The underlying remark is that EVERYONE is paying mqa when using Roon, also those not wanting it, and even those - like me - that know it’s a poisonous DRM worm - slash - snake oil format and for that reason avoid it like the black death.
I don’t care for MQA but this may be very misleading fake news.
I’m sure you’ve seen @danny’s comment about it?
Are you suggesting you don’t believe his comment?
1 Like
Roon is paying mqa, and since everyone is paying the same for Roon, everyone is paying for mqa.
What do you not understand?
Hello. Roon is only paying MQA if the user is using the Core Decoder.
@Wim_Hulpia is not wrong though. The fact that users who do use core decoding do not have to pay for it, but Roon does get bulk-billed for it, in effect means everyone is paying for it even if they do not use it.
2 Likes
?
gkukhjkljjlkjl;jo
1 Like
"everyone is paying the same for Roon, everyone is paying for mqa" is a bit different to saying something like, many people may be unaware their Core Decorder enabled is paying MQA Ltd.
Semantics.
The mqa bill is a cost centre that is covered by the income. Subscription costs are not itemised to include any element covering mqa core decodes. Until Roon no longer pays mqa, everyone pays for it whether they use it or not.
6 Likes
Yep, it the same way we all pay for USB, phono etc inputs we don’t use or even require. This is reflected across all consumer products as the only practical way to produce affordable products to cover many differing use cases without introducing myriad variables. That’s just the modern world within which Roon is included.
1 Like
Nothing is free. You are paying for it, they just have hidden the cost from you.
It’s all about making money.
Of course it’s about making money.
So is everything else in this business.
As consumers we pay for things we don’t need or want when we buy products. All the time.
I hate cruise control on my car. Think it’s dangerous. Don’t use it.
The arguments that it’s a problem for us all to be paying MQA because we pay for Roon is a total non starter of an argument.
6 Likes
Because:
1: since MQA distorts the signal, it will sound more pleasing on certain setups and less on other. MQA in itself does not sound like anything. It’s an audio file that needs to be played back. If you’re lucky MQA fits well with the source material (master) and your gear. If you’re unlucky, it sounds worse than regular redbook.
2: The main issue with MQA is not how it sounds, but the fact that it introduces licenced DRM at the recording/encoding side, distribution side (say, Tidal), reception side (Roon) and the decoding side (your streamer). This licensing makes MQA money (definitely) and the label (possibly), and, one might hope, the artist (not likely). You and I are who pays for this.
The alternative is that we get regular, well-known encodings that are, in fact, what the artist intended, and does not demand that you and I pay Bob Stuart’s salary. This is the world without MQA. Why would MQA make anything better?
I suggest that @Chrislayeruk and others who really enjoy the sound of MQA, could get their own encoder device which would let them transcode regular FLAC redbook into MQA. That way, the cost of using a hit-or-miss codec is covered by those who actually benefit.
A car analogy was used earlier, saying that you pay for stuff you don’t necessarily use, like cruise control. MQA is not part of an audio file like cruise control is part of the car. It defines the quality of the entire car, and you don’t get to choose whether you want that treatment or not. Arguably, it degrades the quality of the entire car. Why not buy a car that’s actually the way the constructor intended?
2 Likes
Isn’t that a suggestion that MQA haters- should leave Roon!
And, even thought I’m firmly NOT in the MQA camp, I have to protest the anti-MQA’s claims that it reduces choices. It is true that if they are using Tidal, that MQA is slowly replacing FLAC in some cases. Even if it went 100% MQA, the antis would still have numerous choices that are not MQA. Personally, I think these wild claims hurts the anti-MQA side, and makes the pro side push back harder.
There are many features of Roon that I do not use. I know very few use every feature. So why single out MQA? Why not HQPlayer for folks like me who don’t use it. I don’t look at it like I’m paying for these features (every app or service you pay for has unused features). I am paying for a product that does what I want it to, and does it very well. That payment helps Roon to pay the staff and fund the R&D that is needed to fix bugs, fine tune it, and bring us updates. THAT is what I am paying for. I am not paying for MQA, HQPlayer integration, or anything else I don’t use. If anything, these features save subscribers in the long run. These features allow Roon’s subscriber base to grow, and spread their costs of operation over a bigger population. That keeps subscription prices from going up more often than they do.
2 Likes
I help pay for all the power poles my electric company installs, even though my wires run underground. I help pay for the coffee people buy at my local grocery store, and I don’t even drink coffee! Why do we shine the spotlight on MQA, making it look like it’s the only thing we “pay for”. People, that is the way life works everywhere you look.
Which really brings us back to the thought that those for whom avoiding mqa is a moral imperative should not use Roon. Unless they’ve already paid, of course. 
1 Like
MQA subscription and licensing should be linked to the streaming service only (Tidal) and not to Roon.
Roon shouldn’t have to pay MQA for decoding. That cost should be in the subscription money of Tidal and stay there. Users already pay for software decoding in Tidal, so why should Roon has to pay for it a second time???
So for every software decode, Tidal should pay for it, and not the Roon users that stream Qobuz only.
Simple as that.
People are paying twice now. MQA is a scam.
1 Like
Do you subscribe to Roon?
You never tried playing local MQA files on Roon. lol