“The only thing I want are more options for streaming services in Roon.”
My understanding is Deezer integration is somewhere on the horizon.
1 Like
Where did you hear this?
I would be very inetrested in that service integrated in Roon.
“We need more choices”: I could not agree more.
I subscribe to Qobuz’ hi resolution streaming services - they offer up to 192 kbps streaming for a premium price. I have to exit Roon and stream via the streaming bridge’s own software or via Qobuz. Incidentally, the latter gives access to a lot of teh information Roon will give me as well. Some food for thought I hope for Roon’s developers - competition does not sleep …
If you want more streaming options for Roon and lossless at the same time, options are limited unfortunately.
So far TIDAL is the only one who has stepped up to serve not only lossless streaming, but MQA as well for those who want it.
Qobuz have long had ambitions to emulate Roon and their high definition offering was introduced as a reaction to MQA. I am not seeing the sort of innovation there that will elevate them to the top. Competition doesn’t sleep, but it does spend a lot of time playing catch up. That may be seen by some as overly critical. But it is also pretty accurate.
1 Like
I have to respectfully disagree. From all of the reading I’ve done on the subject of MQA and the careful listening that I’ve done, MQA is not a lossy format. In my opinion, MQA is properly designated as “HiRes” in Roon and should remain as such.
I would love to have Roon do the full MQA decoding (unfolding) in software because I don’t yet have an MQA-capable DAC. Yes, it’s not the full MQA experience but it is one step closer. If Tidal can do it then why can’t Roon?
Well, MQA is no option for me.
I consider it a marketing fake.
“lossy” is a definition not an opinion.
From a file in a lossless format you can recreate to original file 100% identical.
To further split hairs, AE67; the opinion I expressed was regarding the designation as HiRes in Roon, in contrast to the opinion of miklats. I accept the definition of MQA as being lossless and I understand the difference.
Miklats does not accept it as being lossless, and while I disagree with the contention that it is a lossless format, I respect his/her choice.
1 Like
I am not going to say anything more than MQA from what I have read is a total waste of time just another money gathering exercise by corporate’s so why would anyone be so stupid as to use it. That’s all I have to say I use 24/96 Flac and that is good enough for my ears. End of Story
2 Likes
I find the total reliance on Tidal concerning and would love to see Qobuz supported as well.
1 Like
Qobuz would need to agree.
Because if fridge sounds better and I am not paying anything extra for it.
I don’t understand the original statement. It implies that there are other streaming platforms which are currently streaming non-MQA Hi-Res. Could you clarify, please?
Qobuz and Deezer
1 Like
And in both cases you can thank MQA because they certainly were not doing it before MQA was launched on Tidal!
This is so not true. Qobuz did Hi-Res even before Tidal exists (only predecessor WiMP).
Here a link from 2014
Another lie about MQA like so many others.
Firstly it isn’t a lie. If it is incorrect, it is a mistake.
Secondly my German isn’t what it should be considering the amount of time I have spent there but I see references to CD quality streaming and high definition downloads. As we are talking about MQA and Tidal I presume downloads are a different topic?