MQA Shill Steve Stone Provides a Good Laugh For a Friday...

[Ralf11]

sounds like phase shift, but is much more fancy ?

[beetlemania]

Sho’nuf! Roon 1.5 is now doing an unfold on Tidal MQA up to at least 96 kHz on my Ayer QB-9 (oh, the irony). I guess I can now do a “proper “ comparison other than I have no way to discern if the master is identical. 

 

Interesting that the price of Roon is unchanged. How is BS profiting from this. Is Roon subsidizing it’s users? 

 

Still, I much prefer to have real hi-res (24 bit PCM) and will probably switch to Qubuz when that becomes an option. 

[crenca]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

 

 

 

Roon, unlike others, gives you the ability to totally turn off MQA. Maybe it’s hard for you to understand, but most users simply want their software to play back whatever formats are there, including MQA. That’s all Roon is doing. 

 Turn MQA off - I assume you mean to turn off decoder and not "hide" MQA albums.

 

Look, I have no reason to defend Roon.  You appear to be grasping for an argument with statements like "Before this it was actually “discriminating” against MQA as it were by not letting us see or use the MQA files from within Roon."  I think they are "privileging" MQA by making it the default version of the album you see in Tidal (if the album has a MQA version).  No, I don't agree with you that it is a mere default, innocent, non-controversial decision.  MQA is controversial, so of course their decision to make MQA the default album in Tidal is controversial.  I don't subscribe to Tidal (or Roon) for MQA, rather 16/44.  

 

I like Roon obviously, and they do many things right.  This is not one of them.  

[mansr]

9 hours ago, beetlemania said:

Interesting that the price of Roon is unchanged.

For now.

 

9 hours ago, beetlemania said:

How is BS profiting from this. Is Roon subsidizing it’s users?

Maybe. It's also possible that MQA is giving steep discounts while they build up traction. If it becomes a must-have, they can then jack up the fees without losing licensees. At that point, subscription rates will also increase for the same reason. Let's hope they never make it there.

[daverich4]

11 hours ago, crenca said:

 MQA is controversial, so of course their decision to make MQA the default album in Tidal is controversial.  I don't subscribe to Tidal (or Roon) for MQA, rather 16/44.  

 

I like Roon obviously, and they do many things right.  This is not one of them.  

 

Roon support has said several times on their forum that highest resolution is the default, not MQA. Including SPECFICALLY to you. To the best of my knowledge Tidal doesn’t have any music other than MQA that is higher resolution than 16/44 so MQA is the default. However, if you had in your own collection of music an MQA album that was 24/96 and a non MQA version of the same album that was 24/192, the non MQA version would be the default. Highest resolution as the default has been that way ever since I started using Roon. 

[mav52]

11 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

Roon support has said several times on their forum that highest resolution is the default, not MQA. Including SPECFICALLY to you. To the best of my knowledge Tidal doesn’t have any music other than MQA that is higher resolution than 16/44 so MQA is the default. However, if you had in your own collection of music an MQA album that was 24/96 and a non MQA version of the same album that was 24/192, the non MQA version would be the default. Highest resolution as the default has been that way ever since I started using Roon. 

Got to agree with you.   On my NAS I have 24/192 files, DSD files, MQA files from 2L and MQA is not the default when I use ROON

[beetlemania]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Maybe. It's also possible that MQA is giving steep discounts while they build up traction. If it becomes a must-have, they can then jack up the fees without losing licensees. At that point, subscription rates will also increase for the same reason. Let's hope they never make it there.

 

Someone should notify TAS and Herb Reichert that Roon just UN-obsoleted the Yggy.

 

This shifts (or can shift) the licensing burden from the DAC manufacturers to Roon. I wonder if Roon will have to make two versions (Tidal/MQA and Qubuz/PCM) to prevent outrage from customers (like me) who refuse to pay MQA licensing.

 

If Qubuz gets established in the US with 24 bit PCM and Roon doesn't make us pay MQA licensing fees, it will hardly matter if iPhone users are happy with their blue lights.

[crenca]

49 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

Roon support has said several times on their forum that highest resolution is the default, not MQA. Including SPECFICALLY to you. To the best of my knowledge Tidal doesn’t have any music other than MQA that is higher resolution than 16/44 so MQA is the default. However, if you had in your own collection of music an MQA album that was 24/96 and a non MQA version of the same album that was 24/192, the non MQA version would be the default. Highest resolution as the default has been that way ever since I started using Roon. 

 

I'm talking about Tidal - when an end user does not have a local file that is high resolution and/or primary.

 

The highest resolution available on Tidal is 16/44, not the lossy mess that claims to be 38/974 (i.e. the "blue light").  See how Roon rather intentionally or unintentionally (does not matter) is privileging MQA?

[crenca]

10 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

If Qubuz gets established in the US with 24 bit PCM and Roon doesn't make us pay MQA licensing fees, it will hardly matter if iPhone users are happy with their blue lights.

 

As I understand it (could be wrong) Roon has no partnership with Qubuz or any other streamer though they have tried - these companies have proven uninterested in working with them. 

[firedog]

36 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

This shifts (or can shift) the licensing burden from the DAC manufacturers to Roon. I wonder if Roon will have to make two versions (Tidal/MQA and Qubuz/PCM) to prevent outrage from
customers (like me) who refuse to pay MQA licensing.

I doubt the Roon end is paying that much to MQA; it is probably Tidal who is paying much more licensing fees to MQA. The record labels are invested in MQA, so I'm sure there is some nice complicated royalty scheme among them, MQA, and Tidal. I'd guess Roon pays a significant amount to Tidal, which probably isn't directly related to MQA being there or not.

As far as Roon getting another streaming service on board - it doesn't look good. There seem to be 2 related complicated factors:
 

a) Roon sees it's user interface as it's key selling point and reason for existence - and it isn't willing to compromise it for a streaming service. This means it demands full integration of the streaming service into the Roon interface, on Roon's terms. (And that's one of the reasons we like the Tidal-Roon partnership so much, isn't it?);

 

b) but (a) means that Roon has to have full access to the database of the streaming partner so that it can periodically download the database and integrate it with Roon (it does this once a day with Tidal's database, which is why new releases appear first in Tidal before you can see them through Roon).

 

So far only Roon and Tidal have agreed on the above. The other streaming services are either unwilling for (a) or are willing to do (a), but not (b). 
This has all been stated by Roon at their forum. 

[mav52]

2 minutes ago, firedog said:

I doubt the Roon end is paying that much; it is probably Tidal who is paying much more licensing fees to MQA. The record labels are invested in MQA, so I'm sure there is some nice complicated royalty scheme among them. I'd guess Roon pays a significant amount to Tidal, which probably isn't directly related to MQA being there or not.

As far as Roon getting another streaming service on board - it doesn't look good. There seem to be 2 related complicated factors:

a) Roon sees it's user interface as it's key selling point and reason for existence - and it isn't willing to compromise it for a streaming service. This means it demands full integration of the streaming service into the Roon interface, on Roon's terms. (And that's one of the reasons we like the Tidal-Roon partnership so much, isn't it?);

 

b) but (a) means that Roon has to have full access to the database of the streaming partner so that it can periodically download the database and integrate it with Roon (it does this once a day with Tidal's database, which is why new releases appear first in Tidal before you can see them through Roon).

 

So far only Roon and Tidal have agreed on the above. The other streaming services are either unwilling for (a) or are willing to do (a), but not (b). 

I guess it makes one wonder, if Tidal one day fails,   does Roon fail as well if Tidal is Roons only streaming music file provider.

[crenca]

15 minutes ago, mav52 said:

I guess it makes one wonder, if Tidal one day fails,   does Roon fail as well if Tidal is Roons only streaming music file provider.

 

I guess not.  My sense is that they have a core group of users for whom Tidal is a "bonus" - they are more interested in their local collection and its management.

[mav52]

8 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I guess not.  My sense is that they have a core group of users for whom Tidal is a "bonus" - they are more interested in their local collection and its management.

You mean like non tidal users using Roon for their management of their music files on a NAS or a hard drive.

[beetlemania]

2 minutes ago, mav52 said:

You mean like non tidal users using Roon for their management of their music files on a NAS or a hard drive.

 

I would use Roon regardless of streaming. It's an awesome interface with unmatched ability to your explore your collection and learn just about everything there is to know about your favorite artists. Tidal is a nice bonus for me but I've read accounts of folks who've abandoned their own collections and gone solely to streaming. I don't see myself doing that especially knowing that Tidal's definition of hi-res is MQA. No thanks.

[OldBigEars]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

I'm talking about Tidal - when an end user does not have a local file that is high resolution and/or primary.

 

The highest resolution available on Tidal is 16/44, not the lossy mess that claims to be 38/974 (i.e. the "blue light").  See how Roon rather intentionally or unintentionally (does not matter) is privileging MQA?

 

Oh stop with your whining, please.  Dear God. 

The Roon solution is brilliant.  We can all make up our own minds with our own ears.

If you don't enjoy it, stick with what you like.

The rest of us have moved on.

[crenca]

47 minutes ago, mav52 said:

You mean like non tidal users using Roon for their management of their music files on a NAS or a hard drive.

 

Yep, just like beetlemania says:

 

"I would use Roon regardless of streaming. It's an awesome interface with unmatched ability to your explore your collection and learn just about everything there is to know about your favorite artists"

 

After the initial "wow" factor wore off (took about 6 months for me), I realized Roon's metadata is hit or miss.  Sometimes, it says much about "our favorite artists", sometimes only a little or nothing at all.  Granted there is nothing else even doing this besides the streaming services interfaces.  It's DSP is really nicely organized, but again with just a little effort you can do everything in JRiver just as well.  Even without Roon's missteps with Tidal+MQA I would not give it an unreserved recommend like I used to.

[OldBigEars]

21 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 I would not give it an unreserved recommend like I used to.

 

That must break their hearts.  LOL

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

I guess not.  My sense is that they have a core group of users for whom Tidal is a "bonus" - they are more interested in their local collection and its management.

Exactly the situation here....local playback is my main source.

[Brinkman Ship]

I am certain everyone here knows that the Roon team once worked for Meridian after they acquired Sooloos.

 

From what I understand, and anyone who wants to correct me, feel free, they wanted BS to invest in the development of Roon, and in his infinite wisdom he declined, seeing no future in software. This is in keeping with his record of disastrous business decisions.

 

I have no idea about their finances, but Roon has been a massive success as far as wide spread adoption by users and manufacturers, and has bent over backwards to fix problems and produce new features. I give the Roon team full credit staying the course and taking risks. As far as their MQA solution, I could not possibly care less, and if Tidal folds, it will be a moot point.

 

 

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Brinkman Ship said:

 

From what I understand, and anyone who wants to correct me, feel free, they wanted BS to invest in the development of Roon, and in his infinite wisdom he declined, seeing no future in software. This is in keeping with his record of disastrous business decisions.

 

Look what he did next, come out with a major software play!  

 

It is very likely he was well into MQA by they time of their asking...

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

Look what he did next, come out with a major software play!  

 

It is very likely he was well into MQA by they time of their asking...

the huge difference being his is not an end user solution, and actually degrades sound quality, unlike Roon.

[FredericV]

Steven Stone actually confirms in a discussion with Soundstage's Doug Schneider, that MQA is all about protecting the interests of the labels, and the storage reduction for streaming providers:

 

It's not about us, the audiophiles.

 

[Ralf11]

Ha !!

[Indydan]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

Steven Stone actually confirms in a discussion with Soundstage's Doug Schneider, that MQA is all about protecting the interests of the labels, and the storage reduction for streaming providers:

 

It's not about us, the audiophiles.

 

 

So, Stone is enthusiastically promoting MQA as sounding better, knowing full well the people who will be listening to MQA files, do not matter. He is promoting MQA sound quality to end users, knowing full well all of the advantages of MQA are for the record labels. 

 

Hmmm... 

 

Just a suggestion; TAS should maybe now stand for "The Absolute Sham". 

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

So, Stone is enthusiastically promoting MQA as sounding better, knowing full well the people who will be listening to MQA files, do not matter. He is promoting MQA sound quality to end users, knowing full well all of the advantages of MQA are for the record labels. 

 

Hmmm... 

 

Just a suggestion; TAS should maybe now stand for "The Absolute Sham". 

 

 

Yea, but they always have an out, in that these trade publications will argue they are thinking of the "average" music lover - the man "stuck" with 128kbit streaming and would it not be wonderful for them to "upgrade" to MQA.

 

Who can keep up with all the half-truths and convenient excuses Audiophiledom - like Roon saying they are "defaulting to the HiRes" in a Tidal sort even though MQA is not "HiRes" at all?!