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".
This precisely why MQA began by marketing MQA Lossless. Then, contorted lossless refer to the FLAC container and streaming service transmission.
After much beating around the head, there is now MQA better than lossless.
Don't you think they would have started with better than lossless if they believed that.
A note to the literal among us: No one was actually beaten around the head
It is fear mongering to be concerned that MQA succeeds.
I guess that means, that the expectation is that they will not succeed so there is nothing to fear. Hmmm.
Hardly a ringing endorsement.
Speaking of ringing, why would technical discussion exclude the MQA filter forced upon the listener?
Back to your point, I don't think MQA better than lossless will win if the other providers counter message for true Lossless Hi-Res audio.
After all, Tidal does not claim to provide CD quality nor Hi-Res Audio. Weird.
There is some comfort in that the marketplace is less gullible than some of the audiophile community.
- Rich