Tidal vs Qobuz experience

[dmac6419]

You are right. Thanks for correcting me. They are two different files. I just didn't want the poster thinking incorrectly that the streaming speed was the file bitrate and thinking they were getting less then they were supposed to get.

Theyre both hi rez files some 16 bit depth files have that bit rate it's not abnormal

 

[samsa]

I believe what has been said is that unprocessed 24/44.1 MQA comes out 16 bit. 16/44.1 unprocessed MQA comes out 13 bit.

Processed or unprocessed, 24/44.1 MQA has a bit-depth of 16 bits (and 16/44.1 MQA has a bit depth of 13 bits).

The extra 8 bits (3 bits) are devoted to

• Encoding some of the ultrasonic information (beyond the 22.05 kHz Nyquist frequency of 44.1 PCM).
• Signalling a choice of "custom" reconstruction filter to use (which is somehow supposed to be correlated with the filters used in mastering the recording).

In either case, you never get back the bit depth that you sacrificed to encode this information.

 

[samsa]

So at worst case scenario you’re getting 16 bit 44.1 or 48 Khz which is CD quality. Without needing any special hardware or internet connection.

13 bits is not CD-quality.

 

[abdo123]

13 bits is not CD-quality.

you're talking about the extreme of the extreme, I have been using Tidal for nearly half a year and this is the only 16 bit MQA i found (which you linked), and even in that case the 24 bit version was available.

we shouldn't resort to fear mongering in a forum dedicated to audio science.

 

[abdo123]

You are right. Thanks for correcting me. They are two different files. I just didn't want the poster thinking incorrectly that the streaming speed was the file bitrate and thinking they were getting less then they were supposed to get.

I'm not sure but i do think it is the file bit rate. The application is streaming tidal tracks to a DLNA renderer, the value always depends on the track I'm playing.

 

[samsa]

you're talking about the extreme of the extreme, I have been using Tidal for nearly half a year and this is the only 16 bit MQA i found (which you linked), and even in that case the 24 bit version was available.

we shouldn't resort to fear mongering in a forum dedicated to audio science.

I am not a Tidal subscriber, so I have no idea whether there are a lot of 16-bit MQA tracks (Forbes) or a few (you). Nor do I know whether 24-bit alternatives are also present.

But it is not "fear mongering" to inform people what they are getting when they play such a track or (god-forbid) buy an MQA CD. To the contrary, when reviews on this forum laud DACs for their 20 or 21 bit SNR, it would be ironic (to put it mildly) to play 13-bit source material through them.

 

[dmac6419]

I am not a Tidal subscriber, so I have no idea whether there are a lot of 16-bit MQA tracks (Forbes) or a few (you). Nor do I know whether 24-bit alternatives are also present.

But it is not "fear mongering" to inform people what they are getting when they play such a track (or, god-forbid) buy an MQA CD. To the contrary, when reviews on this forum laud DACs for their 20 or 21 bit SNR, it would be ironic (to put it mildly) to play 13-bit source material through them.

I am not a Tidal subscriber,maybe you should subscribe and give us your firsthand opinion i would value that more

 

[KeenObserver]

you're talking about the extreme of the extreme, I have been using Tidal for nearly half a year and this is the only 16 bit MQA i found (which you linked), and even in that case the 24 bit version was available.

we shouldn't resort to fear mongering in a forum dedicated to audio science.

You are absolutely right! Warner would never think of replacing all their music on Tidal with MQA versions!
Feel 100% confidant that you will always have the non MQA version available to you.
Warner and Tidal are looking out for you and will always be open and honest with you.

 

[awdeeoh]

MQA CD's ? Horrible!

There, the 3 least-significant bits are repurposed. So you're effectively getting 13/44.1 PCM.

With 16 bits and noise-shaping dither, you can, arguably, push the noise below the threshold of audibility. Not so for 13 bits. And it's not like you're getting to pack a whole lot of useful information in the 3 bits/sample that you've sacrificed.

Hopefully, the MQA CD will suffer a quick and well-deserved death.

any sample where you can actually hear the noise???

 

[KeenObserver]

any sample where you can actually hear the noise???

Interesting.
So the point is not that 16 bit music is replaced with 13 bit music but to find samples where you can hear the noise?

 

[GDK]

If I stop paying for Master level Tidal I will stop getting MQA files and will get whatever tier I pay for. Whether it's lossy MP3 or lossless FLAC

You don’t pay for the Masters level. There is only Premium and Hifi. If you pay for Hifi, you get Masters as part of it. Even if I set my subscription level to Hifi in Roon, it will still often provide an MQA file. What I now need to do is to try every MQA version of the album that Tidal has in order to see if it will deliver me a lossless version of it instead. I just tried it with David Bowie’s Low and on the third version I got a non-MQA version. I don’t know for certain what version of the album it actually is - because it clearly isn’t the MQA version that it has listed. Is it a remaster or original? Stereo or Mono (not relevant for Bowie but relevant for the Aretha Franklin album I referenced initially). The user experience for me is now much worse. That is what I have lost.

And I will put a similar question back to you - what has Tidal gained in doing this? It was working perfectly fine before. What is their motivation for making it so difficult to listen to non-MQA album versions. And if you want to link it back to the fact that the record labels have an economic stake in MQA, please be my guest.

 

[mSpot]

what has Tidal gained in doing this? It was working perfectly fine before. What is their motivation for making it so difficult to listen to non-MQA album versions.

I don't think it is Tidal's choice. They do not own the recordings and they can only stream whatever the record label gives them under contract. If the record label replaces an album with an MQA version, Tidal must use it.

 

[GDK]

I don't think it is Tidal's choice. They do not own the recordings and they can only stream whatever the record label gives them under contract. If the record label replaces an album with an MQA version, Tidal must use it.

Ok, I agree that Tidal, unlike Spotify or Apple, likely lacks the market power to tell Warner to stuff it. So why is Warner doing this? Do they have an economic reason to push MQA? Well, yes they actually do.

 

[KeenObserver]

I don't think it is Tidal's choice. They do not own the recordings and they can only stream whatever the record label gives them under contract. If the record label replaces an album with an MQA version, Tidal must use it.

Tidal got in bed with MQA. Tidal was MQA's foot in the door. Now, MQA will attempt their plan to control the music distribution chain.

 

[Emlin]

Tidal got in bed with MQA. Tidal was MQA's foot in the door. Now, MQA will attempt their plan to control the music distribution chain.

I seem to remember that Roon and MQA were/are close bedfellows. Both spun off from that speaker company, with the same purpose - you know who and what I mean.

 

[KeenObserver]

I seem to remember that Roon and MQA were/are close bedfellows. Both spun off from that speaker company, with the same purpose - you know who and what I mean.

Yes. It seems that people are unwilling to do due diligence on this matter, for whatever reason, to discover what this is really about.

 

[Emlin]

Yes. It seems that people are unwilling to do due diligence on this matter, for whatever reason, to discover what this is really about.

DRM. It can only be that, because MQA provides no benefit to the end user (unless you are strangely captivated by that blue LED).

 

[dmac6419]

DRM. It can only be that, because MQA provides no benefit to the end user (unless you are strangely captivated by that blue LED).

Why would you be worried about DRM if you're only streaming music from a streaming service?

 

[KeenObserver]

Why would you be worried about DRM if you're only streaming music from a streaming service?

There are people on the other side of the coin who have spent huge sums on music collections with the promise of Fair Use. They are concerned with the future. And some people don't like the concept of being forced to a future of only music streaming, with one source of music (MQA),one source of decoding(MQA), and being forced to pay royalties to MQA or not having access to music.

 

[dmac6419]

There are people on the other side of the coin who have spent huge sums on music collections with the promise of Fair Use. They are concerned with the future. And some people don't like the concept of being forced to a future of only music streaming, with one source of music (MQA),one source of decoding(MQA), and being forced to pay royalties to MQA or not having access to music.

Ain't no mainstream music company selling MQA records,buy physical media and add to your collection problem solved.