Fair play, and a scan read of the article makes it appear a jumping off point, rather than a definitive guide. It’s obviously an area where a bit more transparency from the players would help. It’s also fair to say that none of the services appear to be covering themselves in glory here…
I am not paying any extra for MQA via Tidal. Qobuz is irrelevant in that discussion.
Tidal pay a license to MQA and who do you think they pass that cost to? It’s either the customers or they’re absorbing it. When a company’s losing money at the rate Tidal is it’s hard to say what they’re absorbing and passing on. The facts of market economics are pretty brutal on the customer.
1 Like
No one pays additional for MQA content over CD content via Tidal. Therefore I get Tidal at no extra cost. Not sure how that is so hard to understand. If they lower the price of CD quality and leave MQA at the current rate then you would have a point.
1 Like
How dot you know I am not. taking advantage of Tidal’s offer for those of us who have served in the Military.
Or it means that HiFi users are also paying some of the cost as well? MQA licensing costs don’t pay themselves. Economics dictate that the more a company’s paying out, the more it needs to charge…
1 Like
It is irrelevant in this discussion. As long as Tidal continues to not pass on any MQA surcharge it means nothing to the consumer.
1 Like
What on earth makes you think they’re not?
2 Likes
The charge the same for CD quality and MQA. Typical the anti- MQA crowd continues to try and make issues where there are none.
And that doesn’t mean that your not all paying?
1 Like
I can’t listen to MQA. To me, it’s the musical equivalent of fingernail scratching a blackboard. But if people want it, I hope they can get as much of it as they want, and without all the negativity my side generates. But the same holds for my side, too.
2 Likes
No it means I am not paying one cent more for the benefit. That is what I have said all along.
When someone goes to the car wash that charges one price for all vehicles does the subcompact owner worry that he is subsidizing the big SUV owner.
When I get my haircut and the barber charges $X for all customers are the hair challenged crowd subsidizing the mullet crowd.
When you purchase your speakers it costs the dealer more when you put them on a charge card rather than receiving cash. Yet we pay no more receive the benefit of free money for ~30 days.
1 Like
So I see your angle and there’s an inescapable logic to it 
Your POV does pre-suppose that you see it as a benefit, which is where I’ll admit I’m biased from a “closed-tech”/“suspect technical approach” (IMO) dislike of MQA.
Mqa charges all the time !
They don’t charge the artist for converting their pcms to mqa… no.
But once users stream from tidal, (mqa or not!) part of their subscription $$ goes to mqa and this is bad for the artists.
Q : Why is there after all those years still no free MQA decoder in OSes like Windows ?
A : Because it’s not free (and also because OS vendors noticed it adds nothing)
Mqa is one money train. And Neil Young stated it as well. It was one of the most important reasons why he left Tidal and MQA : Consumers are ripped off, and the artist is also ripped off because income is waisted on a lossy compression / money train.
Another reason to say Goodbye Tidal/mqa.
Now I pay less, get more quality, and the artists get paid more from me.
1 Like
This must be a very very bad system I’m afraid… I am certain if you came round my house to listen to some MQA this would not be the result. You would have a sonically satisfying experience plus beverage of choice…
Good points. I bought some walking shoes in Lidl, size 44 (the most comfortable I have ever owned) at £16.00
I was so impressed I bought some for SWMBO, size 38 at £16.00. Reluctantly she tried them with low expectations even with my enthusiasm. But guess what… she loves them and her feet do not hurt.
The point is, we paid the same price for very different size shoes… Did I subsidise SWMBO or did she over pay? A. Who cares 
But they pay the labels/artists considerably more than either Spotify or Tidal judging by the stats.
2 Likes
I’ve been using Qobuz from the days it was more of a download service (from 2013), and I remember this:
Qobuz is rescued from bankruptcy.
I do wonder how sustainable their business model is, well meaning as they appear to be.
Of course, if the same story were applied to Tidal/MQA, it would be held up as evidence of how poor the business or product is…let’s see if that happens now with Qobuz…
This has happened to Tidal twice in the last few years, the recent Square buyout is about necessity. Streaming services appear to be money sinks at the moment, even Spotify are still in “land grab” mode, where notional profits go straight back into “promoting growth”.
If there’s no money in it and the artists aren’t getting paid properly you have to wonder:
- if any of us are paying a fair price?
- whether the streaming business model is viable?
4 Likes