Yes! His last few videos sound this way. What happened? I like most of his stuff, but I just cringed with the ugly background, clearly read script, and 1.5x speed. Hard to appreciate his actual points with so many distractions.
2 Likes
But it’s so much more fun to just jump to conclusions. I have a dedicated mat for that:
3 Likes
Yep same, I demo new things on spotify 320 and if I like them I get them in lossless on my NAS.
3 Likes
Exactly, nonsense is best sense! As long as it doesn’t come as serious accusations.
and i’m very thankful for that! Yeah, i might have been a bit dramatic there, but there are a lot of "IF"s and "MIGHT"s there, i use these for a reason lol
1 Like
From my limited experience in public speaking, it is most likely from reading directly off the script instead of using bullet points and taking natural pauses to let the points sink in. The result is a lot of information pounded into your brain with little impact.
1 Like
i think he put himself under a lot of pressure in this one, which is quite understandable.
2 Likes
yap, i getcha, i often catch myself not doing enough of it, we don’t talk verbally like this as much but it makes us easier to understand over text i feel like, mainly because we can’t talk with our faces and bodies on here, as much 
This was my experience in extensive testing of Tidal and Qobuz, too. Qobuz just sounded better.
2 Likes
Meaning that an s/w unfolded and loopback recorded file is imprinted with MQA “signature” so it can be proven as pirated. The idea that it’s for stream only and if you record it it will be easily identifiable as pirated if resold.
3 Likes
Got it, yes. I see your point.
what pirate site do you use?
I love how everyone’s showing up to +1 that in the comments: Zeos, DMS, Metal, Resolve, Currawong is even mentioned in the video… it’s like everyone who knows anything about how things should sound thinks MQA sucks and this needs to be made known.
4 Likes
Who’s Lisa?
3 Likes
you only get to know upon the 3rd unfold.
7 Likes
Another stupid question that just came to my mind!
But it’s also only theoretical.
We have said that a Dac without MQA support causes noise floor in the worst case.
Which can certainly also happen with less good implementations.
Is it different with a Dac that supports MQA?
Surely there are people out there who have bought a Dac with MQA support and previously had one without MQA.
Have you noticed a difference?
If so, please describe your experiences.
What has changed.
What you like acoustically better with or without MQA.
It could be that the MQA implementation of the Dac is slightly different than with a Dac without MQA and could possibly be the explanation for the noise floor without MQA.
For me personally, it is clear that I will not buy a Dac because of MQA unless it would offer itself.
Otherwise it is of no interest to me.
Also because I’m not sure if I want what the advertising promises.
As @a_jedi already wrote, it would be really unfortunate if Tidal only offered MQA and no hi-res files.
And also deliberately creates two camps in terms of marketing.
That would be unfortunate for you.
And obviously pursue something that only arrives later on the community side.
The shot could also possibly backfire.
On the other hand, if you look at the streaming story.
Spotify set a trend back then that was unsurpassed.
When Tidal came along, they created their own clientele somewhere with a lot of intensive work, especially for audiophiles.
It could be that if you look at where Quboz was last year and where they are now, that they may have made a secret or partnership deal with Tidal.
Because Quboz has suddenly improved in quality and the number of songs has gone up steeply.
I mean back when I was subscribing to it they were just at 20-30 million songs and suddenly they can offer double that.
It would also be speculated that through the partnership one platform offers MQA files while the other offers Hi-Res files.
If so, it would at least have been appropriate to inform the customers instead of advertising how great the new format is, which could possibly lead to complications in the audio chain.
As written, this would have been purely my own assumption, without wanting to hate stream providers.
I just have to see how I can copy my Tidal playlist over to Quboz to experience my own impressions.
1 Like
I was a long time TIdal user and current Qobuz user.
I prefer Qobuz before the deep dives into the quality of MQA.
IMO, here in the states…Qobuz should be your de facto lossless choice for streaming.
6 Likes
I recently moved over to Amazon HD from Tidal. I was able to transfer a majority of albums over surprisingly. I had maybe 2 albums and like maybe 1 or 2 songs unavailable; Santana-Caravansarai, Judas Priest- Sad Wings of Destiny, and Denise Kings rendition of Besame Mucho. I had a lot of issues with Tidal Masters especially stuff like Eric Clapton and CREAM for some reason. I’m very pleased with Amazon HD so far and will try Qobuz once it becomes available in Canada.
3 Likes
2 Likes
I always felt like the Tidal Masters were off a bit, but assumed it was just what high quality mastering sounded like. As a new audio hobbyist I was not a fan of the sound of most of the masters vs the Hifi tracks offered by Tidal. Once I heard that MQA was not truthful on the whole lossy lossless stuff I felt this is why I had trouble with the Masters tracks, which in turn led me to try the competition. So far I am happy to pay half the monthly price for a bigger library and identical if not better* sound quality.
*By better I mean that I have not had the same off putting sound characteristics that some of the Tidal masters gave me. It could be that I’m not a fan of Eric Clapton, but looking back on the decision to switch regardless of reason. I see no point of going back to tidal for twice the price at this point.
3 Likes
I did not MQA her! I did naaaaat!
3 Likes