The 2 main concerns of MQA critics (like me) that have always been independent of “do you like how it sounds or not” are:
“As the artist intended” has never been proven. It’s always been a black box. If there was documented provenance of where the masters came from, who was involved in the transfer/transcode, why it was special, etc – that would actually be really cool. But it remains a black box and Neil Young exposes why. Might be for true for some but certainly not true for all. I’d be willing to bet it’s not true for most.
The emergence of MQA will start to take away choice. We are now seeing that happen by labels removing non-MQA options in Tidal. I doubt this will be the last example of this behavior from labels who stand to make more money from a MQA only world…
It’s perfectly fine that those who like how MQA sounds to be fans of it (and I’ve always said some MQA releases sound great), but it’s now becoming impossible for those fans to discount the concerns above given what is happening.
If you say so, clearly you were at the meeting where this was discussed and authority was given… So, in light of that, what do I know?
Also, as he clearly now no longer authorises the work, it is not being advertised as MQA. An option always open to the man.
So, MQA Studio has meaning… If it isn’t, it won’t be there… That’s OK
The point is that, as far as ownership of IP rights is concerned, Warner Music MAY actually be entitled to certify “its” music as “MQA certified” - yet this is a far cry from asking artists what they think, heh?
I expect, like any organisation they would work in harmony. Neil doesn’t want MQA, his Music is not in MQA. It’s a shame and I suspect political but it’s his right and shows that MQA authorisation works fine.
I’m going to reference the one patent from MQA Ltd Versatile music distribution here again. This is only one. MQA Ltd got some more. You have to read also the others, fit them together, then you understand what’s happening.
It is not the artist which is the winner, it is the record company and the owners of MQA Ltd. They allow you to stream HighRes content, but the users can only listen to the music, if they got a licensed device. Without licensed device you get something less then CD. (44kHz,13bit)
Finally it is all about $$$$ and Neil Young is not part of this game.
Why should a man who is obsessed in sound quality (see Ponos) should authorise something that he sees as ‘degraded and manipulated’?
Makes no sense to me.
Well, he clearly did at some point or the music would not have appeared. This is all political IMHO The standard High Res Lobby are in the game. That’s ok though, it’s one man’s opinion and he is entitled. It’s not being labeled as MQA, so everything is clear.
To release from the artist not authorized and ‘degraded’ (Neils words) versions leads to the conclusion ‘that MQA authorisation works fine’ (your words).
Well, it would not have been released without consent somewhere. I don’t even recall what albums were in MQA and if they were Studio releases. Either way, they are not there now and so Neil has his way…
Well, if it was, somebody f…ed up along the line… So what? Stuff happens… Neil has his way… who really cares, except those of his fans who enjoyed the MQA versions. Well, life is like that.
This is one man’s opinion and he is entitled. That does not make it true globally across all musicians and music. He is entitled to withdraw his material, clearly he has done so. Good luck to him. He has an agenda and I expect there is some politics going on. I just don’t care about it, your questions would be best aimed at MQA the company who may well be able to give further insights. What do you want me to say?
