advertisement


MQA bad for Music?

kenniGT said:
You miss the point completely. Introducing any fee, even a penny for something what is for free now is very bad thing. If you do not understand that I am afraid I can not help you.
Click to expand...

Your problem is that you don't actaully read any of the posts that challenge your view. On the subject of free FLAC red book what have you, It is not free anywhere in the supply chain. Arguably at the mastering stage but so many other costs pile in at that point it's irrelevant. Flac Red book may be a open source format but there are costs and value added all the way along until it gets to your ear or drops through the letter box.

You miss the point completely and seem to not quite grasp that the Mqa to invoice all the way up and down the line they will be shooting themselves in the foot. You still haven't answered my question over whether you thing MA or AQ are paying per unit per dac, and acknolwedge that given they are chip as chips it can't be very much , if at all. You seem to worry MQA will distort a market to the tune of what, next to nothing per stream or a couple of quid on a
Dac...in a market where punters think little of dropping grand on a cartridge. Either you have got things a little out of proportion or MQA is going to threaten your livelihood. Begginjng to think it's the later. And by the way rather than just repeat that you and your little friends know different how about some reasoning from your side, as you clearly disagree.
 
DNM said:
So people streaming MP3 and FLAC from Spotify and Tidal etc. are stealing music?
Click to expand...

MQA is not going to appeal to the MP3 crowd.
It might however appeal to those who want FLAC level sound (or better). Let's face it, right now (assuming you believe that higher bitrate audio is worth the effort), then there's basically very little available in 24 bit (HDtracks), SACD or BD. MQA "might" result in a significantly larger music selection than all of the rest of those formats put together. And you don't need to buy to own, you can rent them.
 
kenniGT said:
You miss the point completely. Introducing any fee, even a penny for something what is for free now is very bad thing.
Click to expand...


Do you genuinely think that MQA introduced absolutely nothing new?!

You seem to miss the tiny little fact that Tidal's launched the first hires streaming service using MQA :)
 
DNM said:
How can an additional licensing cost lead to the licensees products or services being cheaper?
Click to expand...

If the hardware maker/ streaming service pays x as a fee for a certain feature and that feature leads to an increase in revenue that exceeds the additional cost. Simples.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
MQA is not going to appeal to the MP3 crowd.
Click to expand...

Agreed. My three kids who all subscribe to Spotify will never have any interest whatsoever in MQA. They and their ilk represent the largest market for recorded music by a country mile.

It might however appeal to those who want FLAC level sound (or better). Let's face it, right now (assuming you believe that higher bitrate audio is worth the effort), then there's basically very little available in 24 bit (HDtracks), SACD or BD. MQA "might" result in a significantly larger music selection than all of the rest of those formats put together. And you don't need to buy to own, you can rent them.
Click to expand...

If your inferring MQA could lead to economies of scale for High res, that doesn't stack up. As others have already said on this thread, if there is a high demand for streaming high res audio, which is debatable, codecs already exist that can efficiently stream it without content owners/vendors and DAC manufacturers incurring a licensing fee. How does adding costs help grow the market vs no cost alternatives?
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
I don't believe anyone titled a thread as such, however there was definitely a request made by another member to logically use one of the two existing threads for subjective discussions and the other for the technical side of things.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see, so what I suggested didn't in fact happen. Why not try it? Because at the moment it looks like the "people are crapping all over our thread" line is just fiction.
 
DNM said:
If your inferring MQA could lead to economies of scale for High res, that doesn't stack up. As others have already said on this thread, if there is a high demand for streaming high res audio, which is debatable, codecs already exist that can efficiently stream it without content owners/vendors and DAC manufacturers incurring a licensing fee. How does adding costs help grow the market vs no cost alternatives?
Click to expand...

MQA files are smaller than 24/96 and much smaller than DXD or DSD 256 so there are savings in terms of delivery costs.
 
radamel said:
If the hardware maker/ streaming service pays x as a fee for a certain feature and that feature leads to an increase in revenue that exceeds the additional cost. Simples.
Click to expand...

Indeed, that argument is certainly 'Simple' :)

-The vast majority of the market for recorded music do not give a rats arse about MQA, High res or CD. Therefore it stands to reason that Dac sales will not increase as a result of MQA.

-The market for high res is tiny, again because demand is tiny, not because of a lack of availability as more would be available if the market demanded it. Again, it stands to reason that sales of high res will not increase due to MQA.

-If MQA sounds better, only a tiny few audiophiles will care and want it. How does this result in economies of scale?

If therefore MQA became the de facto digital format for streaming, let alone for physical media, the vast majority of consumers will be paying for something they don't need or want.
 
DNM said:
Indeed, that argument is certainly 'Simple' :)

-The vast majority of the market for recorded music do not give a rats arse about MQA, High res or CD. Therefore it stands to reason that Dac sales will not increase as a result of MQA.

-The market for high res is tiny, again because demand is tiny, not because of a lack of availability as more would be available if the market demanded it. Again, it stands to reason that sales of high res will not increase due to MQA.

-If MQA sounds better, only a tiny few audiophiles will care and want it. How does this result in economies of scale?

If therefore MQA became the de facto digital format for streaming, let alone for physical media, the vast majority of consumers will be paying for something they don't need or want.
Click to expand...



You're assuming a lot. And even under your fragile assumptions you can't conclude much as you have no idea how small (or big) MQA fees actually are.
 
radamel said:
MQA files are smaller than 24/96 and much smaller than DXD or DSD 256 so there are savings in terms of delivery costs.
Click to expand...

Gimme a break Rad. We don't use dial-up anymore when we connect to the Internet! We're talking about the costs to the consumer here. If raw material prices go up, the consumer always ends up paying. This is Economics 101.
 
DNM said:
Gimme a break Rad. We don't use dial-up anymore when we connect to the Internet! We're talking about the costs to the consumer here. If raw material prices go up, the consumer always ends up paying. This is Economics 101.
Click to expand...

Delivery costs incurred by the streaming service...

Considering your contributions to this thread I'd be surprised if you really had any knowledge of basic economics albeit at a purely academic level. Do you?
 
radamel said:
You're assuming a lot. And even under your fragile assumptions you can't conclude much as you have no idea how small (or big) MQA fees actually are.
Click to expand...

My points are not fragile. They are well known and have been discussed at length throughout the music industry.

The vast majority of consumers of recorded music listen on devices where MP3 is fit for purpose and where demand for CD streaming, let alone high res is non existent. If demand for better SQ existed, Tidal and Qobuz wouldn't be loss making and having to tap investors for fresh capital.

Its irrelevant what MQA charges, they charge something and if they gain a foothold they will inevitably increase those charges. I'm fine about MQA as long as only those who demand it and use it end up paying for it.
 
radamel said:
Delivery costs incurred by the streaming service...
Click to expand...

MQA charges a license fee. Other technologies capable of bit stacking are free.

Considering your contributions to this thread I'd be surprised if you really had any knowledge of basic economics albeit at a purely academic level. Do you?
Click to expand...

I have both an academic and practical comprehension of Economics after a career in the financial markets. You?
 
DNM said:
MQA charges a license fee. Other technologies capable of bit stacking are free.



I have both an academic and practical comprehension of Economics after a career in the financial markets. You?
Click to expand...

You seem to be stuck with the amount of fees paid and to completely ignore any revenue increase that will stem from MQA.

Your having an economics background really surprised me.
What exactly do you do in the financial markets?

I have academic and professional knowledge of economics and management.
 
DNM said:
MQA charges a license fee. Other technologies capable of bit stacking are free.



I have both an academic and practical comprehension of Economics after a career in the financial markets. You?
Click to expand...

Point is the compatible hardware licence fee is likley to be chicken feed, if it exists at all. the revenue must come from the streams. If I was Mqa then that's how'd I'd like it . Sell it , retire , move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top