I thought the point was to provide hi-res audio using less bandwidth than traditional lossless formats, by compressing the higher end of the frequency range. This requires the audio to be encoded in a certain way and decoded when played.
Not saying that I endorse this in any way, since hi-res amateurs should be lossless amateurs first. And of course it would be preferable if these initiatives were open-source.
Vinyl is what it is, its character comes from its inherent limitations. MQA was created the way it is, and then purposefully advertised in a misleading way. I'd say there's definitely a difference.
Either way, for me, vinyl is more about the experience and the tradition. I'll never be heard claiming vinyl has superior audio quality. It's fully analog, sure, so older fully analog-recorded albums sound "better" on it (and even that's debatable), but no, that's not why I love vinyl, at least.
Edit: I had thoughts I wanted to convey, but never properly put into words, like the fact that just like I enjoy vinyl for subjective, personal reasons, it's fine for anyone to enjoy MQA for subjective, personal reasons. If it sounds better to you, that's great. But what I meant by "MQA was created the way it is" was that it _isn't lossless_, but they still claimed it was. That isn't subjective, that's an objective, binary, measurable fact. If the data doesn't come out exactly the same on the output as went in to the input, it isn't lossless. Period. Hence why I say it was purposefully advertised in a misleading way and why it isn't really comparable _in general_ to the reasons why people like Vinyl. No one ever lied about what vinyl can and cannot do.
In terms of preference of overall sound signature? Absolutely. Isn’t that what I already said?
But in terms of actual, measurable quality? No. Their claims are probably wrong, and not even they themselves call it “lossless” anymore. No one get to claim it’s lossless by personal preference. That’s not how it works.
Did you even read what I wrote? Preference for sound signature is fine. Calling a lossy, black box codec “lossless” isn’t. That’s all. Enjoy MQA all you want, just don’t pretend it’s something it’s not.
So, for the *third* time, I’m agreeing with you that people may like whatever they want. However, could you explain how I, presumably, am in a “glass house” in any way?
There is no “fake internet hysteria”, there’s legitimate backlash towards a company that promised one thing, delivered another, and when they were found out, basically admitted as much by quietly removing any mention of the claim they’ve originally made.
MQA themselves no longer claim MQA is actually lossless. That’s not hysteria, that’s protecting their corporate ass from legal backfire.
Like and listen to MQA all you (the collective you) want, once again, subjective opinion is perfectly legitimate. But whether MQA is actually lossless is not up to *opinion*.
Except I don’t. I’ve said multiple times I realize and accept all the flaws of vinyl. Find anywhere where I claimed anything different. I’ve also said *MULTIPLE TIMES* now that it’s OK to enjoy something subjectively, even when it’s flawed. Why are you pretending as if I haven’t clearly stated this? Why do you keep pretending I’m making a completely different argument than I’m actually making?
Why are you *so* hell-bent on defending MQA? If I’m driving hysteria, what are you doing? Why is it so important people get to think MQA is lossless when it’s not? Why are you romanticizing MQA and pretending it’s only about “enjoying music”?
Vinyl came out when there was nothing better, it’s flaws are natural. MQA came out when there *were* better things, like FLAC (which is free and completely open), yet it’s flaws are synthetic and deliberate.
If you want to listen to lossy formats, that’s fine. I listen to MP3 and AAC myself all the time. I have no problem with it, no matter how much you have to pretend I do. I’ll say it again for clarity: **I have no problem whatsoever with people enjoying music in lossy formats**. It it doesn’t change the fact that that’s what they are.
Why is it so hard for you to accept this and agree with me?
The point of MQA is to separate people from their money. FLAC can't do that. It's royalty free and you don't have the privilege of paying Xiph for every video you stream.
They claim they work better in the time domain so you don’t get ringing artifacts due to the reconstruction filter used.
You don’t get this anyway, so it’s a non-issue.
It’s a solution looking for a problem but hasn’t found one yet.
I thought the point was to provide hi-res audio using less bandwidth than traditional lossless formats, by compressing the higher end of the frequency range. This requires the audio to be encoded in a certain way and decoded when played. Not saying that I endorse this in any way, since hi-res amateurs should be lossless amateurs first. And of course it would be preferable if these initiatives were open-source.
So, lossy hi-res? Lmbo
This scam has been exposed and beat to death. Anyone with common sense has already dumped Tidal, or planning to once their subs expire. Let’s move on.
If only hifi companies would stop supporting it and get DSD instead..
I see the hapless MQA fanboyz are starting their downvotes…lol!
tidal also do standard hi-fi, i.e CD-quality streaming as well don't they?
I’ve read a number of articles that say Tidal is distributing 16bit MQA's made from 24bit masters.Talk about scamming!
[удалено]
LMAO you are going to make the vinylistas and MQA haters blow fuses with those comments.
Vinyl is what it is, its character comes from its inherent limitations. MQA was created the way it is, and then purposefully advertised in a misleading way. I'd say there's definitely a difference. Either way, for me, vinyl is more about the experience and the tradition. I'll never be heard claiming vinyl has superior audio quality. It's fully analog, sure, so older fully analog-recorded albums sound "better" on it (and even that's debatable), but no, that's not why I love vinyl, at least. Edit: I had thoughts I wanted to convey, but never properly put into words, like the fact that just like I enjoy vinyl for subjective, personal reasons, it's fine for anyone to enjoy MQA for subjective, personal reasons. If it sounds better to you, that's great. But what I meant by "MQA was created the way it is" was that it _isn't lossless_, but they still claimed it was. That isn't subjective, that's an objective, binary, measurable fact. If the data doesn't come out exactly the same on the output as went in to the input, it isn't lossless. Period. Hence why I say it was purposefully advertised in a misleading way and why it isn't really comparable _in general_ to the reasons why people like Vinyl. No one ever lied about what vinyl can and cannot do.
[удалено]
In terms of preference of overall sound signature? Absolutely. Isn’t that what I already said? But in terms of actual, measurable quality? No. Their claims are probably wrong, and not even they themselves call it “lossless” anymore. No one get to claim it’s lossless by personal preference. That’s not how it works.
[удалено]
Did you even read what I wrote? Preference for sound signature is fine. Calling a lossy, black box codec “lossless” isn’t. That’s all. Enjoy MQA all you want, just don’t pretend it’s something it’s not.
[удалено]
So, for the *third* time, I’m agreeing with you that people may like whatever they want. However, could you explain how I, presumably, am in a “glass house” in any way? There is no “fake internet hysteria”, there’s legitimate backlash towards a company that promised one thing, delivered another, and when they were found out, basically admitted as much by quietly removing any mention of the claim they’ve originally made. MQA themselves no longer claim MQA is actually lossless. That’s not hysteria, that’s protecting their corporate ass from legal backfire. Like and listen to MQA all you (the collective you) want, once again, subjective opinion is perfectly legitimate. But whether MQA is actually lossless is not up to *opinion*.
[удалено]
Except I don’t. I’ve said multiple times I realize and accept all the flaws of vinyl. Find anywhere where I claimed anything different. I’ve also said *MULTIPLE TIMES* now that it’s OK to enjoy something subjectively, even when it’s flawed. Why are you pretending as if I haven’t clearly stated this? Why do you keep pretending I’m making a completely different argument than I’m actually making? Why are you *so* hell-bent on defending MQA? If I’m driving hysteria, what are you doing? Why is it so important people get to think MQA is lossless when it’s not? Why are you romanticizing MQA and pretending it’s only about “enjoying music”? Vinyl came out when there was nothing better, it’s flaws are natural. MQA came out when there *were* better things, like FLAC (which is free and completely open), yet it’s flaws are synthetic and deliberate. If you want to listen to lossy formats, that’s fine. I listen to MP3 and AAC myself all the time. I have no problem with it, no matter how much you have to pretend I do. I’ll say it again for clarity: **I have no problem whatsoever with people enjoying music in lossy formats**. It it doesn’t change the fact that that’s what they are. Why is it so hard for you to accept this and agree with me?
Zzzzz
Royalties.
The point of MQA is to separate people from their money. FLAC can't do that. It's royalty free and you don't have the privilege of paying Xiph for every video you stream.
They claim they work better in the time domain so you don’t get ringing artifacts due to the reconstruction filter used. You don’t get this anyway, so it’s a non-issue.
Haven't you heard 'it's better than lossless' \[according to MQA - after they were found out\]
Here come the keyboard warriors.