MQA Sounds Really Good!

[dmac6419]

Oh i’m sorry i’m not following up on the whole video discussion since i know little about it xD.

However, it is roughly 75% less bandwidth for 192 tracks. Which is huge.

Tidal obviously benefits from this, otherwise they wouldn’t pay for MQA. The argument I was replying to is completely absurd tbh.

I love MQA,don't have time to waste on this dumb debate,and yea bandwidth cost money always has and always will.

 

[watchnerd]

Oh i’m sorry i’m not following up on the whole video discussion since i know little about it xD.

However, it is roughly 75% less bandwidth for 192 tracks. Which is huge.

Tidal obviously benefits from this, otherwise they wouldn’t pay for MQA. The argument I was replying to is completely absurd tbh.

It's not huge for a home network connection that is >100Mbps.

 

[abdo123]

It's not huge for a home network connection that is >100Mbps.

It’s huge when millions of users are downloading the files off your servers.

 

[watchnerd]

It’s huge when millions of users are downloading the files off your servers.

This has already been covered.

Until we know the royalty / licensing payments, it's hard to know if that's a net positive savings for the providers.

My guess is Tidal got a sweetheart rate because MQA needed a first customer success.

Amazon lossless seems to be living fine without it and no doubt they looked at it.

 

[levimax]

For all we know Tidal is getting paid to promote MQA

 

[RayDunzl]

Which services stream MQA?

Only Tidal?

 

[abdo123]

Which services stream MQA?

Only Tidal?

nugs.net as well, but i never heard someone using that site before lol.

 

[dmac6419]

This has already been covered.

Until we know the royalty / licensing payments, it's hard to know if that's a net positive savings for the providers.

My guess is Tidal got a sweetheart rate because MQA needed a first customer success.

Amazon lossless seems to be living fine without it and no doubt they looked at it.

Amazon is one of the backbones of the web,they servers go down,so does a lot of schitt on the web,Netflix being one

 

[pjug]

Only Tidal?

Xiami is another one. Don't know anything about it but I wouldn't be surprised if it is bigger than Tidal.

 

[dmac6419]

Me think most people upset with Tidal because JayZ is part owner,just like they were upset with Beats because Dr Dre was part owner,jus sayin

 

[muslhead]

Follow the money

 

[dmac6419]

Follow the money

Linn make product Meridian make product,me think someone was jealous

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Me think most people upset with Tidal because JayZ is part owner,just like they were upset with Beats because Dr Dre was part owner,jus sayin

Who is JayZ and Dr. Dre?

 

[pjug]

Me think most people upset with Tidal because JayZ is part owner,just like they were upset with Beats because Dr Dre was part owner,jus sayin

Yes. Shady ownership.
https://variety.com/2020/digital/gl...ata-fraud-investigation-in-norway-1234631663/

 

[watchnerd]

Amazon is one of the backbones of the web,they servers go down,so does a lot of schitt on the web,Netflix being one

Right.

Thus, the economics of saving on file size aren't compelling under all circumstances.

 

[watchnerd]

For all we know Tidal is getting paid to promote MQA

My guess is somewhere between "use it for free" and "we'll pay you to feature it" is pretty likely given the state of Tidal's cash flow*.

*I'm a paying Tidal user, but last I knew, they were deeply in the red on an operational basis.

 

[cjm2077]

“One example provided by MQA is Madonna’s Like A Virgin. When encoded into a hi-res FLAC file at 192kHz/24-bit, it ends up as 135.3 MB. The MQA version, which theoretically contains the same level of resolution, comes in at a relatively tiny 46.2 MB. Even when compared to a slightly lesser quality 96kHz/24-bit FLAC, the MQA version comes in at half the size.”

Source: https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/mqa-best-high-resolution-file-format-htc/

The "theoretically contains" is the part most people object to. It's a lossy format done in a relatively unpopular way (comparing to other lossy compression formats), and many people who analyze compression techniques don't think it is very good. It is smaller. But a 20 bit 96 kHz flac would be even smaller and more accurate to the original content. It's just a trojan Horse for DRM.

 

[muslhead]

Ding, ding, ding ... Give that man a kewpie doll

 

[raif71]

Do we have a budding songwriter who can do an MQA parody to the tune of YMCA?

Why MQA ……….. .

I'm sure the SNL songwriters are capable since they do lots of YMCA parody lol... Of course somebody knowledgeable in MQA has to provide the necessary info and context for the lyrics

 

[Sal1950]

The "theoretically contains" is the part most people object to. It's a lossy format done in a relatively unpopular way (comparing to other lossy compression formats), and many people who analyze compression techniques don't think it is very good. It is smaller. But a 20 bit 96 kHz flac would be even smaller and more accurate to the original content. It's just a trojan Horse for DRM.

AMEN! MQA a product in need of a problem to solve. 96k flac is smaller than 192 MQA. 192k along with 96k is just wasteful of bandwidth in any case. I won't argue that Redbook is all we need, but 24/48 is certainly totally transparent to the master no matter it's recorded resolution.
Bottom line, we don't need these huge files and we don't need MQA. Lets let some common sense come into play here friends.