MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

[digicidal]

I think both sides of this argument would benefit from more data and less philosophy. On the one side, we've got conjecture based upon largely ideological differences and mostly uninformed speculation of impact (on both consumers and producers). On the other side we've got conjecture based largely upon historical performance of people and formats in the market (and as any good disclaimer would state "past performance is no guarantee of future gains").

Is there any place where there is some actual data concerning the distribution and profit potentials within Tidal and outside (regarding MQA itself)? I can't find anything other than a few pieces based on 2015 financial statements after the acquisition of Aspiro AB - which definitely wasn't showing any broad adoption. The MQA site is almost entirely dedicated to fluff marketing with no actual penetration data in any category - and even the "Showcase Products" are extremely lite per category (at most only a handful even at 2019 CEDIA). Obviously showcase products are not indicative of overall implementation numbers as they were specifically selected as "Brand Ambassadors" for the shows and ad copy.

MQA seems pleased with the market results of MQA-CD's as well, yet they indicate only a few titles have been produced - and only two players mentioned being capable of unfolding them fully (Oppo & Meridian) - of which Oppo is defunct now. They indicated penetration into the Chinese market via streaming service Xiami (run by Alibaba) which is a potential big win, yet Xiami is one of the smallest market participants there. (Tencent Music Entertainment Group's 4 services have ~800M users according to one article).

Is there a good resource for this market data? The IFPI reports and the RIAA reports are both heavily biased, info-graphic jokes IMO and while they both indicate a huge move toward streaming music vs. physical (no, really?) their outside demographics point to problems with the MQA direction, at least to me. There is a rapidly dwindling minority of music listeners that are A) listening via dedicated hifi gear and B) purchasing music at all - as opposed to 'renting' via service. This seems in direct contrast to the marketing of MQA (i.e. VIP tiers, higher-end equipment, etc.) unless the expectation is that smartphones will be used as the HIFI DAP of the future and will be the primary target?

Obviously Bob Stuart's history will virtually guarantee that Meridian components will always exist for this format, and I'm sure most similarly-priced hifi gear will as well. However, that doesn't provide anything to the discussion really as far as the potential market for the format. Though this is only my own impression - I'm not sure I even see "High End Audiophiles" still being a demographic in another 20 years at the current rate. Sure there will always be a decent number of well-heeled music lovers... but I would presume someone willing to spend five or six figures on their gear would also want to purchase music (regardless of physical or file format)... and it seems that is a rapidly disappearing metric.

I'm certain that there are many misconceptions I'm holding due to a lack of data, but in general I find that telling as well. Usually when something new and profitable is similarly popular and successful - you can't get those involved to shut up about the numbers. In this case, even years after introduction, it seems to be mostly the same kind of affirmative qualitative language used to sell cables, jewelry, and fine art - but very little quantitative language indicating real market penetration.

 

[amirm]

For anyone who knows the history of this, the words “such as" are sure doing a lot of work here. VC-1? HD-DVD? I say this as someone who still owns a Toshiba HD-A1, though I’m not sure why.

As in Blu-ray would have been a single format MPEG-2 if we had not intervened and won double blind video quality shoot out, lived through politics of standardization in SMPTE, DVD Forum and BDA. And as in leading the development of not only VC-1, but chairing the committee at MPEG/ITU that developed H.264/MPEG-4 AVC. That is on top of billions of devices that support WMA audio codec to this date across thousands of manufactures and countless IC designs.

Not sure if you were trying to diminish any of this but this is what I lived and breathed for a decade. And so against the huge tide of just about every company hating my employer at the time. I got Playstation to support WMA when they and Microsoft were mortal enemies in consoles.

There are skills, knowledge and insight that is required here that only a handful of people in the world understand. Some things you need to do to fully appreciate. And format adoption in the industry is one of them.

 

[amirm]

Usually when something new and profitable is similarly popular and successful - you can't get those involved to shut up about the numbers.

Not always so. Has Amazon released the number of echo devices they have sold?

 

[digicidal]

Not always so. Has Amazon released the number of echo devices they have sold?

Yes. Granted, not until shown to be broadly successful... which was my point. They do not however break out the related revenue streams or item-distinct profitability in their filed 10-K. Which is fairly standard of course.

 

[Dogen]

Amir, I very much support and admire your advocacy for audio equipment consumers in your hardware reviews. May I ask, what benefits do you see MQA delivering to consumers, especially given the market presence of Qobuz and now Amazon HD?

 

[amirm]

Amir, I very much support and admire your advocacy for audio equipment consumers in your hardware reviews. May I ask, what benefits do you see MQA delivering to consumers, especially given the market presence of Qobuz and now Amazon HD?

Until Amazon is integrated into Roon (and more broadly into other devices), I see Tidal providing > CD rates at no charge to audiophiles.

Qobuz is giving it some competition but they have a ways to go to catch up to Tidal. And I think they charge more?

 

[Sal1950]

David Craff, Qobuz Product Manager recently stated one CA/AS that,
"It is not currently Qobuz's intention to offer MQA."
https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/...-issues-thread/?do=findComment&comment=992857

 

[Blumlein 88]

Until Amazon is integrated into Roon (and more broadly into other devices), I see Tidal providing > CD rates at no charge to audiophiles.

Qobuz is giving it some competition but they have a ways to go to catch up to Tidal. And I think they charge more?

So when Roon_Amazon integration happens, Tidal is providing nothing of benefit via MQA?

 

[JJB70]

Personally I'm very happy with 44.1/16 RBCD quality, I honestly find the difference between RBCD and 256 or 320 MP3 to be very marginal and going above RBCD to offer no discernible improvement. Where high res formats could come into their own is multi-channel but for two channel I just see no meaningful benefit.

 

[amirm]

So when Roon_Amazon integration happens, Tidal is providing nothing of benefit via MQA?

In theory no. MQA is supposed to save bandwidth for service providers. To the extent Amazon has a bandwidth cost advantage over whoever Tidal is using and/or is subsidizing it, that advantage becomes moot. The only thing left then is whether MQA has better masters than the releases Amazon is getting.

 

[Sal1950]

Huh? What does this even mean? I must say, what an odd response, especially given Arch is one of the very few objective and rational "audiophiles" out there in audio land today. Completely objectively debunked MQA, with no objective measurement rebuttal from anyone... including this thread. Recently provided perhaps the best coverage of the RMAF 2019, better than the majority of mainstream audio rags and blogs.

Yah, kinda don't get your comment and really don't want to know either. Seems like a personal judgement to me. I didn't join your forum for that.

A high-end audiophile would jump off the cliff it he owned Emotiva anything.

Agreed Mitch,
Highly disappointed in that elitist comment and attitude, Amir

 

[Biblob]

I must say I don't quite like the distinctive argument being made that you can only join the conversation if you're part of the "high-end" family. As if the amount of money spent correlates to someone's relevance.
Who says if someone didn't spend a crazy amount of money on subject X, can't be knowledgeable enough to make statements about the same subject?

 

[digicidal]

My biggest concern is simply with what I've seen happen with every other DRM attempt made in any industry thus far... the paying customer loses out significantly (in portability, durability, or other areas) and the piracy continues unabated. In movies this hasn't changed the amount of piracy much - possibly a little - but it has made HDMI handshaking issues a rather frequent annoyance on all fronts (including when just watching TV sometimes). In software, I can't count the number of times a DRM key server going down has prevented me from being able to use software I purchased. Now I'll soon be able to be in the enviable position of buying music which becomes MP3 quality if my dedicated, appropriately licensed device goes down and I have to listen on something else? Yay!

Agreed Mitch,
Highly disappointed in that elitist comment Amir

I understand your response to the sentiment, but @amirm is quite right about that. I know of no "high-end audiophiles" that don't preface every conversation about audio equipment with a practiced litany of brand and price... and possibly age (if vintage gear). How things sound usually doesn't come until far after stories of how they damaged their $8000 tonearm when driving it home from the shop in their exotic sports car.

Now if the comment was "anyone into hifi should jump off a cliff..." instead - then I would say you've got some real criticism. I'm saying that and I think he's on the wrong side of the whole MQA thing as well... but lets be fair.

High-end Audiophile ≠ Hifi Enthusiast

 

[Blumlein 88]

I must say I don't quite like the distinctive argument being made that you can only join the conversation if you're part of the "high-end" family. As if the amount of money spent correlates to someone's relevance.
Who says if someone didn't spend a crazy amount of money on subject X, can't be knowledgeable enough to make statements about the same subject?

Oh it is a specious argument at best. I do agree at least some in the High End do see it that way. Certainly marketing professionals can understand a market and market toward it without being part of the market itself. Probably happens this way more often than not.

 

[Sal1950]

s that a bad thing? Too variable to say. Some high end is very good (though usually pricey for the performance) some is not really very good. I can say the same for mainstream items or even non-mainstream items that lack the correct cachet and story to be considered high end.

We all know "high end" is about MONEY and how expensive a component is. If we learned anything for sure here it's that price and technical performance do not go hand in hand.

I understand your response to the sentiment, but @amirm is quite right about that. I know of no "high-end audiophiles" that don't preface every conversation about audio equipment with a practiced litany of brand and price... and possibly age (if vintage gear). How things sound usually doesn't come until far after stories of how they damaged their $8000 tonearm when driving it home from the shop in their exotic sports car.

Not the point, Amir used the issue to attack Archimago and his ownership of Emotiva gear to highlight his opinion that Archimago doesn't "know" high end. I'll tell you this much, anyone with common sense can look at the high end market and know that it's more about money and status and filled with a bunch of fools that buy useless expensive products to stroke there own egos and impress their friends.

 

[digicidal]

On that we can agree @Sal1950

 

[solderdude]

What does MQA have to do with high-end ?
A license costs peanuts compared to high-end equipment and is seen in cheaper products as well.

Bandwidth is the only 'benefit' for distributors and those using 2GB/month for their phones or in areas where there is almost no bandwidth available *.
In all other circumstances it only benefits the MQA folks themselves and keeps on giving to them until the format dies.
CD format, afterall, is still here after all this years and so are countless lossless and lossy ones. MQA will still be here for many years.

For all high end lovers... when owning DXD, DSD and 384 files I don't think they are interested in partly lossy files. Bandwidth and storage is never a problem anyway and vinyl does not come in MQA. For high-end lovers it may be fun knowing they can decode it at its maximum and will use it when they want to listen to a particular mastering if higher res may not be available.

Perhaps keep the thread about MQA and not personal ?

* see post #912

 

[Julf]

Devices that are expensive, unusual in design, usually have a story of design by listening, and not mainstream.

Indeed. Nothing to do with audio quality as such.

Is that a bad thing? Too variable to say. Some high end is very good (though usually pricey for the performance) some is not really very good. I can say the same for mainstream items or even non-mainstream items that lack the correct cachet and story to be considered high end.

So we agree "high end" is a market positioning term?

 

[Blumlein 88]

What does MQA have to do with high-end ?
A license costs peanuts compared to high-end equipment and is seen in cheaper products as well.

Bandwidth is the only 'benefit' for distributors and those using 2GB/month for their phones or in areas where there is almost no bandwidth available.
In all other circumstances it only benefits the MQA folks themselves and keeps on giving to them until the format dies.
CD format, afterall, is still here after all this years and so are countless lossless and lossy ones. MQA will still be here for many years.

For all high end lovers... when owning DXD, DSD and 384 files I don't think they are interested in partly lossy files. Bandwidth and storage is never a problem anyway and vinyl does not come in MQA. For high-end lovers it may be fun knowing they can decode it at its maximum and will use it when they want to listen to a particular mastering if higher res may not be available.

Perhaps keep the thread about MQA and not personal ?

Actually there are already LP's released in MQA. I assume the digital master files were MQA'd for the vinyl.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Indeed. Nothing to do with audio quality as such.



So we agree "high end" is a market positioning term?

Yes of course we agree.