I am definitely not paying extra for glorified MP3’s

Everyone stop what they’re doing, and jump the Tidal ship before it goes under!! lol

Who here is switching? I am definitely am not paying extra for glorified MP3’s.

I am still loving Tidal and the masters. Suits me fine…

2 Likes

To each their own - just as long as you know about Meridian, MQA, and what they are trying to do to the music community as a whole. Just trying to spread awareness is all.

You May have to spell that out to me…

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6109

You can thank me later. :slight_smile:

Ahhh, the same old conspiracy theories…

3 Likes

I’m not arguing anything. He asked, i responded with information is all. I have nothing to prove.

I am well aware that Linn’s position is that MQA is bad. However, they may well change their mind in the future.

This is a post made by a member of staff at Linn in 2013:

"DSD was invented to solve problems that no longer exist today.

A good idea in 1999, DSD was conceived to improve the quality of music at home over the prevailing 16-bit CD format. By bypassing the down-sampling and up-sampling filters in the CD audio chain, DSD sought to improve performance by shortening the audio signal path:DSD was invented to solve problems that no longer exist today.

DSD_vs_PCM2.jpg

However, DSD has been overtaken by modern technology; A-D and D-A converters have moved away from 1-bit, to far superior multi-bit processes, and the down-sampling and up-sampling filters that DSD sought to bypass have been rendered transparent by the use of higher sample rates and modern algorithms. In fact, DSD is now the quality bottleneck in the modern recording and playback chain.

The arrival of 192kHz 24-bit capable Linn DS players in 2007 signalled the end of DSD. There is no longer the need to convert the original Studio Master recording, which is usually in PCM format, to a DSD stream, because the Studio Master can now be decoded natively on the Linn DS player. Hence, a needless and lossy conversion from PCM to DSD has been eliminated.

DSD has, like so many audio formats, come to the end of it’s natural life. It’s time to move on."

Interestingly, some 5 to 6 years later, Linn has just introduced DSD support into some of its high end streaming products.

By the way, I should mention that I am a big fan of Linn and especially their streaming devices since I myself own one, but I don’t necessarily agree with every one of their views on music and music reproduction.

6 Likes

I understand that there is controversy surrounding MQA, and that some people produce rational arguments in favour of or in opposition to MQA. However, others (and your post here suggests that you may fall into this camp) are either at best ill informed or at worst simply interested in the game of producing deliberately inflammatory and misleading remarks in what appears to be a simple attempt to antagonise those with opposing views.

Whether or not you believe MQA to be inherently good or bad for the music industry, and whether or not you are appreciative of the music streaming service offered by Tidal, one thing is beyond argument. MQA and Tidal’s library of MQA Masters are most certainly not ‘glorified MP3s’. Secondly, for the time being at least, you do not have to ‘pay extra’ over a standard ‘hi-fi’ subscription (which gives you access to CD quality streams on a par with those provided by the equivalent service from Qobuz for example) in order to gain access to the ‘high resolution’ benefits offered by the MQA Masters.

Whether or not you believe that MQA Masters offer the same degree of sound quality as ‘standard’ hi-res music files is not really relevant in this respect, but is I agree very much open to debate.

My viewpoint is very straightforward. I do not think MQA is a panacea, but I also have no axe to grind in respect of MQA. My personal position is that I subscribe to Tidal, have no intention of ‘jumping ship’, have listened to quite a number of Tidal MQA Masters, and have found that to my ears and in my systems they are a worthwhile addition to the Tidal service - as simple and uncomplicated as that!

11 Likes
  • and with these judicious remarks can this be an end to this one?

until MQA measures otherwise - its a lossy format - originally marketed as lossless. end of story. Starting a format out while being misleading is a deal breaker, for most.

It’s not Lossy where any musical information is lost.

please see above articles. Specifically, Archimagos.

Does not mean they actually like it. Just as they might “embrace” MQA because of the demand. Look at any market that follows demand.

Example: Even the “evil” Monsanto made seeds for tomatoes that had more nutrition and taste but sales were a flop since the demand just wanted cheap (less nutritions and tasty) tomatoes. Preferably biological. Taste didn’t matter.

We are slaved under the industry and the industry are slaves under the demand from us. :wink:

1 Like

I have a simpler question: why do you care what I listen to?

2 Likes

Direct from Archimago.

Folks, I can appreciate the compromises and I do believe MQA achieved what they set out to do in terms of the files sounding as good as 24/96 or 24/192+ “high resolution”. Certainly there was intelligence put into this solution!

Bottom line: TIDAL/MQA streaming does sound like the equivalent 24/96 downloads based on what I have heard and the test results.

All from this post btw.

He admits this even though he is no fan of MQA for many reasons.

So since MQA is the the same as 96/24 and 192/24 bit HiRes files (according to the “independent”, “indisputable” Archimago) and Tidal HiFi includes MQA for free who is paying extra for something that even if it is technically lossless is technically the same?

Seems to me like anyone paying for Qobuz Sublime or HiRes downloads are the ones who should definitely not be paying extra for unglorified lossless files.

5 Likes

Obviously not.

1 Like

Tidal is fine for me and I still stay with Tidal, as well as with Qobuz.

By the way, all that MQA albums that I have listened so far, have their non-MQA counterpart. I repeat, the ones that I have listened.

2 Likes

I agree that this does not mean that they like DSD, and yes it is possible that they will introduce support for MQA only if demand for it were to arise. My own perspective that I have posted elsewhere on another thread in this forum is that while MQA delivery is a ‘nice to have’ and enhances the quality of Tidal’s streaming service (in my opinion), the availability of a hardware MQA decoder is not so important for users of Roon - Roon does what appears (to my ears at least) to be the most important part of the decoding process.

I would not purchase a DAC or streamer simply on the basis that it is MQA enabled. The quality of the streamer/DAC itself (and in particular its performance with 16bit, 44.1KHz files) is by far the most important factor in respect of sound quality for most material I will play. MQA, or indeed standard hi-res capability is simply icing on the cake. So, if your chosen DAC happens to be fully MQA enabled or you have access to Roon, and you subscribe to an extrernal streaming service that delivers MQA encoded material then so much the better.

1 Like

Bruh - did you bother to read the article? Or just copy what you wanted to prove your point.

From the same:
“Remember, this is not lossless (ie. bit-perfect) as we normally think of lossless FLAC or ALAC. It’s “partially lossy” as I noted last year - that’s as certain as the Earth revolving around the Sun. So even though it’s “claimed”, we need to remember that at best this is “perceptually lossless” assuming that for the piece of music, the change in noise floor due to the embedded data isn’t noticeable. We need to end the “claimed” provision and call a spade a spade.”

Not lossless.

1 Like