[KaiFi]

Tidal offering hi-res FLAC tracks by August, states a preference for FLAC over MQA:

https://www.techhive.com/article/1974696/tidal-flac-preferred-hi-res-format-not-mqa.html

 

[iFi audio]

Tidal offering hi-res FLAC tracks by August, states a preference for FLAC over MQA:

https://www.techhive.com/article/1974696/tidal-flac-preferred-hi-res-format-not-mqa.html

Thanks for sharing, interesting stuff

 

[goodvibes]

Tidal offering hi-res FLAC tracks by August, states a preference for FLAC over MQA:

https://www.techhive.com/article/1974696/tidal-flac-preferred-hi-res-format-not-mqa.html

Been saying this for years. Never understood the fanfare over another lossy format. Still prefer Qobuz. Not sure why that would be but just sounds better to me. Maybe their packing/unpacking is better in some way.

 

[goodvibes]

I hope it dies and it probably will. All it does is confuse people with false promises. It's the new HDCD except it's lossy.

From 2017.

 

[Hooster]

Tidal offering hi-res FLAC tracks by August, states a preference for FLAC over MQA:

https://www.techhive.com/article/1974696/tidal-flac-preferred-hi-res-format-not-mqa.html

This means I might be going back to Tidal at some stage.

 

[gregorio]

Tidal offering hi-res FLAC tracks by August, states a preference for FLAC over MQA:

Maybe the OP can start a new thread called: “FLAC Appreciation Thread”, argue for pages that flac is a significant improvement over lossless, rename it the “Tidal masters & FLAC Thread” and continue that argument for dozens more pages? Just a thought!

G

 

[KaiFi]

Maybe the OP can start a new thread called: “FLAC Appreciation Thread”, argue for pages that flac is a significant improvement over lossless, rename it the “Tidal masters & FLAC Thread” and continue that argument for dozens more pages? Just a thought!

G

Tidal should just announce this change with “FLAC is the new MQA”

 

[KaiFi]

Some more information about the new beta version of Tidal with hi-res FLAC and how it will work:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/tidal-hi-res-lossless-flac-max-annoying/

There will be a new "Max" label for hi-res tracks, but it won't tell you whether it's MQA or FLAC. If a track exists in both, FLAC will be preferred. The author speculates that MQA will eventually be phased out entirely and this allows it to be done "invisibly".

 

[GoldenSound]

Tidal has confirmed they will be going through and replacing all of the 'stealth MQA' tracks with true lossless redbook versions. Just no indicator of how long this will take.

 

[AstroCEO]

I thought I would start a thread for those who appreciate the SQ of MQA - both files and Tidal Masters -.(as opposed to those
debating the merits from a scientific standpoint).

I'm going by my perceptions, but on Tidal decoded MQA by and large I'm getting a smoother, cleaner
music with much less hash, grain ....to the point where it sounds much more inviting, less fatiguing,
smoother. More musical! Blacker background, removal (or drastic reduction) of digital "gloss" from the sound.

Greater ease of sound and performance, more intimacy.

Some of MQA's claims may be exaggerated, but I believe the stated main benefits are basically true.

Arguments saying that MQA is lossy or is locked by DRM are not true - in my opinion.
I'd also like to counter the generally negative and/or suspicious posts on this site (and elsewhere).

All I know is I've been a fan of higher quality audiophile sound for many many years
and like what I hear from MQA so far.

Which is, hi-res quality sound (or perhaps even better SQ) from a significantly smaller file size than
a conventional hi-res stream.



=====================

------>>If you enjoy MQA'd music, looking forward to hearing from you!






..

Interesting that you say that, because technically it should be inferior to FLAC, etc. However, there must be something that makes you perceive a higher quality sound. Interesting.

 

[headfry]

Interesting that you say that, because technically it should be inferior to FLAC, etc. However, there must be something that makes you perceive a higher quality sound. Interesting.

I created this thread well over 6 years ago which is when I made that comment -
at that time I found Tidal and MQA great sounding and enjoyable. In the last few years
of course there have been many developments in competing music streaming services.

I haven't considered MQA for some years - as high resolution, Dolby Atmos,
etc. being available through the likes of Apple Music and Amazon (I've been with AM for years).

This thread has been wildly popular which was/is nice, as it allows those
interested to discuss with others. Until now I haven't felt the need to
participate but saw your comment!

Tidal and MQA are fine for some but neither are the only game in town; I've
personally moved on years ago.

 

[gregorio]

I haven't considered MQA necessary for years, as high resolution, Dolby Atmos,
etc.

Why not? If you’re “a fan of higher quality audiophile sound” and MQA is hi-res sound quality “or perhaps even better”, plus it has “a significantly smaller file size”, then why wouldn’t you consider it?

G

All I know is I've been a fan of higher quality audiophile sound for many many years
and like what I hear from MQA so far.

Which is, hi-res quality sound (or perhaps even better SQ) from a significantly smaller file size than a conventional hi-res stream.

 

[headfry]

Why not? If you’re “a fan of higher quality audiophile sound” and MQA is hi-res sound quality “or perhaps even better”, plus it has “a significantly smaller file size”, then why wouldn’t you consider it?

Because for me at least it is no longer necessary, AM gives me everything that Tidal w/MQA used to and has for years. If

I carried downloaded files around I might still be concerned about file size but I don't carry 'em around, I stream instead.

What was the best solution in March '17 is no longer the one for me.

Nothing against MQA, just not for this user anymore.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

Interesting that you say that, because technically it should be inferior to FLAC, etc. However, there must be something that makes you perceive a higher quality sound. Interesting.

It is definitely inferior to FLAC of the same master. There are some variables, it's difficult/impossible to compare apples to apples.

But, psychoaucoustic CODECs with compression can often sound quite good and even preferable to originals. Sony's ATRAC for minidisc is a good example.

I don't think it's worth spending much time on the topic, everybody is free to enjoy whatever he enjoys

 

[peterinvan]

It is definitely inferior to FLAC of the same master. There are some variables, it's difficult/impossible to compare apples to apples.

But, psychoaucoustic CODECs with compression can often sound quite good and even preferable to originals. Sony's ATRAC for minidisc is a good example.

I don't think it's worth spending much time on the topic, everybody is free to enjoy whatever he enjoys

During the MQA debate there were rumours that the “master tapes” used for the MQA mix/compression were of a higher quality, maybe less compressed than the ones used for the original 16/44 CDs . I bought into the MQA hype based on this belief. If Tidal (or other services) could publish the provanance of the source of all their tracks, including the new hi-res FLACs this would be very helpful to audiophiles trying to explain the differences they may be hearing.

PLEASE TIDAL… I BELIEVE YOU MUST HAVE THIS SOURCE INFO AVAILABLE!