Jump to content
IGNORED

Tidal + Apple


realhifi
 Share

Recommended Posts

I heard about that yesterday, but as far as I know neither company has verified this. I would hypothesize that such an acquisition would gain Apple the legal right to stream 16/44.1 or higher music.

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard about that yesterday, but as far as I know neither company has verified this. I would hypothesize that such an acquisition would gain Apple the legal right to stream 16/44.1 or higher music.

 

That's not the main focus but maybe they are looking at that part of it too. It's the artist rights to exclusives that is the main attraction. That and of course eliminating a competitor.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not the main focus but maybe they are looking at that part of it too. It's the artist rights to exclusives that is the main attraction. That and of course eliminating a competitor.

 

I am not so sure thay makes any real difference - didn't that Kayne West character claim his new album would only be available on Tidal? It was on Apple Music and Amazon Music in less than a week.

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard about that yesterday, but as far as I know neither company has verified this. I would hypothesize that such an acquisition would gain Apple the legal right to stream 16/44.1 or higher music.

 

That's not the main focus but maybe they are looking at that part of it too. It's the artist rights to exclusives that is the main attraction. That and of course eliminating a competitor.

 

Actually in most mergers and acquisitions all deals will need to be re-negotiated. That's typical and more so for licensing deals.

 

As in the case of Pandora acquiring Rdio for the patents, but not the music catalog. Pandora would need to re-negotiate with the artists, studios, labels, etc.

Next to the Word of God, the noble art of music is the greatest treasure in the world - Martin Luther

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not the main focus but maybe they are looking at that part of it too. It's the artist rights to exclusives that is the main attraction. That and of course eliminating a competitor.
The main worry is if it also eliminates the myriad of third party hardware & software options that can currently be used to connect to TIDAL.

We will win because our NHS is the beating heart of this country. It is the best of this country. It is unconquerable. It is powered by love.

-- Boris Johnson

 

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard about that yesterday, but as far as I know neither company has verified this. I would hypothesize that such an acquisition would gain Apple the legal right to stream 16/44.1 or higher music.

I read a while back that Apple requires all submissions to the iTunes store to be in 24/96 or better - and this has been the case for a long while. I would say Apple's intention is to gain access to exclusive releases.

 

If they make it possible to get all of TIDAL's catalog plus Apple's catalog in 16/44 or better streaming, then that would be awesome. I wonder what would be the future of MQA in this situation.

mini+Roon > dCS Rossini DAC + Rossini Master Clock 

SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s > vdH The Grail

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo G2

system pics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a while back that Apple requires all submissions to the iTunes store to be in 24/96 or better - and this has been the case for a long while. I would say Apple's intention is to gain access to exclusive releases.

 

If they make it possible to get all of TIDAL's catalogue plus Apple's catalog in 16/44 or better streaming, then that would be awesome. I wonder what would be the future of MQA in this situation.

 

Hopefully they don't ruin the sound of TIDAL. I tried apple music for a while and the sound wasn't good. Seems like Apple thinks they can just decide for everyone what is good and bad. They have been known for bad sound forever so I hope they don't creep in and wreck a good thing that is TIDAL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main worry is if it also eliminates the myriad of third party hardware & software options that can currently be used to connect to TIDAL.

 

That's guaranteed. The likes of Roon will be forced to move to the App Store and Apple will take a 30% cut.

 

I wonder what would be the future of MQA in this situation.

 

This would be the final nail in MQA's coffin... unless MQA sells out to Apple too.

Next to the Word of God, the noble art of music is the greatest treasure in the world - Martin Luther

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's guaranteed. The likes of Roon will be forced to move to the App Store and Apple will take a 30% cut.

 

Nonsense - Roon doesn't sell from the macOS App Store today, and likely never will. It is not like iOS - where only corporate entities can publish their apps ad-hoc. MacOS is very much an open system.

 

This would be the final nail in MQA's coffin... unless MQA sells out to Apple too.

 

I am not sure how I see the two as being related, other than Tidal is already talking to MQA.

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense - Roon doesn't sell from the macOS App Store today, and likely never will. It is not like iOS - where only corporate entities can publish their apps ad-hoc. MacOS is very much an open system.

 

Roon does not and will never have access to Apple Music. In the event it does, the only way in is by going via the App Store and paying Apple 30%. Even competing services like Spotify need to do that. How much more an add-on service like Roon?

 

I am not sure how I see the two as being related, other than Tidal is already talking to MQA.

 

For the same reasons as above... kill the competition.

Next to the Word of God, the noble art of music is the greatest treasure in the world - Martin Luther

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roon does not and will never have access to Apple Music.

 

Roon could, if they wished, negotiate the same kind of deal that Sono's has, and play from Apple Music 24x7. And no, that does not require access to the macOS App store to download the MacOS or Windows controllers. The iOS app is distributed from the App store, but at zero cost.

 

Roon is, in terms of an audio player, quite expensive these days. Yes yes, I know you get a lot more for your money than with say, Audirvana+, but still. If they don't have Apple Music, it is probably more along the lines of they are too small to be able to negotiate a good deal with Apple, or they want to maximize their profits and thus use Apple as an excuse.

 

In the event it does, the only way in is by going via the App Store and paying Apple 30%. Even competing services like Spotify need to do that. How much more an add-on service like Roon?

 

Again, that is *simply not true*. You need to check your facts on that. Sonos does not pay Apple 30% of their revenue.Indeed, I think ​if anything that Apple pays *Sonos* a fraction of the $9.99/month subscription cost.

 

 

 

For the same reasons as above... kill the competition.

 

What competition?

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's guaranteed. The likes of Roon will be forced to move to the App Store and Apple will take a 30% cut.

 

 

 

This would be the final nail in MQA's coffin... unless MQA sells out to Apple too.

 

That is Apple's intention . To put an end to MQA and gain access to some popular artists . I will be shocked if they don't buy Tidal .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is Apple's intention . To put an end to MQA and gain access to some popular artists . I will be shocked if they don't buy Tidal .

 

Why do you think Apple has an interest in putting an end to MQA? I had not heard that line of thinking till now.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think Apple has an interest in putting an end to MQA? I had not heard that line of thinking till now.

 

Since Apple will never have any interest in MQA on their devices, if it became popular on competitor devices , that could significantly lower

iPhone and Apple sales .

 

Trust me , Apple looks at MQA as a threat to their device sales .

 

They will try to put an end to it in its infancy. It's easier that way .Tidal

was going to do MQA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust me , Apple looks at MQA as a threat to their device sales. They will try to put an end to it in its infancy. It's easier that way .Tidal was going to do MQA

In my opinion, MQA technology's biggest enemy is MQA the company. They have taken the route of no compromise, either I get a royalty or "No MQA for you!" _In my opinion_ this is the key to the delays.

 

Apple cares about MQA as much as it cared about HDCD... Come on... No-one outside the audiophile world has any idea -or would care- about MQA.

 

However, I do think Apple is interested in claiming "CD quality" or similar as an option in it's streaming service. But something that would require special hardware or software in a phone plus requiring twice the bandwidth of CD streaming (MQA high res streams do) is not something I see them bothering with.

 

For people that have seen my comments on MQA, they might think I am against it. I am not. I think MQA brings the following (in my opinion, in order of importance):

1- Careful mastering from the source

2- Some pre-processing improving A-to-D (de-blurring)

3- Useful packaging such that it can be decoded in multiple resolutions (but this also means that if you decode in 16/44, you're needing to stream more bandwidth that you would if you just streamed a 16/44 flac)

 

Miguel

mini+Roon > dCS Rossini DAC + Rossini Master Clock 

SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s > vdH The Grail

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo G2

system pics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, MQA technology's biggest enemy is MQA the company. They have taken the route of no compromise, either I get a royalty or "No MQA for you!" _In my opinion_ this is the key to the delays.

 

Apple cares about MQA as much as it cared about HDCD... Come on... No-one outside the audiophile world has any idea -or would care- about MQA.

 

However, I do think Apple is interested in claiming "CD quality" or similar as an option in it's streaming service. But something that would require special hardware or software in a phone plus requiring twice the bandwidth of CD streaming (MQA high res streams do) is not something I see them bothering with.

 

For people that have seen my comments on MQA, they might think I am against it. I am not. I think MQA brings the following (in my opinion, in order of importance):

1- Careful mastering from the source

2- Some pre-processing improving A-to-D (de-blurring)

3- Useful packaging such that it can be decoded in multiple resolutions (but this also means that if you decode in 16/44, you're needing to stream more bandwidth that you would if you just streamed a 16/44 flac)

 

Miguel

 

What happened to all of those rumors of Apple offering 24/96 streaming ? Don't they get all of their files from the record companies in 24/96 and then downgrade them for streaming ? Is the 24/96 talk maybe one reason Apple would want the Lightning port used for audio and remove the headphone jack ?

 

Maybe Apple has hi res plans . I have serious doubts but you never know .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, MQA technology's biggest enemy is MQA the company. They have taken the route of no compromise, either I get a royalty or "No MQA for you!" _In my opinion_ this is the key to the delays.

 

Apple cares about MQA as much as it cared about HDCD... Come on... No-one outside the audiophile world has any idea -or would care- about MQA.

 

However, I do think Apple is interested in claiming "CD quality" or similar as an option in it's streaming service. But something that would require special hardware or software in a phone plus requiring twice the bandwidth of CD streaming (MQA high res streams do) is not something I see them bothering with.

 

For people that have seen my comments on MQA, they might think I am against it. I am not. I think MQA brings the following (in my opinion, in order of importance):

1- Careful mastering from the source

2- Some pre-processing improving A-to-D (de-blurring)

3- Useful packaging such that it can be decoded in multiple resolutions (but this also means that if you decode in 16/44, you're needing to stream more bandwidth that you would if you just streamed a 16/44 flac)

 

Miguel

 

Well said - besides, if Apple wanted MQA technology, they can easily afford to license it, buy it outright, or even find developing the same kind of technology in a cleanroom.

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened to all of those rumors of Apple offering 24/96 streaming ? Don't they get all of their files from the record companies in 24/96 and then downgrade them for streaming ? Is the 24/96 talk maybe one reason Apple would want the Lightning port used for audio and remove the headphone jack ?

 

Maybe Apple has hi res plans . I have serious doubts but you never know .

All great questions...

 

I think the move to lightning-only is hardware simplification and cost reduction - no DAC in the phone, less of a thickness design constraint, no need to make space for that pesky old banana plug... I am all for it frankly, you can have a nicer DAC this way. For example, the Wolfson DAC in the lightning-to-30pin converter is actually very nice, in my opinion better than the one in the phone.

 

I have read Apple requires 24/96 or better content. Whether that content actually is of a production quality to justify the resolution is another question - like the majority of "high res" content out there it probably isn't. Regardless... I have read Apple has contemplated selling high res files, and now possibly streaming them.

 

One question I have had ever since hearing about MQA and its bandwidth claim (i.e. streaming high res over CD quality bandwidth): What prevents a streaming company from hosting high-res files and downsample them on the fly at the server end to stream itunes+, cd quality flac, or higher? This is already done in the "adaptive streaming" on all of the streaming platforms - albeit for lower resolutions, but there's no difference there...

mini+Roon > dCS Rossini DAC + Rossini Master Clock 

SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s > vdH The Grail

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo G2

system pics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said - besides, if Apple wanted MQA technology, they can easily afford to license it, buy it outright, or even find developing the same kind of technology in a cleanroom.

Agreed. They've already developed "Mastered for iTunes" (or whatever the name is) and it isn't bad if you are ok with iTunes+ files.

mini+Roon > dCS Rossini DAC + Rossini Master Clock 

SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s > vdH The Grail

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo G2

system pics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, MQA technology's biggest enemy is MQA the company. They have taken the route of no compromise, either I get a royalty or "No MQA for you!" _In my opinion_ this is the key to the delays.

.....

Miguel

 

This is seriously OT but just expressing my agreement with the comment above. Seems that other than a very select group of audio reviewers, very few are given the open opportunity to review MQA. In Vancouver, BC, Canada, we had a small audio show a couple of weeks ago with representation from the local dealers and some industry reps...there was a sheduled MQA demonstration running throughout given by a member of Meridian and played on some very expensive gear. Huge Tidal speakers and Burmeister gear.

The presentaion was roughly a half hour long and I left being no wiser as to MQA. The presenter played an MQA track of the drum kit portion of Dave Brubeck's Take Five which sounded exquisite but then didn't play the original unaltered version. People in the audience were asking for direct comparisons but when he finally did so did it was a very odd and goofy audiophile track. Why not have compared the Brubeck? Well, the drum kit portion of that song would sound great on an iPhone and as an MP3!

Totally lacklustre presentation which did nothing to intrigue or excite the listener.

Don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...