How much extra would you be willing to pay Tidal for MQA content?

Once again this is not a thread to discuss merits but rather to ask those who have tried MQA through Roon how much, if anything, you’d be willing to pay for MQA if Tidal were to charge.

From my own perspective I wouldn’t pay any extra, I was quite happy with Tidal before MQA and don’t find my enjoyment has changed any with MQA decoding.

so would you be willing to pay

  • $20
  • $15
  • $10
  • $5
  • $0

For MQA?


And me too

I’d pay them $50/month for everything, including MQA. I don’t buy CDs any more. The artists must get some money.


I would pay $0 extra.


I already pay Tidal for MQA : Tidal Masters.
It’s the only reason I signed-up.

No MQA, no deal…

1 Like

I thought TIDAL was charging extra for MQA. But to answer your question, nothing more.

Nothing. But I would pay for a HiFi tier cost increase. I have been a customer for a while and the price has not budged in that time.

I would consider paying a bit more for Tidal, it’s a great value and that extra would hopefully support the artists. I wouldn’t pay a bit more because of MQA. However, I would gladly pay a bit more of they dropped MQA altogether. In fact, without changing their prices, they could likely pay artists more if they didn’t have to pay for MQA licensing (assuming they do).

I would be sad to see Tidal go under, as many are projecting will happen. But the resulting major drop in MQA enabling would be the up side.

Go ahead, flame me.


I would pay a lot more for tidal if it ensured its survival .
I can’t imagine a life without it now. I would not pay extra for MQA,but I would gladly pay double what I pay now to tidal as it would still represent great value to me


I would pay a LITTLE bit more, but that is it. There are too many other small monthly streaming fees and they are adding up. Everybody wants a piece of the streaming pie, but consumers will start hedging pretty soon.

In my opinion, we all are probably paying too little for streaming to be sustainable in the long term. So for “Tidal”, by which you mean AAC & 16/44 PCM, I would be willing to triple my monthly outlay to $75 (I pay $25 a month of 16/44 + a family add on).

For MQA, I would pay nothing extra. Indeed, I might pay a bit more to be free of it - perhaps a Roon developer will write an add on that will prevent Roon from privileging MQA in Artist view :wink:

Would you pay more for hires streaming? Qobuz charges around 50% more for hires over cd quality? Would you pay more for that?

I probably would - given the situation now where I am underpaying for 16/44. But let’s say I was paying $75 or so a month for 16/44, and Tidal offered me 24/88.2 (what I consider minimal “HiRes”) when available (not all masters are at this level or higher) and wanted another 50%? I probably would not go for that. At that point the gain in SQ and manipulation you get (DSP, etc.) through real “Hi Res” is not really worth it, not in a streaming music discovery situation.

Of course, when I find something I really like and play more than once or twice through streaming, I usually purchase it outright in HiRes if available, or 16/44 if not. So I am not all the way into the “I don’t have a personal collection - streaming is good enough for me” camp…

Zero. Nada. Bupkis.

I agree with @crenca that we pay too little for streaming. Most artists don’t make d**k from streaming services and it looks like the streaming services don’t make money either - guess the only ones making money are the labels…the poor, poor, labels…

At any rate, I used to pay a hell of a lot more than $20/month on CDs before TIdal, so I’d be willing to pay more to make them more profitable. And, while my Linn KDSM sounds great with Redbook, I would pay extra for real hi-res FLAC streaming.

As for paying more to Tidal for MQA content alone, that poses a problem 'cause I’m not a fan and I’d say the same thing if they said we’re raising the price to offer DSD. I’d have to think about whether I keep Tidal or not since MQA is of no value to me.

However, if Tidal creates a separate tier for those that want MQA, and creates a “basic” tier for those of us that don’t, that works for me. And, if they also raise the “basic” Redbook tier so they become more profitable and artists make some money, I’d pay more for the basic tier.

I would be willing to pay more for MQA content WHEN and IF we get additional content such as what has been promised from Sony. I want new content not just the SOS I listened to when I was young.

I don’t understand this thread. When one subscribes to Tidal Hifi ($20/mo) one gets CD quality FLAC streaming with MQA included at no additional charge. This may be the best money I have ever spent on music. Am I missing something?


No. You are correct we have been getting MQA at no additional charge for a year and a half now.

1 Like

Interesting question. I get Tidal for $5/month because I subscribe to Jack White’s vinyl club. It is an incredible value.

I would pay more for a better allaround service. So far MQA alone doesn’t warrant extra for me.

I vote with all the “pay zero more” people! I see no merit as most of anything I listen to reaps little to no benefit (without commenting as to whether there is ever a benefit) from MQA at all.

Regarding some other comments, I did not originally sign up for Tidal because of any MQA content (some have commented that is the only reason they subscribe) but rather for the higher quality streams although, again, with my content I listen to, it is quite hard to discern between Spotify at 320 and Tidal at high quality (and much higher cost). This comment was not made to skew the thread elsewhere from the original post, just a random comment.