Lenbrook Acquires MQA!

[microstrip]

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.

Thanks for your detailed opinion. I see we have different opinions on the allowed use of semantics in the high-end audio and I am not interested at all in discussing them on this affair or guessing about the past on "hard to believe that".
IMO Bod Stuart is a man with a scientific audio curricula and activity that is over any gossip of audio forums about the use of the word "lossless", again IMO a minimal point in the MQA discussions.

BTW I have read similar matters flamed debates on the DSD versus PCM from both sides and fortunately we now have access to excellent recordings in both formats.

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.

Sorry, when I read such nostalgia filled, but also somewhat pathetic statements applied to our hobby I loose my interest on the subject. Thanks again and have a good time.

 

[RCanelas]

Sorry, when I read such nostalgia filled, but also somewhat pathetic statements applied to our hobby I loose my interest on the subject. Thanks again and have a good time.

I didn’t intend to come across as a nostalgic inspired ranter. I also don’t want to come across as a rhetoric enthusiast, I didn’t think defending integrity and honesty in business would be a contentious point, but here we are.

Any time. Abraço

 

[microstrip]

I didn’t intend to come across as a nostalgic inspired ranter. I also don’t want to come across as a rhetoric enthusiast, I didn’t think defending integrity and honesty in business would be a contentious point, but here we are.

Any time. Abraço

I will make myself clear -the point is that abusively mixing statements of integrity and honesty in business with the discussion about MQA specific aspects is inadequate and unfair, and surely contentious. YMMV.

 

[adyc]

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

I found you are really ridiculous. When audiophiles can hear changes of cables, connectors, materials being used when measurements cant show any difference and you claim lossy nature of MQA can’t be heard? Do you have my ears? I know you like MQA. But don’t generalise your hearing ability to all audiophiles.

 

[Lee]

I found you are really ridiculous. When audiophiles can hear changes of cables, connectors, materials being used when measurements cant show any difference and you claim lossy nature of MQA can’t be heard? Do you have my ears? I know you like MQA. But don’t generalise your hearing ability to all audiophiles.

It’s below the noise floor, like -135db or something.

 

[Rexp]

I did notice a FLAC album, can't remember which, stuttering on Tidal last week. The increased bandwidth required maybe causing problems. Hopefully this won't affect Tidal's decision to switch from MQA to FLAC.

 

[Lee]

I did notice a FLAC album, can't remember which, stuttering on Tidal last week. The increased bandwidth required maybe causing problems. Hopefully this won't affect Tidal's decision to switch from MQA to FLAC.

One wonders if Tidal is reconsidering the switch in light of the Lenbrook news.

 

[Lee]

I wonder how many customers Lenbrook has in terms of Blusound, PSB, Dali, and NAD? Has to be hundreds of thousands. Seems like they would send a special offer out when they launch the streaming service. Maybe do a 60 or 90 day free trial like Qobuz sometimes does. Get people hooked on the service.

Maybe create an MQA playlist of favorite demo quality tracks and email to every customer.

Maybe do some kind of easy integration into NAD devices and Blusound.

 

[dcathro]

I wonder how many customers Lenbrook has in terms of Blusound, PSB, Dali, and NAD? Has to be hundreds of thousands. Seems like they would send a special offer out when they launch the streaming service. Maybe do a 60 or 90 day free trial like Qobuz sometimes does. Get people hooked on the service.

Maybe create an MQA playlist of favorite demo quality tracks and email to every customer.

Maybe do some kind of easy integration into NAD devices and Blusound.

Hey Lee,

Maybe with all those ideas, you should apply to Lenbrook for the head of Marketing position

 

[adyc]

It’s below the noise floor, like -135db or something.

Not sure whether many DAC designers agree with you. Rob who designs Chord DAC argues the importance of low noise floor down to -300db or more.

 

[ferenc_k]

I found you are really ridiculous. When audiophiles can hear changes of cables, connectors, materials being used when measurements cant show any difference and you claim lossy nature of MQA can’t be heard? Do you have my ears? I know you like MQA. But don’t generalise your hearing ability to all audiophiles.

Let me repeat myself from this thread yesterday:

- MQA is "lossy" only in case of higher than 48kHz sampling rates. All the MQA tracks sampled at 44,1kHz or 48 kHz are using MLP compression, which is lossless.

- How many times have you complained about losslessness when you listened to a CD, where the master was 48k/24 bit or above, and it was downconverted to red book standard 44,1k/16 bit? Downconversion has even more loss than the high-res part of MQA, as it is completely losing the high-res part, unlike MQA.

- I offered one track of our own live studio recording for testing (it is available on all streaming services in 44,1k/16 bit since May) free of charge in its original high-res form, with or without post-production and mastering and in DXD, DSD and MQA as well, where you can compare the different formats, sampling rates and can be sure that you listen to the same masters. Nobody cared. This should be one of the very few cases where you can do a really meaningful comparison in many ways and dimensions. Could be very educational.

 

[dsyzling]

I wonder how many customers Lenbrook has in terms of Blusound, PSB, Dali, and NAD? Has to be hundreds of thousands. Seems like they would send a special offer out when they launch the streaming service. Maybe do a 60 or 90 day free trial like Qobuz sometimes does. Get people hooked on the service.

Maybe create an MQA playlist of favorite demo quality tracks and email to every customer.

Maybe do some kind of easy integration into NAD devices and Blusound.

I think you are are severely underestimating the costs/complexitites of running such a business and the investment required. But hey, I have no objections as long as it promotes consumer choice. Lenbrook produce an MQA streaming service, other services can offer non MQA products, including hires (DXD, DSD), people can buy non MQA releases in whatever resolution and format they desire. That's what I've been arguing for all along, each service can stand on its merits of features, sound quality and value to the consumer (as well as the artists so they get a fair deal).

I'm more convinced by the argument that this is about wireless protocols, SCL6/MQair.

 

[Lee]

I think you are are severely underestimating the costs/complexitites of running such a business and the investment required. But hey, I have no objections as long as it promotes consumer choice. Lenbrook produce an MQA streaming service, other services can offer non MQA products, including hires (DXD, DSD), people can buy non MQA releases in whatever resolution and format they desire. That's what I've been arguing for all along, each service can stand on its merits of features, sound quality and value to the consumer (as well as the artists so they get a fair deal).

I'm more convinced by the argument that this is about wireless protocols, SCL6/MQair.

SCL6 is definitely a factor imho. PSB does make headphones and SCL6 could be important for wireless operation. But I still feel a MQA streaming service makes sense as a competitive differentiator.

 

[Lee]

Hey Lee,

Maybe with all those ideas, you should apply to Lenbrook for the head of Marketing position

I would not make as much money there as my private equity job.

 

[Lee]

Not sure whether many DAC designers agree with you. Rob who designs Chord DAC argues the importance of low noise floor down to -300db or more.

Rob Watts is a very smart man but I would have to see more detail on his reasoning for that.

 

[dsyzling]

Rob Watts is a very smart man but I would have to see more detail on his reasoning for that.

I'm not evening going to remotely try and explain - but I think I remember him talking to Passion for Sound (via You Tube) and discussing the affect on small signal accuracy. Improving small signal accuracy down to that level lead to change in perception of depth within the recording reproduction. So although it's impossible to hear anything like that level, he said himself he was surprised the affect it had on depth perception - which was detectable by the human ear. He does part of his testing with his own recordings.

 

[Dustin Symanski]

It’s below the noise floor, like -135db or something.

Certain distortions at that level are plainly audible, others are completely inaudible, depends on the distortions. An example of a completely inaudible distortion at that level is added Gaussian Noise. An example of audible distortion is at that level is un-dithered truncation of the data.

 

[Rt66indierock]

I was heavily criticized for wanting MQA Ltd liquidated and the IP in someone’s hands who wouldn’t use it. With a lot of help and Companies House database, MQA Ltd. will be liquidated. But Lenbrook purchased the IP and intends to use it. Why?

· Lenbrook lost (confidential settlement) a patent infringement case against Sonos in 2020. They have to pay Sonos royalties for a license on all BluOS enabled devices they sell. They may believe they can use MQA Ltd.’s IP to get around Sonos patents and stop paying royalties.

· NAD paid significant royalties and licensing fees to MQA Ltd. Now they don’t have to.

· PSB has wireless headphones in the pipeline and would be hard to impossible to change course and use a different technology than SCL6.

To complete our quest, we have the following in our favor.

· Tidal is a big drag on Block Inc.’s earnings. Tidal’s revenues have been flat since 2020. A death sentence in the technology sector. A good case can be made to kill it anytime Jack Dorsey is willing to listen.

· MQA is now old technology and people like shiny new technology.

· The high-end audio press does not have the status and influence to promote MQA to anyone except those on the wrong side of the audiophile bell curve.

· Lenbrook has consistently overstated the market for high resolution audio. Clouding their judgement on the value of MQA Ltd.’s IP.

 

[Rt66indierock]

So let's address those.

Fact: MQA never implemented DRM. Not once.

Fact: MQA was audibly lossless. The problem was that they claimed initially it was lossless but it does have some loss but you can't hear it.

There was no multilevel marketing at all. They simply signed up a bunch of hardware partners and record labels.

Who you think the BlueSpike, Universal and Warner attorneys will talk to about MQA’s DRM as they prepare for the two patent infringement cases to go to trial?

 

[Rt66indierock]

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.

Blue Spike, Universal and Warner are scheduled or have talked to MQA people in two patent infringement cases. Expert testimony is scheduled to be completed November 20, 2023, in the Universal case.

I would certainly want to talk to Malcolm Law, Peter Craven and Richard Hollinshead about MQA’s DRM. I am particularly uncomfortable with Malcolm Law’s patents.

I listened to Bob Stuart’s presentation at the Los Angeles Audio Show and talked with him afterward. I’m not convinced he was anything but a project manager.