What happen to MQA on Tidal?


After listening to Tidal only on my phone the last few weeks, I went to stream on my home system but soon realized all my MQA tracks were no longer showing up and the MQA parameters were absent in my streaming settings.  I see Tidal is in "administration" (Chapter 11???).   One of the main reasons I subscribed to Tidal was MQA and purchased a DAC that could decode the format.   I think I should have at least been informed by Tidal if it was cancelling MQA.  Any thoughts? 

I know a lot of people hate (hated) MQA, but like any format I have listened to (Vinyl, CD, SACD, FLAC, MQA, etc.) , some things sound great and others on a plain old red book CD sounds better. 

bubbagump

I believe MQA was developed years ago because internet speeds were too slow to transfer data.  This said, should we switch to QOBUZZ.  I like the layout of Tidal and I think they have a much larger library.  I wonder what percentage of members use Tidal VS QOBUZZ.  I had a rep demo Tidal and QOBUZZ in a blind test a nd I think QOBUZZ sounded better.  Maybe the folding and unfolding of files using MQA affects timing.

 

i didn’t know Tidal was in chapter 11.  Maybe I should transfer my library to QOBUZZ to play it safe.

baylinor's avatar

baylinor

969 posts

 

MQA never was welcomed in this house of stereo. I also dropped Stereophile and TAS subscriptions in part because of their sales pitch for it. Don't mess with music signals, lesson learned.

Wait a minute! Most of the CD’s were recorded in 44.1 so bumping the signal to 192, isn’t that messing with the signal??  I have a highe end streaming device and I still say CD sounds better than streaming, albums sound better than CD’s and Reel to Reel sounds better than all of them.  Sounds like DSD processing and HiRes is still messing with the signal. 
 

can someone explain this??  A 1988-1996 car CD Player that sounded better than all of the 24 bit processor CD Players: The Alpine 7909.  With regards to home audio, I’m sure there are older CD Players that sound better than some of the newer expensive units. Just playing the devils advocate.  Please comment if you feel like you have been bitten not once but twice.here is the link to the article.

 

https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2009/02/10/418388.html

People can think what they want of MQA sound.  The most objectionable part was the end to end equipment requirement.  This grand patent licensing scheme and you know the record companies wanted that for DRM.  Those end to end schemes always leave folks with issues trying to play media they paid for…My Project S2 glitches out with MQA tracks and it’s a common issue.  

"Most people who disparage Atmos Music have not heard it properly set up end of story"

That's fanciful speculation.

Perhaps...  but how many people do you know who have an Atmos system with at least 5 bed level speakers and 4 overhead? How many people have heard one?

No I don't have a number, but I read reviews on prominent audio web sites where they trash Atmos and you come to find out the reviewer doesn't have a system and have never listened to one. They are just guessing , and guessing wrong

can someone explain this?? A 1988-1996 car CD Player that sounded better than all of the 24 bit processor CD Players: The Alpine 7909.

I don’t think a poll conducted 15 years ago which appears to be confined to car stereos is really relevant today

"The online poll of the mobile electronics industry was conducted during the fall of 2008 and Mobile Electronics recently presented the award to Alpine."