How Is MQA Fareing?

Love MQA through my ARC system and Blusound Vault 2... When I can find music that I want to listen to...
I Don't like the concept of "renting" music though and find the Tidal music channel appears to be pushing lots of its own musical genre that I don't find interesting. That said, when I dig in and search for music that is to my liking it often is not in the MQA format which makes the $20 monthly fee questionable.  I do feel MQA is an entertaining high quality musical source with audible pleasantries to be sure.  Some recordings sound more intimate and come alive in MQA... I do find myself wishing that there were some quality alternatives to Tidal as a distribution channel.

Bottom line though is regardless of how good it sounds (or potentially can sound given the original master), MQA is a "lossy compression". For those such as myself who primarily listen to bands - such as but not limited to the Grateful Dead - whose live recordings are readily available in "lossless" compression formats such as flac or shn, why would I ever want to stream MQA when I can just download the lossless files and play those?

Meh. I agree. If I own lossless hi-res, I have zero need for MQA. I have Tidal but find I rarely use it. Comparing a hi-res track to its MQA equivalent (like the Warner releases) is something to check out, since most likely the mastering is the same. MQA sounds OK but something is slightly off about it compared to the lossless file. 

I agree with Linn only that the technology should not be a locked-in proprietary format. And to be honest, all of the audiophile press gushing positive about this is somewhat suspect. End users are more split in their opinions. Some see it as a money grab since DVD-Audio sank (some discs used MLP--Meridian Lossless Packing--to shrink the size of the data).

And think about it. Anytime Meridian is asked how it works, they either dodge the question or launch into technobabble. They hide "lossy" under the word "unfolding." Their argument for their brand of lossy is that they are throwing away data for sounds we aren't able to hear. This is EXACTLY what Sony said about their failed ATRAC compression (used for MiniDisc), and I believe even lowly MP3 was also described as such. 

I do think there is a use for a compacted data version of hi-res for streaming, but it needs to be "open." And given Tidal's uncertain future (they are in poor shape financially), another streaming service would be needed to deliver it. And there aren't enough audiophiles to support one at an affordable cost, sadly.

BTW, I think Tidal is a bargain. Think about it. Even without MQA, for the cost of a new CD or two each month, we get access to a lot of lossless CD-quality music. Great way to sample something before buying, or provide music for guests. Owning a $10k+ system and complaining about $20/month seems a bit silly, no?

I did  A , B    Tidal Hifi with MQA  Aurender I won't make any changes.  I really notice my CDP up against Tidal
Hifi. CDP blows it away 
 But the convince edges 
Tidal in first place 

@bec1195

Lots of back & forth about SQ improvements of MQA on TIDAL. IMHO, I've only heard improvement when comparing MQA to CD Redbook (lossless) tracks on TIDAL and that's only with the initial unfold to 48k/24-bit. Admittedly, improvement on some tracks is very slight but I've never heard worst. Perhaps some of the naysayers can list some examples of worst sounding MQA tracks on TIDAL.

However, your point about the current TIDAL HiFi cost of $20 being an introductory rate is interesting. The economics of MQA are going to be critical to its adoption. 

From TIDAL's perspective, there's no need for them to increase their subscription fee. From an infrastructure perspective, MQA tracks take the same amount of server throughput, disk storage and streaming rates as lossless Redbook CD tracks. 

There's no reason for the major record companies need to charge more as they're just selling 0 & 1 bits. I admit I'm not an expert re: any extra cost for the record companies to produce MQA files vs. Redbook CD files.   

Meridian will already be charging hardware and software player manufacturers to decode MQA tracks. If Meridian decides to also tack on some sort of MQA fee to the record companies, then they're killing their own potential Golden Goose.

Then we need to consider the greed factor of either TIDAL, the big 3 record companies or Meridian. I can't imagine that us audiophiles move the TIDAL user subscription needle, so if TIDAL decides to charge more for MQA, how much extra revenue do they project. I doubt it would amount to $1M per year. They'd be better off with a marketing pitch stating they provide MQA for the same current HiFi cost.

That leaves the greed factor of either the record companies or Meridian. If either wants to kill MQA adoption, go ahead and raise costs that affect the monthly streaming price.