If these were being offered for sale as MQA rips I’d agree with you, but right now they are not. They are instead, at least in the short term, trying to stimulate streaming as a viable means to collectors, as an alternative to thousands of LP’s, CD’s or files that may have otherwise taken many years to put together. They want us to become ‘virtual’ collectors.
1 Like
Some MQA albums are already for sale, including ones that were recently added to Tidal (e.g. David Bowie, Alanis Morissette. Emerson Lake & Palmer.
https://www.highresaudio.com/en/search/?format=mqa&sort=-releaseDate
Yes, you are right. Never visited that site before. 350 titles and counting.
This talk of the labels being master manipulators is so '70s. “Don’t trust anybody over 30!” Boring.
They are not pushing consumers to streaming, the consumers have voted with their wallets.
Master manipulators? Have you seen the numbers of their revenue? Half of what it was.
The market wants streaming. A small part of the market wants high audio quality. A few labels are adopting a technology that allows streaming in high quality. They should be applauded.
Will the quality streaming succeed in the market? We will see.
Is the mastering no good? Separate issue. If you don’t like the product, don’t buy it. Or write letters, if you want.
Is the provenance unknown? Separate issue. If you don’t like the product, don’t buy it. Or write letters, if you want.
3 Likes
I’m not sure I get this point you’ve repeated more than a couple times. Because something is free doesn’t mean you’re a product. So when I watch over the air TV does that mean I’m the product?, but not if I have a cable service? We are the customer when using a service whether there are ads or not.
We already have lossless streaming. 
The point is that the advertiser is the customer of the TV network, or of Google, in the sense that the network or Google delivers something to their customer that they charge for. The product they deliver is you, the consumer.
But with the cable company, you are the customer, you are paying for the value.
This does not mean that Google or the network will ignore you, they have to deliver value to you so that you continue using the service, otherwise they lose the value they sell to their customers. I don’t want to be cynical, I use Google and networks.
It’s just a reminder of the company’s fundamental business goals.
A “free”, advertising-funded service will in some cases act differently than a subscription-funded one, like Tidal.
(It’s more complicated than that, because of things like freemium, where the free service is a way to attract customer to a paid premium service.)
1 Like
I take it you mean the streaming problem is already solved.
Congratulations. You don’t need to bother acquiring MQA software or hardware, and you don’t need to waste time doing listening comparisons and describing your experience, which is what this forum is for.
If it’s free, you are the product. The advertisers want eyeballs on screens to advertise to. That’s it. I don’t mind, it’s not wrong, it’s just a fact. If I download a free app I am encouraged to buy to remove adds.
I disagree, because it’s free does not make you a product. Watching or listening to an ad does not make you a product, you are the customer of the service you are using free or not.
Trust me, to the advertiser, you are the product.
I’m in advertising. No, you would be the potential customer.
This is well off topic, but If I ran a TV station that rely on advertising for revenue I better have numbers (Product) I can offer to potential advertisers. They want numbers, and we the users are it.
As someone else has already stated, they have to give us some value to keep us here it make no mistake. The end game is advertising and sales.
Nothing wrong with any of it but we need to understand it.
Let’s get back on topic please.
I wouldn’t worry, the topic is well off topic already! 
1 Like
I see your point, but disagree with the term of people as a product, the amount of people watching a TV show does not amount to a product as they are a potential customer base which is what attracts the advertisers… sorry to have gone off topic here, and no more from me about it. Thanks.
1 Like
Anyone listened to some decoded MQA lately?
1 Like
Still looking for this. Later today I will post impressions comparing a couple of Jethro Tull albums (Aqualung and Thick as a Brick…both Steven Wilson masters)
I wish, but I’m too busy following all the off thread topics!
Will hopefully be able to try tomorrow. As for comparing to non-MQA high-res versions, pretty unlikely.
OK, so a few caveats up front: I’m not an audiophile and don’t think I have “golden ears.” I’m also just beginning on this audio quality journey though I’ve been a music lover for a long time. I have lower-end “mid-fi” gear but I can tell the difference between Tidal/Spotify/iTunes/High-Resolution. I also note that I think Roon does a better job in its transport to a USB DAC than the Tidal PC desktop software based on close comparisons of HIFI quality streams. I think the most quality comes from good masters, good speakers/headphones, amplifier, DAC, bitrate/resolution, cables and software/hardware signal management (in that order).
I tested Jethro Tull’s “Aqualung” and “Cross-Eyed Mary” tracks from the Aqualung album and “Legends and Believe in the Day” track from Thick as a Brick, both mastered by Steven Wilson. Since I don’t have an MQA-enabled DAC, I used Roon for my FLAC playback (24/96 from HDTracks) compared to Tidal app’s MQA versions (unfolded to 24/96). I play from my Windows 10 PC using “forced/fixed” volume and “exclusive mode” to my Oppo HA-2SE USB DAC. I tested with the Oppo built-in headphone amp and also with a line-out to my Nobsound NS-08E hybrid tube amp (sporting a matched pair of NOS NIB Lorenz E180F / 6688 Black Plate 3 Mica gold pins square getter vacuum tubes in the preamp stage…nice ones they are). Finally, I tested with Meze 99 Classics and Philips SHP-9500 headphones.
So, the anticlimactic finding is I can’t really tell a difference with these tracks and my gear. They sound great in either platform and format. That’s really an improvement for Tidal since I always thought Roon did a better job than Tidal but now with these MQA versions Tidal is the same as Roon.
My guess is this should be expected given the high-quality master Steven Wilson created. That said, it’s nice to know MQA is working well for streaming quality audio matching the best high-resolution local source I have.
For all the naysayers, the value of MQA should be at least as much as what we get from well-mastered high-resolution digital audio. When you add the potential benefit that MQA will help studios distribute more good masters with the added convenience of streaming then I say it’s a huge win.
I’ll share more comparisons if I find other matches between Tidal MQA and my small high-resolution library.
4 Likes