Is this MQA news a big deal?

@ptss -

1 - MQA plays back on anything. You just don't get the extra ffeatures. 

2 - DRM prevents copying. MQA does not do this. I can make copies and send them to others. If they have an MQA capable player, it will play at full resolution. 

So, this is NOT like HDMI, which prevents copying. 

Best,

E

MQA is a solution to what?

Can someone explain this ?

MQA is not a solution, it is an option, a choice. I do not download hi-rez files, I like to stream music. I had used Spotify, but I find MQA on Tidal sounds better because of the hi-rez. I did worry or at least wonder around the years after 2000 how record companies and recording artists would continue to make money when Napster, Gnutella, Freenet, Kazaa, Limewire and other free music sharing music online companies were allowing artists music to be shared and CD sales, along with other music sales (such as albums) were declining year by year. Tidal is one of the most generous companies as artists make about $0.0003 per play. That was info from 2017. Amazing, Napster had top payouts at $0.0167 to $0.0190 and Tidal was 2nd. I guess after Napster was sued from the major record labels and users could not steal music any longer, some balance was brought make into music making by artists and music enjoyment by consumers.
Therefore Tidal allows me the option to stream hi-rez files, which sound great to me, they add albums all the times and I know musical artists are getting paid for their part. Paying for Tidal is not different from buying an album, buying a CD or paying HD Tracks for a download.
I will admit that I do not like all the licensing fees that MQA has built into their technology. But I do not think MQA will last long. Once the bandwidth opens up past 5g I think? hi-res files will be passed without any MQA needed.

Craigl59,

I find that my SACDs typically play a little "quieter" than "regular" CDs, though I usually don't have the same music on both formats (only when I have previously purchased an SACD and get one of the multi-CD boxed sets).

I presume it's the choices that the mastering engineer made, determining the volume, compression, equalization, etc. and possibly the quality of the hardware they used when mastering both versions.

I am not sure I'd say that either DSD or PCM versions per se "sound better".  If I were to make a "generalization", in my setup it seems that the SACDs sound a little less "digital".  But I must say that some CDs I have (to me) sound better than the SACD versions, when I have both.

"I am not sure I'd say that either DSD or PCM versions per se "sound better". If I were to make a "generalization", in my setup it seems that the SACDs sound a little less "digital". But I must say that some CDs I have (to me) sound better than the SACD versions, when I have both."

Add this to the fact that it also depends on when the CD was mastered and produced. I have early 80's CDs that sound much better (when ripped to FLAC) than re-masters issued within the last few years. I think that is because early 80's CDs used late 70's master tapes which are now almost 40 years old and have degraded. When these are hauled out of the vaults for a remaster or re-issue, no amount of modern day digital magic can recover the loss of the aged medium.