MQA now on Tidal

Dr Tone said:
Hmmm, the lossy MQA is $.90 more expensive than the 24/96 lossless. I guess any chance to make these things more expensive they have to go for it. :dry:
Click to expand...

Probably worth the extra expense too.

I paid $14.60 for a MQA title on Highresaudio while the same CD goes for $16.47 on Amazon. You can find examples to fit your argument all day long. It's the SQ the matters.
 
As MQA's acceptance and availaility increases in fits and starts, there also seems to be more flexibility being allowed in its implementation. First Audioquest's DAC which needs to be fed a software-decoded signal to allow a full decode, now this from PSAudio. The latter isn't a huge surprise given what we've heard from PS on the issue up to now (1-2 years of back and forth with Meridian trying to get everything to line up right)
 
wklie said:
highresaudio.com announced on its Facebook they'll no longer sell MQA albums.
Click to expand...
This was mentioned a couple of days ago on the Computer Audiophile forum, but it was later noted that the related announcement had been removed from their FB page and was apparently a hack. It appeared as if that post was a hack by someone with significant opposition to MQA. :ninja:

Latest update: In the related thread on CA it now states that the company has confirmed it will stop selling MQA files as of March 1st, so the saga continues... :popcorn:
 
Yes I read the original announcement as well, and thought there was some problem with it, especially that the website still had MQA albums prominently displayed in the first page at that time.

With the revised announcement, I checked that the website has been updated, and there was something with the revised announcement that led me to believe it is genuine, then I posted here.

Now, I rechecked their Facebook, their announcement disappears for the second time. :skeptical:
 
I sent them an e-mail yesterday the 22nd asking why I could not longer search for MQA titles on Highresaudio. They responded back that they were no longer going to provide MQA files for a few reasons. I let them know i was disappointed and that they had lost me as a customer going forward. He did reply back with a few reasons why had stopped and suggested I just purchase the "full" high res version .

On a couple of titles I have purchased both the 24/96 and MQA version and let them know that although the differences were not significant I preferred the MQA version due to less "fuzz" around vocals along with cleaner and tighter bass with more space around some instruments. That's my take.
 
I cancelled my TIDAL trial. I guess at this time that I'm not really interested in streaming as a music source.
 
Interesting thing is that they seem to be focusing on Audiophiles and those who care about sound quality -- also getting others who don't know better to stand up and recognize they're missing out. I don't think that was in Bob Stuart's initial statements on MQA. if I recall correctly, it was more aimed as streaming to the masses, not to those with expensive sound systems (the ~3% if you will). They did say it would sound better, but that Audiophiles weren't their target back then.

Mike said:
Those companies who have poo-pooed MQA publicly better tee up their spin doctors. The MQA revolution continues.

http://www.musicweek.com/digital/re...to-hi-res-audio-with-mqa-collaboration/067522

And here goes the "what if Tidal goes bust" argument to the naysayers:

http://musically.com/2017/02/16/umg-backs-mqa-predicts-half-dozen-hi-res-streaming-launches-2017/
Click to expand...
 
Hmmm, another option for us folks without a hardware MQA solution. Now if Roon could at least do the same, I'd be a whole lot happier.
 
A great read:

http://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/questions-answers-mqa-interview-andreas-koch/

I found this interesting (and this corresponds with what I have witnessed personally at recording studios and mastering studios and in speaking with some of my Pro Audio reps):

Question: Is all the music offered in higher resolution actually recorded in that format, or has it been recorded in a lesser format, perhaps, and then up-converted?

Answer: The sad truth to this is, yes, a large percentage of music is being recorded in one format and then published or released in another. With the increasing demand for higher resolution music, a lot of existing (already recorded) music is being up-converted to satisfy that demand. This trend is mostly driven by two factors:

Most customers equate high resolution or better quality to higher bit depth and higher sample rate. In other words, in their minds a recording at, let's say a sampling rate of 192kHz, automatically must be better than one at 44.1kHz, regardless of whether the original recording was at 192kHz or not. However, a high sample rate does not automatically constitute a high-resolution recording; it is rather a pre-requisite enabling the recording process (mic placement, editing, mixing, mastering etc) to take advantage of the wider bandwidth and fill it with musical art.

As customers came to the idea in the early 90s that music should cost close to nothing (remember Napster), recording studios and music labels started to feel the budget crunch. Many of them are barely hanging on today, and are forced to cut corners where they can afford it. Therefore, many will take existing masters that were recorded in a lesser format and simply up-convert them electronically to better appeal their new high resolution aficionados. A large percentage, perhaps even the majority of all recorded music, exists in CD quality, and all too often "remastering" means to start with the 16-bit/44.1kHz existing master and re-release it in a higher sample rate.
 
It's pretty easy to tell by frequency spectrum analysis whether or not a hi-res recording has been upsampled. For the albums I have purchased it is pretty unusual for the hi-res to be upsampled from 16/44.1; of course I'm not going to buy an album recorded digitally prior to about 1995 in any hi-res format.
 
What I found, in my travels, is that the majority of newer stuff is recorded at 24/96. I never saw a single 24/192 and no DSD.

We'll get to the bottom of this MQA stuff sooner or later!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top