Lenbrook Acquires MQA!
- Thread starter Lee
- Start date
It is just your imagination a security update would change the sound.
Last edited:
@Lee
Do you notice any improvement in MQA playback?
Try Led Zep II and compare the 24/96 version to the MQA version:
tidal.com
Do you notice any improvement in MQA playback?
Try Led Zep II and compare the 24/96 version to the MQA version:
Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin II (Deluxe Edition)
Listen to Led Zeppelin II (Deluxe Edition) on TIDAL
They are merging the Hifi tier with Hi res tier, can't see any mention of stopping MQA on April 10?
Tidal is tired of an extremely effective boycott against their MQA tier and they are getting rid of it as a cost cutting measure. And of course, Block Inc is moving Tidal out of the streaming market since they can’t compete.
That’s fine that some like MQA-formatted music. But it is something else when these few try to convince others MQA is a genuinely competitive hi-rez format, it’s sound is the cat’s meow, and MQA’s intentions were white as snow.
Maybe this will help some better understand MQA's sonic performance from one who just might be among the most qualified to speak. Hopefully, the reader already knows a little something about Peter Moncrieff’s reputation / listening skills.
Anyway, Moncrieff is rather wordy and then some as he often times is. Nevertheless, so well worth the read.
As for me, I'm most fond of two particular MQA performance-related quotes...
1. "For the first time you will hear EXACTLY what the engineers heard in the studio." (since they made no mention of equipment I'm guessing systems and configs. no longer mattered)
2. Listening to MQA was like experiencing the birth of a new world -J Atkinson
What more needs to be said about MQA? Sadly, it took Harley about 15 or 20 pages to tell us what Atkinson told us in one sentence.
Anyway, Moncrieff is rather wordy and then some as he often times is. Nevertheless, so well worth the read.
As for me, I'm most fond of two particular MQA performance-related quotes...
1. "For the first time you will hear EXACTLY what the engineers heard in the studio." (since they made no mention of equipment I'm guessing systems and configs. no longer mattered)
2. Listening to MQA was like experiencing the birth of a new world -J Atkinson
What more needs to be said about MQA? Sadly, it took Harley about 15 or 20 pages to tell us what Atkinson told us in one sentence.
Well I certainly don't think their intentions were good and would much rather have high quality recordings in FLAC but the sad fact is that most files on Tidal and other streaming services are poot and need fixing.
Which streaming service do you subscribe to?
I think John and Robert got excited about MQA because it does sound good. I have heard many A/B demos and have always preferred it personally.
But you have to look at the economics of streaming separately. Neither Tidal nor Qobuz are making money. I like Qobuz a lot but worry a little on how long they can sustain the business with losses.
I want the streaming services to do well but with the labels taking so much money, it’s difficult to see a way forward. The artist is getting screwed as well.
Do the right thing, buy files or physical media. Mostly they will sound better, too.
Based on your prior posts. You can’t google tidal music layoffs. Find the investor page on Block Inc’s site. Or understand why Tidal Music does not fit in a Rule of 40 company.
Funny I always hear people make the assumption that artists make more money when you buy the LP, CD, physical media. I'm not sure that is true.
So an artist typically make around 10-15% off each album. So a $25.00 album nets the artist $2.50 - $3.75 on average. So if an artist streams a song via Amazon Unlimited they get $0.01175 per stream. If they stream 320 songs they would get $3.76.
Seems to me the potential is greater for the artist via streaming. I would think on average an artist would get more than 320 steams per album, especially if the album is worthy of one buying it.
Now I still believe artist should make more for their work but that is a different discussion.
So an artist typically make around 10-15% off each album. So a $25.00 album nets the artist $2.50 - $3.75 on average. So if an artist streams a song via Amazon Unlimited they get $0.01175 per stream. If they stream 320 songs they would get $3.76.
Seems to me the potential is greater for the artist via streaming. I would think on average an artist would get more than 320 steams per album, especially if the album is worthy of one buying it.
Now I still believe artist should make more for their work but that is a different discussion.
I don't believe the math is right here on the streaming. Several label folks have told me physical sales are an order of magnitude better for the artist.
lol. So excited they've probably been wearing pull-ups since Dec of 2014?
Lee, my hunch is you'd be doing yourself a real service if you took the time to read what Moncrieff has to say about MQA sonics and those who find pleasure listening to MQA. But, it's just a hunch.
BTW, the quote "For the first time you will hear EXACTLY what the engineers heard in the studio so long as you see the little green light illuminated." came from MQA ads. Not from Harley nor Atkinson. But MQA pulled those ads early on as the masses started to catch on.
Last edited:
I have a lot of musician friends in the industry. Getting screwed by streaming is a common topic of conversation. Most would prefer that you pay for the download. These guys are not all obscure artists. I’ve been told in some instances that a song was streamed well into six figures of play, producing revenues which after division among those entitled to a share would barely buy dinner at a good steakhouse (Stoney River, Bob’s, Jimmy Kelly’s etc) in Nash Vegas.
Similar threads
