I used to be that guy on the panel who'd ask why a consumer base that over the decades had embraced AM radio, portable record players, lo-bias cassette tapes, stock WALKMAN headphones, stock IPOD earbuds and SPOTIFY should be expected to suddenly demonstrate a preference for high resolution audio. People love nothing more than they love convenience—tape hiss and muddy bass be damned—and nothing says convenience less than "you're going to need to attach a DAC to your phone." Just give me a good beat I can dance to and a play button. But that doesn't mean I don't love super-high-end audio when I can get it and it doesn't mean I don't think there isn't some portion of that consumer base that would happily pay whatever it costs to get it for themselves. Because of course there is, as companies like QOBUZ have proved on a niche level and as a certain company called AMAZON is now trying to prove on a not-so-niche level. But just how big a portion is it? Is AMAZON MUSIC HD, which launched Tuesday with 50 million high resolution tracks (basically CD quality FLAC files) and "millions" of, um, higher resolution tracks (up to 24-bit, 192kHz) at a $14.99 monthly price point ($12.99 if you're a PRIME member, which anyone who'd be interested in this service probably is), a game-changer? Is it a viable business? Is it the nudge that will get SPOTIFY and APPLE (and other phone companies) to eventually upgrade their audio, too? I don't pretend to know, and this isn't one of those things I'd trust NEIL YOUNG on, but I'd be thrilled if AMHD caught on just enough to give its more seasoned competitors reason to get onboard. And "just enough" can mean almost anything in the world of Amazon, which reportedly has signed up more than 30 million streaming music subscribers without most of the world batting an eyelash. I'd be equally thrilled if its upgraded offering persuaded record companies to demand the same of their other streaming partners. The NEW YORK TIMES says Amazon's low price point, compared to existing hi res services, is "a statement." "We are signaling to the world that quality is for everybody,” Amazon Music VP STEVE BOOM told the paper. Spotify shrugged its shoulders. The VERGE says the service sounds "amazing," at least in Amazon's San Francisco office, but you "aren’t likely to hear a big difference on most ECHO speakers," which seems at least a little significant. Exactly which equipment the service will and won't work on make for a couple of paragraphs in each site's story that read like terms-and-conditions agreements. That's one of the hurdles mainstream music fans will have to find their way over. And maybe they will. Amazon is Amazon after all. But the easier it becomes to use, the more standardized and compatible the equipment gets across services and manufacturers, the more tracks and playlists that arrive in hi res audio automatically, without users having to ask for it, then the closer the elusive promise of pristine bass and perfectly crisp snare drums gets. I used to be that guy on the panel but I'm not insane. I want that, too... Estimated cost of launching the MECHANICAL LICENSING COLLECTIVE, which will oversee mechanicals under the MUSIC MODERNIZATION ACT, and which by law must be funded by digital music services: $37 million... APHEX TWIN in London, Sept. 14, 2019... BILLBOARD has put some content behind a paywall, and in the current dire environment for music—and pretty much all—media, I am absolutely positively not going to complain about this... Write TYLER, THE CREATOR lyrics on a college library flip chart, get arrested on a charge of making terroristic threats... How the NEW YORK TIMES figured out how old RIC OCASEK was... RIP STEVE DALACHINSKY, JOHN COHEN and RICHARD CONRAD.