Tidal class-action

We have Amazon HD and Qobuz. I tried MQA through two streamers and two DAC’s and it sounded fine, but it was not a reason to go to Tidal instead of one of the others.

I'm no MQA fan:  (1) end-to-end systems with a clear opportunity to turn it into DRM in the future; (2) end-to-end system that doesn't work - just check dropouts from MQA handshakes with various DACs...open standards that don't require some handshake at every hop just work better, (3) it's not lossless and for a long time they argued it was; (4) only a few recordings received white glove treatment, the rest was batch processed and (5) this all means their marketing was obnoxiously over-hyping.

And yet, what the OP is saying is completely incoherent.  There are so many good ways to burn MQA and yet the OP seems to have missed shooting the side of the barn from 10 feet away. 

But the OP did make a splash.  I had fun reading and responding for 10 minutes.

I am surprised at the hostility being thrown around here.  What is the purpose of MQA files?  At least for me, I thought that it was a hi-res stream that through methods unknown, was "unfolded" to its former glory by your DAC.  I have both Tidal and Qobuz and I like both . . . Tidal is better at curating playlists and so forth, I think but they both have very similar catalogs, at least in the classic rock and jazz categories.  But why pay for a Tidal tier in order to get MQA, when MQA is really just a Redbook file with some sort of upsampling applied?  To me, that is the real issue.  It is not disclosed that that is the nature of an MQA file, and if my rudimentary understanding is accurate, it is false advertising to say that is.  I am not attacking how MQA sounds, or whether it sounds different than a hi-res FLAC file on Qobuz.  I am only commenting on the fact that it does not appear that MQA is what it is marketed as.

That can be the basis of a class action.  Yes, you get very little, and the lawyers clean up, but lawyers need hi-end equipment too, you know . . . :)