Tidal must have signed the sort of binding agreement with MQA that they’re struggling to break away from. Even if it were the quality they say it is, it would be damaging to their business to go against market forces unless the bulk of revenues come from low res where competition is fierce.
2 Likes
I suspect you are correct.
1 Like
Point taken. It does appear Tidal is the bad actor when comes to wanting to control the narrative, but MQA has weaved a very deceptive story regarding their product.
MQA’s marketing is indeed slimy and misleading at best.
As @badbeef and I have noted many times, it is frustrating one never knows what we are comparing between non-MQA and MQA. The author of the video above finally got the chance to make a direct comparison.
1 Like
Let’s keep those flames alive:
2 Likes
sounds like a similar argument as that used by proponents of MP3 back in the day - “it sounds good on what i consider to be music, anything else doesn’t matter”.
an argument i consider to be total rubbish (at least when applied to high quality full range audio reproduction equipment).
1 Like
Thanks for posting the link to the article.
GoldenOne sounds like a decent, respectable person that simply enjoys his life of learning. Good science is always interrogative but should never be an attack.
I think it’s misguided of Stereophile to characterize his legit challenge as an attack. Does Stereophile disclose conflicts of interest? Hmm.
3 Likes
It is an attack: Titling it The Callout is an attack, as is the substance of the video.
But there is nothing wrong with this, or with Jim Austin’s pointed response.
It continues to come down to whether you like the sound of MQA or not.
1 Like
I think of an attack as slander. I don’t feel the Youtuber slandered anyone or anything.
How about when the freedom to choose is removed it will most certainly be about more than whether one likes it or not.
I chose to leave Tidal because more and more titles are only MQA and I believe that taking away revenue is one of the most effective means to an end.
4 Likes
IMHO, the whole MQA thing has taken on a touch of the “…do masks protect you from the virus.?..” argument.
It seems to me that some of the senior editorial staff of the bigger pubs have consumed a tad too much of the kool-aid, fawning over the golden threads of the emperor’s garments and telling us lumpen masses to “…trust the science.” And this sort of thing always makes me go “hmmmm.” 
I choose to apply a dash of critical thinking and trust my ears. Just my curmudgeon-y POV. Harrumpf, harrumpf!
4 Likes
Years ago, it became apparent fairly quickly that this was a concept that a bunch of folks bought into for various reasons.
As a Label: We can again wrest control of our vast catalog from the interweb Infidels who seek to Steal our Product. As in the Olden Days when The Labels Roamed The Earth.
As an Artist: They’re telling us that this means that Finally - Jimmy with an Internet connection will no longer be able to Steal our Shizz!
And we’ll Get Paid Fairly! Because…they have control! And - I can’t afford a Lawyer to look at this.
As Equipment Makers: Nice! Best-est Sound Ever! Maybe not Perfect Sound Forever, but, damn, maybe for the next Product Cycle or two. SO many Experts and Reviewers saying this Shizz is the Sonic Shizz, that it seems to be a Done Deal! Plus, Premium Pricing! Can’t miss this Boat!
As Audiophiles: A Level of Sound we have never had before! Wow! What’s not to like! I mean, a bunch of people who know a Lot More Than Me (Manufacturers and Reviewers) are crapping themselves over this! IT IS THE FUTURE! And BONUS! The Artists Get Paid!
Win Win Win!
Woo!
2 Likes
I think GoldenOne was only trying to determine the truth initially. He would have been okay if it turned out that MQA did what it was supposed to de. As far as pure test tones, some music contains the same kind of tones, especially some John Cage stuff. Hmmm, wonder how Cage’s 4’33" of silence would turn out in MQA?
1 Like
Strangely, 2-3 years ago, a Stereophile editorial was rather unflattering to MQA. I wonder what changed their minds?
1 Like
$
…
3 Likes
An attack does not require slander. I do not think there is anything defamatory in the video, at least as much as I watched.
An attack is to hurt, injure.
1 Like
I understand the cynicism, but I good number of our members here like the sound of MQA files. Others do not.
Neither view is supported by having been paid to express the opinion.
We similarly have varying opinions as to DSD firmware. Regardless of what the science says, people have different subjective impressions of what is better.
Neither money nor measurements dictate what our fellow members like.
2 Likes
“dictate”, no. Influence, yes.
Regards,
SEE
1 Like
In this case “people” is our fellow PS Audio forum members (I edited my post above to make this clear.)
Do you claim people here are paid to have an opinion as to MQA and DSD firmware?
The point is that listeners can like, or dislike, MQA without being paid - professional reviewers or amateur enthusiasts.
1 Like
My comment was w/r/t the quoted turn of phrase.
As in, many people’s subjective experiences and opinions are influenced, positively and negatively, by the price and measurement of Hi-Fi kit.
SEE
2 Likes