I have never had stuttering or any difference playing MQA and non-MQA files with EQ in Roon.
There is no need to save anyone . People will make their own, adult decisions.
Fine, but obviously many audiophiles feel that MQA adds value to them and are willing to pay $0-100 extra for it.
I think in recent polling, a quarter liked MQA, a quarter didn't and a half never heard of it.Massively disagree with this, the first half at least. I would imagine for the relatively unaware majority it's more a case of 'oh what the hell, may as well chuck in $100 just to have it covered' sort of thinking. Obviously neither of us can really prove it either way though.
Massively disagree with this, the first half at least. I would imagine for the relatively unaware majority it's more a case of 'oh what the hell, may as well chuck in $100 just to have it covered' sort of thinking. Obviously neither of us can really prove it either way though.
With three MQA-free hires services available, there should be no concern about their world domination, if there ever was one.If MQA convinces 3 labels to distribute only MQA, then 75% of the HD music sources will dry up with Redbook CD quality falling next.
Examples MQA CD and 44.1/16 bit MQA for which there can be no argument is a degradation from Redbook.
I made the decision to avoid MQA where possible by subscribing to QOBUZ. The catalog look quite deep.
MQA plans removes marketplace choice, so I want them to fail.
I'd like to to see downloadable options for HDR (High Dynamic Range) Audio.
That could be 44.1/16 or greater. If given the choice between DR 16 CD and DR 10 HDR 192/24.
We cannot hear ultrasonics but we sure can hear dynamic range.
I'll bet anyone with a decent system and normal hearing could pass a blind between DR 10 and DR 16 mastered tracks.
No one in their right mind would make that bet for MQA from the same master.
- Rich
With three MQA-free hires services available, there should be no concern about their world domination, if there ever was one.
I guess I am an unusual consumer, since I never read advertising and subscribe to all streaming services, including Nugs.net.Individual consumers' market decisions are heavily shaped by:
If you are a consumer and you believe that Tidal is unique because it contains Master Quality Authenticated content, playable in up to 24-bit, 352.8kHz HD resolution, using special technology and authentication to ensure you're hearing true master-quality music with enhanced clarity exactly as the artists and producers intended it to be heard, then your decision to choose Tidal is based on bad information.
- The amount and quality of the information available to them to inform their decisions;
- The degree of ability they have (or don't have) to choose one alternative and not another with their purchasing decisions.
If you are a consumer and your streaming subscription choices (regardless of provider) are based on different tiers of file quality/resolution and not on different codecs/formats, then no matter how good your information is, you are unable to exercise your purchasing power to choose or not choose a particular format/codec.
This is the same thinking that if advertisers were only allowed to post the price with tax included, it is not taxed.
I think our friends outside the US understand this very well.
- Rich
There is no reason to remotely think the water is going to be turned off. Mistakes and rare incidents, sure. Anything else is fearmongering to get support for a point of view, not reality.I have 6 sinks . If the water is turned off, then the choice of sink hardly matters.
- Rich
Such customers are shopping on spec and "what their ears tell them." If the latter says it sounds better, the job is done and that is why Tidal has created the success it has.If you are a consumer and you believe that Tidal is unique because it contains Master Quality Authenticated content, playable in up to 24-bit, 352.8kHz HD resolution, using special technology and authentication to ensure you're hearing true master-quality music with enhanced clarity exactly as the artists and producers intended it to be heard, then your decision to choose Tidal is based on bad information.
There is no reason to remotely think the water is going to be turned off. Mistakes and rare incidents, sure. Anything else is fearmongering to get support for a point of view, not reality.
I agree but not much we can do..... they have one of the 3 labels on board and it will be interesting if Sony and Universal jump in.... apparently they have some equity interest in MQA (@amirm says they got warrants for free). Longer term I am very pessimistic about how streaming is going to work out.... right now it is cheap and getting cheaper but whether it is MQA or some other scheme or sophisticated financial institutions buying up desirable publishing rights I think that choice (especially in mastering choice) is going down and cost is going up for top quality content. I have hundreds of CD's and LP's and other discs and I am adding to my CD collection as they are cheap and reliable and sound great and they can't be taken away at the whim of a few internet monopolies. I have noticed that the more desirable CD's (original versions / know good mastering's) of famous albums are starting to go up so I would buy as many CD's as you can before it's too late (like it is for LP's).If MQA convinces 3 labels to distribute only MQA, then 75% of the HD music sources will dry up with Redbook CD quality falling next.
Examples MQA CD and 44.1/16 bit MQA for which there can be no argument is a degradation from Redbook.
I made the decision to avoid MQA where possible by subscribing to QOBUZ. The catalog look quite deep.
MQA plans removes marketplace choice, so I want them to fail.
I'd like to to see downloadable options for HDR (High Dynamic Range) Audio.
That could be 44.1/16 or greater. If given the choice between DR 16 CD and DR 10 HDR 192/24.
We cannot hear ultrasonics but we sure can hear dynamic range.
I'll bet anyone with a decent system and normal hearing could pass a blind between DR 10 and DR 16 mastered tracks.
No one in their right mind would make that bet for MQA from the same master.
- Rich
Such customers are shopping on spec and "what their ears tell them." If the latter says it sounds better, the job is done and that is why Tidal has created the success it has.
MQA is courting the major labels to remove access to the masters and replace an open unrestrictive format with a proprietary format.
If they succeed, where then will you get Hi-Res music or Redbook music for that matter?
- Rich
Can the labels really force MQA on everyone if Apple is not onboard. And why would they? They can outlast everyone else in the streaming game. I’m switching to Apple Music the moment their library is converted to lossless. It’s cheaper and the apps are way better than Qobuz.
The pitch for the record labels and the streaming services is that you can use one file and can sell it 3 different ways... Unfolded (good), 1st unfold (better), full unfold (best). The record companies get to "protect" their masters and the streaming services get to save some bandwidth as added bonuses. MQA's consumer marketing ties it all together. Obviously if MQA cuts a deal with the big boys they are not going to get to charge much if anything but you don't need to make much if you have the majority of a huge market.... maybe just encoder royalties and "blue DAC light" royalties are enough. I think it could go either way with MQA and right now with Apple and Spotify announcing "lossless" it is pretty much "do or die".Can the labels really force MQA on everyone if Apple is not onboard. And why would they? They can outlast everyone else in the streaming game. I’m switching to Apple Music the moment their library is converted to lossless. It’s cheaper and the apps are way better than Qobuz.
Such customers are shopping on spec and "what their ears tell them." If the latter says it sounds better, the job is done and that is why Tidal has created the success it has.
You are the lay person, not me. I spent a lifetime meeting with record label executives and their lawyers as they attempted to force operating systems/players to limit playback of their content. Most of their execs come from licensing department so are lawyers as well. I have explained repeatedly how Steve Jobs convinced them to distribute their content without any copy protection. And how you can go to sites like HDTracks, and download millions of high-res audio tracks with zero content protection in your favorite (non-MQA) format.....Really, if you are a lay person with no knowledge of the law or industry, I suggest not even engaging in this topic.
It may help you to read it: "You may come across digital works that contain copyright controls, such as digital rights management (DRM) technology or a software copy protection system."
We are no talking about digital works that have DRM or content protection. As I explained, the MQA file is transmitted in the clear and can be readily copied with no restrictions whatsoever.
Lessig went through a painful battle with the labels which he lost when labels cared about content protection and cared a ton. Since then Lessig has become enemy of anything related to copy protection. So if you want to read a one-sided argument, sure, go ahead and read it. But even he wouldn't tell you that you have a case here when the content itself lacks any form of copy control or protection.