|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: RE: DRM in this case is quite simple.... posted by Jim Austin on October 7, 2017 at 20:49:01:
> > You'd just need an MQA DAC to decode them < <
Yes, to date the only DRM that MQA has applied is that one need to purchase new (licensed and royalty-paid) hardware to listen to a dumbed-down version of the original high-res file. (By dumbed-down, I mean that the resolution is reduced from 24 bits to 17, and the frequency response is limited to 48kHz, regardless of the original sampling frequency.) If you don't pay this entry fee, you only get to listen to something that is lower in quality than the Redbook CD (regardless of MQA's marketing claims to the contrary).
Right off the bat, that is the very definition of DRM - one can only access the "full" (dumbed-down high-res) content if the proper people are paid the proper amount of money.
But that is just for now. What is to keep MQA/Tidal from raising the cost in the future? Nothing. Think of all of the things that have been introduced at low or no cost that now cost much, much more. Here are a couple of examples:
1) Debit cards - when they first came out, there were no "transaction fees". The banks were *saving* money by replacing a live human being with a machine that didn't need an office, a salary, a parking spot, nor health and retirement benefits. But once everyone started to use them, they started adding transaction fees (that may be waived in specific circumstances). They also used to work around the world, and one could retrieve cash from a foreign ATM with no surcharge - much more convenient that either paying a percentage at the money exchange or purchasing traveler's checks that also were subject that percentages of currency conversions. But nowadays there is a currency exchange fee added to any foreign transaction.
2) Cable TV - when first introduced, the biggest channels were HBO and Showtime, allowing for people to watch recently-released movies in their home with no commercial interruptions. The cost was perhaps $20 to $30 per month. Now all one can rent are bundled packages filled with useless channels with no meaningful content - and most of these packages are more like $150 per month. And to add insult to injury, now one gets to pay for the "privilege" of being bombarded with advertisements. I hadn't watched any TV for decades until a long hospital stay. I was shocked to have to endure roughly 1/3 of all programming devoted to commercials - 90% coming from three industries - auto insurance, pre-packaged food and restaurants, and prescription medicines.
If you don't think that MQA has similar plans in mind, just read some of the patents they have either applied for or been granted. It is fairly apparent that their end game is to control the distribution of music in the same way that the distribution of movies is currently controlled.
To me this makes no sense, as the two media are consumed in vastly different ways. There are very few films that I want to see more than once, and only a handful that I want to see more than twice. For this reason, the rental model (whether in a theater or in my home) makes a lot of sense. Why would I want to buy something I will only use once or twice in my life? But I've listened to my favorite music many hundreds (if not thousands) of times. Why in the world would I want to rent something that I will use on a frequent (daily, weekly, or monthly) basis? It's just a waste of money. Even though I typically only drive my car a few times a week, it's orders of magnitude cheaper for me to buy it than to rent it (and far, far less expensive than if were to lease it).
I know a lot of music lovers that use Spotify (free or $10/month) to discover new music in a medium quality format. Then when they hear something they really like, they will either purchase it on CD ($2 or $3 used, $9 to $12 new) or on vinyl ($1 to $10 used, $20 to $30 new). In contrast Tidal Hi-Fi is $240 per year. If you listen to that, presumably you are happy with digital. $240 a year will purchase at least 1 used CD per week (50 per year). That is quite a bit of new music to absorb and digest. Once you own the music, they can't raise the rental rates, you can make copies on your hard-drive for ease of use with computer playback programs and any other devices you may own (plus back-up purposes) and you can play it as much as you want, with no fear that the rental company (streaming service) will go out of business.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: DRM in this case is quite simple.... - Charles Hansen 10/8/1703:08:31 10/8/17 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
