manicm said:
From what I've seen at 2L, MQA is a pound more expensive than 24/192 for premium albums at 16 quid. What's a pound between friends I say.
But for your major labels - they're still greedy thieves who see the consumer as criminals. For example - why the hell do we even have a disc format for 4K when USB/hard drive would have been a probably superior solution? Because like record labels, comsumer convenience be damned for all eternity.
4K disc sales are going to bomb. Likewise there are increasingly conflicting reports of whether Tidal is in the red or not. If high-res streaming fails one of two things will happen:
1. MQA will bomb, or
2. Labels will come to their senses and offer downloads.
Hi,
The reason for my post was that it has been indicated in the comments and other forums of CD's being MQA encoded.
This would NOT be of any benefit to the majority of people if that is all that the record labels offered.
We require that MQA is restricted to downloads only - as it is really an enthusiasts format.
Someone earlier stated that the format for MQA be forced upon everyone to move LPCM CD to MQA CD - so we only have the option of MQA CD's.
Since MQA by its very construction is reportedly high resolution, then every CD is automatically high resolution, whether you want it or not.
All that is required is a DAC to decode.
The issue is, record labels will not give away a high resolution recording for CD prices. MQA is already £1 more than the best Linear PCM high resolution download. Thus, forcing people to MQA CD's will increase the prices of CD's significantly. Assume £9.99 for a new released CD - this will be a 60% increase to £16.00 as per downloads.
I think that record labels must provide the options - whether download or physical - MQA and non MQA recordings must always be available.
Regards,
Shadders.