Explorer already packed and ready to ship off.
But it’s less about whether the hi-res version is better and more about does it make sense to get a MQA dac just to decode Tidal MQA. Even when they officially make the switch it’s still only going to be a handfull of albums. The 2L catalog sounds great but not my normal genre.
Also there’s still a chance Roon will be able to software decode MQA and won’t even need special equipment.
Any movement on this?
MQA World 
Rest of World (ish) 
I always check the streaming settings on the Tidal app after it updates to a newer version.
This morning, for the briefest instant, there was a fourth Quality option displayed. After a moment it disappeared. The Master option was visible just under the HiFi option. It’s gone now - as you can see by the clip - but seeing it gave me hope that someday soon it will come and stay.
As soon as it appears you’ll be able to play all dozen albums! 
Are there as many as that?
I wonder what the story there is, and if anyone has some insight on this. My expectation is TIDAL initially thought of MQA as a way to pack a high-res file.
If I recall correctly, iTunes Music has required content in 24/96 or higher for quite some time now, so I would expect most everything exists in high-res format of some sort. So maybe TIDAL’s expectation was to take this and transcode it to MQA format. But given what we know now, MQA would never agree to that.
Does anyone know what the story is?
Haha… There’s one way to shut people up: content and showing it really is better.
You’ve lost me here (not for the first time), what do we now know that MQA would never agree to?
A blanket transcoding of a high-res files to MQA format. If they allowed this, getting everything in MQA format would not take much time at all.
The argument from MQA - and one I am sympathetic to - is that MQA is not just a format to deliver high-res files, it is an end-to-end process that ensures high quality mastering, removal of ADC artifacts, efficient packaging, and DAC tailoring at the decoding stage. This is a very lofty goal.
In my opinion you have to choose a path to adoption that is tractable. This means figuring out to a way to relax some of those lofty goals in a way that makes adoption tractable. And this is where in my opinion MQA (the company) is not being effective.
So did/do I.
And when we listen to them using an MQA DAC, the MQA light would come on. If we were streaming, the data volume wouldn’t be much higher than the Tidal HiFi data volume is now. We’d get high-res (MQA’s version of high-res, if you will) but it would stream like standard resolution.
And when MQA Studio versions become available and played, the MQA Studio indicator light on the DAC would indicate that this recording is done in MQA end to end.
So yes, I figured that Tidal or iTunes or somebody would take those 24/96 masters and transcode them to MQA so they could be streamed.
I’m not sure the current lack of movement from Tidal has anything to do with MQA “banning” them from transcoding existing files. If this is so then MQA have rowed back significantly from their starting position.
Some MQA DACs have coloured lights allowing the listener to determine the process used to generate the MQA files (ie Studio Master approved by artist / producer etc). Rather pointless if MQA won’t allow anything but the white glove treatment.
Comparisons have shown a 2x larger bandwidth requirement. If I am TIDAL and I am assessing this from a business standpoint, my math would include those people who will complain about dropouts given the 2x bandwidth requirement.
Indeed. The MQA status light could go brown for content that was blanket transcoded without any other treatment. I would think this would be smart for MQA to do.
Where can I find these comparisons? Come to think of it, my information is anecdotal and would like to see actual file size and bandwidth comparisons.
Tidal has been used extensively to demo MQA with clients, dealers, partners, journalists etc.
Plenty of charts in the Q and A’s about streaming rates. No need to make up numbers.
Can you point me please?
So let me get this right. You make a sweeping statement that the lack of MQA is down to the fact that “MQA would never agree” to the blanket transcoding of existing hirez content. You then offer no proof of this other than to assert that this is the “only explanation to the lack of content”. I can think of one very obvious legal issue relating to Tidal’s existing contracts with their content suppliers to start with.
Frankly the last few messages in this thread belong back in the General MQA thread, where I suspect Mods might wonder whether the “debate” is being advanced.
You’re joking of course. The grinding of such an extremely dull axe, so ineffectively, has never advanced any debate.
