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.
Tidal was charging double and using folding down then back up instead of downsampling then upsampling, to save bandwidth costs. MQA was folding everything above 16.44 down to 16.44 rate, to be folded up to 96 by cpu, after that you would have to replace your 10k dac with the same model with a cheap chip first to go higher. Only on Tidal.
Video game distributors will let you download free games at full speed for the rest of your life, if you want. They don’t see a need to conserve bandwidth costs.
|
Actually, why are we talking like mqa is the past? It's currently running more than ever on Tidal.
|
mqa does not introduce the type of option I would like to see introduced. Folding and hiding data, so that it gets unfolded back, with a chip you have to buy in a new dac? So that an audio streamer saves bandwidth money, and still charges double anyways? Netflix streams 21 times more data than 192khz audio files, for less money than Tidal, who only streams at 44.1 either way.
|
Thank you for admitting that 'Authenticated' was the part that sounded good, since they were talking about Master Quality.
After that, using this technique, it actually turns out that mqa actually keeps the users from being able to authenticate that Tidal actually even has the original higher res versions on their drives.
|
It probably took a lot of work for the person who thought of the idea to get people to listen to the same stream, but with an unfolding chip they bought new gear for, to make gear readouts say 96 and who knows how high up they'll support with it.
|
anotherbob:
I'll always be with you that mqa sucks, but it ain't past tense, the buggers are still streaming it full tilt at Tidal.
You're probably smart, and at qobuz. We have to wait till next month in my country. I could be at amazon, but Tidal's player sounds less bad, and is more important than higher res. Fortunately, it (and qobuz) play in Audirvana, the player I find sounds the best.
|
Nobody is going to sell their 10k dac they’re impressed with to try mqa.
MQA is the wrong format to care about. It says it folds sample data into fewer samples to take less space, then the secret way unfolds them back, and won’t let you encode it, only decode it, or else you might just find out Tidal actually doesn’t have any original higher than 44.1 res files. They didn’t think people would be able to know the difference true higher res streaming would make that way. And you still don’t. If you are using Tidal right now, and the track is supposed to be higher res, you don’t know what it should sound like if it were not mqa
SACD is not dead, it prospers as even higher bitrate dsd files. They're up to dsd256, up from the original 64, so far. There's probably higher already, my dac can do 512.
|
Â
4afsanakhan:
Have you tried to equal cd with uncompressed files on another source? It's not easy, because sources probably only get noisier and more complex after a cd reader. If you can get it going, more confidence about the reading than scratchable disks, better playlists, and then higher res await. But good luck keeping it that quiet.
|
Yeah, TIdal shouldn’t have to go bankrupt also, they’re just losing credibility for letting mqa spoof so many people.
But it’s true, streaming higher res audio is a trickle compared to Netflix, which streams 42 times as much with their 4k plan as Tidal does with any plan, for notable less money. (Tidal streams the same amount no matter which plan you get)
If you bought a dac that has an mqa chip, remember that mqa's only hope is to sound like it wasn't even there, and it could actually really equal what it would sound like if Tidal had just trickled more, like everyone else does.
Ha, if mqa wants to be the best thing ever, it has to sound like it doesn't even exist, anyways.
|
What's the deal with charging extra to buy higher res, anyways? Will tiny 44.1 files always be the going rate, and the higher it gets, the more we pay? A 44.1 track is like the size of a video game in 1990 or something. Puny.
Heh, Windows 95 is what the world wide web came right after.
|
MQA is an extra chip to make your gear do what it could already do. If mqa works as well as possible, it will sound exactly the same as if they had just trickled double the data.
Netflix streams 42 times as much data as a 44.1 audio stream. Oh wait, that's if the stream is uncompressed, I forgot to flac it to roughly 60% at the end.
There's nothing a server can do, besides doing nothing, that is easier on it than streaming audio files. Especially if they're compressed at all.
People who compress never want you to find out about it, though. People who charge double for streaming audio must want someone else to do it. Then there's mqa, who wants to compress on top of it, with a name they think will sound better than higher resolution. Then Tidal charges double and hires them.
|
Don’t worry, only 1 company charges double for high res audio-only, and then doesn’t actually give you more bandwidth. Which you need to trade in your 10k dac for the same thing but with a cheap chip first to be able to hear any difference.
|
