Bob, While we are talking about enjoying music it’s $ that are driving it and Codecs are $. 
I would be surprised if MQA was going to be royalty free (for the whole chain).
MP3 was implemented at the dawn of the digital music transformation and while it had its purpose we all know that sound wise it was a step down. However things move on.
The whole music industry is now talking digital and there’s money to make. If you believe that MQA only exists because of the weight of Tidal ( read not carried by the music industry) then my guess is that MQA has no future. Studio recording are already 32 bit meaning there’s no additional cost to make a Streaming master besides the CD and Vinyl master. That’s exactly what MQA is trying to do. I agree with you that Apple, Amazon and Sony will not surrender given the $ out there. I was a big believer of SACD. The battle between SACD and DVD-A killed them both but it didn’t stop High res music
I would pay a little more for tidal, I really do not care about MQA, I know more and more music labels are signing up to it, but I very much doubt that quality is a reason for it. The real nasty has yet to emerge I fear. I can see some annual fee coming to reply the music you have. The industry does have a history of re selling its back catalogue in new formats.
0€ I have compared MQA with HR 24/96/192 and DSD
Every time HR and DSD is better!
Besides that Qobuz sounds much better and has a better collection and GUI
More over there are now players who have ther own algorithms to decode MQA.
I expect others will follow.
Bye bye closed loop licensing mqa boys
I’m not willing to pay extra for MQA. I’m not sold on it so I don’t care if Tidal continues to carry it.
Hans, it’s an interesting issue you pose about Tidal and MQA; or stated differently, who will use MQA besides Tidal? I’m not sure I have a good sense of MQA beyond Tidal. I don’t see any market for MQA besides streaming. The big players won’t likely use it due to cost (of licensing, not implementation), perhaps there’s still some market for distributed (likely downloads) that have MQA, but I don’t see a huge market for that unless download prices dropped precipitously (maybe to 10 cents per track or so) and even then, most people don’t want to have to manage their music anymore. Streaming eliminates that need.
My concern again is that so many people either don’t care about sound quality, or they don’t know that it can be better than what they’ve heard. The major music industry players aren’t mostly aiming at those of us who do care about sound quality (a small market) and so we’re at risk of a prolonged period of lower-than-it-could-be sound quality if MQA fails. Yes, things move on, but sometimes very very slowly - as you indicated with SACD which is a great format hampered by a variety of factors that essentially marginalized it. MQA could fall into the same path.
I’m willing to pay more for Qobuz just for the reduced purchase pricing on hi-res that comes with it. I’m happy with Apple music for convenience to my phone.
$0 for MQA. Don’t subscribe to Tidal at all.
I believe offering MQA as part of the Tidal package is the right way to price. There are enough people who appreciate what MQA brings to the table in terms of identifying better master files and getting them close to 96/24 resolution to help attract people who value the Tidal streaming package. It would be stupid for Tidal to debundle and try to sell MQA as an add on. That being said, I’d be happy paying $30-40 dollars per month for the package. I can stream MQA or Redbook as I choose. I definitely prefer the first unfold to 96k over the Redbook versions.
Nothing more. I was happy before MQA dropped in. It’s nice to have but it’s not a game changer for me.
I pay for Tidal HIFI. CD quality is fine for me - I would not pay extra on top of that.
Soooooo…
Anyone add up the numbers yet? There appears to be a large majority out of the 69 reply’s so far that would not pay anything more for MQA over standard 16/44
€0,00. MQA streaming is just part of evolution. If we where all willing to pay double for twice the speed of our internet connection my dsl connection would have costs thousands per month by now compared to my old 28k8 modem. I see Highres streaming in the same light, just part of technological evolution.
Now I pay 199SEK/month it’s about 22USD!
I remember when WiMP (before the company from Norway, wanted to go worldwide. So wasn’t that name perfectly for the English speaking world)!
Anyway, when they started WiMP HIFI, do you remember what?
You could stream in Lossless “Cd 16/44.1”!!!
I signed up directly I mean they went from mp3 to Cd, over a night.
Okay it costed double the money, so from 99SEK or 11USD to the price we now have been paid for awhile!
Pretty much have happened with TIDAL since that, but they haven’t changed the money for a month, or?
So I would gladly pay more money for MQA, but is because I LOVE It.
At least 50SEK or 5-6USD!
Another question against the original one!!!
Would you skip TIDAL if they decided to take the same price, as they did when they changed to HIFI?
I can say that I hadn’t, I had paid TIDAL another 99SEK or 11USD!
So if they decided that TIDAL HIFI will cost as now, but if you want to be able to get access to our Masters/MQA.
So does it cost you 99SEK or 11USD extra each month!
Because in the world we are living, there money decide so would it be foolish to say or think that TIDAL shouldn’t dare doing it.
It’s just my fought, but maybe TIDAL is thinking the same they just waiting for the right moment!
Love & Respect
69 replies aren’t statistically significant!
Stats are for objectivists…this is Audiophiledom.