Interesting video
2 Likes
I think that this interesting video should be watched in conjunction with reading this article on the current business environment at Tidal:
3 Likes
If true, it doesn’t bode well.
I’m glad that I cancelled my Tidal subscription some years ago…
1 Like
I really appreciate Cameron’s work. I think he is thoughtful, puts a lot of time and effort into his reviews, and understands that his work will be scrutinized by many well-informed viewers.
As I have stated in the past, my issue with MQA was never, “you shouldn’t like it,” “you” can, and should, if you do. My position is in-line with this statement in the video:
“My issue with MQA was never that it sounds bad, or that you shouldn’t like it, it was that it simply didn’t do the things it was claiming to do, and that many people were paying more for higher priced subscription tiers… because they had been misled by marketing.”
This is the very definition of consumer fraud.
When I was starting out on my digital journey, I contacted Tidal several times to ask them to explain their claims about MQA and their HD offerings. Not once did I receive an answer that was thoughtful or accurate. Accordingly, I am a Qobuz subscriber.
In five years, hopefully everyone will have forgotten the Meridian-driven Odyssey that MQA embarked on, driven by the very vocal, and obviously paid, mouthpiece of TAS, which successfully (though temporarily): (a) corrupted studios into issuing brilliant, lossless recordings in a compressed, clipped format; (b) convinced high-end DAC manufacturers to pay to license its codex; and (c) convinced the public to pay more for the privilege to listen what would have been better served in a free, open, lossless codex.
High-end audio will be better for closing this chapter.
But this isn’t true. MQA is doing the things it claimed it was doing. The team made a mistake by claiming it was “lossless” when in fact it is audibly lossless.
If you listen to MQA encoded files of Peter McGrath’s recordings on a Rossini Apex it is noticeably more realistic and musical when encoded for MQA. You can even hear the improvement in room tune.
I have heard this difference repeatedly. That’s why I have been a strong advocate for MQA. It’s not popular but I think it’s important to stand up for a technology that works.
1 Like
I’m not going to make any statements as to my own leanings on the whole MQA thing but MQA is MASSIVELY popular in Asia - it seems to have far more of an avid following over there with the high-end audio crowd than it does in Europe / the USA.
MQA encoding done properly can sound really good - I’ve heard some very good recordings in the MQA format - but then again straight PCM recordings CAN also sound truly stunning, even at 44.1/16.
So much of what we hear in a recording depends on how that music was handled before it got into its box, not what size, shape or colour the box is.
Phil
3 Likes
This topic has been covered extensively on this forum and one thread is below, so I don’t feel the need to rehash it again. In summary:
The issue many people have with MQA was actually not about innovation or trying to try new formats. If you like MQA, great, have at it! The issue was that Meridian, with the help of Tidal and TAS, attempted to capture the entire HD market by (a) repeatedly lying about their technology; and (b) seeking to replace true lossless, free audio codecs with their lossy, paid format.
1 Like
But your own biases are showing here in the news excerpt. MQA not only sold to Lenbrook but there is a new streaming service coming from David Chesky and they are continuing to build on things like Scala6 (MQA Air).
Let’s see what Lenbrook can do. Let’s see what David can do.
If you don’t like it then you are not required to buy it.
Correct! I have a bias for lossless codecs and companies that don’t engage in consumer fraud!
; )
2 Likes
Oh Phil, how’d you form that view? I don’t think it actually is at all. As far as I can tell, most folks in Asia are split along the same lines as the US/EU when it comes to MQA.
It might have seemed like they were popular as Tidal was the only “highres” streaming service available across all of Asia until only very recently when Qobuz started becoming available.
Not to rehash the debate all over again, but my own personal view is more or less aligned with @keiserrg. In summary;
- MQA lied outright about not being lossy (perceptibility or otherwise), and only came clean when they were caught out
- All of the “innovations” in MQA were available with open non-proprietary alternatives
And most egregious of all,
- They attempted, but fortunately failed miserably, to remove consumer choice of lossless codecs in favour of their format. Had they been successful, we’d all have stepped backwards listening to 13-bit streams and encoded CDs.
2 Likes
Hi Anup
I’m not going to make comment on your three points because it would be seen (rightly or wrongly) to show a bias from my side.
My comment about MQA being massively more popular in Asia stems solely from the number of comments and queries that we get from the various territories regarding specific functionality and whether it will be included / excluded / added / removed / extended etc. and I’ve had an awful lot more queries regarding continued support of MQA from Asia than from the USA or Europe, that’s all. 
1 Like
Not surprising really, since as I mentioned, Tidal/MQA delivered the only form of “highres” in the region until quite recently. For example, Qobuz only just started officially offering services in Singapore a few months ago (albeit, some of us have had Qobuz Accounts for years streaming successfully to the geo).
In any case, I’m guessing dCS will see a major decline in MQA requests. (With the exception of folks who own Lenbrook related hardware) I seriously doubt anyone will be remotely interested in what Lenbrook has to offer (they should wake-up and smell the coffee, MQA is toast 
)
1 Like
When this happens just send them the GoldenSound videos!
: )))
/me hovers finger over the delete button…
1 Like
Gee if I need to have somebody else tell me what I am hearing, I should be in a different hobby.
I don’t understand your post Jim, but here is a simple reply, in case I understand your inference:
Enjoy whatever you like. If you like MQA, great. Enjoy! No one is telling you what to listen to. In fact, why not play MP3 on your Vivaldi stack. I’m sure it will sound great : )
That has nothing to this with this thread, or what MQA was trying to do, which was to restrict MY choice, and every other audiophiles’ choice, and restrict us from from listening to HD PCM, DXD, and DSD, and force us to listen to MQA.
Very fortunately, all of this is a moot point now as MQA is dead. In 2-3 years, you will never hear about MQA in a high-end audio review. It was already absent from the recent Varese reviews.
Cheers,
R
My response did have everything to do with this thread. Look at the original post. What is the first thing you see? A link to a video regarding whether Tidal is lossless and offering MQA.
For seven years I had to read post after post with people whining about that MQA really doesn’t do this, or MQA trying to capture the market or restricting other listeners options, etc. The end user always had options. First don’t use Tidal. The market offered plenty of other streaming services to choose from.
Some people on the forum are actually concerned with consumer fraud.
But again, fortunately, all of this is (mostly) moot now.
Cheers.
How exactly did MQA restrict your freedom?
It never deployed DRM.
It never stopped anyone from listening to PCM or DSD files.
It never stopped anybody from listening to Qobuz or other streaming services.
1 Like
Pls reread Anupc and my prior posts on this topic.
Best regards