Tidal class-action


MQA declared bankruptcy.  I smell the fear of a class action lawsuit against Tidal.  We could do that.  Tidal has 8 million subscribers, we don't know how many or how long they all were paying double by subscribing to the 'nobody can prove Tidal has any tracks higher than 44.1khz' plan.  They probably have lots of people on phones who haven't even heard of MQA who trust them and wanted the one that sounds better.  They're right not to have to listen to any talk about MQA if they want the plan that sounds better.

MQA means you can't prove the file is an original copy or not. That Beethoven track you like it says is 192 could actually be Dua Lipa at 11khz.

The bankruptcy move was probably to protect themselves from Tidal, who is the receiver of people's funds.

 

audioisnobiggie

so a small hifi vendor with lots of ’alliances’ goes into receivership

so what? it still operates, the owners have their equity diluted or wiped out, debtors take a partial hit on their receivables, negotiate

some bigger fish in the pond (perhaps tidal itself, which is owned by private equity interests) will buy the ongoing concern or whatever assets, tangible or intangible, at a haircut, leave the mqa stuff in place as a selling point for the streaming service, or perhaps phase it out over time

life goes on

We get that you don't like MQA, @audioisnobiggie , but why get so excited about who is going to sue whom?  None of us will ever see any money from any lawsuit.  Calm down a little.

Compressing flac files again for use with a cpu the first unfold, need a cheap chip to go further, is never going to be real.  Tidal isn't proving they have the original higher res files on their drives in the first place.  Even if such a bandwidth saving chip existed, (no story why they say you need the chip to go higher than 96), we would still be paying double even without them having to use more.  You can't improve the format when you compress it.  Of course they'll choose the name Master Quality Authenticated.  It sounds the opposite of what they're actually doing.  My Queer Ambitions.

I'll pay $30/40 monthly for an uncompressed higher res wav stream with a good sounding default player, especially if Audirvana makes it work in theirs.  But I'd rather they just make streaming players decompress the track to a temporary hard drive file, and then play that.

Little fish, big fish, swimming in the water.  Those sales are good for people who don't have much capital, too.  Hey, maybe there's a nice desk chair at there?  Noo, it's MQA, you would be too.

The point is that we could go for our money back, because we can't prove that mqa tracks are the original unaltered streams that their licensing must have required, otherwise the artists could go after them also.  The thread is gauging the reaction to the hypothesis.

 

 

I'd join that class action suit but I'm too busy sliding bamboo slivers under my fingernails. Maybe next time!