True. Spotify and Apple own the vast majority of the streaming market. Tidal is a niche within a niche, and Qobuz isn’t even on the radar. But Qobuz meets my needs without all the proprietary hocus- pocus, so I riding with them for now. Tidal can be happy that they still have my money, despite the bait and switch.
The issue I think often gets missed is that we could put Tidal out of business today, and it would barely be a speed bump for MQA; they are a “better” conduit for those who own the content so they will find distribution. And they are. I’m supportive of those who give their $$ to Qobuz not Tidal, but I don’t think that is going to shift the playing field.
It’s a bit like shipping at Target instead of Wal*Mart because you don’t like Brand X that WMT carries (I know that the analogy falls apart because they both sell lots of brands and categories). If you actually manage to hurt WMT (which is dubious, because you are a specialized type of consumer), Beand X will find a way to get shelf space at Target, and Target will be forced to buy because Brand X have a monopoly on some kinds of widgets that consumers like. I know it’s a bit tortured, but good luck harming a monopolist through beating up on the retailer.
Huh? That’s MQA’s only real outlet. Why would labels and dac/software companies still pay license fees for something nobody uses?
Which reminds me. Is roon paying a license fee? How much is that costing roon users?
There are more and more MQA CD’s:
https://www.amazon.com/mqa-cd/s?k=mqa+cd
And there have been multiple instances of labels (like 2L) just switching to MQA, possibly intentionally and possibly even inadvertently… Mayes for interesting reading:
I think we are beginning to see Act II of this, where mqa is all over the place. We can push back, but I don’t think it’s just Tidal any more.
I just browsed the list and my first thought was it looks like the what are we listening to thread, without niche genres or anything recorded in a generation. Looks more like SACD MK2 at the moment to me.
The one things MQA does not sound is Harsh 
The sound is really smooth and clear, even with hard rock, and that’s not detrimental to the genre…
It might not on your full mqa system which I already explained if you cared to read posts properly. It’s on non mqa systems it’s sounds like this which is my main system , not all tracks but a significant amouny I really did not like the sq where MQA recordings were involved.
MQA simply sounds terrible, full of distortions.
It is ruining the original master.
Nothing pleasing to be found.
3 Likes
In your opinion. Please don’t tell me like it’s a fact because my opinion may not be the same.
1 Like
This clearly is your personal opinion and perhaps your system is defective or there is a large dose of expectation bias going on?
Of course expectation bias goes both ways and I’d sooner have it on my side leading to a better experience, which is what I experience with MQA.
It makes me wonder if you have ever spent a whole afternoon just enjoying MQA music?
Prior to MQA and even now, I get to experience plenty of non MQA content, and it can sound excellent, but then with MQA, it really just hits the spot for me.
1 Like
Pray tell, Chris: how does it exactly hit the spot for you? Just because it is louder or is there something else you hear which cannot be heard in non-MQA files?
It’s not always louder and guess what, I have a volume control and have my volume set to a level I enjoy it.
The real description is very hard to put into word, like describing wine. The Hi Fi world has its own terms.
Generally, the details and separation of instruments is so well presented. Try listening to the Cymbals on Deep Purple’s Made in Japan live album… Child in time…
also there is a smoothness and realness to vocals and acoustic instruments.
It’s addictive and the more I hear, the more I appreciate it.
MQA cannot save a poor master, too hot with no dynamic range, nor should it. That’s the mastering job.
1 Like
Neil Young ( Iknow he is over 70 and still doesnt like the MQA distortions) and Bryan Lucey (mastering engineer) have rather clear words on MQA and how it ruins the music.
Distortions are clearly audible. MQA should better be named MQD, master quality distorted, which would be really close to the truth.
Audiophiles are the easy target, as Bryan Lucey states. You just need an actor in the Industry, a herd of (paid) fanboys shouting thats the best I have ever heard and you see all the sheep running in that direction.
2 Likes
If that’s distortion, and it isn’t… Bring it on… I want more of it. It’s much more akin to the live sound I am used to. My reference for sure…
I genuinely like this upbeat attitude. It’s clear that the medical industry couldn’t function on the placebo effect alone though.
2 Likes
And these are still peoples opinions. You are confusing them with facts and disguising this by stating others opinions are ‘fanboys’ to try to defend an inadequate stance. I may or may not share your opinion but that’s for me to decide not for you to tell me.
1 Like
Opinions on that subject of Mr. Lucey and and Mr. Young have some importance for me.
They are part of the Industry and know better than an outsider or any “fanboy” whats going on. So I listen.
I suppose all the artists and sound engineers who do use MQA are fanboys then and are deaf as posts. I’m glad that’s settled.
2 Likes
That is not what I said.
Then I apologise that I read it that way.
I respect Mr Young too. He has always pushed for better recordings. I may be wrong but I believe that he never liked CDs or 16 bit digital. That being the case I would miss out on a lot of pleasure if I took the stance not to listen to it because of his opinion.
There are all sorts of arguments to and fro and I enjoy reading them. I just don’t like being told what to think or people having such loose arguments that they resort to calling others fanboys.
1 Like