Lenbrook Acquires MQA!

[RCanelas]

After years of this, it doesn't surprise me that these types of positions are still out there. It speaks to the efficacy of the marketing effort around mqa, the impressive initial impulse in every magazine and by the mouth of every source we rely on.

Can you put a name on "the people behind MQA"? The name I associate with it is Bob Stuart, someone I deeply respect in audio and has been pushing digital sound since long time.

Bob is not an exception to this. I ask again: did I lie or mischaracterize in anyway the claims around mqa since its introduction? Lossless? Master? Archival format? Higher quality than the original master? 'White glove'? Lossless was part of the logo of the thing until it was removed after it was proved it wasn't (notice the amount of time and effort it took, because the thing was made to be unfalsifiable, untraceable and opaque). We have countless youtube interviews of Bob and associates describing mqa as a lossless format. It's not open for debate it is lossy at this point. It is a lossy format no matter how much we try to bend the definition. I find it hard to believe Bob wasn't aware of the inaccuracy he was propagating at every turn. He is still playing with semantics about the lossy nature of mqa, even after being caught with his pants down. The claim is now that 'MQA file is delivered lossless'. This isn't a serious response. Lossless is a powerful word in audio. If anyone believes it was used with any naiveté, I can only profoundly disagree.

This speaks to the seriousness of the endeavor. It obliterated the thrust of everyone that choose to put resources into it and was then willing to admit they were misguided. I'm not that old but I still remember the time when breaking public thrust was the end of the line for most. It may be a reflection of the times that these things, these absolutely fundamental and basilar things on a business, are now worth nothing and glossed over with disconcerting ease.

 

[Lee]

Here's why the Lenbrook acquisition is a genius move:

1. They can build their own MQA streaming service.
2. They have MQA technology advantage in hardware since they don't have to pay themselves licensing fees but collect these fees from others. Of course, they have to keep an MQA logo being meaningful.
3. They get licensing fees from MQA now.

So three revenue streams. Having an MQA-only streaming service would be a competitive advantage for their Blusound Node.

 

[Lee]

In terms of the streaming service idea…

Look at it this way…Lenbrook picks up a healthy base of MQA fans (perhaps at a lower subscription price than Tidal) then adds in the vast audience of Blusound Node & NAD users. Given the additional revenue streams, they are likely to reach profitability or break-even on the service before Qobuz does.

The streaming decision may not event rest on material profitability if they feel they are selling more Nodes and NAD hardware.

 

[Lee]

After years of this, it doesn't surprise me that these types of positions are still out there. It speaks to the efficacy of the marketing effort around mqa, the impressive initial impulse in every magazine and by the mouth of every source we rely on.

Bob is not an exception to this. I ask again: did I lie or mischaracterize in anyway the claims around mqa since its introduction? Lossless? Master? Archival format? Higher quality than the original master? 'White glove'? Lossless was part of the logo of the thing until it was removed after it was proved it wasn't (notice the amount of time and effort it took, because the thing was made to be unfalsifiable, untraceable and opaque). We have countless youtube interviews of Bob and associates describing mqa as a lossless format. It's not open for debate it is lossy at this point. It is a lossy format no matter how much we try to bend the definition. I find it hard to believe Bob wasn't aware of the inaccuracy he was propagating at every turn. He is still playing with semantics about the lossy nature of mqa, even after being caught with his pants down. The claim is now that 'MQA file is delivered lossless'. This isn't a serious response. Lossless is a powerful word in audio. If anyone believes it was used with any naiveté, I can only profoundly disagree.

This speaks to the seriousness of the endeavor. It obliterated the thrust of everyone that choose to put resources into it and was then willing to admit they were misguided. I'm not that old but I still remember the time when breaking public thrust was the end of the line for most. It may be a reflection of the times that these things, these absolutely fundamental and basilar things on a business, are now worth nothing and glossed over with disconcerting ease.

The MQA team says the format is “audibly lossless”. If we can’t hear the loss then who cares? They did apoplogize for earlier statements (in fact around a year after launch) and that was many years ago. It’s time to move on.

 

[dsyzling]

In terms of the streaming service idea…

Look at it this way…Lenbrook picks up a healthy base of MQA fans (perhaps at a lower subscription price than Tidal) then adds in the vast audience of Blusound Node & NAD users. Given the additional revenue streams, they are likely to reach profitability or break-even on the service before Qobuz does.

The streaming decision may not event rest on material profitability if they feel they are selling more Nodes and NAD hardware.

So now they have to license content from music labels, scale up a cloud infrastructure to stream all of this content for the small number of MQA fans - and they are going to price it cheaper than Spotify, Tidal and Qobuz, Deezer - who are not exactly the model of profitable businesses. All this while Apple and Amazon severely undercut them and having so much more clout to deal with the music publishers.

 

[Lee]

So now they have to license content from music labels, scale up a cloud infrastructure to stream all of this content for the small number of MQA fans - and they are going to price it cheaper than Spotify, Tidal and Qobuz, Deezer - who are not exactly the model of profitable businesses. All this while Apple and Amazon severely undercut them and having so much more clout to deal with the music publishers.

They don’t actually. They already have a streaming service in Radio Paradise. So they can likely just pivot Radio Paradise for a manageable investment.

 

[ferenc_k]

After years of this, it doesn't surprise me that these types of positions are still out there. It speaks to the efficacy of the marketing effort around mqa, the impressive initial impulse in every magazine and by the mouth of every source we rely on.

Bob is not an exception to this. I ask again: did I lie or mischaracterize in anyway the claims around mqa since its introduction? Lossless? Master? Archival format? Higher quality than the original master? 'White glove'? Lossless was part of the logo of the thing until it was removed after it was proved it wasn't (notice the amount of time and effort it took, because the thing was made to be unfalsifiable, untraceable and opaque). We have countless youtube interviews of Bob and associates describing mqa as a lossless format. It's not open for debate it is lossy at this point. It is a lossy format no matter how much we try to bend the definition. I find it hard to believe Bob wasn't aware of the inaccuracy he was propagating at every turn. He is still playing with semantics about the lossy nature of mqa, even after being caught with his pants down. The claim is now that 'MQA file is delivered lossless'. This isn't a serious response. Lossless is a powerful word in audio. If anyone believes it was used with any naiveté, I can only profoundly disagree.

This speaks to the seriousness of the endeavor. It obliterated the thrust of everyone that choose to put resources into it and was then willing to admit they were misguided. I'm not that old but I still remember the time when breaking public thrust was the end of the line for most. It may be a reflection of the times that these things, these absolutely fundamental and basilar things on a business, are now worth nothing and glossed over with disconcerting ease.

You oversimplify claims for sure.

One example:
- MQA is lossless in case of 44,1k/24 bit and 48k//24 bit as it uses MLP compression. So MQA has a loss (from a data point of view), only above 24 kHz sampling. Are you sure you can realise it in a listening test? I am not.

Is lossless really "powerful world" in audio - as you say?
It is a bit misunderstood and, in some way, overhyped. The air between the instrument and microphone is lossy, for example, as many processes in the analogue and digital domain in the recording and post-production process. If you make a copy of the master tape, the back-up copy will have some losses. Who knows if it is more or worse than the "loss" of the MQA process above 24 kHz? If you have a master in 48k/24 bit and convert it to 44,1k/16 bit for a red book release it will be as "lossy" as MQA or even worse.

 

[Lee]

Also, they don’t have to price it cheaper than Spotify, Apple or Amazon. They can charge a bit more as a hirez provider via MQA.

 

[ferenc_k]

Also, they don’t have to price it cheaper than Spotify, Apple or Amazon. They can charge a bit more as a hirez provider via MQA.

Amazon and Apple are very different cases as they sell hardware, and they use their streaming services to boost hardware sales. Apple has something like 20 billion USD in revenue from Airpod and earphones, and headphone sales. Way more than their revenue from streaming.

 

[dsyzling]

O

They don’t actually. They already have a streaming service in Radio Paradise. So they can likely just pivot Radio Paradise for a manageable investment.

Ok we'll see, I remain unconvinced this is viable, a streaming radio service is a completely different proposition than a streaming music service, especially from a licensing perspective, scaling costs and software.

 

[dsyzling]

Amazon and Apple are very different cases as they sell hardware, and they use their streaming services to boost hardware sales. Apple has something like 20 billion USD in revenue from Airpod and earphones, and headphone sales. Way more than their revenue from streaming.

Exactly, which is why they they pick up a huge volume of users for 'free' which then don't bother with alternative platforms that they would have to pay for.

 

[ferenc_k]

O

Ok we'll see, I remain unconvinced this is viable, a streaming radio service is a completely different proposition than a streaming music service, especially from a licensing perspective, scaling costs and software.

Radio Paradise, as I see it is not a streaming service but an Internet Radio.

Otherwise, we do not have a clue why Lenbrook acquired and what they plan with MQA. Give them time, and I hope they have a plan which will be beneficial for all of us.

 

[ferenc_k]

Exactly, which is why they they pick up a huge volume of users for 'free' which then don't bother with alternative platforms that they would have to pay for.

Apple (and Amazon) seems to be serious about being carbon-zero. Their last presentation in 2 weeks' time was at least very serious about it. So I would not discount this as a reason to acquire MQA (or part of it) by Lenbrook and license it in some form, to others. There are many possibilities and I am sure Lenbrook knew what they acquired and why.

 

[Lee]

O

Ok we'll see, I remain unconvinced this is viable, a streaming radio service is a completely different proposition than a streaming music service, especially from a licensing perspective, scaling costs and software.

There is likely some additional investment but Radio Paradise has half a million registered users so it may prove a good base to start from. Plus Lenbrook has emails of PSB, Dali, NAD, and Blusound customers. Could make for some nice cross-marketing.

 

[Lee]

Amazon and Apple are very different cases as they sell hardware, and they use their streaming services to boost hardware sales. Apple has something like 20 billion USD in revenue from Airpod and earphones, and headphone sales. Way more than their revenue from streaming.

Agreed. But Lenbrook’s profits are likely way more than Tidal and Qobuz combined…which is likely an annual loss in fact.

 

[RCanelas]

The MQA team says the format is “audibly lossless”. If we can’t hear the loss then who cares? They did apoplogize for earlier statements (in fact around a year after launch) and that was many years ago. It’s time to move on.

You oversimplify claims for sure.

One example:
- MQA is lossless in case of 44,1k/24 bit and 48k//24 bit as it uses MLP compression. So MQA has a loss (from a data point of view), only above 24 kHz sampling. Are you sure you can realise it in a listening test? I am not.

Is lossless really "powerful world" in audio - as you say?
It is a bit misunderstood and, in some way, overhyped. The air between the instrument and microphone is lossy, for example, as many processes in the analogue and digital domain in the recording and post-production process. If you make a copy of the master tape, the back-up copy will have some losses. Who knows if it is more or worse than the "loss" of the MQA process above 24 kHz? If you have a master in 48k/24 bit and convert it to 44,1k/16 bit for a red book release it will be as "lossy" as MQA or even worse.

Lossy doesn't mean what you seem to imply it means. 'audibly lossless' is a ridiculous word salad, made specifically to excite our audiophile brain cells, but just enough to reassure that everything is ok, not to actually induce critical thinking. Overhyped is the correct term. But it does have meaning.

Lossless means only and exclusively that nothing is lost between two transformations. More specifically, that you can always take a step back and reconstruct the previous state, with absolute precision. You don't lose anything by transforming again. From the information pint of view, the transform is bit perfect. If the source has defects, so will the transform. But the defects will be preserved perfectly. Of course an electro-mechanical process is lossy. If it wasn't we would have a perfect record of the original acoustic event and all the copies would also be perfect.

So @Lee you can see why I find the term 'audibly lossless' both hilarious and slightly offensive. It doesn't mean anything. mqa is still consistently trying to pass along wrong or meaningless terms as a selling point. For consistency I guess.

@ferenc_k we can all see the slight of hand there. Indeed 4*/24 is lossless, but the claim is (was) that mqa is a high-rez lossless format. As you say, it isn't. I already have a 4*/24 lossless format, one that goes to multiples of that and never stop being lossless. Plenty of those around, why would I use a lossy one? To save on cheap storage? On cheap bandwidth? Just compress the flac further.
Why would I have a 48/24 master and convert it down to 44/16? We have high-rez capable everything, we don't need to do that anymore.

I believe I've said my piece regarding mqa. I'll leave you gents to have the final words.

 

[ferenc_k]

Agreed. But Lenbrook’s profits are likely way more than Tidal and Qobuz combined…which is likely an annual loss in fact.

Yeah these minor streaming services (add Deezer ) are most likely losing money and their growing potential is limited.

 

[Lee]

Lossy doesn't mean what you seem to imply it means. 'audibly lossless' is a ridiculous word salad, made specifically to excite our audiophile brain cells, but just enough to reassure that everything is ok, not to actually induce critical thinking. Overhyped is the correct term. But it does have meaning.

Lossless means only and exclusively that nothing is lost between two transformations. More specifically, that you can always take a step back and reconstruct the previous state, with absolute precision. You don't lose anything by transforming again. From the information pint of view, the transform is bit perfect. If the source has defects, so will the transform. But the defects will be preserved perfectly. Of course an electro-mechanical process is lossy. If it wasn't we would have a perfect record of the original acoustic event and all the copies would also be perfect.

So @Lee you can see why I find the term 'audibly lossless' both hilarious and slightly offensive. It doesn't mean anything. mqa is still consistently trying to pass along wrong or meaningless terms as a selling point. For consistency I guess.

@ferenc_k we can all see the slight of hand there. Indeed 4*/24 is lossless, but the claim is (was) that mqa is a high-rez lossless format. As you say, it isn't. I already have a 4*/24 lossless format, one that goes to multiples of that and never stop being lossless. Plenty of those around, why would I use a lossy one? To save on cheap storage? On cheap bandwidth? Just compress the flac further.
Why would I have a 48/24 master and convert it down to 44/16? We have high-rez capable everything, we don't need to do that anymore.

I believe I've said my piece regarding mqa. I'll leave you gents to have the final words.

Again, if the MQA format is unfolding to hires and any loss cannot be heard, why do we care?

It seems like an academic point to create a checkmark for people who don't like MQA but it doesn't impact the sound. Indeed MQA filtering improves the files I have heard.

 

[ferenc_k]

Lossy doesn't mean what you seem to imply it means. 'audibly lossless' is a ridiculous word salad, made specifically to excite our audiophile brain cells, but just enough to reassure that everything is ok, not to actually induce critical thinking. Overhyped is the correct term. But it does have meaning.

Lossless means only and exclusively that nothing is lost between two transformations. More specifically, that you can always take a step back and reconstruct the previous state, with absolute precision. You don't lose anything by transforming again. From the information pint of view, the transform is bit perfect. If the source has defects, so will the transform. But the defects will be preserved perfectly. Of course an electro-mechanical process is lossy. If it wasn't we would have a perfect record of the original acoustic event and all the copies would also be perfect.

So @Lee you can see why I find the term 'audibly lossless' both hilarious and slightly offensive. It doesn't mean anything. mqa is still consistently trying to pass along wrong or meaningless terms as a selling point. For consistency I guess.

@ferenc_k we can all see the slight of hand there. Indeed 4*/24 is lossless, but the claim is (was) that mqa is a high-rez lossless format. As you say, it isn't. I already have a 4*/24 lossless format, one that goes to multiples of that and never stop being lossless. Plenty of those around, why would I use a lossy one? To save on cheap storage? On cheap bandwidth? Just compress the flac further.
Why would I have a 48/24 master and convert it down to 44/16? We have high-rez capable everything, we don't need to do that anymore.

I believe I've said my piece regarding mqa. I'll leave you gents to have the final words.

There are very few processes in audio which are lossless recursively, as you defined. Most of the CDs since the early, mid-nineties were mastered at 48k/16 or 24 bit and then converted to 44,1k/16 for the red book compatibility, so if the starting point for a CD is the original master, even a CD is lossy, and you can not recursively generate the original master from the data of the CD.

The nature of being lossy or lossless is a bit misunderstood and overhyped in high-end audio.

 

[ferenc_k]

Again, if the MQA format is unfolding to hires and any loss cannot be heard, why do we care?

It seems like an academic point to create a checkmark for people who don't like MQA but it doesn't impact the sound. Indeed MQA filtering improves the files I have heard.

We have made a live studio recording for one of our albums in DXD, DSD256 and tape, live and fully analogue mixed. Recorded with a Merging Anubis and Pyramix for the highest possible stereo quality, with no post-production or mastering of any kind. We recorded the same live event with the same analogue mic feeds but with ProTools and used its multitrack recording capability in 192 kHz/24 bit. This version was edited, mixed and mastered in ProTools. So, we have two recordings with the same performance to compare the non-mastered and the commercially post-produced version. We got them MQA processed.

If there is an interest, I can share one sample track in all formats: 352,8 kHz, DSD256 - non-mastered, and 192 kHz mastered, all in MQA, even the DSD version. It is exciting to compare them. The 352,8 kHz DXD non-mastered version which did not have any digital production, only an analogue to digital process, should show all the "losses" of MQA clearly.