This article explicitly says it does not address the technology, which is what we have been discussing there.
But the arguments about the business model seem weak.
- “MQA will hoover up lots of money from the supply chain”. That’s a theoretical argument. Let’s look at real-world pricing. I know of two places to buy MQA files, and one place to stream (“rent”) them. I checked some examples.
2L Magnificat:
MP3 $9
16/44: $14
24/96: $19
24/192, DSD64: $23
DSD128, MQA “original resolution”: $24
DSD256, 24/352: $30
HighResAudio:
Two classical albums:
24/96: $16.60
MQA: $17.60
Two jazz albums:
24/96: $20
MQA: $20.90
Tidal:
16/44 and MQA: same price
-
DRM
This is a hypothetical argument that something could magically lock up the files that you can play on your DAC. How could that happen? Some update download with unannounced capabilities? Lawsuits everywhere. Companies generally don’t survive that. -
Middleman stifling creativity
This technology will be successful in the marketplace, or it will not. Consumers and artists can choose whether to use it or not. If few artists or few consumers choose to use it, it will die. Like some others have.
Linn seems to have a strange view of pricing power.
In my view, a waste of pixels.
EDIT: the choice between owning and renting is unrelated.