KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,937
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 15, 2018 12:15:59 GMT -5
Another (interesting) aside.....
Someone mentioned licensing costs... and MQA... and Tidal.
I don't know how much extra Tidal pays to license their MQA content... And I don't know how much more money they make because of customers who subscribe to them BECAUSE of that MQA content.... However, I'll bet their accountants either have a pretty good idea about it, or are trying very hard to figure it out.
Therefore, you MAY see MQA become a new cost-extra option... Or you MAY see it dropped entirely... And it's anybody's guess what will happen to MQA if Tidal gets bought or simply goes out of business. I keep hearing how "all those studios are on board with MQA" - but the only major player who is actually selling, or paying for, any significant MQA content at the moment seems to be Tidal.
As of last year, both Tidal and Spotify were LOSING money. In fact, according to their public financials, both LOST more money last year than the year before. And both claim that a major reason for this is that they pay so much to license the music they provide. This strongly suggests that we're going to see some changes in product lineup, or perhaps some consolidation in the industry.
Spotify has been test marketing a "CD quality" service tier.... (more expensive, of course) Maybe Spotify will start offering MQA content.... And maybe Spotify will drive Tidal out of business, or go under themselves.... Or maybe they'll merge.... Or maybe Apple or Google will buy one or both of them.... It will be interesting to see if MQA becomes a featured product or gets lost in the shuffle.
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Feb 15, 2018 12:53:33 GMT -5
It'll be interesting to see what Karlheinz Brandenburg (of MP3 fame) says in the promised sixth article. And I really would like to see someone like Bruno Putneys, who has very impeccable Signal Processing bona fides, host a guest column in the series.
Casey
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,937
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 15, 2018 22:47:35 GMT -5
Two different things occurred to me... on the subject of... perspective. 1) Does MQA have DRM?DRM, in the traditional sense, is intended to protect the owner of the content. By making it more difficult to make free copies for your friends, it protects their ability to sell copies to your friends. MQA does not (currrently) have any sort of traditional DRM. MQA does, however, have a sort of DRM that does something else. The DRM included with MQA PROTECTS THE ABILITY TO SELL MQA LICENSES. It doesn't protect the studio - because it doesn't stop you from giving a copy of your music to your friend. But it does force your friend to buy an MQA decoder, which helps MQA sell decoders (or licenses to produce them). You will note that, unlike with other forms of DRM, this one ONLY benefits MQA. 2) Cui bono? (That's ancient Latin for "follow the money".)Many people wonder "why so many people are so down on MQA as a business". Here are a few facts that may give you a little perspective there... although I'll refrain from taking sides. I'm going to compare several different digital audio formats.... FLAC -FLAC is a free format. There is no license, and nobody pays to encode, play, or distribute files using FLAC. MP3 -
MP3 is NOT a free format. There is no fee to play or decode an MP3 file. This is intended to encourage customers to ask for MP3 files, which encourages producers to produce them. Producers pay a license fee and or pay for software to make MP3 files. (At least this was all the original idea.) MQA Files -
With MQA files, the entity producing the MQA files must pay a license fee. And the person playing the file must pay a fee. The person playing the file pays a fee, in the form of purchasing an MQA capable DAC (whose seller paid the fee). Alternately, the person playing the file pays a fee, in the form of purchasing an MQA capable player program (whose seller paid the fee). In the latter case, the person playing the file will still be reminded that, if they want full quality, they must pay ANOTHER fee, in the form of purchasing an MQA capable renderer. Notice that there are an awful lot of fees going to MQA there. MQA Streaming -With MQA streaming, the entity delivering the stream pays a fee. (We can consider that the person playing the file pays a fee as part of their payment for the service). However, the person playing the file will still be reminded that, if they want full quality, they must pay ANOTHER fee, in the form of purchasing an MQA capable renderer. Notice that, compared to the other formats, MQA carries the most fees, and they seem to be collecting fees from everyone in sight. Also note that, in order to encourage studios to pay them a fee, MQA must offer them something in return. (And they do NOT offer any sort of DRM that the studio would value.) Therefore, what MQA must offer is "a customer base of potential customers who have been convinced to buy MQA - and so will ask the studio to sell it to them". In order to "earn" their license form the studios, MQA must essentially promise them sales in return. Now you know why MQA is so eager to convince everyone that they need MQA PLEASE note that I'm not faulting them for this.... business is business. But perhaps it will give you a little insight about why the entire MQA business plan is built on convincing you and I to buy MQA music. It is NOT sufficient for them to offer a new format that works well. They must essentially deliver a market that has already "signed up to buy MQA products". The whole thing won't work if someone simply adds MQA to the list of formats they offer - and then waits to see if anyone buys them. It was NECESSARY for MQA to basically "create demand" in order to launch the product successfully. They initially tried to convince us that we all had to buy MQA DACs.... That would have both earned them more DAC license fees, and committed everyone who spent money on an MQA DAC to purchase music to play on it. When that plan wasn't successful, they moved to a "fallback position" where we could use software instead.... (They sacrificed the profit from those DAC licenses in order to get more of us to sign up as potential customers.) Again, nothing sinister; just business.... but interesting.
|
|
|
Post by rhale64 on Feb 16, 2018 6:08:49 GMT -5
Two different things occurred to me... on the subject of... perspective. 1) Does MQA have DRM?DRM, in the traditional sense, is intended to protect the owner of the content. By making it more difficult to make free copies for your friends, it protects their ability to sell copies to your friends. MQA does not (currrently) have any sort of traditional DRM. MQA does, however, have a sort of DRM that does something else. The DRM included with MQA PROTECTS THE ABILITY TO SELL MQA LICENSES. It doesn't protect the studio - because it doesn't stop you from giving a copy of your music to your friend. But it does force your friend to buy an MQA decoder, which helps MQA sell decoders (or licenses to produce them). You will note that, unlike with other forms of DRM, this one ONLY benefits MQA. 2) Cui bono? (That's ancient Latin for "follow the money".)Many people wonder "why so many people are so down on MQA as a business". Here are a few facts that may give you a little perspective there... although I'll refrain from taking sides. I'm going to compare several different digital audio formats.... FLAC -FLAC is a free format. There is no license, and nobody pays to encode, play, or distribute files using FLAC. MP3 -
MP3 is NOT a free format. There is no fee to play or decode an MP3 file. This is intended to encourage customers to ask for MP3 files, which encourages producers to produce them. Producers pay a license fee and or pay for software to make MP3 files. (At least this was all the original idea.) MQA Files -
With MQA files, the entity producing the MQA files must pay a license fee. And the person playing the file must pay a fee. The person playing the file pays a fee, in the form of purchasing an MQA capable DAC (whose seller paid the fee). Alternately, the person playing the file pays a fee, in the form of purchasing an MQA capable player program (whose seller paid the fee). In the latter case, the person playing the file will still be reminded that, if they want full quality, they must pay ANOTHER fee, in the form of purchasing an MQA capable renderer. Notice that there are an awful lot of fees going to MQA there. MQA Streaming -With MQA streaming, the entity delivering the stream pays a fee. (We can consider that the person playing the file pays a fee as part of their payment for the service). However, the person playing the file will still be reminded that, if they want full quality, they must pay ANOTHER fee, in the form of purchasing an MQA capable renderer. Notice that, compared to the other formats, MQA carries the most fees, and they seem to be collecting fees from everyone in sight. Also note that, in order to encourage studios to pay them a fee, MQA must offer them something in return. (And they do NOT offer any sort of DRM that the studio would value.) Therefore, what MQA must offer is "a customer base of potential customers who have been convinced to buy MQA - and so will ask the studio to sell it to them". In order to "earn" their license form the studios, MQA must essentially promise them sales in return. Now you know why MQA is so eager to convince everyone that they need MQA PLEASE note that I'm not faulting them for this.... business is business. But perhaps it will give you a little insight about why the entire MQA business plan is built on convincing you and I to buy MQA music. It is NOT sufficient for them to offer a new format that works well. They must essentially deliver a market that has already "signed up to buy MQA products". The whole thing won't work if someone simply adds MQA to the list of formats they offer - and then waits to see if anyone buys them. It was NECESSARY for MQA to basically "create demand" in order to launch the product successfully. They initially tried to convince us that we all had to buy MQA DACs.... That would have both earned them more DAC license fees, and committed everyone who spent money on an MQA DAC to purchase music to play on it. When that plan wasn't successful, they moved to a "fallback position" where we could use software instead.... (They sacrificed the profit from those DAC licenses in order to get more of us to sign up as potential customers.) Again, nothing sinister; just business.... but interesting.
But I am not paying any more for Tidal after mqa was implemented than I was before. So in that sense I am not paying extra. Just one point I thought about.
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Feb 16, 2018 9:11:15 GMT -5
So, I purchase an OPPO 205 4KBR-PLAYER with SABRE DAC that added MQA support after I paid for it as an add-on feature. Is this bad? Are the fees so high? If so, why low-cost DACs like iFI Nano IDSD, Audioquest Dragon, Explorer2 have MQA? I have no problem paying Bob on his excellent work like I pay Emotiva for their superb work. The majority of tracks in Tidal sound better in MQA, versus their 24bit HD tracks and 16bit FLACS. I know that is subjective, but judge after you hear it in a proper setup. What I don't get why all the hoopla is about MQA and its fees; and I don't hear it about Atmos, Dolby Digital, DTS X, etc. and all of their fees. It is the same thing. If I want to hear TrueHD Dolby, I need a new system, if not I will only listen to its core Dolby Sound. If your system doesn't support Atmos (XMC-1), you get TrueHD. If your system doesn't support MQA files, you get the benefits of phase deblur, and if you have Tidal, you get the deblur and first unfold (no extra subscriptionfees ). If you have a DAC that supports MQA, you get the whole thing. Let that sink in for a minute. MQA review Two different things occurred to me... on the subject of... perspective. MQA Files -
With MQA files, the entity producing the MQA files must pay a license fee. And the person playing the file must pay a fee. The person playing the file pays a fee, in the form of purchasing an MQA capable DAC (whose seller paid the fee). Alternately, the person playing the file pays a fee, in the form of purchasing an MQA capable player program (whose seller paid the fee). In the latter case, the person playing the file will still be reminded that, if they want full quality, they must pay ANOTHER fee, in the form of purchasing an MQA capable renderer. Notice that there are an awful lot of fees going to MQA there. MQA Streaming -With MQA streaming, the entity delivering the stream pays a fee. (We can consider that the person playing the file pays a fee as part of their payment for the service). However, the person playing the file will still be reminded that, if they want full quality, they must pay ANOTHER fee, in the form of purchasing an MQA capable renderer.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,937
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 16, 2018 10:51:13 GMT -5
I agree - somewhat... we are basically in the same exact situation as regards fees and licenses with Dolby and DTS. (In fact, many people quote the nuisance of MQA asking for "design approval" on MQA DACs, and both Dolby and DTS also have that same requirement.) I think a major part of the difference is that most people actually agree that Dolby's product is a major feature..... and that was even more true when their product was new. Before Dolby and DTS came along, there were no other surround sound solutions that "people thought worked fine". The previous attempts at solutions, SQ and CD-4 four channel, had already become miserable commercial failures. Dolby really did offer a very functional solution to what was considered to be a major problem at the time. At least at the time most people thought Dolby was WORTH the extra cost and aggravation. You'll notice that the main complaint many people have against MQA is that "it's a solution looking for a problem". And, incidentally, I know plenty of people who did NOT buy a new processor when Dolby TrueHD came out (assume theirs already supported Dolby Digital). In most industries, we have what we sometimes internally refer to as "check box features"... and that's what Dolby TrueHD is for most people. Check box features are features that would hurt sales of your product if you left them out - but you don't actually expect people to pay EXTRA for. Nobody buys a more expensive Blu-Ray player because it supports Dolby TrueHD; but they will cross one off their list if it FAILS to support such a ubiquitous feature. (Most of those people really didn't buy a new player because it supports TrueHD; it was simply "one of the features you get on the players they're selling this year".) The simple fact is that, regardless of what you or I think, MQA has so far failed to achieve anywhere near that status. Nobody would buy a surround sound processor that doesn't support Dolby TrueHD. And Dolby Labs has SUCCEEDED in convincing a lot of people that Atmos is something they need and want. In the last year or two, I've talked to hundreds of people who want to know when we'll be supporting Atmos... and they're cheerfully willing to pay for it. In contrast, MQA so far has NOT succeeded in convincing many people that it is worthwhile. When I put up a survey about it, only a few dozen people on our forum expressed any interest in getting MQA at all, and, as I recall, only three or four said they were willing to pay $10 for it. Many people still aren't bothering to buy high-res files (a lot of them still listen to MP3s). And along comes yet another high-res format, with even less content available, and even more aggravating hoops to jump through. Even worse, not everyone agrees that it works at all, a lot of industry folks are dead set against it, and the guys selling it keep changing their story about why you would even want it. You also need to understand that MQA has a history of making false and unsubstantiated claims... - First they said it was bit-perfect... which turned out to not be true. - Then they said it could only be decoded using new hardware (which you had to buy)... and which has now also turned out not to be true. (Getting caught in lies and vague misrepresentations, about a controversial product, which claims to solve a problem that many people don't believe exists to begin with, is not an auspicious beginning.) PLEASE NOTE that I am not in any way claiming that MQA doesn't work. However, many people do view it as nothing more than another way to collect yet another fee... or sell yet another product. As for MQA and Tidal..... that is a special case. You are indeed paying for it..... those license fees are part of Tidal's costs, which is reflected in the price you pay for your subscription. The last time I looked (which was a while ago), Tidal didn't even identify their MQA content as "MQA". With a streaming service, you are paying for the entire package; most Spotify subscribers don't know they're listening to an Ogg Vorbis stream; and most cable subscribers don't know what DOCSIS3 is. The only question is whether Tidal thinks adding MQA to their offering is making them more money that it's costing them... clearly, at least for now, they do. Note that Tidal is currently losing money - and they NEED to fix that. Personally, while I was clearly not as impressed as you are, I agree that at least some of Tidal's MQA content sounds better than the PCM HD versions of the same album. However, I am not entirely convinced how much of that difference is or is not simply because they re-mastered it better. Many people have expressed resentment that "instead of offering us deblurred files in industry standard PCM format they insist on forcing us to buy them in a proprietary format". (Incidentally, did you know that the current Dolby TrueHD encoder also includes an "audio deblurring and upsampling filter" that they claim makes the audio on TrueHD discs sound better?) To be honest, if a new re-master of an album I like comes out, and it sounds better than the previous version, I don't actually CARE why it sounds better - I'll probably buy it. The problem for me is that the market has NOT been flooded with piles of new great-sounding re-masters displaying that MQA logo. And, also to be honest, I find the fact that I can listen to them on Tidal, but I can't buy my own copy, to be more annoying than convenient. (I can play my FLAC files on any device I like, using any player I like, while I can only play Tidal music on the Tidal client. To me, that's a huge drawback; about the same as having a subscription to a Sony radio station that only plays on Sony radios. ) To me, it's a "cart before the horse situation"..... Offer me great sounding re-masters of all my favorite albums..... THEN we can discuss whether I'm willing to buy something special to play them on.... As for Tidal....... Even though I like to own my music, I also listen to the radio, and I may eventually sign up for Tidal.... However, that decision really doesn't feel like it has much to do with MQA. (If they can provide me with good sounding content, and their client takes care of the details, I won't really care if they use high-res FLAC, Ogg Vorbis, or MQA to do it.) So, I purchase an OPPO 205 4KBR-PLAYER with SABRE DAC that added MQA support after I paid for it as an add-on feature. Is this bad? Are the fees so high? If so, why low-cost DACs like iFI Nano IDSD, Audioquest Dragon, Explorer2 have MQA? I have no problem paying Bob on his excellent work like I pay Emotiva for their superb work. The majority of tracks in Tidal sound better in MQA, versus their 24bit HD tracks and 16bit FLACS. I know that is subjective, but judge after you hear it in a proper setup. What I don't get why all the hoopla is about MQA and its fees; and I don't hear it about Atmos, Dolby Digital, DTS X, etc. and all of their fees. It is the same thing. If I want to hear TrueHD Dolby, I need a new system, if not I will only listen to its core Dolby Sound. If your system doesn't support Atmos (XMC-1), you get TrueHD. If your system doesn't support MQA files, you get the benefits of phase deblur, and if you have Tidal, you get the deblur and first unfold (no extra subscriptionfees ). If you have a DAC that supports MQA, you get the whole thing. Let that sink in for a minute. MQA review Two different things occurred to me... on the subject of... perspective. MQA Files -
With MQA files, the entity producing the MQA files must pay a license fee. And the person playing the file must pay a fee. The person playing the file pays a fee, in the form of purchasing an MQA capable DAC (whose seller paid the fee). Alternately, the person playing the file pays a fee, in the form of purchasing an MQA capable player program (whose seller paid the fee). In the latter case, the person playing the file will still be reminded that, if they want full quality, they must pay ANOTHER fee, in the form of purchasing an MQA capable renderer. Notice that there are an awful lot of fees going to MQA there. MQA Streaming -With MQA streaming, the entity delivering the stream pays a fee. (We can consider that the person playing the file pays a fee as part of their payment for the service). However, the person playing the file will still be reminded that, if they want full quality, they must pay ANOTHER fee, in the form of purchasing an MQA capable renderer.
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Feb 16, 2018 12:39:35 GMT -5
Regardless of some on this forums would say, or some of your friend's opinions are regarding MQA, is not statistically big enough of a pool to justify your conclusions. Ask Big Dan, and how his Emersa line fair by omitting Dolby Atmos. When Sony and friends introduced BluRay, it was a "cart before the horse situation." Same when Dolby Atmos was introduced, and the same is true with MQA. The big three studios now support MQA; with Spotify and Pandora soon introducing "HiFi" tier of their services, and Tidal already in the field, is only matter of time when smartphones will carry the "HiFi" badge. The LG V30 is the first major "HiFi" phone that also supports MQA. The smartphone will dictate if MQA will be a success or not, and it's already looking favorable. It reaches a bigger market than we, at this forum, would ever be. People will start craving the convince and the sound quality that only MQA allows with limited wireless bandwidth, the same way they craved BluRay. The same way Atmos, and now 4K is a must have "checkbox". Emotiva as a company needs to be proactive and not reactive to these type of technology changes. We wouldn't want to see an Emersa repeat. The team should look into including MQA in your new DACs, followed by retrofitting MQA via firmware, even if it a "checkbox item" for now. Your sales will reflect this. Take advantage of the MQA gateway drug that will bring future audiophiles looking at your product for the "checkbox", but what do I know I agree - somewhat... we are basically in the same exact situation as regards fees and licenses with Dolby and DTS. (In fact, many people quote the nuisance of MQA asking for "design approval" on MQA DACs, and both Dolby and DTS also have that same requirement.) I think a major part of the difference is that most people actually agree that Dolby's product is a major feature..... and that was even more true when their product was new. Before Dolby and DTS came along, there were no other surround sound solutions that "people thought worked fine". The previous attempts at solutions, SQ and CD-4 four channel, had already become miserable commercial failures. Dolby really did offer a very functional solution to what was considered to be a major problem at the time. At least at the time most people thought Dolby was WORTH the extra cost and aggravation. You'll notice that the main complaint many people have against MQA is that "it's a solution looking for a problem". And, incidentally, I know plenty of people who did NOT buy a new processor when Dolby TrueHD came out (assume theirs already supported Dolby Digital). In most industries, we have what we sometimes internally refer to as "check box features"... and that's what Dolby TrueHD is for most people. Check box features are features that would hurt sales of your product if you left them out - but you don't actually expect people to pay EXTRA for. Nobody buys a more expensive Blu-Ray player because it supports Dolby TrueHD; but they will cross one off their list if it FAILS to support such a ubiquitous feature. (Most of those people really didn't buy a new player because it supports TrueHD; it was simply "one of the features you get on the players they're selling this year".) The simple fact is that, regardless of what you or I think, MQA has so far failed to achieve anywhere near that status. Nobody would buy a surround sound processor that doesn't support Dolby TrueHD. And Dolby Labs has SUCCEEDED in convincing a lot of people that Atmos is something they need and want. In the last year or two, I've talked to hundreds of people who want to know when we'll be supporting Atmos... and they're cheerfully willing to pay for it. In contrast, MQA so far has NOT succeeded in convincing many people that it is worthwhile. When I put up a survey about it, only a few dozen people on our forum expressed any interest in getting MQA at all, and, as I recall, only three or four said they were willing to pay $10 for it. Many people still aren't bothering to buy high-res files (a lot of them still listen to MP3s). And along comes yet another high-res format, with even less content available, and even more aggravating hoops to jump through. Even worse, not everyone agrees that it works at all, a lot of industry folks are dead set against it, and the guys selling it keep changing their story about why you would even want it. You also need to understand that MQA has a history of making false and unsubstantiated claims... - First they said it was bit-perfect... which turned out to not be true. - Then they said it could only be decoded using new hardware (which you had to buy)... and which has now also turned out not to be true. (Getting caught in lies and vague misrepresentations, about a controversial product, which claims to solve a problem that many people don't believe exists to begin with, is not an auspicious beginning.) PLEASE NOTE that I am not in any way claiming that MQA doesn't work. However, many people do view it as nothing more than another way to collect yet another fee... or sell yet another product. As for MQA and Tidal..... that is a special case. You are indeed paying for it..... those license fees are part of Tidal's costs, which is reflected in the price you pay for your subscription. The last time I looked (which was a while ago), Tidal didn't even identify their MQA content as "MQA". With a streaming service, you are paying for the entire package; most Spotify subscribers don't know they're listening to an Ogg Vorbis stream; and most cable subscribers don't know what DOCSIS3 is. The only question is whether Tidal thinks adding MQA to their offering is making them more money that it's costing them... clearly, at least for now, they do. Note that Tidal is currently losing money - and they NEED to fix that. Personally, while I was clearly not as impressed as you are, I agree that at least some of Tidal's MQA content sounds better than the PCM HD versions of the same album. However, I am not entirely convinced how much of that difference is or is not simply because they re-mastered it better. Many people have expressed resentment that "instead of offering us deblurred files in industry standard PCM format they insist on forcing us to buy them in a proprietary format". (Incidentally, did you know that the current Dolby TrueHD encoder also includes an "audio deblurring and upsampling filter" that they claim makes the audio on TrueHD discs sound better?) To be honest, if a new re-master of an album I like comes out, and it sounds better than the previous version, I don't actually CARE why it sounds better - I'll probably buy it. The problem for me is that the market has NOT been flooded with piles of new great-sounding re-masters displaying that MQA logo. And, also to be honest, I find the fact that I can listen to them on Tidal, but I can't buy my own copy, to be more annoying than convenient. (I can play my FLAC files on any device I like, using any player I like, while I can only play Tidal music on the Tidal client. To me, that's a huge drawback; about the same as having a subscription to a Sony radio station that only plays on Sony radios. ) To me, it's a "cart before the horse situation"..... Offer me great sounding re-masters of all my favorite albums..... THEN we can discuss whether I'm willing to buy something special to play them on.... As for Tidal....... Even though I like to own my music, I also listen to the radio, and I may eventually sign up for Tidal.... However, that decision really doesn't feel like it has much to do with MQA. (If they can provide me with good sounding content, and their client takes care of the details, I won't really care if they use high-res FLAC, Ogg Vorbis, or MQA to do it.) So, I purchase an OPPO 205 4KBR-PLAYER with SABRE DAC that added MQA support after I paid for it as an add-on feature. Is this bad? Are the fees so high? If so, why low-cost DACs like iFI Nano IDSD, Audioquest Dragon, Explorer2 have MQA? I have no problem paying Bob on his excellent work like I pay Emotiva for their superb work. The majority of tracks in Tidal sound better in MQA, versus their 24bit HD tracks and 16bit FLACS. I know that is subjective, but judge after you hear it in a proper setup. What I don't get why all the hoopla is about MQA and its fees; and I don't hear it about Atmos, Dolby Digital, DTS X, etc. and all of their fees. It is the same thing. If I want to hear TrueHD Dolby, I need a new system, if not I will only listen to its core Dolby Sound. If your system doesn't support Atmos (XMC-1), you get TrueHD. If your system doesn't support MQA files, you get the benefits of phase deblur, and if you have Tidal, you get the deblur and first unfold (no extra subscriptionfees ). If you have a DAC that supports MQA, you get the whole thing. Let that sink in for a minute. MQA review
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,937
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 16, 2018 16:55:39 GMT -5
The question about "whether MQA will be a success" is quite different from the question of whether we need to add hardware support for it in our equipment. I keep hearing about how "the big three studios support MQA" - yet, oddly, I don't see new re-masters of all of my favorite albums from those studios on the shelf. And Spotify has been talking about introducing a "CD quality" tier of service, but I don't recall seeing MQA mentioned in that conversation (unless I missed something). Note that "HiFi" - whatever exactly it does mean - is NOT synonymous with MQA (it is generally used in reference to high-res files - meaning 24/96k or 24/192k PCM). Also, to be blunt, whether every smart phone on Earth supports MQA eventually or not matters a lot to smart phone manufacturers, but not necessarily to anyone else. Note that Spotify, the largest streaming service around, uses Ogg Vorbis.... yet most people have never even heard of Ogg Vorbis.... As a CODEC that can be used to deliver high-quality streaming content, MQA seems to be an excellent choice, which makes it a great CODEC for folks like Tidal, and perhaps Spotify, to use. Hopefully it will be wildly successful in those markets. However, since they both handle their content in a proprietary client anyway, the CODEC they choose to use matters little outside of that closed-loop system. (I don't need to support Ogg Vorbis to use Spotify, and I don't need to support MQA to use Tidal... I simply use their client.) I have no doubt that MQA will be successful inside the streaming audio industry - as a CODEC. Yes, several software music players now support MQA, and it may well become a "check box item" on all music player software (especially any that supports Tidal or Spotify). However, that doesn't suggest whether it will succeed in getting any sort of penetration in the rest of the industry or not. I should also note that virtually all software music players support FLAC, ALAC, WAV, and MP3 already - which is why few products bother to support them in hardware. The Tidal client, and some software players like Amarra, already support MQA - in software. So, if you really want to play MQA files (not streams), all you need is a copy of Amarra. And, obviously, if it becomes a check-box item anywhere, then EVERY software player will end up supporting it. That being the case, we already support it, and so does every other DAC out there... just like we already support all those other formats. The only question that remains is that, ASSUMING THAT THE FIRST DECODE WILL BE DONE IN THE PLAYER, is there any benefit to licensing a hardware DAC so it can be "an official MQA renderer". Of course we'll be eagerly awaiting proof that, even after doing the first unfold in software, there is still an audible benefit to adding a "bona-fide MQA renderer" to the signal chain. (But, according to a few tests I've seen recently, it actually turns out that pretty much any DAC that includes the correct general type of filter sounds pretty much like a "real MQA renderer".) This is great for audiophiles - because it means they don't have to buy an MQA DAC to get all the major benefits of MQA... All they need is a player that supports MQA and a DAC that offers a "leaky short apodizing filter" (which seems to be the general description of what an MQA renderer has). Regardless of some on this forums would say, or some of your friend's opinions are regarding MQA, is not statistically big enough of a pool to justify your conclusions. Ask Big Dan, and how his Emersa line fair by omitting Dolby Atmos. When Sony and friends introduced BluRay, it was a "cart before the horse situation." Same when Dolby Atmos was introduced, and the same is true with MQA. The big three studios now support MQA; with Spotify and Pandora soon introducing "HiFi" tier of their services, and Tidal already in the field, is only matter of time when smartphones will carry the "HiFi" badge. The LG V30 is the first major "HiFi" phone that also supports MQA. The smartphone will dictate if MQA will be a success or not, and it's already looking favorable. It reaches a bigger market than we, at this forum, would ever be. People will start craving the convince and the sound quality that only MQA allows with limited wireless bandwidth, the same way they craved BluRay. The same way Atmos, and now 4K is a must have "checkbox". Emotiva as a company needs to be proactive and not reactive to these type of technology changes. We wouldn't want to see an Emersa repeat. The team should look into including MQA in your new DACs, followed by retrofitting MQA via firmware, even if it a "checkbox item" for now. Your sales will reflect this. Take advantage of the MQA gateway drug that will bring future audiophiles looking at your product for the "checkbox", but what do I know I agree - somewhat... we are basically in the same exact situation as regards fees and licenses with Dolby and DTS. (In fact, many people quote the nuisance of MQA asking for "design approval" on MQA DACs, and both Dolby and DTS also have that same requirement.) I think a major part of the difference is that most people actually agree that Dolby's product is a major feature..... and that was even more true when their product was new. Before Dolby and DTS came along, there were no other surround sound solutions that "people thought worked fine". The previous attempts at solutions, SQ and CD-4 four channel, had already become miserable commercial failures. Dolby really did offer a very functional solution to what was considered to be a major problem at the time. At least at the time most people thought Dolby was WORTH the extra cost and aggravation. You'll notice that the main complaint many people have against MQA is that "it's a solution looking for a problem". And, incidentally, I know plenty of people who did NOT buy a new processor when Dolby TrueHD came out (assume theirs already supported Dolby Digital). In most industries, we have what we sometimes internally refer to as "check box features"... and that's what Dolby TrueHD is for most people. Check box features are features that would hurt sales of your product if you left them out - but you don't actually expect people to pay EXTRA for. Nobody buys a more expensive Blu-Ray player because it supports Dolby TrueHD; but they will cross one off their list if it FAILS to support such a ubiquitous feature. (Most of those people really didn't buy a new player because it supports TrueHD; it was simply "one of the features you get on the players they're selling this year".) The simple fact is that, regardless of what you or I think, MQA has so far failed to achieve anywhere near that status. Nobody would buy a surround sound processor that doesn't support Dolby TrueHD. And Dolby Labs has SUCCEEDED in convincing a lot of people that Atmos is something they need and want. In the last year or two, I've talked to hundreds of people who want to know when we'll be supporting Atmos... and they're cheerfully willing to pay for it. In contrast, MQA so far has NOT succeeded in convincing many people that it is worthwhile. When I put up a survey about it, only a few dozen people on our forum expressed any interest in getting MQA at all, and, as I recall, only three or four said they were willing to pay $10 for it. Many people still aren't bothering to buy high-res files (a lot of them still listen to MP3s). And along comes yet another high-res format, with even less content available, and even more aggravating hoops to jump through. Even worse, not everyone agrees that it works at all, a lot of industry folks are dead set against it, and the guys selling it keep changing their story about why you would even want it. You also need to understand that MQA has a history of making false and unsubstantiated claims... - First they said it was bit-perfect... which turned out to not be true. - Then they said it could only be decoded using new hardware (which you had to buy)... and which has now also turned out not to be true. (Getting caught in lies and vague misrepresentations, about a controversial product, which claims to solve a problem that many people don't believe exists to begin with, is not an auspicious beginning.) PLEASE NOTE that I am not in any way claiming that MQA doesn't work. However, many people do view it as nothing more than another way to collect yet another fee... or sell yet another product. As for MQA and Tidal..... that is a special case. You are indeed paying for it..... those license fees are part of Tidal's costs, which is reflected in the price you pay for your subscription. The last time I looked (which was a while ago), Tidal didn't even identify their MQA content as "MQA". With a streaming service, you are paying for the entire package; most Spotify subscribers don't know they're listening to an Ogg Vorbis stream; and most cable subscribers don't know what DOCSIS3 is. The only question is whether Tidal thinks adding MQA to their offering is making them more money that it's costing them... clearly, at least for now, they do. Note that Tidal is currently losing money - and they NEED to fix that. Personally, while I was clearly not as impressed as you are, I agree that at least some of Tidal's MQA content sounds better than the PCM HD versions of the same album. However, I am not entirely convinced how much of that difference is or is not simply because they re-mastered it better. Many people have expressed resentment that "instead of offering us deblurred files in industry standard PCM format they insist on forcing us to buy them in a proprietary format". (Incidentally, did you know that the current Dolby TrueHD encoder also includes an "audio deblurring and upsampling filter" that they claim makes the audio on TrueHD discs sound better?) To be honest, if a new re-master of an album I like comes out, and it sounds better than the previous version, I don't actually CARE why it sounds better - I'll probably buy it. The problem for me is that the market has NOT been flooded with piles of new great-sounding re-masters displaying that MQA logo. And, also to be honest, I find the fact that I can listen to them on Tidal, but I can't buy my own copy, to be more annoying than convenient. (I can play my FLAC files on any device I like, using any player I like, while I can only play Tidal music on the Tidal client. To me, that's a huge drawback; about the same as having a subscription to a Sony radio station that only plays on Sony radios. ) To me, it's a "cart before the horse situation"..... Offer me great sounding re-masters of all my favorite albums..... THEN we can discuss whether I'm willing to buy something special to play them on.... As for Tidal....... Even though I like to own my music, I also listen to the radio, and I may eventually sign up for Tidal.... However, that decision really doesn't feel like it has much to do with MQA. (If they can provide me with good sounding content, and their client takes care of the details, I won't really care if they use high-res FLAC, Ogg Vorbis, or MQA to do it.)
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Feb 17, 2018 10:50:18 GMT -5
As of last year, both Tidal and Spotify were LOSING money. Current streaming models really don't seem sustainable aside from Apple who can use it as a loss leader for selling hardware. Spotify is prepping for an IPO which could sustain them for a while, like other non-profitable companies who continue to operate. I won't be surprised if TIDAL is acquired or ends up closing but I will be disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Feb 20, 2018 16:20:17 GMT -5
N.B. As I've stated multiple times before, I'm definitely in the MQA Skeptic category. I don't like their hand waving and their licensing scheme feels more than a bit monopolistic. Also, given the fuzzy and ever-changing description of what MQA does, the "space saving" aspect seems pointless with today's ever increasing bandwidth, and decreasing storage costs. That said, the Redbook CD offers an interesting challenge of a fixed Bandwidth/Storage format. And now the MQA folks seem to be taking a stab at that reported in this Stereophile article, First Major-Label MQA CD: Steve Reich on Nonesuch. Of course the problem here is that they're going to have to do their "Origami Folding" in the noise floor of 16bit samples which may be a lot harder to do than with the traditional 24bit sample MQA we've been seeing. And of course, with CD distribution on the decline, this may be yet another solution looking for a problem ... Casey
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,937
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 20, 2018 17:25:46 GMT -5
My guess.... and this really is a guess.... Is that either Tidal will be bought out by Spotify, or they'll merge, or Google will acquire one or both of them. According to reports, both Spotify and Tidal lost more money last year than the year before. (Both claimed that licensing fees were a major part of the reason.) Clearly this cannot continue for very long. It seems equally clear to me that streaming is here to say. Therefore, there must be some sort of compromise that will satisfy everyone. (Although it may take a while for falling disc sales to convince the studios that they may have to settle for lower licensing fees to stay in business.) My bet is that, assuming Spotify does start offering "CD quality content", they will quickly drive Tidal to the brink of oblivion. They'll have a higher-tier service, which they can charge more money for, and so hopefully increase revenue, and most people already agree that they have a better selection than Tidal. And, of course, a nice solid injection of money from an IPO will buy them significantly more time to get the details sorted out. And, yes, it will be interesting to see what happens to MQA when the smoke clears. During EmoFest last summer, we signed up for a Tidal account, and Tidal was running and available to listen to on the prototype of our new DC-2 DAC. I was the one who did the setup for that, and I was somewhat surprised NOT to see MQA mentioned in the Tidal listings. As I discovered after some research, Tidal was labeling their MQA albums as "Master Albums" - or something like that. They actually did NOT use the TERM "MQA" in the listings; those albums did NOT come up if you entered "MQA" in the search field. Regardless of how you feel about the technology, or the sound quality it delivers, this suggests to me that the folks at Tidal did NOT expect a lot of their customers to be searching for those MQA albums. In other words, in any discussion about "fields of logos", and "check box lists", MQA was more in the category of "not worth bothering to mention"...... at least for Tidal... at that point in time. This does not bode well when Tidal merges or gets acquired - and the new owner starts looking for unnecessary costs that lack offsetting revenue streams that they can trim to save money. At that point, people really will start asking how many people have chosen Tidal over their competitor BECAUSE OF MQA..... and, if too many people respond "What's MQA?" the game will be over. And how many of them really notice the difference and consider it to be important. I suspect that we'll see the answer pretty soon....... (Especially since Spotify seems to have much better prospects of survival than Tidal at this point.) As of last year, both Tidal and Spotify were LOSING money. Current streaming models really don't seem sustainable aside from Apple who can use it as a loss leader for selling hardware. Spotify is prepping for an IPO which could sustain them for a while, like other non-profitable companies who continue to operate. I won't be surprised if TIDAL is acquired or ends up closing but I will be disappointed.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,937
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 20, 2018 17:41:26 GMT -5
Thanks.... I checked out that link and discovered something quite interesting.... The article described "24/48 MQA.FLAC files that unfold to 24/96." They also mentioned that "The non-MQA hi-rez version can be downloaded from HDTracks and Acoustic Sounds." And they mentioned that the MQA version can be streamed on Tidal. HOWEVER, I was unable to find ANY mention of an actual MQA ENCODED PHYSICAL CD. This leads me to wonder if they're using the term "CD" interchangeably with "album", and there never will be any such thing as Red Book Compatible MQA CDs. Perhaps the album will be available on ordinary non-MQA Red Book CDs, or perhaps it just won't be available on plastic discs at all. Either way, it does seem odd that an article about "The First Major-Label MQA CD" actually failed to even suggest that the album is or will be available as a CD. I can just imagine the derision I would encounter if I were to announce the release of a new phonograph record - but reveal later that it would never actually be available in any form you could play on a turntable. (I might suggest, with an ironic tone in my voice, that the haze around the subject of MQA seems to be getting a bit thick yet again.) N.B. As I've stated multiple times before, I'm definitely in the MQA Skeptic category. I don't like their hand waving and their licensing scheme feels more than a bit monopolistic. Also, given the fuzzy and ever-changing description of what MQA does, the "space saving" aspect seems pointless with today's ever increasing bandwidth, and decreasing storage costs. That said, the Redbook CD offers an interesting challenge of a fixed Bandwidth/Storage format. And now the MQA folks seem to be taking a stab at that reported in this Stereophile article, First Major-Label MQA CD: Steve Reich on Nonesuch. Of course the problem here is that they're going to have to do their "Origami Folding" in the noise floor of 16bit samples which may be a lot harder to do than with the traditional 24bit sample MQA we've been seeing. And of course, with CD distribution on the decline, this may be yet another solution looking for a problem ... Casey
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Feb 20, 2018 17:51:19 GMT -5
Hhrrrmmm, yeah, I also noticed the "24/48 MQA.FLAC files that unfold to 24/96" line and was wondering if its a Red Book ISO ... but now clicking through onto the product link in the article I see what's advertised as a standard CD for sale with no mention of MQA or FLAC, etc. And, as usual, the Stereophile Comments Section on this article is ... "fun" ... Casey
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,937
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 20, 2018 18:13:27 GMT -5
A Red Book Audio CD is 16/44k - period. However, there are "enhancements" that allow video and other extras to be put on the same physical disc, so presumably one of those could be used to hold extra data. It's also possible to simply put 24/44k FLAC files on a DATA CD.... but then it won't be a Red Book Audio CD. Hhrrrmmm, yeah, I also noticed the "24/48 MQA.FLAC files that unfold to 24/96" line and was wondering if its a Red Book ISO ... but now clicking through onto the product link in the article I see what's advertised as a standard CD for sale with no mention of MQA or FLAC, etc. And, as usual, the Stereophile Comments Section on this article is ... "fun" ... Casey
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Feb 20, 2018 19:12:51 GMT -5
Ah, I hadn't realized that the term "Red Book CD" referred to the storage format of Stereo Audio information on a Compact Disc. I should have known that a standard Data CD with an ISO File System wouldn't count as a "Red Book CD" just because its using the same storage device.
Casey
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Feb 20, 2018 20:50:18 GMT -5
I would not be surprised if streaming service choices in the US were eventually Apple or Google. TIDAL's sub base is tiny so I don't know what benefit acquiring them would be. Don't quote me on this but I think TIDAL sent an email to subs when they introduced the "Masters" which had some marketing speak about MQA and where to find it on the desktop app as well as the capable DACs. Roon's implementation of TIDAL is excellent in my opinion so I am also very curious about the impact the end of TIDAL would be on Roon's business. In the Roon forum, it's been made clear that a Spotify integration was close to being done but Spotify pulled out. My guess.... and this really is a guess.... Is that either Tidal will be bought out by Spotify, or they'll merge, or Google will acquire one or both of them. According to reports, both Spotify and Tidal lost more money last year than the year before. (Both claimed that licensing fees were a major part of the reason.) Clearly this cannot continue for very long.
|
|
|
Post by craigl59 on Feb 20, 2018 21:15:42 GMT -5
Keith: Have been reading this site to glean info about MQA for some time and wanted you to know how much your information/thoughts/perspective are appreciated. This is one of the ways audio threads can serve important purpose. Several times you have mentioned that streaming services cite licensing costs as the reason they are losing money. By this do they mean costs paid to labels/performers OR monies paid to production services such as MQA or MP3? If they are claiming the former, then there is something seriously wrong. Labels and performers are receiving significantly less monies now than they were during the CD timeframe. To show how dire the situation is, here is a recent NYT article providing detail about the downturn in composer, performer, and producing revenues: www.nytimes.com/2018/01/28/opinion/congress-musicians-music-bus.html?action=click&pgtype... My assessment of the services I have tried (Spotify, Pandora, and Tidal) is that they are not charging nearly enough per month to support the artists available on their sites. Further, there is the real problem of verification: proving to the label and/or artist how accurate are the volume numbers. Having spent some time in both musical and corporate worlds can second your assessment above that whatever entity turns out to be the Amazon of streaming will have to come to grips with the finances of their business model. AND I HOPE that higher monthly charges prevail over low performer fees that continue to force musicians into poverty.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Feb 21, 2018 9:56:33 GMT -5
Keith: Have been reading this site to glean info about MQA for some time and wanted you to know how much your information/thoughts/perspective are appreciated. This is one of the ways audio threads can serve important purpose. Several times you have mentioned that streaming services cite licensing costs as the reason they are losing money. By this do they mean costs paid to labels/performers OR monies paid to production services such as MQA or MP3? If they are claiming the former, then there is something seriously wrong. Labels and performers are receiving significantly less monies now than they were during the CD timeframe. To show how dire the situation is, here is a recent NYT article providing detail about the downturn in composer, performer, and producing revenues: www.nytimes.com/2018/01/28/opinion/congress-musicians-music-bus.html?action=click&pgtype... My assessment of the services I have tried (Spotify, Pandora, and Tidal) is that they are not charging nearly enough per month to support the artists available on their sites. Further, there is the real problem of verification: proving to the label and/or artist how accurate are the volume numbers. Having spent some time in both musical and corporate worlds can second your assessment above that whatever entity turns out to be the Amazon of streaming will have to come to grips with the finances of their business model. AND I HOPE that higher monthly charges prevail over low performer fees that continue to force musicians into poverty. This is a music industry problem and has nothing to do with MQA specifically.
|
|
|
Post by craigl59 on Feb 21, 2018 12:30:18 GMT -5
Keith: My question above concerning licensing costs was directed to you and your answer will be appreciated. mgbpuff: Read my post again. It speaks directly to questions raised by Keith concerning the costs of MQA and current trends in the streaming industry. Claiming than industry problems are not part of the MQA discussion is disingenuous.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Feb 21, 2018 14:08:29 GMT -5
Keith: My question above concerning licensing costs was directed to you and your answer will be appreciated. mgbpuff: Read my post again. It speaks directly to questions raised by Keith concerning the costs of MQA and current trends in the streaming industry. Claiming than industry problems are not part of the MQA discussion is disingenuous. Then why don't you special message Keith. This is not a private forum.
|
|