA.  So MQA wins on that point.

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Yes, you have to buy new hardware to do the full unfold.

Else it f*cks up your sound ??? (is a second surely).

[KeenObserver]

Lee

 

You seem to be very knowledgeable in how this all works.  Would you be so kind as to enlighten me on a question?  Do you think the MQA principles and investors would be adverse to having surrogates go on various websites and promote MQA?

[Shadders]

11 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Merlin, the aggregator for most of the indies, has agreed to master their back catalog in MQA.  So MQA wins on that point.

Hi,

To take this forward a few steps.

 

The three major labels are significant shareholders in MQA Ltd. This means, that once the independents are across to MQA, and independent record labels become dominant, the three record labels with declining revenue will need to recoup their previous revenue.

 

If they do not make profit from their declining artist numbers, they will increase the costs for streaming for everyone (independents).

 

The independents will not like this - they will be squeezed. Then it will be goodbye MQA as they, the majority of the music labels pull their recordings from the streaming for MQA.

 

Whatever happens, MQA if anything, is a possible delay for the demise of the major record labels.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Confused]

25 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Yes, you have to buy new hardware to do the full unfold.

Is that any new hardware that you think offers the best value for money with respect to the sound quality offered, or any new hardware that pays a license fee to MQA? 

[Rt66indierock]

19 hours ago, Anodyne Jones said:

I ask the following question, seriously:

 

If a a little known individual came to Stereophile and and the labels and said he was going to run studio master files through a proprietary, closed DSP system that reduces bits and adds aliasing, and it required special software and hardware, would they not be laughed into oblivion?

 

Since it was some one like Bob Stuart who enjoyed (greatly undeserved) good will it was taken seriously. Why are we surprised? He produced overpriced junk decades and lost tens of millions, so why would he all of a sudden hit winning streak and start producing products people actually give a damn about?

 

Bob Stuart would be a little known person to the labels. Requiring special hardware and software would meet the definition of DRM.  The pitch to studios was reduced bandwidth in the beginning.

 

High audio was desperate for a new format. MQA was our best hope according to Robert Harley of The Absolute Sound. Others in the industry told me the same thing.  Stereophile has shown they give column inches to new formats.

[KeenObserver]

I was just listening to a non MQA Simon and Garfunkel song.  Sounded fantastic.

 

The Sound of Silence.

[Anodyne Jones]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Bob Stuart would be a little known person to the labels. Requiring special hardware and software would meet the definition of DRM.  The pitch to studios was reduced bandwidth in the beginning.

 

High audio was desperate for a new format. MQA was our best hope according to Robert Harley of The Absolute Sound. Others in the industry told me the same thing.  Stereophile has shown they give column inches to new formats.

..I'm not so sure. MLP was intended not only as compression for DVD-A but DRM as well, no? That is until it was easily cracked..the proof is all the DVD-As I have ripped. Then when it became obvious MLP, like all things Meridian, was a joke, they stopped using it, Oh yes, than 24/96 and 24/192 downloads became available. .

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

 

I am in awe of all the time and effort you put in defending, and putting out MQA fires!

 

All for the sake of Hi-rez music!

 

You,sir, are a truly noble human being!

 

Methinks Lee is fishing for a job.

[copy_of_a]

This Lee Scoggins guy has really super weak and at times even outrageous arguments.

It‘s obvious that he has little to no knowledge about audio technology, nor about the market (making money of music products), absolutely no clue at all how major lables work ... and above all definitely no clue about the role artists play in this game.
He‘s a babbler.
Okay!

So what?!
It‘s beyond me why so many serious and educated people try to discuss the same things over and over again here with such a stupid, poor person.

You can‘t save souls in an empty church!

 

[lucretius]

11 minutes ago, copy_of_a said:

You can‘t save souls in an empty curch!

 

But MQA conducts every service like the room was full (though it is empty). They speak over our heads, then turn and walk out where they had come in.

 

 

[copy_of_a]

12 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

MQA (...) They speak over our heads,

Nobody speaks over my head. I simply won‘t buy an MQA track or album... ever!

„HiRes“ is a ludicrous niche market... not even worth mentioning as a footnote.

If „HiRes“ gets totally replaced by MQA I‘ll buy CDs or 44.1kHz downloads. If they stop to release 44.1kHz i‘ll go MP3... or simply don‘t buy new music anymore.

It‘s that simple!

 

[Jud]

5 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Yes, because if you talk to music execs, they realize not paying the artists is a long-term loser for them.  It's a late realization but they at least learned.

 

Right after I hear about the new generous artist contracts (from the artists) is when I start believing that.

[jabbr]

On 10/23/2018 at 12:30 AM, 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.

 

This is a blatant misrepresentation.

 

The amounts paid to the artists are not determined by individual labels or streaming services rather contracts with SoundExchange, ASCAP, BMI etc. There is no difference in royalty based on music file format or resolution, only free vs paid subscription.

 

Perhaps the label people "feel they have to solve that problem" but unless they renegotiate contracts to increase payments, they can feel whatever they please without actually doing anything about it.

 

MQA has nothing to do with this except serve as a selling point for a premium service -- of which the service gets to keep 100% - cost to label, so the label and the service (TIDAL) profit ... and of course MQA profits.

 

The artists don't profit.

[Anodyne Jones]

42 minutes ago, copy_of_a said:

This Lee Scoggins guy has really super weak and at times even outrageous arguments.

It‘s obvious that he has little to no knowledge about audio technology, nor about the market (making money of music products), absolutely no clue at all how major lables work ... and above all definitely no clue about the role artists play in this game.
He‘s a babbler.
Okay!

So what?!
It‘s beyond me why so many serious and educated people try to discuss the same things over and over again here with such a stupid, poor person.

You can‘t save souls in an empty church!

 

The term "useful idiot" has been thrown around over the past 2 years..clearly it applies in this case.

[Jud]

5 hours ago, Jud said:

 

The theory is that if you give them more money they will act better?

 

5 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Yes, because if you talk to music execs, they realize not paying the artists is a long-term loser for them.  It's a late realization but they at least learned.

 

I would like to work for you.

[Lee Scoggins]

55 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

 

I would like to work for you.

 

Well with 17K posts here, you do have some background in artificial intelligence.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Well with 17K posts here, you do have some background in artificial intelligence.

 

I just want a boss who believes the more he pays me, the better I’ll behave.   

[rickca]

6 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Yes, you have to buy new hardware to do the full unfold.

The contribution of the full unfold (as opposed to just core decoding) to sound quality is questionable.  

[jabbr]

19 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I just want a boss who believes the more he pays me, the better I’ll behave.   

?

 

Makes perfect sense! Now why don’t I behave more? .... hmm ...

 

Maybe because they’d think they are paying me too much ?