Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sonicularity

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Please share your findings and the method used to obtain this understanding.
  2. If MQA takes over the world, perhaps the restrictions to make music available to the masses will be too much for the smaller artists to survive without the assistance of major labels. If all of the convenient options to buy or stream music are locked behind MQA's scheme, it could set the industry back several decades.
  3. I subscribe to Qobuz and Tidal. I choose not to stream MQA, but I have had a Tidal lossless subscription long before MQA was made available to stream. I do not have a DAC capable of playing fully unfolded MQA files, and I have been using Qobuz for any music that is duplicated in Tidal, though Tidal has a lot of music that I enjoy that is not available at this time through Qobuz. If I suspected that my Tidal subscription was significantly helping to support MQA, I would reluctantly drop it.
  4. MQA taking over the world is the only real concern when you boil everything down. When would be a more appropriate time to take a stance in opposition to MQA's adaptation?
  5. You have it backward. No real discussion is taking place, and this is what is causing what you are calling bad behavior and anger.
  6. With any open-sourced media format, I'll always be able to play any HiRes file that is purchased today. MQA requires licensing and additional costs to equipment manufacturers and, consequently, to the consumer. There is no guarantee that the consumer will always be able to play MQA files at the highest decoded form. The tiered music quality level of MQA is locked behind a proprietary scheme. The consumer's rights to access the full quality are being managed.
  7. Absolutely! You get it! As long as the music does not include MQA technology, we never have to worry about losing all of our music at some point in the future. With MQA, it is always going to remain a possibility.
  8. I'd hate to see a metered playback solution implemented. Imagine having to pay for a dozen plays that would expire after a certain amount of time if unused. There are so many ways to monetize the files when the format is completely locked down.
  9. Though, the ~165K subscribers to Tidal HiFi did not necessarily choose MQA. It was added to everyone's access with no option to exclude MQA files.
  10. Yes, MQA was added to any existing Tidal HiFi subscriber's access. Similar to an unwanted TV channel included in a package with more popular choices. It would be interesting to see how MQA would fair if it were an added service with an additional cost, such as with Qobuz's Studio tier.
  11. Absolutely. An exceedingly few numbers of exceptions. I did mention that.
  12. My position has always been that hi-res adds no improvement to 44.1/16 sound quality for practically every situation with regards to source or playback equipment with exceedingly few exceptions, and none that should be significant. However, with MQA, or some similar proprietary format with complete control, a considerable difference can be artificially implemented to control both quality and cost. That is why I care.
  13. I don't think @crenca will allow Roon to get away with any bias toward MQA when both Tidal and Qobuz subscriptions are enabled. Roon has already admitted to a problem that they are working on to resolve that favors MQA in some instances where there is no reason to consider that format to be superior in quality.
  14. Chris put together the RMAF presentation in hopes to get some answers to what appears to be objective data contradicting claims made by MQA. Lee's recent reply concerning the presentation slides was merely a regurgitation of many of the same unsubstantiated marketing points that brought about the idea of holding that RMAF presentation in the first place. MQA continues to be coy about providing any confirmable facts and has been ignoring serious questions with regards to their product's technical capabilities. It is clear to me that MQA has no answers to provide that would satisfactorily refute some of the discoveries that have been made publicly availble. I don't expect anyone that supports MQA to be able to defend some of the questionable ideas behind the technology without obfuscation or outright deception. If they had a real answer, we would already have it.
  • Create New...