MQA streaming points to a bright future for hi res audio

Yeah, I'm not so sure about that either Mike. Much as we all want it...might just be, the latest johnny-come-and-go-lately, of the audio wars.
 
Put Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus, and Ed Sheeran's next releases in the MQA process.

If it's not new poplar music, high resolution audio and MQA sales teams are going to resell the same old tunes you can get on CD. Big thumbs down.
 
o0OBillO0o said:
Put Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus, and Ed Sheeran's next releases in the MQA process.

If it's not new poplar music, high resolution audio and MQA sales teams are going to resell the same old tunes you can get on CD. Big thumbs down.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you for mass market purposes. But if MQA is streamed via Tidal, then technically you won't be buying the same old tunes, just renting them with your regular monthly subscription. [emoji6]

I will admit, not sure how many more copies of Miles Davis Kind of Blue I can handle: CD, DSD, 24/192, four different versions on vinyl, etc. But if MQA is part of Tidal, well then fine.
 
o0OBillO0o said:
Put Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus, and Ed Sheeran's next releases in the MQA process.

If it's not new poplar music, high resolution audio and MQA sales teams are going to resell the same old tunes you can get on CD. Big thumbs down.
Click to expand...

I don't even think that will pump up hi-res sales; because the people interested in...no offense...Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus, et al. Don't care, and/or...won't pay more for hi-res.

Still...I think about hi-res video, and the same struggle and arguments were presented for that; yet here we are...BD/1080p is the standard, and now they're trying to push that boundary. But I think the difference, has to do with "perceptions" of sound vs. picture.

It was a struggle, to get people on board...with the idea of hi-res video (remember the format wars, and HD DVD); but eventually...after pouring enough money into it...people did see the bigger and better sets, and could appreciate "OK...this is, better than that".

But hell...even we golden-eared, audiophiles; can't agree...if hi-res really sounds better than Redbook. DSD is better than PCM, etc. I just don't think, 99% of the public...cares enough; especially if it comes at a higher cost.

Of course I agree with Mike: if TIDAL does MQA anyway; great! But...if it costs more (the way the "hi-fi" service is already $20, vs. $10 for "regular-fi", lol); and/or people have to buy new, possibly expensive devices to decode it. It'll be a nice little toy, for us audiophiles...but it won't make penetration; and therefore...when Google, MS, Apple...decide to take over the world. We'll be stuck in our same old niche; hanging on to Vinyl, tubes, and DSD X16 ;)
 
It's not going to fly, I just have that feeling.
I did a compare between Hi-rez and CD on a proper set up (not mine) and I could barely tell any difference. I only "thought" I heard some subtle difference, but that is no evidence in my mind.
I don't seriously listen to streaming audio, so I could care less what they do with it. I do think Tidal is slightly better in sound quality than Spotify's best efforts just as they are, but not worth the extra money nor enough to win me over to listen to streaming.
Personally, I don't know that MQA will do anything to improve on what Tidal pumps out already.

In the meantime (more like forever more) I'm sticking with vinyl and well produced CDs. There's just something lacking big time with renting music. Renting anything makes me feel like I am giving into the dark side. It's bad enough renting the roof over my head. I recently had to rent a car and I had major emotional turmoil over that. The last thing I want to do is rent something sacred like music.
Just my personal take on it and means not a damn thing.
 
CDLehner said:
I don't even think that will pump up hi-res sales; because the people interested in...no offense...Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus, et al. Don't care, and/or...won't pay more for hi-res.

Still...I think about hi-res video, and the same struggle and arguments were presented for that; yet here we are...BD/1080p is the standard, and now they're trying to push that boundary. But I think the difference, has to do with "perceptions" of sound vs. picture.

It was a struggle, to get people on board...with the idea of hi-res video (remember the format wars, and HD DVD); but eventually...after pouring enough money into it...people did see the bigger and better sets, and could appreciate "OK...this is, better than that".

But hell...even we golden-eared, audiophiles; can't agree...if hi-res really sounds better than Redbook. DSD is better than PCM, etc. I just don't think, 99% of the public...cares enough; especially if it comes at a higher cost.

Of course I agree with Mike: if TIDAL does MQA anyway; great! But...if it costs more (the way the "hi-fi" service is already $20, vs. $10 for "regular-fi", lol); and/or people have to buy new, possibly expensive devices to decode it. It'll be a nice little toy, for us audiophiles...but it won't make penetration; and therefore...when Google, MS, Apple...decide to take over the world. We'll be stuck in our same old niche; hanging on to Vinyl, tubes, and DSD X16 ;)
Click to expand...


Chris I agree with you.
I just don't think, 99% of the public...cares enough; especially if it comes at a higher cost.
Click to expand...
and I'm not sure if 50% of the 1% (if that makes any sense) of those 99% will care either :einstein:

But in the meantime I will reserve my judgement on the sound quality when I actually hear music that has been smoke and mirrored with MQA.
 
MusicDirector said:
It's not going to fly, I just have that feeling.
I did a compare between Hi-rez and CD on a proper set up (not mine) and I could barely tell any difference. I only "thought" I heard some subtle difference, but that is no evidence in my mind.
I don't seriously listen to streaming audio, so I could care less what they do with it. I do think Tidal is slightly better in sound quality than Spotify's best efforts just as they are, but not worth the extra money nor enough to win me over to listen to streaming.
Personally, I don't know that MQA will do anything to improve on what Tidal pumps out already.

In the meantime (more like forever more) I'm sticking with vinyl and well produced CDs. There's just something lacking big time with renting music. Renting anything makes me feel like I am giving into the dark side. It's bad enough renting the roof over my head. I recently had to rent a car and I had major emotional turmoil over that. The last thing I want to do is rent something sacred like music.
Just my personal take on it and means not a damn thing.
Click to expand...

Here is my take and as you noted above means little to anyone else. You can get great SQ from redbook, Hi-Rez, over Tidal, and from the limited exposure I had, from a MQA track. When the tracks are good the differences negligible. We often have little information regarding titles re-released in Hi-Rez as to whether the SQ differences are due to the medium or because they were remastered or touched up. I have virtually stopped purchasing hi-rez titles. I find any SQ advantages are not worth the doubling in price over a standard CD.

I look at Tidal a bit differently than you. Like Spotify, MOG and Rhapsody before it I use Tidal to: 1) audition new artists or albums without having to spend the money upfront 2) add music to my library that is nice to have access to but not necessarily to own. Like a couple of other options Tidal is nicely integrated into Sooloos. When I tag a Tidal album it shows up in my library just like all of the CD's or Hi-Rez downloads I have loaded on my server. The only difference is that when I select play it is streamed rather than played from a file on my server. I can almost guarantee that in most set-ups a visitor could identify whether they had selected a CD or Tidal track when it is playing.

As you indicate you don't like to "rent" your music or much of anything. Unfortunately times have been changing and we now pay (rent) for access to our television content via cable or satellite. We rent access to the internet to get on sites such as this. We rent our access so that we have mobile phone service. With Tidal I feel I save money in the long run. I pay $240 per year. I just looked and I have tagged ~60 albums that I might occasionally play via Sooloos but don't feel the content warrants owing. That is three years of Tidal fees paid for.

I still purchase CD's for most of my music. I just no longer have to buy a CD for one or two tracks. In addition the CD's I purchase are my back-up and the source for my content should I decide to go a different direction from SooLoos.

None of us yet know what impact MQA will have on future content. Can Meridian deliver on their promises. Will content providers release product that more than just a few people want to hear. Will Tidal deliver this content and be here for the long term. I posted elsewhere that I had mixed feelings after hearing a MQA demo. About 2/3 of the content sounded good but not better than "normal". The other 1/3 was the best versions of those tracks I have ever heard and not by a small margin.
 
still-one said:
Here is my take and as you noted above means little to anyone else. You can get great SQ from redbook, Hi-Rez, over Tidal, and from the limited exposure I had, from a MQA track. When the tracks are good the differences negligible. We often have little information regarding titles re-released in Hi-Rez as to whether the SQ differences are due to the medium or because they were remastered or touched up. I have virtually stopped purchasing hi-rez titles. I find any SQ advantages are not worth the doubling in price over a standard CD.

I look at Tidal a bit differently than you. Like Spotify, MOG and Rhapsody before it I use Tidal to: 1) audition new artists or albums without having to spend the money upfront 2) add music to my library that is nice to have access to but not necessarily to own. Like a couple of other options Tidal is nicely integrated into Sooloos. When I tag a Tidal album it shows up in my library just like all of the CD's or Hi-Rez downloads I have loaded on my server. The only difference is that when I select play it is streamed rather than played from a file on my server. I can almost guarantee that in most set-ups a visitor could identify whether they had selected a CD or Tidal track when it is playing.

As you indicate you don't like to "rent" your music or much of anything. Unfortunately times have been changing and we now pay (rent) for access to our television content via cable or satellite. We rent access to the internet to get on sites such as this. We rent our access so that we have mobile phone service. With Tidal I feel I save money in the long run. I pay $240 per year. I just looked and I have tagged ~60 albums that I might occasionally play via Sooloos but don't feel the content warrants owing. That is three years of Tidal fees paid for.

I still purchase CD's for most of my music. I just no longer have to buy a CD for one or two tracks. In addition the CD's I purchase are my back-up and the source for my content should I decide to go a different direction from SooLoos.

None of us yet know what impact MQA will have on future content. Can Meridian deliver on their promises. Will content providers release product that more than just a few people want to hear. Will Tidal deliver this content and be here for the long term. I posted elsewhere that I had mixed feelings after hearing a MQA demo. About 2/3 of the content sounded good but not better than "normal". The other 1/3 was the best versions of those tracks I have ever heard and not by a small margin.
Click to expand...

In my opinion the sound quality no matter what, will always be foundationally based on the original recording, but you and everyone else knows that. That said, I do agree that one can get great SQ from redbook and everything else in a lossless format. However, I have also heard plenty of redbook CDs that sound awful too. (In fact, I still own a few of those awful sounding CDs, but obviously don’t play them anymore. I really need to get into my CD library and purge the crappy ones). The vast majority of my CDs are of stuff that have never and will never see vinyl and stuff that was done correctly when recorded so there was a recording done for CD and a separate one for vinyl.

Anyway, I do confess to having a Spotify subscription I use 99% for the same purpose as your first one you mentioned and research. The only reason I have the subscription is not that there is a difference between 256 and 320 kbps (that I can hear much of anyway, both are yucky), but really so I don’t have to deal with a bunch of hassle. When my research is done (whenever that is) I will drop Spotify and never look back. I figure why pay double or more to do what I do with it? If I seriously listened to streaming I would pay for better SQ, but I also personally find streaming rather inconvenient as well as lacking so it’s not in my future. (I know, that sounds ridiculous from someone who loves vinyl, but I’m old school and grew up with vinyl and you know what they say about old dogs, yada yada yada. Then there is the sound of vinyl, it’s just hard to describe. Plus there is the whole tangible feel and such).

I only purchase what I want to own. I don’t purchase LPs that only have one or two songs I like, I just live without, but that said, it’s not that big a problem with me because I don’t just listen for title cuts, I like to go deep, that’s where the true gems are and I end up liking at least half the LP or more which I am not sure if that is good or bad. :D

I don’t pay for TV because I do not watch TV, but I do have a cell phone for urgent matters, a landline phone and of course I pay for internet access. Then there is electricity, water, gas, etc, but all that is nothing new. It’s been that way for the last 100 years, so that is a weak argument at best. That said though, you are correct in that Tidal is saving you tons of money because if you purchased all the CDs you have on your playlist I’m guessing it would be a lot more than 3 years of Tidal, for sure, even at used prices. Things like music however are an entirely different thing. If I did not have records or CDs or anything there would still be music and it would not have to be rented unless the powers that be figure out a way to charge rent for what is in your mind/memory.
You are wise for having CD backups and such. I too still purchase CDs (and vinyl of course), I’m just picky.

Yes, I ask the same question about who can deliver what. Sony is not keen about cracking open their vaults at this time so that could be an issue. Tidal it’s self is showing some cracks in the foundation too, so time will see if things get fixed or abandon. Personally, just judging by the MQA demo I heard and experienced, I have doubts that Meridian can deliver.

All just my personal opinion though and only pertinent to me alone.
 
CPP said:
Chris I agree with you...and I'm not sure if 50% of the 1% (if that makes any sense) of those 99% will care either
Click to expand...

Yeah; 99 was a nice, round number. But like I always say: audiophiles...are like 1% of 1% of 1%.

Still...happy to be in the club; no matter how small :audiophile:
 
CDLehner said:
I don't even think that will pump up hi-res sales; because the people interested in...no offense...Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus, et al. Don't care, and/or...won't pay more for hi-res.

Still...I think about hi-res video, and the same struggle and arguments were presented for that; yet here we are...BD/1080p is the standard, and now they're trying to push that boundary. But I think the difference, has to do with "perceptions" of sound vs. picture.

It was a struggle, to get people on board...with the idea of hi-res video (remember the format wars, and HD DVD); but eventually...after pouring enough money into it...people did see the bigger and better sets, and could appreciate "OK...this is, better than that".

But hell...even we golden-eared, audiophiles; can't agree...if hi-res really sounds better than Redbook. DSD is better than PCM, etc. I just don't think, 99% of the public...cares enough; especially if it comes at a higher cost.

Of course I agree with Mike: if TIDAL does MQA anyway; great! But...if it costs more (the way the "hi-fi" service is already $20, vs. $10 for "regular-fi", lol); and/or people have to buy new, possibly expensive devices to decode it. It'll be a nice little toy, for us audiophiles...but it won't make penetration; and therefore...when Google, MS, Apple...decide to take over the world. We'll be stuck in our same old niche; hanging on to Vinyl, tubes, and DSD X16 ;)
Click to expand...

I disagree. Fans buy everything; Blu-ray rocks; and the world has to make money.

link: http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/...can/nielsen-2014-year-end-music-report-us.pdf


still-one said:
Here is my take and as you noted above means little to anyone else. You can get great SQ from redbook, Hi-Rez, over Tidal, and from the limited exposure I had, from a MQA track. When the tracks are good the differences negligible. We often have little information regarding titles re-released in Hi-Rez as to whether the SQ differences are due to the medium or because they were remastered or touched up. I have virtually stopped purchasing hi-rez titles. I find any SQ advantages are not worth the doubling in price over a standard CD.

I look at Tidal a bit differently than you. Like Spotify, MOG and Rhapsody before it I use Tidal to: 1) audition new artists or albums without having to spend the money upfront 2) add music to my library that is nice to have access to but not necessarily to own. Like a couple of other options Tidal is nicely integrated into Sooloos. When I tag a Tidal album it shows up in my library just like all of the CD's or Hi-Rez downloads I have loaded on my server. The only difference is that when I select play it is streamed rather than played from a file on my server. I can almost guarantee that in most set-ups a visitor could identify whether they had selected a CD or Tidal track when it is playing.

As you indicate you don't like to "rent" your music or much of anything. Unfortunately times have been changing and we now pay (rent) for access to our television content via cable or satellite. We rent access to the internet to get on sites such as this. We rent our access so that we have mobile phone service. With Tidal I feel I save money in the long run. I pay $240 per year. I just looked and I have tagged ~60 albums that I might occasionally play via Sooloos but don't feel the content warrants owing. That is three years of Tidal fees paid for.

I still purchase CD's for most of my music. I just no longer have to buy a CD for one or two tracks. In addition the CD's I purchase are my back-up and the source for my content should I decide to go a different direction from SooLoos.

None of us yet know what impact MQA will have on future content. Can Meridian deliver on their promises. Will content providers release product that more than just a few people want to hear. Will Tidal deliver this content and be here for the long term. I posted elsewhere that I had mixed feelings after hearing a MQA demo. About 2/3 of the content sounded good but not better than "normal". The other 1/3 was the best versions of those tracks I have ever heard and not by a small margin.
Click to expand...

Jim - Good points. Leasing $30,000,000 in Music is not a bad deal @ $240/yr.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top