|
|
Post by Boomzilla on May 2, 2019 4:50:31 GMT -5
So what's the general consensus?
Note that I'm NOT asking if you LIKE MQA or not - nor am I asking if you agree with their marketing or not.
What I want to know is "Do you think MQA is going to succeed in the marketplace - long term - based on what you've seen to date?
To me, it doesn't seem to be gaining much momentum...
Boom
|
|
|
|
Post by Ex_Vintage on May 2, 2019 12:44:29 GMT -5
Higher bandwidth wired and wireless services along with memory technology will make MP3 and the like a thing of the past. We only we have MP3 because of technology limitations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perpendicular on May 2, 2019 12:49:37 GMT -5
I voted ‘Maybe’ but feel MQA (trying to make chicken scratch out of chicken poop) will exist mainly with streaming services.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,095
|
Post by klinemj on May 2, 2019 13:38:15 GMT -5
I put the "maybe" only because neither the 1st or 3rd were worded how I feel. I don't think it's a dead end and I don't think it will replace all audio. After all, how many years have CD quality and MP3 existed together? I doubt everyone will ever go to even CD quality, let alone higher. But, I feel confident MQA will be around and will grow in popularity, but remain in a nitch.
And, for the record, I do like it.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on May 2, 2019 14:51:51 GMT -5
I voted "maybe" myself (changing from my initial "No-it's a dead end" vote. But it sure seems that the MQA-shuffle has been one step forward and two steps back... After its initial buzz (fueled by some breathless TAS prose), it seems to have stalled out. I don't see any flood of new software or hardware supporting it (uh-oh...). But folks who've tried it (like klinemj & novisnick) seem to like it, so who knows? |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,095
|
Post by klinemj on May 2, 2019 15:15:08 GMT -5
I voted "maybe" myself (changing from my initial "No-it's a dead end" vote. But it sure seems that the MQA-shuffle has been one step forward and two steps back... After its initial buzz (fueled by some breathless TAS prose), it seems to have stalled out. I don't see any flood of new software or hardware supporting it (uh-oh...). But folks who've tried it (like klinemj & novisnick) seem to like it, so who knows? I don't think you will ever see a flood supporting it. I think it will remain more niche than mainstream. One could say the same thing about CD's, though... Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on May 2, 2019 15:18:18 GMT -5
As Chris from Audiophile Style and others have remarked, large changes in the streaming world can only occur if the big providers are involved. If Spotify or Apple Music implemented and championed MQA, it would likely have already been a success.
I'm not introducing an argument about Apple or Spotify lacking a lossless option but, let's remember, technically MQA is a lossy format. TECHNICALLY.
|
|
|
|
Post by geeqner on May 2, 2019 16:19:39 GMT -5
I think that we "Audio GEEKS" are in the minority.
I do not think that many people ACTIVELY listen to music.
In most cases - they may wear earbuds a lot, but it's STILL "background noise" for them while doing other stuff.
Why do you think that so many wireless / bluetooth speakers are MONOphonic = lots of people don't care (much) about more than "sufficient" Audio Quality or even Stereo.
(So long as the Bass can make the trim off of your car buzz...)
I'm sort of surprised that as bandwidth has become less and less expensive - that FLAC or some other (near) "CD-Quality" format has not become the new defacto "Standard".
However, I DO think that MQA, if properly done, still has the potential to satisfy MOST of us "Audio Geeks". = MAYBE
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on May 2, 2019 16:59:17 GMT -5
The Red Book CD standard specifies 16/44k and two-channels.
FLAC IS the de-facto standard for high quality digital audio - and can hold any sample rate you like - and can also support multi-channel formats.
Tidal supports MQA - and both Tidal and QoBuz support high-res FLAC files. And, obviously, streaming video, which is becoming quite popular, requires more bandwidth than any high-res audio format.
The answer is simply that, as you suggest, most people just plain don't care or notice the difference. (And, since they already have servers and files in place, most services just plain aren't going to bother to upgrade if almost none of their customers actually care.) There was talk some time ago that Spotify was beta-testing a CD quality premium version of their service.... but it hasn't been even mentioned lately. (Presumably it has died due to lack of interest.)
On the other hand, QoBuz, the only real competitor to Tidal, is now aggressively seeking tom move into the US market. We shall see.
I think that we "Audio GEEKS" are in the minority. I do not think that many people ACTIVELY listen to music. In most cases - they may wear earbuds a lot, but it's STILL "background noise" for them while doing other stuff. Why do you think that so many wireless / bluetooth speakers are MONOphonic = lots of people don't care (much) about more than "sufficient" Audio Quality or even Stereo. (So long as the Bass can make the trim off of your car buzz...) I'm sort of surprised that as bandwidth has become less and less expensive - that FLAC or some other (near) "CD-Quality" format has not become the new defacto "Standard". However, I DO think that MQA, if properly done, still has the potential to satisfy MOST of us "Audio Geeks". = MAYBE |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on May 2, 2019 17:06:50 GMT -5
Good point. Have you ever heard of Ogg Vorbis? It's the format used by Spotify for all their music streaming. Which means that a LOT of people are "using it".
However, since it's used by the Spotify client, which decodes it as well, as a customer of Spotify you will never actually touch it or see it. (And who honestly cares what they use if it stays inside the black box?)
MQA is a reasonably effective streaming format, with some solid benefits, so I see no reason why Tidal would not continue to use it INTERNALLY. However, much as with Spotify and Ogg Vorbis, that requires no action on the part of their customers.
Therefore the only real question is whether the EXTRA options, such as "MQA DACs", which do require extra effort and investment on the part of the user, will catch on or not.
(Note that, if you ONLY use MQA as a streaming format, it's just another very high quality, but still lossy, streaming format.) However, since both Ogg Vorbis and FLAC are FREE, while MQA is not, there is still the possibility that MQA will "price itself out of existence". (It's worth remembering that, since most of the major streaming services are barely remaining in business, anything that costs them extra is going to a difficult sell.)
I voted ‘Maybe’ but feel MQA (trying to make chicken scratch out of chicken poop) will exist mainly with streaming services. |
|
|
|
Post by repeetavx on May 2, 2019 21:19:45 GMT -5
I'm not voting. I subscribed to Tidal for almost a year enjoying the MQA encoded music. But it just wasn't worth the money to me. They did, like KeithL said, priced themselves out of my market.
|
|
|
|
Post by mfeust on May 3, 2019 6:58:27 GMT -5
Where's the box for who gives a fu?k.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on May 3, 2019 7:17:00 GMT -5
MQA will never make it to the 'mass market", as will no other hi quality endeavor (money is no object) of any kind. Just as people will not massively own Mark Levinson, D'Angostino, Wilson, dCS, Pass, SME, Audio Research, MSB, Esoteric, VAC,Verity, Audio Flight, and many others (these are just the brands I spotted in the May issue of Stereophile). So if the question is if MQA (which, ghastly, is a 'paid for service'and who in this Capitalistic world we live in would ever tolerate such nonsense?) will ever take over the vast mass streaming market, the answer is no. But I am amazed by the sound I am getting from Tidal Master MQA streaming via my (inexpensive, by the way) Cary Audio AiOS integrated unit which processes all 3 MQA levels (how many of you have tried all three levels?).
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on May 3, 2019 7:37:20 GMT -5
The forecast for this thread is that is going to priced itself out of business in 3....2....1....
|
|
|
|
Post by geeqner on May 3, 2019 9:09:26 GMT -5
Funny that you should mention Ogg Vorbis - In part of my current job - we use Ogg Vorbis (File type ".ogg") in creating digitally-recorded Voice Messages for an Emergency Voice Communications System. We use a Text-to-Voice freeware program called "Balabolka" to generate the ogg files, which is the preferred format for reading-into the microprocessor-based head-end for our system. (It actually uses CobraNet for internal Voice Intercom functions - but THAT was a "dumb" decision that I had no say in. It's sort of like using a Ferrari engine to power a Lawn Mower...) Plus, it doesn't "play nice" with VOIP [but that's a different story...] Have you ever heard of Ogg Vorbis?
It's the format used by Spotify for all their music streaming. Which means that a LOT of people are "using it".
However, since it's used by the Spotify client, which decodes it as well, as a customer of Spotify you will never actually touch it or see it. (And who honestly cares what they use if it stays inside the black box?)
|
|
|
|
Post by rockman85 on May 3, 2019 16:04:02 GMT -5
I'm not voting. I subscribed to Tidal for almost a year enjoying the MQA encoded music. But it just wasn't worth the money to me. They did, like KeithL said, priced themselves out of my market. Im in this boat too. I like Tidal and Qobuz, they objectively are better sounding than Spotify. But I just cant justify $20 a month. Netflix for example has to use much more bandwith and only charges $12.99 a month I think? Anyway, if any of these companies wanted to absolute crush it and take all the market share, they should offer their premium services at no more than $11.99-15.99 per month. If Tidal just took a risk and came out with their CD quality @ somewhere near Spotify's $9.99 there would be no reason not to jump ship. Sadly for now, price and convenience _____ sound quality. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on May 3, 2019 17:15:29 GMT -5
For vets, Tidal is $11.99/month for cd resolution....
Let's see, buy one cd per month for $15-$20 or access over 30 million tracks at the same resolution for $11.99?
Meanwhile, many, yes, even here, maintain there's a future in physical media....
|
|
|
|
Post by adaboy on May 3, 2019 19:58:29 GMT -5
For vets, Tidal is $11.99/month for cd resolution.... Let's see, buy one cd per month for $15-$20 or access over 30 million tracks at the same resolution for $11.99? Meanwhile, many, yes, even here, maintain there's a future in physical media.... If you're student taking any college classes, cd quality is on $9.99 per month. |
|
|
|
Post by selind40 on May 4, 2019 6:56:42 GMT -5
I had to do a Google search to figure out what MQA was........so I'm unqualified to cast a vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 4, 2019 16:44:01 GMT -5
For vets, Tidal is $11.99/month for cd resolution.... Let's see, buy one cd per month for $15-$20 or access over 30 million tracks at the same resolution for $11.99? Meanwhile, many, yes, even here, maintain there's a future in physical media.... The difference for me is it’s $11.99 every month FOREVER. If I stop paying the $11.99 then I can’t access the rented music. Whereas when I buy a CD it’s $11.99 only the ONCE and I can access the music that I own FOREVER. Pretty much the standard “own” versus “rent” debate. Cheers Gary |
|
