Looks like he sees problems with the MQA process and also with the result of that process, when applied to his masters.
1 Like
If he does, then he either he is using the wrong equipment to play MQA content, or his ears are better than my significantly younger ears. His ears have also over the years been exposed to extremely loud concert hall levels so I’d be a little disappointed if this were the case! -his gigs with Crazy Horse were/are extremely loud - I’ve been to some of them.
So which is it?
Probably neither. I suspect that the mastering to which he refers does not relate specifically to the ‘sound’ of MQA itself, but rather to the actual re-mastering of his original master tapes prior to being put through the MQA process.
Alternatively, although I do like him, his music and some of his political stances, Neil Young is simply a grumpy old man and wants something to complain about. He was a grumpy young man, a grumpy middle aged man, and so his grumpiness in old age doesn’t come as much of a surprise.
1 Like
This is a rather simplistic explanation.
It might be an artistic decision by NY but he also has a well known negative history with MQA. He and Meridian were working together on his Pono player and NY wanted an exclusive on MQA for Pono. Meridian didn’t agree and the deal broke down. Given that history, his opinions on MQA might not be entirely objective.
1 Like
Yes it is, and I was attempting to be a little tongue in cheek with that particular comment. I’m not averse to a little bit of grumpiness myself!
1 Like
Thanks for this insight! Makes a lot of sense.
Too often other factors, not least conflicts of interest colour the whole discussion. When people share the Linn article on MQA, they probably don’t know Linn’s track record on new formats…I so wish I could get a scan of the infamous anti-CD campaign that Linn ran in the 1980s: ‘Is this a Lemon’. But this from around that time not only seems odd for a company that has so grown to embrace digital, but also highlights the intense feelings that accompany new developments…almost deja-vu…
1 Like
It’s both. He doesn’t want Tidal to use the term Masters to describe the files adulterated by MQA because they aren’t the authentic Masters. Calling them Tidal Masters would distinguish those files from the actual Masters. And oh, by the way, he doesn’t like the sound.
1 Like
There is no reason not to believe Neil Young.
I take his words for what they are.
3 Likes
A degree of scepticism might be more realistic?
No. I’m quite stunned this might need to be spelled out, but it shows that the legal system works, and that they were savvy enough to negotiate a good contract, or to hire the right people to do it for them.
Absolutely. It must be said that, on the other hand, expressing any skepticism towards people who’ve lost tens of millions promoting a scheme that could make them hundreds of millions is a form of bullying and should be countered at every turn. They are certainly victims of a heinous cabal, and their good intentions should be defended.
1 Like
I’m sorry, but I think Neil Young probably knows best how his own music should sound.
2 Likes
How dare you.
1 Like
I am confused. From earlier post I thought authentication is an active process not an opt-out option. Mea cupla.
Of course it’s an active process, as I explained before. Clearly something went wrong, who knows what? Neil threw a wobbly, who know why? It’s his music, he can do as he likes and he has.
I’m sure he does - in respect of the overall mastering of his material.
However, do you really think his 75 year old ears are still capable of easily distinguishing between 16bit/44.1 and higher resolutions (MQA or otherwise) where the original master files are the same? Many musicians of a much younger age who are subject to the sort of sound levels he is subjected to on a weekly or daily basis are pretty nearly clinically deaf!
IMHO it’s more a matter of survival of high resolution formats than an issue of taking over the industry. Given the tenuousness of the few streaming services that offer high res of any type or even redbook, and whether they are long term profitable, the future easily can be just AAC and Ogg. I don’t see the purpose in bashing any product that strives for high quality.
1 Like
I must disagree with you. If the only choice would be Ogg or Mqa, I always would choose the licence- and drm-free Ogg format over a format that tries to control and monitarize every part of the reproduction chain.
5 Likes
I also read Stereophile’s “gift to the world” argument.
I’ve seen nothing that allows me to substantiate such a statement, other, if we’re going to make things a bit personal, than said opinion piece by a close friend, and rabid admirer, of the guy who’s selling a “solution”.
There are counter-examples, too, including Amazon’s decision to offer such material as a way to differentiate themselves from both Spotify and Apple. Contrary to Tidal, I haven’t heard stories about Qobuz being in the dumps, trying to sell themselves, or having their audience stagnate for years and years in a rapidly expanding field.
In both cases, I’d be genuinely curious to read what you’re basing your analysis on, even if we likely disagree on MQA being HiRes (which isn’t a very interesting discussion tbh), and preferably if it isn’t truisms like “there really isn’t any demand for HiRes music outside of the audiophile niche”.
Do you feel the same about the video industry? Would you stop watching video because of the licensing applied to MPEG codecs, for example?
2 Likes