Tidal class-action

I'm not getting this either. MQA was developed by that one Meridian guy, then spun off into a company. It licensed its technology to various companies, including Tidal. From what I gather--I was not a close watcher of this technology, I'm an old vinyl guy--it claimed various benefits to "unfolding" which could, it was claimed, improve on the sound, as delivered through streaming, by offering more apparent bandwidth than the signal sent. Those claims were questioned.

Now, the MQA company has filed for a reorganization, in part according to their press release, to allow the original major money to get out-I don't know who that is. 

If there is something the OP is suggesting that Tidal itself did (is it an investor, did it market MQA beyond verifiable claims or at least the claims made by MQA itself), I don't see them holding the bag. It may change how they market higher rez audio. Beyond that, I have no opinion on the merits of MQA beyond the known controversies. I don't see Tidal dragged into this simply because they were delivering an MQA version of releases. 

One of the bigger issues I have with streaming services is what mastering they are purporting to deliver. I can listen to different versions of the "same" record that sound different because of who mastered, where it was pressed, by what plant, etc. Do you get that level of detail on streaming services? I trialed Qobuz for a couple months- it actually sounded decent-- but the deep catalog on jazz was anything but- it was quite shallow. It didn't supplement what I didn't have. I don't need remixes or reissues of common warhorses. 

If Netflix streams it’s 4k video at 15gbhr, that’s a bitrate of roughly 4166kbs. I haven’t seen anything released yet at 384kbs. but if you could be getting 192 for your track, that'ss roughly 21 times as much. That Netflix plan is 14.99 here, Tidal’s plan with the mqa that makes it stream only at 44.1, is 19.99.

The only merit would be for the provider to conserve bandwidth, chips add noise to the signal, they are full of transistors, which don’t sound as natural as tubes. But since it’s fake, they don’t spend any more, and you get noise for double your money.

Remasters happen in digital, they're starting to come out in higher res, now.  If you get real higher res files, it gets better than cd.  192 sure would be nice more often, but 96 is catching on.

No good can ever come from this streaming pigs in poke false tech.

And chapter 11 bankruptcy is usually used so owners of bust companies can cheat their creditors and get back into business the next week, free of debt.  It should be stopped.  Its existence encourages company managers to do the wrong thing and take business and legal risks knowing they will not be harmed.

My corn popping curiosity is enjoying the thread, but to be honest my ears are fine with an AudiFi, 4Stream and Apple Music Lossless. My MidFi system is noise tweaked and cabled well enough to be resolving and I feel I can hear the improvements at 24 or 44…but probably not beyond. FWIW I’m thinking the posters here making the best points are the ones suggesting there is a point in home audio where ROI is not a valid consumer quality claim. We can only be protected against ourselves so far. If MQA is totally bogus, the market may or may not deliver its own justice…as some snake oil has survived for decades.