MQA now live on Tidal

[Sal1950]

You are confusing me and I think you are yourself confused.

Yes I'm a bit confused, that may be part of their plan. LOL

You do seem to be confusing any copying issue with the availability of a lossless redbook file, I thought I made that clear. You can no longer have a lossless 16/44 file to do anything with, period.

Maybe, but I am skeptical. I have heard of no one doing it.

Do some searching on recording youtube audio with Audacity, you might get some ideas there. I tried some time back but wasn't successful, didn't put any time into it.

 

[watchnerd]

You are confusing me and I think you are yourself confused. Without heroic efforts that I have not yet seen anyone report, you cannot copy ANY files from Tidal, as it is a streaming, not a downloading service.

Au contraire, you there are multiple tools available to capture files from streaming services using only software on your desktop. No need for external HW recorders.

Here is just one example:

https://www.apowersoft.com/streaming-audio-recorder.html

https://www.apowersoft.com/record-tidal-music.html

Maybe, but I am skeptical. I have heard of no one doing it.

There are multiple Reddit topics on how to record from streaming services. People do it in the thousands.

 

[Sal1950]

Au contraire, you there are multiple tools available to capture files from streaming services using only software on your desktop. No need for external HW recorders.

Yes now that you mentioned, it was Spotify I was playing with. Just do a google for "spotify record audacity". You'll get tons of input on how it's done.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Au contraire, you there are multiple tools available to capture files from streaming services using only software on your desktop. No need for external HW recorders.

Here is just one example:

https://www.apowersoft.com/streaming-audio-recorder.html

https://www.apowersoft.com/record-tidal-music.html



There are multiple Reddit topics on how to record from streaming services. People do it in the thousands.

I stand corrected. I myself do not stream for a variety of reasons, but I am not opposed to the idea. Just the available implementations. Not sure why people want to capture stuff via slower real time streaming as opposed to faster downloading. That seems slow and cumbersome. Maybe it is so they can make a "free" reformatted copy for their car or mobile devices using their streaming service subscription. But, if the capture is bit perfect, as I said, it should capture it with all attributes of MQA intact.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Yes I'm a bit confused, that may be part of their plan. LOL

You do seem to be confusing any copying issue with the availability of a lossless redbook file, I thought I made that clear. You can no longer have a lossless 16/44 file to do anything with, period.


Do some searching on recording youtube audio with Audacity, you might get some ideas there. I tried some time back but wasn't successful, didn't put any time into it.

Agreed, MQA is not "lossless" in the traditional sense, because for now, it is a post processing retrofit applied to earlier recordings. That may be significant to you. And, it results in two versions of the master: the MQA and the original unprocessed one.

However, as we know, MQA's claim is that their master is sonically deblurred so that distortion by the effects of the ADC and DAC in the normal recording/playback chain is substantially reduced. Is their sound with MQA processing "better" than the "lossless" original? Their claim is that their scheme is more perceptually lossless, being truer to the sound of the original instruments. Their claim is also that the "folding" of higher sampling rate versions into the the ultrasonic noise of the standard RBCD "layer" is inaudible. Only time and consumer choice in the market will decide the question of whether their claims are true and which is higher in quality. If MQA is right, we will no longer care about the "lossless" original.

If record producers agree with MQA, they would likely over time adopt MQA ADCs in the recording chain. That would mean there is only one master for newly made recordings with no extra MQA post processing on the recording side for the deblurring. (Creating multiple sampling rate versions via MQA origami folding would still be done in post processing.) That would eliminate some confusion about "lossless" generations of copies, but there might still be criticism in some circles of the MQA process on sonic grounds, whether justified or not.

As to DRM, I see the definition of that as something that inhibits, prevents, limits or downrezzes digital copies. MQA does not do that. True, you need MQA-compatible hardware and/or software to get the full "benefit" of it, though it remains fully compatible with existing CD players. But, digitally copying the files can be done freely without special software.

 

[RayDunzl]

though it remains fully compatible with existing CD players

There are no MQA CD's, are there?

Does Redbook permit 24 bit samples?

I don't think so.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

There are no MQA CD's, are there?

Does Redbook permit 24 bit samples?

I don't think so.

No, but there could be MQA CDs. There is a 16-bit version of MQA in the specs. It still allows for the folded higher sampling rate versions stored in the ultrasonic noise.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I think about the tests written up at the AES by Meridian. With exemplary material, and an exemplary playback system and setting, with trained listeners, comparing 192 khz material to 44 khz material with unusually sharp filtering and a much more narrow transition band than normal, with known substandard types of dither, listeners were able to detect correctly the blurred material from less blurred 56% of the time instead of chance levels of 50%. This is the problem MQA fixes. Would the difference have been detectable at all with a normal width transition band (2050 hz instead of 430 hz) and if dithering were using TPDF instead of a lesser dither? This seems even fixed with MQA like a very marginal improvement. It seems the level of improvement is dwarfed by the bad effects of undecoded MQA on 16 bit material which is itself not very large.

 

[RayDunzl]

MQA Wiki:

"Based on information from Auralic, a manufacturer of Audiophile Wireless Audio Streamers, Meridian Audio prohibits digital output of unpacked MQA in any digital format, only allowing the unpacked data to be fed to an on-board MQA-compatible DAC and output in analog form. Some claim this to be a part of DRM process[citation needed], which allows a proper MQA file to be authenticated and the full quality of the signal decoded only on commercially-licensed equipment."

Well, there goes recording the stream headed to your old DAC, if accurate.

Or even feeding your old DAC a decoded stream.

So, somebody who knows, how does Tidal's MQA work out here in the real world ?

 

[Ken Newton]

There are no MQA CD's, are there?

Does Redbook permit 24 bit samples?

I don't think so.

Ray, that's a good point. When MQA literature describes burying the folded high-rez bands beneath the channel noise floor, I presume they mean beneath the 16-bit noise floor of CD by encoding MQA as 24-bit samples. The bits below the upper 16 being utilized to encode the high-rez info. As such, it's not apparent to me that MQA would be compatible with exisiting CD players unless the high-rez information below 16-bits were chopped off prior to burning any tracks to a CD. After that, of course, the high-rez info. is lost forever on that CD.

Now that I think about it, this must what is done to make MQA tracks in to an MP3 file, something Meridian specifically makes mention of. There would seem to be nothing special remaining about the sound of an MQA track converted to CD or MP3. Just that the folded high-rez. bands, them being disguised as psuedo-noise, probably don't cause problematic interactions with MP3 compression algorithms.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Ray, that's a good point. When MQA literature describes burying the folded high-rez bands beneath the channel noise floor, I presume they mean beneath the 16-bit noise floor of CD by encoding MQA as 24-bit samples. The bits below the upper 16 being utilized to encode the high-rez info. As such, it's not apparent to me that MQA would be compatible with exisiting CD players unless the high-rez information below 16-bits were chopped off prior to burning any tracks to a CD. After that, of course, the high-rez info. is lost forever on that CD.

Now that I think about it, this must what is done to make MQA tracks in to an MP3 file, something Meridian specifically makes mention of. There would seem to be nothing special remaining about the sound of an MQA track converted to CD or MP3. Just that the folded high-rez. bands, them being disguised as psuedo-noise, probably don't cause problematic interactions with MP3 compression algorithms.

No they use bits 13 thru 16 for the folding. Unfolds the higher frequency info upon decoding.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

MQA Wiki:

"Based on information from Auralic, a manufacturer of Audiophile Wireless Audio Streamers, Meridian Audio prohibits digital output of unpacked MQA in any digital format, only allowing the unpacked data to be fed to an on-board MQA-compatible DAC and output in analog form. Some claim this to be a part of DRM process[citation needed], which allows a proper MQA file to be authenticated and the full quality of the signal decoded only on commercially-licensed equipment."

Well, there goes recording the stream headed to your old DAC, if accurate.

Or even feeding your old DAC a decoded stream.

So, somebody who knows, how does Tidal's MQA work out here in the real world ?

Ray - that is misleading and you are overreacting. The key phrase in the Auralic quote is "unpacked MQA in any digital format". Unpacked MQA refers to higher than 44k or 48k resolution versions of the same recording. The "packed" 44/48k version as distributed is playable on ordinary equipment/DACs that handle those sampling rates. However, the packed MQA file may also be played via MQA-enabled hardware/software in higher resolutions, which are capable of being encoded in the ultrasonic noise of the "packed" version.

My understanding is that MQA files can be played via Tidal using ordinary non-MQA DACs as well as with MQA DACs. People are now doing both. Many like it, both ways, but it is still early. There are also MQA files for download at the 2L website.

Part of the accomplishment here is defining a single, easily copiable digital file format that is compatible with many legacy players/DACS, like RBCD, yet which contains 2 things encoded within it:

1. versions of the same recording at higher sampling rates, 88/96,176/192 or higher, also allowing for multiple possibilities.
2. correction for time domain ADC blurring on the studio masters at all sampling rates, including 44/48k and above.

Playback via an MQA DAC enables access to the higher sampling rate versions in #1, above, although this might also eventually be available via open PC software. Also, in conjunction with #2, playback via an MQA DAC incorporates compatible correction for the time blurring on the playback DAC itself. There is also the "authentication" light on the MQA DAC, informing the user that the file was not just uprezzed from a lower Rez master and that it has studio/artist approval.

 

[Ken Newton]

No they use bits 13 thru 16 for the folding. Unfolds the higher frequency info upon decoding.

Does that mean MQA does not utilize more than 16-bits per sample? No 24-bit samples?

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Does that mean MQA does not utilize more than 16-bits per sample? No 24-bit samples?

Whoa. There are two versions of MQA, based on either a 24-bit or a 16-bit container (a CD version). Currently, Tidal and 2L are using the 24-bit version. It remains to be seen if the 16-bit version gains any adherents or traction in the marketplace. I am skeptical.

In either case, there is a reduction in the effective number of bits due to the folding in of higher resolution. I am suspicious of the 16-bit version in this regard. But, in the 24-bit version, I think only inaudible purely random noise is replaced by the coding needed for the higher sampling rate version.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Does that mean MQA does not utilize more than 16-bits per sample? No 24-bit samples?

Well my understanding is a little different. They get distributed as 48/24 files. Packaged in a way that undecoded it gets played back ignoring the lower 8 bits. Within the dither of the 3 lowest LSBs of the first 16 bits is the information for high frequencies and a difference file between 48/24 and 96/24. So when decoded you get the extra bandwidth and the proper lower 8 bits.

There is a provision to distribute it as 48/16 and just have the higher frequency and de-blurring included in the lower 3 LSBs. Though no one is using that to my knowledge.

Which is another nit to pick. We were told a deblurred 96/24 bit version could stream at 1 mbps smaller than CD. Well it isn't that small when streamed at 48/24. So again you are left with promises and what we have so far. I don't have Tidal so not sure how it is being sent out, but I thought it was as 48/24 FLAC. You that have it which is it?

 

[Ken Newton]

Whoa. There are two versions of MQA, based on either a 24-bit or a 16-bit container (a CD version). Currently, Tidal and 2L are using the 24-bit version. It remains to be seen if the 16-bit version gains any adherents or traction in the marketplace. I am skeptical...

Okay, that makes sense. The 24-bit version would be preferred for computer based streaming, where 16-bit compatibilty is likely not required. While the 16-bit version is only for compatibility with non-MQA enabled Redbook CD playback equipment. So, if someone's new music CD is MQA encoded they can still play it back on a non-MQA enabled disc player, where the MQA encoded folded high-rez bands serve as dither.

 

[Sal1950]

As to DRM, I see the definition of that as something that inhibits, prevents, limits or downrezzes digital copies.

Wouldn't you call going from a lossless RBCD to a lossy RBCD as be "downrezzed"?

 

[watchnerd]

So, somebody who knows, how does Tidal's MQA work out here in the real world ?

My understanding is that the Tidal Desktop Client (the only way it works), does the first unfold.

What it doesn't seem to do is the second unfold where the origami algorithm is supposed to 're-imagine' the higher frequencies and restore them.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Wouldn't you call going from a lossless RBCD to a lossy RBCD as be "downrezzed"?

What'sa matter Sal? Can't you see the magic? Surely you can feel the magic of re-rezzed material. First imagine a higher plane of existence. Then imagine a higher plane of resolution.

This is like that.

 

[Sal1950]

What'sa matter Sal? Can't you see the magic? Surely you can feel the magic of re-rezzed material. First imagine a higher plane of existence. Then imagine a higher plane of resolution.

This is like that.

Ah, I see now D, Tanks.