How much is MQA conversion?

The licensing agreements between the resellers (Tidal) and those who own the rights to the copyrighted material tend to be private. One thing is certain, however, you can be sure that once a full implementation of the sound "degrading system" MQA represents is in place, the cost of the "family jewels" or "authentic" version will go up. That is essentially the complete rationale for the entire MQA exercise - produce various grades of sound quality from the original master file (typically 192khz/24 bit digital encoding format) and sell the highest quality to the highest bidder. Those who don't want to pay the cost of special licensed MQA players and the price for premium streaming services can still get the recording for less cost in what amounts to an MP3 format.

Wouldn’t Tidal offer standard 16/44 FLAC files as an alternative to MQA?

Tidal does offer different resolutions for the same album in some of the more popular recordings. You kind of have to dig around, though.
B

" Wouldn’t Tidal offer standard 16/44 FLAC files as an alternative to MQA? " - CAMB

Sure. But for how long?

You have to understand that what is being attempted by a few large record companies represents and industry paradigm shift - a shift that has absolutely nothing to do with sound quality and everything to do with marketing, profitability, and control. Alternatives to MQA surely exist now. However, if the industry that produces and distributes recordings through physical media or streaming changes how it operates overnight by adopting a proprietary, heavily encrypted/secured coding standard, alternative choices regarding file type, access, and sound quality can also dry up overnight. At present, you have an "open source" standard in which the gradations from highest quality (192khz/24 bit) to MP3 are transparent to both equipment manufacturers and end users alike. If MQA were to become the "new industry standard", then it changes to a closed proprietary system where everything is licensed and controlled by the gatekeeper or in this case, the content copyright holder. It essentially becomes an end to end monopoly where one entity maintains full control over not only the content but the means by which that content can be rendered. If you don't like the sound quality of any particular level of content rendering - whether it's their top line "family jewels" version offering or the cheap "mp3" version, you're stuck with whatever the copyright holder gives you. In other words, the sound quality limitations are controlled by the content copyright holder from end to end. Independent third parties have absolutely no say in the matter of improving the ability of the rendering hardware to provide a more ideal fidelity version or to effectively manipulate the data stream to achieve certain ancillary goals such as room EQ. correction. A closed, (non open source) content delivery system can bring with it a complete shift in the music reproduction industry that can dramatically alter technological progress in the marketplace.

I am not worried about MQA, or technological progress being altered or anyone losing anything in terms of music quality. 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. Now I am seeing album sales going up, streaming companies and download companies along with recording and major recording companies and labels making money again, and most importantly musical artists are making money. 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.
After all, we all survived the low quality MP3 and IPod scare that was supposed to kill all quality music. It did not.

" I am not worried about MQA, or technological progress being altered or anyone losing anything in terms of music quality. 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. " - 2psyop

Glad there is record label representation here on Audiogon - the poor, poor record companies and various "starving artists" that were so badly hurt by the likes of Napster need a spokeperson like you to help them make payments on their Maybachs and mansions....(massive eyeroll)

A much brighter future for both technology and the "starving artists" is possible when artists bypass the useless parasites that make up the "record label" consortium. With streaming, there is no huge manufacturing overhead required to manufacture/distribute physical media. Any mom/pop shop can stream media online. You don't have to be a Warner Brothers or Sony with hundreds of "executive vice presidents" sitting on their duffs attending meetings about scheduling marketing meetings.
Open source digital audio technology doesn't have to give way to big player monopolies with never ending licensing fees and absolute control over distribution  that stifles technological progress and innovation. Artists in the future can and hopefully will have more control in direct marketing/streaming their creative product to the masses using canned "off the shelf" technology to assist them in managing content distribution/security. In the past 10 years, we've started to see a building trend. Practically every serious group or artist - new or old, has a website and does some amount of direct marketing.
 The old model using big record labels with their leagues of fat cat lawyers and overpaid "management" is no longer necessary and hopefully will go extinct sooner than later. There are plenty of small independent top quality tech saavy recording studios these days that help produce excellent content catering to a variety of talent from rookies to well known veterans. Artists don't need the big fat cats to prosper. In fact, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that they and every other aspect of the music industry will do just fine without the blood sucking monopoly players. Hopefully, there will come a time when the general consensus among artists is that they'd rather have more control over their own creative identity and destiny than continue to rely on a select group of "star makers" who determine who gets promoted and who doesn't. There is so much that is wrong with the old model. But thanks for speaking up for the poor media distribution companies. God knows they need spokespeople like you looking out for them.

cj1965

A much brighter future for both technology and the "starving artists" is possible when artists bypass the useless parasites that make up the "record label" consortium. With streaming, there is no huge manufacturing overhead required to manufacture/distribute physical media. Any mom/pop shop can stream media online. You don't have to be a Warner Brothers or Sony with hundreds of "executive vice presidents" sitting on their duffs attending meetings about scheduling marketing meetings.

Many musicians have already gone the independent route, and streaming wasn't a prerequisite. They've long since bypassed the "useless parasites" that you feel infect the music industry.

Open source digital audio technology doesn't have to give way to big player monopolies with never ending licensing fees and absolute control over distribution that stifles technological progress and innovation. Artists in the future can and hopefully will have more control ...

It sounds like you're living in the past - artists already have the freedom to exert this independence, and many have.

The old model using big record labels with their leagues of fat cat lawyers and overpaid "management" is no longer necessary and hopefully will go extinct sooner than later ... Artists don't need the big fat cats to prosper ... the music industry will do just fine without the blood sucking monopoly players ... There is so much that is wrong with the old model ...

You might consider separating your anger towards the music industry from your feelings about MQA. While I share your cynicism about MQA, I don't see it as the doomsday scenario you portray.

Yes I am happy for artists making money on their music... and they do with streaming sites. Not convinced that MQA will ruin music. There are many other things in life getting ruined for me to be concerned about MQA.

@cleeds

The use of technology to completely control the channels of creative content distribution - superimposed on the traditional music industry model, is a recipe for disaster.  I'm sorry you can't see this. In the end, it really doesn't matter how clueless the music buying public is. As a community, artists will ultimately determine whether or not large corporations will be able to call the shots in the music industry. I'm guessing open source technological methods will continue to dominate and artists will continue to seek out ways to leverage that technology in  marketing their creative output without interference/exploitation from large corporation middle men. The motivation for greed/survival will continue to motivate them just as it has motivated the corporate middle men. But the desire to maintain creative freedom will add more incentive for artists. Tension between the two is as old as the industry itself.   On a reasonably level playing field, the bean counter's influence in selecting creative talent and technology will remain limited. IMHO, the more limited, the better.

cj1965

The use of technology to completely control the channels of creative content distribution - superimposed on the traditional music industry model, is a recipe for disaster.

You sound like Chicken Little. There may have been a time when the music industry had that kind of power, but those days are l-o-n-g gone. Technology has democratized all media. The real power today is in the hands of content creators. The decline of the music industry, newspapers and magazines, radio and broadcast television are all reflections of that simple truth.

I encourage you to be critical of MQA, which looks to me like a cure in search of a disease. But I don't think it represents any kind of potential disaster.

@cleeds "The real power today is in the hands of content creators."
Not exactly. Alas, the real power today resides in the internet digital distribution providers--no search engine, no recorded music. Technology distribution is not democratized--see Google and Facebook. I second the statement about MQA appearing to be a cure in search of a disease. 

Guys, Guys;

I never expected such a vitriolic response........
All I asked is “ how much”

No body is forcing us to listen to MQA

Money will vote 🗳 and decide
democratic 
You sound like a bunch of Grumpy Old Men....

Go back to Spotify if you feel like this..

my opinion:

MQA sounds great
Bands Tour to make money, & that is why they cost big $$ for each gig

Live music is good for the soul

Frozen

I am an MQA fan.  This format, however, is hard to find on Roon. 

Frozen

"Live music is good for the soul"
 I could not agree more.....

2psyop