MQA Declares Bankruptcy

[Lee]

Please explain to us the difference between entering administration in the UK and Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the US.

My understanding is that in the UK, "administration" can refer to both bankruptcy and reorganizations (termed a "solvent administration").

 

[Rt66indierock]

My understanding is that the 2021 statements don't reflect the benefit of some new licensing agreements that have come online.

Nor do they reflect the decline in revenue from Tidal and the announcement April 11th that they will offer FLAC Hi-Res files.

 

[Rt66indierock]

My understanding is that in the UK, "administration" can refer to both bankruptcy and reorganizations (termed a "solvent administration").

Please try again and don't forget to discuss the thrid party differences.

 

[Gregadd]

Reorganization is a form of bankruptcy in the US. Chapter 11 IIRC.

 

[Lee]

Reorganization is a form of bankruptcy in the US. Chapter 11 IIRC.

Yes, but the UK is different and that is a major distinction I am making above.

 

[Lee]

Please try again and don't forget to discuss the thrid party differences.

Question for you…how do you know this situation is not what the UK calls a “solvent administration”?

 

[Gregadd]

I hate doing legal research.
Chapter 7 means usually you are insolvent and giving up the ghost. Chapter 11 means you need a respite from your creditors while you reorganize.,
if it is different in UK, perhaps you could give us some details. if you like.

 

[stehno]

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/high-res-music-tech-company-mqa-enters-administration-in-the-uk/#:~:text=High-resolution music technology company,the US and other countries.

The financials are eye-opening. Annual revenue never exceeded £700,000 while administrative expenses exceeded £4,000,000 for 2020 and 2021!

Does anyone think Bob Stuart took this much money out of the company?

Wow. So MQA has become another Dolby FM technology. But then, many in the industry thought MQA was a scam.

That's a shame. What's next, a grand jury and then indictments? The big question is, should anything go to trial would Harley and Atkinson be plaintiffs or defendants?

About the only good news is, to this day I've yet to hear a single MQA recording.

 

[Holli82]

^About the only good news is, to this day I've yet to hear a single MQA recording.

I'm thinking I need to listen to an MQA recording to see what all the fuss is about before it's too late.

 

[antigrunge]

The only question remaining is how a major streaming service like Tidal ever got hitched to this crap.
Maybe senior management was sitting on their ears? Good riddance!

 

[Gregadd]

Exclusivity is always attractive.

 

[Keith_W]

The only question remaining is how a major streaming service like Tidal ever got hitched to this crap.
Maybe senior management was sitting on their ears? Good riddance!

Tidal is actually a minor streaming service. Source:



You might notice that Tidal is lumped in with "Others" at 10.2% market share.

So why did they go to bed with MQA? Rumour has it that they don't have to pay MQA licensing fees because they were seen by MQA as an important halo for them. As for Tidal gets out of it, they get to boast that they have "hi-res" and charge more for it, even if they actually don't.

MQA has made one significant achievement though. It has united all audiophiles - subjectivists and objectivists - in near universal hatred for MQA. I have not seen a single thread on any forums I visit that has shed a tear for their demise. Everybody hates them.

 

[Al M.]

So why did they go to bed with MQA? Rumour has it that they don't have to pay MQA licensing fees because they were seen by MQA as an important halo for them. As for Tidal gets out of it, they get to boast that they have "hi-res" and charge more for it, even if they actually don't.

Thanks for the great link. Very informative article.

MQA has made one significant achievement though. It has united all audiophiles - subjectivists and objectivists - in near universal hatred for MQA. I have not seen a single thread on any forums I visit that has shed a tear for their demise. Everybody hates them.

Indeed. As the article says:

"Why should anyone care if other folks like the sound of MQA? “Mind your own business,” as many a mom would say.

"The MQA debate isn’t quite that simple."

And then it gives the reasons why it's not that simple and why thus (most) people hate MQA:

If you are to believe the doomsayers, MQA threatens to change the future of high-resolution audio. What happens if the industry significantly moves away from the relative purity offered by the open-source FLAC format, and embraces MQA as a replacement? Could studios forsake mastering in hi-res and MQA become the de facto standard?

Just ask Betamax fans if the technically best format always wins out. Curse you VHS!!!

In truth, this is likely just the worst-case theory of a small but vocal group of detractors. Yet, should MQA establish dominance over the hi-res audio market, it likely isn’t a good thing for consumers. Firstly, MQA is a single company’s intellectual property, and not free for use. Secondly, it really might not sound as good as what we’ve currently got.

Consumers stand to lose freedom of choice, gain hardware purchase requirements, and no longer have access to original hi-res audio files.

Fortunately, that future does not appear to unfold anymore.

(Gosh, again this MQA "unfolding" term. Seriously, I didn't realize that when I wrote the sentence .)

 

[Gregadd]

You probably would not expect this from me. I don't hate MQA. Tell the truth and market your product. For instance, I don't hate MP3. It is what it is.

 

[microstrip]

(...) MQA has made one significant achievement though. It has united all audiophiles - subjectivists and objectivists - in near universal hatred for MQA. I have not seen a single thread on any forums I visit that has shed a tear for their demise. Everybody hates them.

MQA came too late to the market - by that time storage space and bandwidth were cheap and easily accessible. If we had MQA at the times of redbook before we could access real highrez things would perhaps have been different.

As far as I could see in forums and friends, although most people disliked MQA because it was not bit exact to source and changed contents irreversibly, not for sound quality, many audiophiles loved its sound quality.

 

[Rt66indierock]

MQA came too late to the market - by that time storage space and bandwidth were cheap and easily accessible. If we had MQA at the times of redbook before we could access real highrez things would perhaps have been different.

As far as I could see in forums and friends, although most people disliked MQA because it was not bit exact to source and changed contents irreversibly, not for sound quality, many audiophiles loved its sound quality.

Sorry most audiophiles did not like the sound quality. Have you forgotten what we did to Sony for SACD?

 

[Al M.]

Sorry most audiophiles did not like the sound quality. Have you forgotten what we did to Sony for SACD?

Hmmm, what did "we" do to Sony for SACD?

(Not that I care about the format, never had an SACD player.)

 

[Keith_W]

(Gosh, again this MQA "unfolding" term. Seriously, I didn't realize that when I wrote the sentence .)

Indeed. They have give new meaning to the term "MQA lossy" and "MQA folds".

 

[microstrip]

Hmmm, what did "we" do to Sony for SACD?

(Not that I care about the format, never had an SACD player.)

Well, I own it and I really like the sound of many of my SACD's.

 

[Al M.]

Well, I own it and I really like the sound of many of my SACD's.

Yes, I am aware of that. Good for you.

I never wanted to choose that route for myself and still think for me personally it was the right decision: to put all my resources into optimizing CD playback.