MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

[amirm]

You may have missed my earlier posts: if all new player hardware has MQA technology in it (why not?), this can be set up to act as a gatekeeper to prevent replay of anything that is not watermarked in the right way.

There is no such technology. The front-end of any playback software or hardware examines the file format and branches to the decoder for it. Once a file is detected as being MP3 for example, that is the code that is called, not MQA, not Flac, etc. The output of all these decoders is PCM audio that is then output commonly between format. Nothing in one decoder like MQA can impact the playback of another decoder like MP3.

What you say was actually propose by both record labels and movie studios and were told to pound sand. No tech company wants to be the generic gatekeeper for the content owners. Take watermark detection in Blu-ray. That is only limited to what is on disc. The player can stream other content with that mark in it and it will still play. I made sure of that when the Blu-ray's copy protection system was being designed .

Can you imagine one day Apple not only agreeing to pay royalties for MQA, but also accepting that restriction on behalf of all of its users? They have more power than any label today. They refused to play Flash even though it was free. No way, no how will the industry do anything like you suggest. Not for a super popular offer. And certainly not for a niche player like MQA.

 

[watchnerd]

Another nail in MQA's coffin?
http://archimago.blogspot.fr/2018/04/musings-on-drm-mqa-supposed-techno.html

I like Archimago a lot, but I didn't see any new info in that post....was there a particular nail you were noticing?

 

[svart-hvitt]

Let's examine an example. Apple launched their music service with downloadable tracks that were copy protected. This was in sharp contrast to CD that was not. It was huge success. Why? Because Apple forced music labels to unbundle the CD. You could now buy a track for 99 cents. And with one click no less. And unlike the CD, you could have it in your hands in seconds.

Apple fairplay "DRM" was accepted with welcome arms as a result of above. The consumer spoke and that was that as the saying goes.

Take Blu-ray. DVD copy protection was broken wide but Blu-ray had much more powerful copy protection. Yet the consumer appetite for high-resolution video won them over and they accepted the much more secure format. Consumer spoke again. And the consequences were whatever they were.

By the same token, if MQA wins despite any restrictions it may bring, that is that. It will be because consumers want to stream high-res audio in MQA format. Protesting against such an outcome will do nothing. The people paying will always win over people who are sitting on the sidelines throwing rocks.

Take MP3. It reduced quality from CD. But again, consumer spoke because they wanted the convenience of on-the-road music enjoyment and happily gave up the fidelity difference. Again, consumer spoke.

Look at Google chrome. No one thought a new browser had a chance against Internet Explorer. But google thought different: they made a very fast and light-weight browser. They added features like automatic background update. And in short few years, became the #1 browser in the market. Quite remarkable. So much so that Microsoft disbanded the IE team for the most part thinking "the battler of browsers was over and they had won forever." Again, consumer spoke. To the chagrin of web developers that they had to make sure their web sites looked good in both IE and Chrome.

Take safety in cars. Initially in US this was a government mandate. But automakers who cried and cried due to higher costs realized that safety sold. Today they pile on more safety features than one can count. Because the consumer has spoken and is willing to pay more to get a safer car.

The business dynamics are not hard science like audio. But it is important to consider them super valid factors here. Ignoring them gives you the many failures of others trying these things.

@amirm ,

the point of my comment was to highlight that when it comes to the societal value of a business venture, the answer is much more complex than measuring the jitter or SNR of an audio device. You stated that if MQA "becomes ubiquitous, it means the consumer has spoken and wants it. In that case, that is it and we better not complain". And you have numerous examples to back up your prognosis of MQA's value in society in case MQA succeeds as a profit generator. But there are numerous other examples, like the price of medicine in the U.S., and the lobby practices of some big corporates to ensure a certain outcome; lobbyism may lead to solutions and products that may not be the outcome of the market process like the one we know from economics 101 text books.

When it comes to the outcome of ventures like MQA we may be in a situation where your opinion counts as much - or as little - as everyone else's opinion. As pointed out before, this is partly because MQA and new business ventures are a more complex issue than measuring devices and partly because you may not exhibit a greater skill in business prognoses than the common member of ASR.

I find it interesting to try and figure out why people form the opinions they do. When it comes to audio, it seems to me that many audiophiles are fed up with all the standards, formats, remasterings, the loudness war etc. over the years. Their previous experience with the audio industry makes them on alert when they see new formats like MQA. They don't expect a different result when facing a situation they think have experienced over and over again. Today, many people stream CD quality and high-res (Qobuz) with success; they therefore don't see the value of MQA because they are already in audio heaven where formats and gear have come to a point where the only part of the chain in need of improvement is speakers. So they probably figure that the value of MQA must be elsewhere, that is on the corporate side.

ASR has made great success in describing the emperor's new clothes in audio, on the gear side. Cheaper stuff has been shown to be measurably as good as more expensive stuff. Some companies have been stripped naked. And the members of ASR like this because you have demonstrated that there is no "objective" value given the price in certain devices. Still, people from other forums come to this site to defend the stripped naked companies and insist these products offer great value. In these cases, it looks as if you are on the side of the average consumer, recommending people to look behind the marketing and empty words, and it looks as if you are happy to judge the companies that don't offer value in a strictly objective sense. Why don't you argue that "the consumer has spoken and wants it. In that case, that is it and we better not complain" in the case of measurably schitty products?

Then comes MQA, which has been stripped naked by Archimago and many others, like this piece by Stephan Hotto of Xivero:

https://www.xivero.com/downloads/MQA-Technical_Analysis-Hypotheses-Paper.pdf

What I find a bit strange is the fact that you seem to close your eyes for the double-tongued communication of MQA, while you at the same time are critical of certain hifi companies. It's as if you do the best to strip naked schitty hifi producers in the interest of the average audiophile, while you seem to think the consumer should be left to his own devices in the case of MQA. I don't understand why one should be critical of certain hifi and high-end companies while we should hold MQA in high esteem. To me, MQA is déjà vu all over again and reminds me of the sad state in some segments of the audio industry where tweaking, colouring and the like have taken the place of engineering excellence.

I hope you take this as constructive critique and not as a broad critique of ASR in general. The point of ASR is fun, constructive debates and not heated, emotional discussions.

 

[amirm]

When it comes to the outcome of ventures like MQA we may be in a situation where your opinion counts as much - or as little - as everyone else's opinion.

I have had the "good" fortune to try to establish a new format against MP3. And getting our video codec mandatory in Blu-ray. Those technologies have shipped in billions of devices. During that time, I dealt with the entire ecosystem from chip companies, to consumer electronics companies and of course music labels and major studios. It is what I lived and breathed for 10 years while managing my division at Microsoft. I have done what MQA is trying to do. Not read about it. But done it.

In that case I am not sure why you say I am regularly situated as any other forum member. It is as if to say anyone knows as much as their doctor when it comes to medicine. While I could be wrong, I am sharing real experience. I sat next to Warner brothers execus who had just given permission to Apple to divide the CD into tracks. I talked to Sony executives and others when they demanded that we not play any music in Windows that is not blessed by them using a watermark. I have probably had 200 to 500 meetings with content producers executives in the last 20 years. Both inside Microsoft and outside.

So please forgive me when I don't take comments from someone online complaining about MQA. They have no real experience or feel for the market dynamics. Nor do they understand the technology (in the case of DRM, copy protection in general, etc.).

In these cases, it looks as if you are on the side of the average consumer, recommending people to look behind the marketing and empty words, and it looks as if you are happy to judge the companies that don't offer value in a strictly objective sense. Why don't you argue that "the consumer has spoken and wants it. In that case, that is it and we better not complain" in the case of measurably schitty products?

I have said that if people don't like MQA, they should get together and create an open-source alternative to it. That is what i did to compete: I created a better mouse trap. In the case of Blu-ray codecs, we produced a video codec that produced better picture than its competitors, forcing even our worst enemies to vote for its adoption. What I don't appreciate is empty complaining based on facts that are just wrong.

Whether it is testing an audio equipment or talking about MQA, you are going to find me with the same objective, non-emotional attitude. Sadly everyone else seems to have gotten themselves wound up in this love/hate relationship with it. We cannot let emotions speak for merits or lack thereof of the technology. You will see me calling people when they go there.

That is ultimately what this forum is about. We get down to data, bring in real expertise and knowledge.

 

[Wombat]

Why was MQA created? What purpose does it serve? As put forward by the MQA consortium.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I hope you take this as constructive critique and not as a broad critique of ASR in general. The point of ASR is fun, constructive debates and not heated, emotional discussions.

Love him or not, Amir charismatically, is who he is as a fierce, argumentative, often emotionally highly charged and irascible BS "Ghostbuster" and technical nerd, as we know well. But, I think you grossly misperceive his business acumen, and you may be incorrectly pigeon holing him as a mere techie, I am not saying that because he had high executive VP status at a major corporation. He required both technical and business smarts to hold that position. If not, he would not have survived very long, since Microsoft could easily have replaced him with any of thousands of very qualified candidates salivatingly eager to get rich from stock options on what was then a premier, world class, high growth technology company. They had the very best pick of anyone available.

That very credible background is not necessarily relevant. Except, in reading his insights here for a long time into the very dynamic economics of the technology marketplace, I am impressed. In putting my own Wharton MBA cap on and having worked professionally in technology investments as part of my job, I must say that he gets it. The old "techies don't understand business" maxim does not seem to apply to the King of Audio. It is clear over many comments here and elsewhere that he has excellent understanding of underlying business dynamics, particularly in the fast moving technology sphere. He is credible and worth listening to on the business as well as the technical side of the issues. Unfortunately, as we know, he is blunt and undiplomatic in how he conveys himself. I do not expect that to change.

Frankly, I have not seen Amir defending MQA or encouraging its adoption in any way, if that is your beef. He is actually fairly dismissive of it, as I see it. I think the persona that we know, the no BS guy, is merely trying to be objective, both technically and business-wise, looking beyond woeful and complete factual misunderstandings, beliefs, fantasies, politicized arguments, personal attacks, character assassinations, tribal propaganda, ingenuous FUD etc., etc. that also, in my own view, lost much credibility in Web forums on the anti-MQA side. Believe me, I read every post, for better or mostly worse, in the CA "MQA is Vaporware" thread, as well as others. Occasionally, they might have raised some valid technical objections, soon to be drowned by ignoramouses just piling on the new party line.

If one must be staunchly anti-MQA to be perceived as objective, factual, honest, etc., then I dont't think Amir will comply. He will poke deserved holes in any argument on either side. I think that is a refreshingly good thing. He may not always be right, either. Who is, except for dear old me, of course? Well, I wish that were true.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I have had the "good" fortune to try to establish a new format against MP3. And getting our video codec mandatory in Blu-ray. Those technologies have shipped in billions of devices. During that time, I dealt with the entire ecosystem from chip companies, to consumer electronics companies and of course music labels and major studios. It is what I lived and breathed for 10 years while managing my division at Microsoft. I have done what MQA is trying to do. Not read about it. But done it.

In that case I am not sure why you say I am regularly situated as any other forum member. It is as if to say anyone knows as much as their doctor when it comes to medicine. While I could be wrong, I am sharing real experience. I sat next to Warner brothers execus who had just given permission to Apple to divide the CD into tracks. I talked to Sony executives and others when they demanded that we not play any music in Windows that is not blessed by them using a watermark. I have probably had 200 to 500 meetings with content producers executives in the last 20 years. Both inside Microsoft and outside.

So please forgive me when I don't take comments from someone online complaining about MQA. They have no real experience or feel for the market dynamics. Nor do they understand the technology (in the case of DRM, copy protection in general, etc.).


I have said that if people don't like MQA, they should get together and create an open-source alternative to it. That is what i did to compete: I created a better mouse trap. In the case of Blu-ray codecs, we produced a video codec that produced better picture than its competitors, forcing even our worst enemies to vote for its adoption. What I don't appreciate is empty complaining based on facts that are just wrong.

Whether it is testing an audio equipment or talking about MQA, you are going to find me with the same objective, non-emotional attitude. Sadly everyone else seems to have gotten themselves wound up in this love/hate relationship with it. We cannot let emotions speak for merits or lack thereof of the technology. You will see me calling people when they go there.

That is ultimately what this forum is about. We get down to data, bring in real expertise and knowledge.

@amirm , thanks for good answer!

However, have in mind that I was thinking of prognoses of MQA’s societal value, not prognoses of MQA taking off in terms of market share. The two - prognosis of societal value vs prognosis of sales - may appear the same, but are not. I think most people primarily discuss the MQA’s potential societal value - from a consimer view point - not its probability of gaining traction.

Of course, if the probability of MQA getting market share is very little, there’s less need to discuss MQA’s societal value.

In technical yet verbal terms we’re discussing an x times y issue (xy), where x is the probability of MQA becoming a big player in terms of market share and y is MQA’s societal value.

If x is almost zero, it doesn’t matter much if y is hugely negative from a consumer point of view. Why discuss a hugely negative scenario if the scenario’s probability is (almost) zero?

Most enthusiastic (yet insightful) debaters like Archimago discuss primarily y, I believe. While you are more focussed on x, if I am not mistaken?

So if a=xy, it seems like everybody is discussing a (i.e. the product of x and y), while less distinction has been made to define x and y.

Hmmm...did that make sense?

 

[amirm]

Hmmm...did that make sense?

I am not sure.

MQA is a technology and value proposition. Those are the things we are discussing. It is a niche solution so has no societal mass market appeal or value. It won't cure cancer. Deal with world peace or make the climate better.

MQA's penetration into the market is at glacial pace and as such, it only makes sense to discuss it in abstract. What it is. What it is doing. And what it is not.

It is true that some people are painting it as this huge tornado that is about to hit us. It is helpful to their case to create fear and sense of urgency to stop them. Everything I know about this business says that is totally wrong. This is a tiny activity, driven by a tiny company, going after a tiny market.

Way too much energy is wasted on this topic really. It has become cause célèbre for a number of people, distracting from otherwise useful work that could be done. Frankly I don't care for archimago spending time on MQA which he could otherwise use for more useful contributions to audiophile society. As he used to do.

I also don't get the sense that any of this negative fighting has had any effect. The people championing MQA are in the population of actual consumers of high-res audio and hence their opinion matters a lot more than someone like Archimago who has fought that notion. It is like Android users trying to tell Apple users to not buy iPhones. It just doesn't work.

All of this has really surprised me. If MQA is chasing a problem that doesn't exist, then let it go there and fail for heaven's sake. If we are so worried, it seems that we think it is solving real problems!

 

[oivavoi]

If MQA is chasing a problem that doesn't exist, then let it go there and fail for heaven's sake.

While you may (or may be not) right about the possibilities MQA has for market penetration Amir, I think this statement is way too optimistic. I think we should know by now that the audiophile market is a terrible guarantee for quality. Vinyl playback is experiencing a resurgence, for heaven's sake. Zu speakers are still being sold. Schiit gear has become the gear of choice for audiophiles of a certain budget. Etc. It simply seems to me that people are able to get used to objectively bad sound, and may even start perceiving that as "right" after some time.

Summed up: there is absolutely no reason to believe that MQA will fail marketwise even though if may be totally superfluous and/or even damaging to sound quality, objectively speaking. The success of things on the audiophile market seems to me to depend on other things than sound quality - to a certain degree, at least.

 

[Theo]

I like Archimago a lot, but I didn't see any new info in that post....was there a particular nail you were noticing?

No particular nail, just another one....

 

[restorer-john]

Speaking for myself, I don't stream or download anything, so it doesn't bother me in the least. I see it as Bob Stuart's last hurrah, and I'm not invited to the party in any case. My guess is, not that many invited will turn up, letalone stay until last drinks...

I certainly will not be buying any CDs with MQA coding, and, if I discover they are secreting MQA on CDs I buy, or those CDs are a 'knobbled' version of what I should be getting, they will promptly be returned as faulty, not fit for purpose and not as described. In Australia, it's very simple- any of those characteristics mean a refund of the purchase price- no exceptions.

I won't be buying a silver disc spinner with MQA capability either- my vast stable of CD players will outlive me, my family and anyone else who needs one. (yes, I have quite a few)

It's ironic that us CD collectors and music aficionados are, en-mass, searching out the very first releases, the ones that were flat transfers, the first 50 Sony releases, the early Sanyos etc., because they are actually the closest to the studio masters- many of them being direct SRC from Soundstream 50KHz or Mitsubishi X80s, Sony PCMF1s masters.

 

[Theo]

While you may (or may be not) right about the possibilities MQA has for market penetration Amir, I think this statement is way too optimistic. I think we should know by now that the audiophile market is a terrible guarantee for quality. Vinyl playback is experiencing a resurgence, for heaven's sake. Zu speakers are still being sold. Schiit gear has become the gear of choice for audiophiles of a certain budget. Etc. It simply seems to me that people are able to get used to objectively bad sound, and may even start perceiving that as "right" after some time.

Summed up: there is absolutely no reason to believe that MQA will fail marketwise even though if may be totally superfluous and/or even damaging to sound quality, objectively speaking. The success of things on the audiophile market seems to me to depend on other things than sound quality - to a certain degree, at least.

The worry seems real to me, even if it is restricted to a small community... However, I would think, as Amir does, that the risk of an MQA dark force taking the world is quite low for one reason : all successfull marketing ploys were based on a solution provided being better than the existing ones: Ipod, Blue-Ray, mp3, CD's!.... Better meaning easier to use, having more options and/or costing less, which IMHO are more important to the market than intrisic quality - BTW, has Blue-Ray actually replaced DVD?
So, will MQA appeal to a majority of customers as being easier to use, really sounding better, offering more options and/or cheaper? I don't think so.... I believe that it will stay a niche item as do tubes, Zu and vinyl (still a small share of the worlwide audio market, aren't they?) , as Amir pointed out... And thanks to you guys, Archimago and others discussing it, we may know why (I suppose?)

 

[Eric Auer]

MQA is not going to succeed because of Audiophiles, but rather because the 99.4% of streaming consumers who really don't care what format it is they are listening to.

As long as Audiophiles are willing to shell out money on perceived superior formats there will also be other choices as well.

ATM, majority of new music on Tidal is not MQA. And I haven't seen a massive MQA infusion lately either. So I'm not in the impending doom camp yet.

I also have listened to a lot of MQA Jazz recordings from Tidal and have no problems with SQ so far. But if it was to disappear I wouldn't shed any tears.

Eric

 

[Cosmik]

Some of the arguments against 'MQA panic' seem premised on outdated technology i.e. silver discs, files on memory sticks, downloads stored on home servers. Amir's industry experience, presumably, stems from a time when the iPod was the latest thing..? (correct me if I'm wrong). When people plugged memory sticks into their car audio systems or carried little cases of CDRs with them when they travelled. DRM would certainly have been a huge impediment to the market at that time.

MQA is still being seen here in that context, I think; as a tiny niche compared to the people who demand portability of 'files'. But the reality is that those technologies are rapidly becoming the tiny niche, and streaming is very clearly becoming mainstream. Pretty soon the suppliers and customers won't give a fig about the few nerds who once downloaded high res files and played them on dedicated DACs. All they will care about will be 'the cloud' and customers accessing music wherever they are, completely unaware of 'files' and formats.

And once that transition has taken place, they will be looking for ways to maximise their profits. I could easily imagine them looking for ways to kill off the unencrypted non-DRM'ed download completely.

No doubt there would be specialist companies catering for the hi-fi enthusiasts with their own specialised recordings, but will the big record companies supply their general catalogues unencrypted forever? Will operating systems forever continue to play unencrypted, non-DRM'ed files or will they only do it via 'the cloud'.

I think iTunes Match is an early example of this phenomenon..? If you upload your dodgy copy of a song, it substitutes its own legitimate version. In other words, your dodgy copy has been bypassed, and could easily be locked out in future. They 'trade' you a legitimate copy as a kind of amnesty, for now, and you won't be too upset when they finally lock out your dodgy copy in a few years and only allow you to access the sanctified version from the cloud. And if you don't like the lossy compression they've used on it, tough luck...

(There may still be 'offline' mode, but the user won't be aware of the underlying files as such, and the songs will only play for a limited time without the device being connected to the service every now and again to refresh the subscription. I believe the Spotify offline system works like that now).

 

[amirm]

MQA is still being seen here in that context, I think; as a tiny niche compared to the people who demand portability of 'files'. But the reality is that those technologies are rapidly becoming the tiny niche, and streaming is very clearly becoming mainstream. Pretty soon the suppliers and customers won't give a fig about the few nerds who once downloaded high res files and played them on dedicated DACs. All they will care about will be 'the cloud' and customers accessing music wherever they are, completely unaware of 'files' and formats.

That consumer is perfectly happy with 256 kbps streaming. Any adoption of MQA as a result will hugely increase bandwidth costs for the provider with no net gain in adoption. We are talking 5-10X higher bandwidth.

For any mass dominance of MQA you have to create a plausible scenario of consumers caring about high-res audio en mass and that is just not there. If they did, SACD and DVD-A would have been a huge success.

And how would those millions of consumers enjoy MQA anyway? By apple supporting it? No chance. These guys won't pay a cent to some little company like MQA. And they have the resources to make their own if they wanted.

Have you ever sat across the top executives, engineers and bean counters at these companies like Apple, Samsung, LG, Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, Pioneer, TI, Analog Devices, Intel, TCL, etc. and discuss format adoption? I have. Ain't no way no how will they adopt royalty bearing technology from some high-end audio company spin off like MQA. Even Dolby struggles to get new formats established and this is all they do and they have consumer power like nobody's business.

And then there is the matter of IP/patents. First thing these companies ask for is indemnity. That is, if they ever get sued, they want to just hand it to you and if you lose, they want you to pay all the expenses! They would then look at MQA and say that it doesn't have enough assets to protect them so that is a non-starter.

Next thing they do is say, "hey, we have patents on that technology and we could sue you and the rest of your customers." And proceed to call you a thief for stealing "their" technology.

If by some miracle you generate some success, they get together, create a de-facto cartel and create their own (royalty bearing) alternative. And since they have cross-licensing deals with each other, it doesn't cost them a dime but you would pay deerly if you wanted to adopt it.

And oh, since they created their alternative in a committee, they call that "open" and yours proprietary. 100% get out of jail free card to get out of any antitrust scrutiny.

It doesn't stop there. They will actually create patent pools or go after your licensees individually and say they have patents that read on your solution and you better pay up or get sued.

When I tried to get our technology adopted against all of these odds, one of the most powerful and top executives from a major CE companies pulled me aside and said, "Amir-san, CE business is dirty business!"

Here is an article I wrote for WSR magazine which gets into more of these issues: https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/politics-of-format-making.1289/

Some of the arguments against 'MQA panic' seem premised on outdated technology i.e. silver discs, files on memory sticks, downloads stored on home servers. Amir's industry experience, presumably, stems from a time when the iPod was the latest thing..? (correct me if I'm wrong).

Consider yourself corrected. I am not at liberty to discuss my post Microsoft experience. Hush money and all. And sure, I am not in day to day meetings with labels today but ignoring my experience would be unwise.

Bob Stuart knows a bit of this from his MLP/Dolby TrueHD days but he gave all the work to Dolby to perform for them.

 

[svart-hvitt]

That consumer is perfectly happy with 256 kbps streaming. Any adoption of MQA as a result will hugely increase bandwidth costs for the provider with no net gain in adoption. We are talking 5-10X higher bandwidth.

For any mass dominance of MQA you have to create a plausible scenario of consumers caring about high-res audio en mass and that is just not there. If they did, SACD and DVD-A would have been a huge success.

And how would those millions of consumers enjoy MQA anyway? By apple supporting it? No chance. These guys won't pay a cent to some little company like MQA. And they have the resources to make their own if they wanted.

Have you ever sat across the top executives, engineers and bean counters at these companies like Apple, Samsung, LG, Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, Pioneer, TI, Analog Devices, Intel, TCL, etc. and discuss format adoption? I have. Ain't no way no how will they adopt royalty bearing technology from some high-end audio company spin off like MQA. Even Dolby struggles to get new formats established and this is all they do and they have consumer power like nobody's business.

And then there is the matter of IP/patents. First thing these companies ask for is indemnity. That is, if they ever get sued, they want to just hand it to you and if you lose, they want you to pay all the expenses! They would then look at MQA and say that it doesn't have enough assets to protect them so that is a non-starter.

Next thing they do is say, "hey, we have patents on that technology and we could sue you and the rest of your customers." And proceed to call you a thief for stealing "their" technology.

If by some miracle you generate some success, they get together, create a de-facto cartel and create their own (royalty bearing) alternative. And since they have cross-licensing deals with each other, it doesn't cost them a dime but you would pay deerly if you wanted to adopt it.

And oh, since they created their alternative in a committee, they call that "open" and yours proprietary. 100% get out of jail free card to get out of any antitrust scrutiny.

It doesn't stop there. They will actually create patent pools or go after your licensees individually and say they have patents that read on your solution and you better pay up or get sued.

When I tried to get our technology adopted against all of these odds, one of the most powerful and top executives from a major CE companies pulled me aside and said, "Amir-san, CE business is dirty business!"

Here is an article I wrote for WSR magazine which gets into more of these issues: https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/politics-of-format-making.1289/


Consider yourself corrected. I am not at liberty to discuss my post Microsoft experience. Hush money and all. And sure, I am not in day to day meetings with labels today but ignoring my experience would be unwise.

Bob Stuart knows a bit of this from his MLP/Dolby TrueHD days but he gave all the work to Dolby to perform for them.

PROBABILITY TIMES IMPACT

@amirm , I think you’re still focussing mostly on probability of MQA gaining market share, which is negligible as you see it. The more tricky part is impact, i.e. societal value, among other things.

One thing MQA has done differently from you, Dolby and others, is they have made the major record labels shareholders in the MQA venture. So in MQA there is alignment of certain interests.

Just one more thought on a=xy (see definitions above), i.e. probability times impact - I believe the impact factor is a dynamic one. Let me explain: If MQA stays small, negligible, I think societal value is positive, especially from a consumer standpoint. However, if MQA grows bigger, I think that characteristic will change, i.e. become a potentially negative in societal value terms.

 

[amirm]

One thing MQA has done differently from you, Dolby and others, is they have made the major record labels shareholders in the MQA venture. So in MQA there is alignment of certain interests.

That is done ALL the time. When start-ups go to major studios for video content or labels in this case for music, the content owner always asks, "what is in it for me if I king make you?" Answer is, "here is a bunch of warrants (stock options) to make you money just the same."

Problem with that scheme is that it immediately makes the other labels jealous and potentially your enemy. They don't want to support a format that enriches their competitor if it succeeds. So while it solves the initial chicken and egg, it creates new problems of its own.

I can list company after company who gave such warrants to content owners only to go belly up later.

This also creates potential antitrust issues if they give such warrants to more of the major content owners. It starts to look like a bunch of big companies are getting together to squash competitors.

It is just a routine tool that is used by both sides.

Oddly it creates little to no strategic interest in that label to make them an equity holder. They will still follow the money and go where the business calls. You think the guy calling on Spotify at Warner is pushing them to adopt MQA? No way. He uses his capital to promote their latest artist to show up on their playlists.

Ultimately labels know this is a niche play and won't move the needle at all with respect to their larger interests. It is not a strategic initiative for them.

 

[svart-hvitt]

That is done ALL the time. When start-ups go to major studios for video content or labels in this case for music, the content owner always asks, "what is in it for me if I king make you?" Answer is, "here is a bunch of warrants (stock options) to make you money just the same."

Problem with that scheme is that it immediately makes the other labels jealous and potentially your enemy. They don't want to support a format that enriches their competitor if it succeeds. So while it solves the initial chicken and egg, it creates new problems of its own.

I can list company after company who gave such warrants to content owners only to go belly up later.

This also creates potential antitrust issues if they give such warrants to more of the major content owners. It starts to look like a bunch of big companies are getting together to squash competitors.

It is just a routine tool that is used by both sides.

Oddly it creates little to no strategic interest in that label to make them an equity holder. They will still follow the money and go where the business calls. You think the guy calling on Spotify at Warner is pushing them to adopt MQA? No way. He uses his capital to promote their latest artist to show up on their playlists.

Ultimately labels know this is a niche play and won't move the needle at all with respect to their larger interests. It is not a strategic initiative for them.

OK, one more argument then

It’s big tobacco money behind MQA now. And this guy knew a thing or two about marketing:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Rupert

He invented the king size filter tipped cigarette...

 

[Cosmik]

That consumer is perfectly happy with 256 kbps streaming. Any adoption of MQA as a result will hugely increase bandwidth costs for the provider with no net gain in adoption. We are talking 5-10X higher bandwidth.

For any mass dominance of MQA you have to create a plausible scenario of consumers caring about high-res audio en mass and that is just not there. If they did, SACD and DVD-A would have been a huge success.

And how would those millions of consumers enjoy MQA anyway? By apple supporting it? No chance. These guys won't pay a cent to some little company like MQA. And they have the resources to make their own if they wanted.

Have you ever sat across the top executives, engineers and bean counters at these companies like Apple, Samsung, LG, Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, Pioneer, TI, Analog Devices, Intel, TCL, etc. and discuss format adoption? I have. Ain't no way no how will they adopt royalty bearing technology from some high-end audio company spin off like MQA. Even Dolby struggles to get new formats established and this is all they do and they have consumer power like nobody's business.

And then there is the matter of IP/patents. First thing these companies ask for is indemnity. That is, if they ever get sued, they want to just hand it to you and if you lose, they want you to pay all the expenses! They would then look at MQA and say that it doesn't have enough assets to protect them so that is a non-starter.

Next thing they do is say, "hey, we have patents on that technology and we could sue you and the rest of your customers." And proceed to call you a thief for stealing "their" technology.

If by some miracle you generate some success, they get together, create a de-facto cartel and create their own (royalty bearing) alternative. And since they have cross-licensing deals with each other, it doesn't cost them a dime but you would pay deerly if you wanted to adopt it.

And oh, since they created their alternative in a committee, they call that "open" and yours proprietary. 100% get out of jail free card to get out of any antitrust scrutiny.

It doesn't stop there. They will actually create patent pools or go after your licensees individually and say they have patents that read on your solution and you better pay up or get sued.

When I tried to get our technology adopted against all of these odds, one of the most powerful and top executives from a major CE companies pulled me aside and said, "Amir-san, CE business is dirty business!"

Here is an article I wrote for WSR magazine which gets into more of these issues: https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/politics-of-format-making.1289/


Consider yourself corrected. I am not at liberty to discuss my post Microsoft experience. Hush money and all. And sure, I am not in day to day meetings with labels today but ignoring my experience would be unwise.

Bob Stuart knows a bit of this from his MLP/Dolby TrueHD days but he gave all the work to Dolby to perform for them.

Well forget MQA, then - Apple might produce their own version with many different resolutions and bandwidth. But either way, widening it out, is it still not the case that the writing is on the wall for 'the file'? Pretty soon the idea that people once copied and pasted files from their desktop machine to their iPod or phone will be like ancient history.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Just one more thought on MQA, a thought I believe is of general relevance.

As technologies mature, where does the next profit come from? Then the fighting begins to make profit from something else, e.g. tweaks, marketing, intellectual property rights, monopoly building etc.

If you substitute «technologies» with «economies», «economic growth», I thing the notion is of greater importance.

So I guess MQA is just a sign of times. People smell it and they don’t like the smell.