-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
MQA Deep Dive - I published music on tidal to test MQA
- Thread starter GoldenOne
- Start date
- Status
Oukkidoukki
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2018
- Messages
- 500
- Likes
- 234
...I don’t think so.....I am on the other side of the world.....I was a year in Los Angeles in 2001 but thats all....maybe its some movie actor that remotely has the same lookTidal still offers lossless in addition to MQA, lets not confuse things.
@filter_listener , your (deleted by me) overly obnoxious post gets you a few days off from this thread.
Are those the "Master"-tagged tracks? I've used Tidal for years, but not through anything that shows the bitrate.
(I've unsubbed recently and am trying Qobuz.)
Don't subscribe,use Qobuz should solve your problem am I right
No the Hifi CD quality tracks.
symphara
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2021
- Messages
- 632
- Likes
- 592
I think the strongest argument against MQA is the Dolby-fication of plain old audio reproduction. We don’t need that. Even if MQA were to provide some advantage, unless the advantage were very large (there’s no indication of that), we should reject it because it makes music reproduction more expensive and beholden to a proprietary format.
But what’s conspicuously missing in this thread, among all the MQA bashing, is some research into listener perception of MQA. Does MQA actually sound bad? Does it sound worse than FLAC? Is there anyone who can do a test?
For me personally Tidal MQA doesn’t sound bad at all. It’s not better nor worse than Qobuz. But Tidal does have nicer apps, better recommendations, possibly a larger catalog, and doesn’t force a German website on me. So I wouldn’t recommend Qobuz either. It’s just not a good product for the price, in my opinion, despite the real high-res audio files.
But what’s conspicuously missing in this thread, among all the MQA bashing, is some research into listener perception of MQA. Does MQA actually sound bad? Does it sound worse than FLAC? Is there anyone who can do a test?
For me personally Tidal MQA doesn’t sound bad at all. It’s not better nor worse than Qobuz. But Tidal does have nicer apps, better recommendations, possibly a larger catalog, and doesn’t force a German website on me. So I wouldn’t recommend Qobuz either. It’s just not a good product for the price, in my opinion, despite the real high-res audio files.
It was a rhetorical question. I'm not bright enough to comment on any of this. I'm not even able to figure out how to turn on notifications for this thread other than by replying to someone's comment. Yours seemed the easiest to respond to.
BTW. I did live in Los Angeles in 2001. It's all a blur though. Did you hang out in any seedy places? We may have even met, or worse.
No need to respond. Thanks. Good to see I get notifications now.
SKBubba
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2018
- Messages
- 458
- Likes
- 810
I am 100% opposed to MQA. Not because of sound. It doesn't sound "bad" on my setup. Not because I'm a scientist who understands all the math. I'm not.
Instead, I oppose MQA because of the control they dream of imposing on the entire music ecosystem, with royalties and fees being paid to one company at every step of the way from production to packaging to delivery to playback, for no apparent benefit to anyone other than the one company.
Moreover, if they are successful in their schemes of world domination, decades of open, industry standard, cross-platform compatible, high quality music playback science is obsolete, taking away consumer choice. For what? A little blue light?
However, I am starting to be less concerned. So far, MQA adoption is limited to one streaming service and mostly one major record label. And that label still offers their files to every other outlet in industry-standard formats. Further, consumer access to MQA is limited to somewhere around 0.7% to 1% of the market, and we don't know how many of those actually use it or even care about it.
(By the way, if MQA is so superior, why don't Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, et. al. support it natively? Why didn't Amazon include it in their Music HD rollout?)
Anyway, this means that, after all these years, 99% of the market is unmoved by their claims of superiorty. This suggests that MQA is a massive failure, and isn't really worth worrying about any more. It appears they are a niche within a niche, and the market's natural antibodies are preventing it from going viral.
Instead, I oppose MQA because of the control they dream of imposing on the entire music ecosystem, with royalties and fees being paid to one company at every step of the way from production to packaging to delivery to playback, for no apparent benefit to anyone other than the one company.
Moreover, if they are successful in their schemes of world domination, decades of open, industry standard, cross-platform compatible, high quality music playback science is obsolete, taking away consumer choice. For what? A little blue light?
However, I am starting to be less concerned. So far, MQA adoption is limited to one streaming service and mostly one major record label. And that label still offers their files to every other outlet in industry-standard formats. Further, consumer access to MQA is limited to somewhere around 0.7% to 1% of the market, and we don't know how many of those actually use it or even care about it.
(By the way, if MQA is so superior, why don't Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, et. al. support it natively? Why didn't Amazon include it in their Music HD rollout?)
Anyway, this means that, after all these years, 99% of the market is unmoved by their claims of superiorty. This suggests that MQA is a massive failure, and isn't really worth worrying about any more. It appears they are a niche within a niche, and the market's natural antibodies are preventing it from going viral.
And many do.
symphara
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2021
- Messages
- 632
- Likes
- 592
It’s not the antibodies. It’s just a niche of a very small niche, unsuccessfully fighting to take over that very small niche.
The “market” just doesn’t care, is by and large unmoved even by the desire to have CD-quality tracks. The “market” is happy with a smart speaker and, in the upper echelon, a sound bar, and at the very top end, a couple of Sonos speakers and a sound bar with an “Atmos“ sticker on it.
Jack owns Tidal now,Y'all can relax now.
You're right. I unsubbed after comparing the Steel Pulse "True Democracy" album "Master" on Tidal to the 24/192 high-def Qobuz version. The percussion instruments in this favorite album are cleaner on Qobuz.
Also, I can listen to Qobuz high-res in a browser, important on my work computer that I can't install 3rd party apps on.
https://open.qobuz.com/track/28879703
Last edited:
From what I read, Jay-Z will join SQUARE’S BOD’s and retains executive director control, other star name owners remain as minority shareholders. So only time will tell if this will effectively change how Tidal operates.
Article link: https://www.theguardian.com/busines...usic-streaming-service-to-jack-dorseys-square
Will Jack reimburse me for all the sub fees I paid because I believed Tidal was completely lossless?
Ask Jack
I like that,enjoy your music.
Oukkidoukki
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2018
- Messages
- 500
- Likes
- 234
Who is Jack?
- Status
Similar threads
