MQA proffers a simpler world in which a single, back-compatible distribution format serves all needs, and in which consumers no longer have access to those high-resolution PCM masters.
That, anyway, is the vision of MQA Ltd.
And Spencer Chrislu’s remarks surely imply that if MQA succeeds, the “crown jewels”—open, high-rate PCM files—will be withdrawn from the market. Buy those 24/192 downloads while you can.
The success of the goal would be dependent on the positive involvement of the record industry.Essential for achieving this would be compliance from the majors. Lo and behold, company reports I looked at during MQA’s early days showed equity owned by Warners, Sony Music and UMG. All allocated at roughly the same time. One might wonder how this came about.
Yet the net result of all of this was the offering of MQA files on Tidal. If you didn’t like those files sonically you could go over to Qobuz and get hirez PCM.
But as much as I enjoy and love Qobuz, I found some masterings sounded better on Tidal. For instance, I really enjoyed the Yello albums on Tidal. Those albums sounded more organic to me.
I would humbly suggest we actually got more choices with MQA. And in fact for some albums MQA sounded better.
What MQA tired to achieve is absolutely no different than what Sony/Phillips tried to achieve with SACD. That is to release a new patented technology that would generate revenue to replace the revenue stream that was expiring from their original CD patents.
Whether SACD releases are better than CD is just as subjective as analog/digital, tube/solid state, etc.
I respectfully but completely disagree with this. First, for the reasons @Anupc cited above, and for other reasons like:
SACD/DSD was a published, technically verifiable format. Sony did not LIE about what they were doing. Sony did not round up TAS reviewers to make ridiculously claims that were demonstrably false, etc., etc. The MQA launch piece, which I linked to in a prior post, was an exercise of ridiculous superlatives.
In contrast, Sony tried and succeeded in introducing a new format that captured More information from the source than 44.1/16, with measurable results. This format has endured, and been further improved upon over the years. Similarly, PCM based methods have been improved upon over the years, also giving consumers demonstrably better choices.
Sony did not attempt to dress up and brand a lossy download codec and then convince millions of people that it was “better” than the original, lossless version. It’s a radically different situation.
IMHO, all of these points support the original point of the thread, basically that Tidal is still misrepresenting what they are doing on their streaming service. Given the recent history, I can say I am not the slightest bit surprised.
only because they failed to achieve their original goal.
I have JVC K2 CDs that sound incredible. Ultimately, it just comes down to how well the master was handled during A-D, MQA certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on that.
It’s very different. (1) SACD was offered into a market where high-resolution digital didn’t exist, so it was a fundamentally new option. (2) Sony/Philips didn’t attempt to remove RedBook from the market.
MQA OTOH didn’t offer anything fundamentally new that wasn’t already available in the market, AND they attempted to remove consumer’s option of unencoded Redbook.
The fact that they didn’t succeed and had to hobble along with Tidal doesn’t make what they attempted to do any less deplorable.
Yes, exactly. These are the two main points. It has nothing to do with whether you like some MQA songs in your catalog. Good. I’m glad you do. Enjoy them!
)
only because they failed to achieve their original goal.