audio-talk

As someone who streams music a lot of the time, I found, within the limits of my comprehension, this video very interesting. If it is true, I suspect it confirms what some here have thought about MQA for a while. I used to subscribe to tidal, but when they adopted MQA for a lot of their library, I moved to Qobuz because I just could not get on with MQA sound.

The video is 38 minutes long but well worth a watch IMO.

Thoughts?

Yep, I saw that posted yesterday and it was very interesting. It may be playing into my bias, but I have yet to hear any reason why MQA would be a good thing that didn't sound like hype and justification for adding costs. It would be better if MQA could show how what he found was wrong instead of just saying it was.

I spent some time with Tidal, bit the sound quality was generally not as good as the Linn programming or similar offerings from Concertzender or NRK.
Being an active musician myself, I will normally buy the recordings that I like and do not worry about how someone decoded "compressed" formats.

I certainly agree that if Tidal is going to prevent measurements, they have something to hide. My personal preference is to play the recordings back at the original resolution. Red book recordings can be very convincing if properly played back.

There’s a long tedious thread over on PFM and an even longer one over on Audio Science Review if you wish to ‘learn’ more, his testing may have not been valid but then that wasn’t helped by MQA restricting access to MQA master files...

every single one of those 3 letter nouns went over my head as fast as a lightning scrambled from Leconfield to ward off 130 Russian aircraft checking our air defences in the cold war.