MQA Deep Dive - I published music on tidal to test MQA

[Oukkidoukki]

I was listening to the same album just yesterday, I discovered it on Apple Music, sounds great indeed!

I cancelled Tidal, quoting MQA as reason - it doesn't sound bad to me, in fact it sounds very good and as good as Qobuz, but I told them I just don't want to support this particular technology.

Qobuz has poor recommendations and a stupid, hostile website where I cannot change the language, so I won't be resubscribing.

Can't wait for CD-quality Spotify.

Yes, it is special.....same artist other albums were not in same level....almost , but not quite...

 

[bidn]

Answering here, apparently the original thread is locked?

I figured that given how aggressively Tidal has been expanding their use/incorporation of MQA, and there seems to be an awful lot of debate about whether or not MQA is good or lives up to the claims, and not much testing going on, (including lack of evidence from MQA themselves), I should try to remedy that.

TLDR: MQA isn't lossless, is arguably worse than normal flac, and is seemingly nothing more than a (quite effective) scheme to generate licensing fees. With the frustrating addition that if you are a Tidal user, even if you have no MQA dac, and use the "Hifi" streaming quality setting, MQA encoded/lossy files will still be served to you. And the only way to avoid that being to switch to Qobuz


This post is intended to answer test and answer a few questions about MQA, namely:

1) Are MQA releases the same master as non-MQA?

2) If you don't have an MQA dac, is standard FLAC and MQA-FLAC the same / does MQA provide a benefit even on a normal dac?

3) Is unfolded MQA lossless or as good as native HiRes?



This is normally quite tricky to test because MQA ensures that there are no native HiRes releases for tracks that are released in MQA on tidal. So you cannot directly compare them. However, there are a couple which seem to have slipped by.

Absofacto's "Thousand Peaces" for example has ONE of the songs in 96khz on qobuz (the rest are 44.1) and 88.2khz via MQA on tidal. I initially tested this, however it turned out that the Qobuz redbook and tidal redbook versions were different, meaning they are using different masters and could not be directly compared.

Answer 1: MQA/Masters SOMETIMES uses a different master source. Meaning the file formats themselves cannot be compared as the information itself is different. This is likely done to give the impression of sounding better even though it's nothing to do with the file format.


....
Next, I downloaded the "Master"/MQA release, but without any MQA unfolding. ie: keeping it as a non-MQA dac owner would be playing it. Both these files are 44.1khz, but are not the same. In fact they are only 0.43% bitperfect with a 40dB null (24 bit accuracy is 146dB) We can see that the master is clearly the same as the majority of the track is identical, but the MQA version has a significant amount of high frequency noise compared to the lossless FLAC.

Answer 2: If you do not have an MQA DAC, MQA should be avoided, the content is NOT the same as the lossless original, and has more high frequency noise.


So then, now we need to see what happens if you unfold the MQA version to 88.2khz and compare it with the native 88.2khz version. I did this by using Roon, which has MQA decoding support, and recording bitperfect output, then comparing against the native hires 88.2khz version from qobuz.

Now things are really quite messy. The unfolded version differs significantly from the native hires, with again a lot more high frequency noise, as well as a band from about 11.5khz to 13.5khz where content differs a concerning amount in this specific instance.
....

Answer 3: No, MQA is NOT lossless (a claim which MQA has recently removed from their marketing material), and even when unfolded does not match native HiRes content. I would love to test a full decoder/renderer, but MQA does not allow any "Full Unfolding" device to have a digital output. (Gee I wonder why that is, it'd sure be a shame if someone were to so easily be able to record and disprove the marketing claims.)

Additional arguments:

• MQA is actually probably worse than native playback. MQA makes it basically impossible to obtain a "normal" and MQA version of the same hires file. BUT, Stereophile did manage to convince them to send an MQA encoded single-impulse file. Their testing showed three things:
  1 - Playing back an MQA encoded file on a non-MQA dac caused issues, and created an asymmetric impulse response.
  2 - Playing it back on an MQA capable dac, it was minimum phase, not linear.
  3 - Playing back a NORMAL, non-MQA encoded impulse response file, with the MQA filter turned on on the DAC, produced an IDENTICAL result to the MQA file, suggesting that MQA is nothing more than a basic minimum-phase upsampling filter in this situation, and absolutely nothing to do with the source file. https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-tested-part-1
  There is significant evidence from multiple third party sources to show that MQA has all sorts of problems. http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/02/musingsmeasurements-on-blurring-and-why.html

• MQA incurs an additional cost to you. You are paying for the licensing fees that are tacked on to products to get MQA support, and at every other step in the process. A good post from the manufacturer Linn is available here: https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music Given as we have now demonstrated that MQA is NOT a substitute for native HiRes content, its hard to argue that MQA is doing much more than charging you for a sub-par version of something you already had (native hires music). If you want the best quality, demand native hires releases, not licensed, closed-source, proprietary compression. Schiit audio has also spoken on it: https://www.schiit.com/news/news/why-we-wont-be-supporting-mqa

• MQA IS NOT sourced from a HiRes master. Even if you are happy with it not being lossless, it is not actually even compressed from a HiRes source. Neil Young removed his music from tidal when after providing 44.1khz masters, Tidal suddenly released MQA versions, which would have been created simply by altering/upsampling the original. He did NOT provide them with HiRes masters to release in MQA, and you can read about this here: https://neilyoungarchives.com/news/1/article?id=Tidal-Misleading-Listeners
  "Tidal's master is a degredation of the original to make it fit in a box that collects royalties. That money ultimately is paid by listeners, I am not behind it. I am out of there. Gone. My masters are the original."
  MQA is at least in some situations simply an upsampled version with a licensing fee slapped on.....

• There is ZERO proof of any of MQA's claims. There is absolutely zero evidence to support any of their marketing, claims that they can fit 24 bit 192khz content into a 16 bit 44.1khz file, and in fact, all objective evidence and testing so far (including this post) conclude that MQA's claims don't make sense at all. The claims they make would be VERY easy to demonstrate and prove if they were true....
  Most MQA content cannot be obtained in native HiRes anywhere. And they do not allow any "full unfolding" device to have a digital output to prevent anyone from recording or testing the result.

Thank you very much for these measurements!

Really outstanding work!!!

2 short comments:

- Why the MQA files are worse than lossless files (and probably lossy compression with a good algorithm like MP3 or AAC):

MQA simply brutally cuts off the 3 LSB (the least significant bits) out of the 16 Redbook bits, and replace this audio information with DRMs to prevent people from playing them on non-MQA devices or softwsre. This a brute force approach compared to the smart approach based on a lot of scientific research in psychoacoustics (e.g. cutting sounds which one would not hear because they are masked by louder sounds), as with MP3 and AAC.

- Why the unfolded MQA files are even much worse?

Because this so called "unfolding" is a mere upsampling of that MQA file which contained only 13 bits for coding audio instead of 16 bits, and the less was a real highres file (such as those found at qobuz)
so the unfolded file is a fake high res file not corresponding to a file contained the high resolution master but instead upsampled from only 13 bits of audio, so that in the end they make it worse than their own "folded" (not upsampled) MQA file with only 13 bits of audio information.

So :
- MQA files are not only worse than lossless files, but because they are based on brute force, they are much inferior to smart lossy compression such as those based on psychoacoustics.
- MQA unfolding is a mere upsampling, again a fake making things even worse.
- So this is very detrimental to audio quality.
- The only point is to rip people off using the DRM protection contained in the 3 LSB
- If at some point in the future people cannot find any longer devices of software (up to the technology of that future time) decoding MQA, they will no longer be able to play the MQA files they paid for...

MQA = the worse regression that has ever happened to the audio world?

 

[Χ Ξ Σ]

They discuss the same subject created by the same OP. Or did I screw that up?

Kindly asking, Are you able to put the new thread back? There were so much new juicy stuff in the new thread, like the response from tidal, that deserves its own discussion.

 

[GoldenOne]

This was what I found. It does not properly adjust DAC sample rate, so any high-sample rate recordings will be resampled.

I'll check later if it is bitperfect provided the sample rate is manually set correctly

@Grooved I just checked. Amazon music HD IS bitperfect, but only if you manually set the DAC to the correct sample rate. And also disable volume normalisation which is enabled by default.

If you do those two things it is bitperfect though.
Annoying about the sample rate thing :/

 

[SKBubba]

MQA files are not only worse than lossless files, but because they are based on brute force, they are much inferior to smart lossy compression such as those based on psychoacoustics.

But... but... but...

MQA has studied all the neurology and psychoacoustics and invented the unified theory of "audibly lossless" compression/decompression/reconstruction science that works perfectly on any file from any source for any genre. It's all based on proprietary math in a time/space continuum that us mere mortals are not equipped to or meant to understand.

https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/qa/is-mqa-lossless

Q. Is MQA Lossless?

A. Yes.

MQA comes in a lossless (FLAC) file from the music label, so you get exactly what the creators intended.

But a lossless file is just a digital container, a box for data, and what really matters is the content!

Inside the file, MQA is very different: the audio data is higher resolution; it's cleverly packed and designed to preserve and confirm that you get full Master Quality, wherever you listen.

MQA delivers clearer sound: our encoders remove the audible ‘digital blur’ that builds up in studio production. The decoder authenticates the file, to guarantee that nobody changed it, and it maintains that pristine clarity, so you can hear the original wherever you are.

MQA is more efficient: it puts the full sound into the container without wasting or losing data.

Is it better than lossless? Yes, that's the sort of progress you should expect from the world-class team who developed lossless compression in the first place (30 years ago).

https://bobtalks.co.uk/blog/mqa-philosophy/what-is-mqa/#

MQA is a hierarchical method and set of specifications for recording, archiving, archive recovery and efficient distribution of high-quality audio. Devised by long-term collaborators Bob Stuart and Peter Craven, it has been developed by MQA Ltd.

One axiom is that, in audio, High Resolution can be more accurately defined in the analogue domain in terms of temporal fine structure and lack of modulation noise than by a description in the digital domain, particularly if that description relies on sample rate or bit depth numbers.

Another observation is that, by not going back to first principles, the recent trend seeking higher-resolution in digital audio has involved an unstructured and somewhat unscientific approach; a ‘dilution’ rather than resolution of problems; leading to excessive increases in data rate with resulting lack of convenience for the end user.

A postulate in MQA is that by combining the statistics of musical signals with modern methods in sampling theory and insights from human neuroscience, we can more effectively convert the analogue music to digital and back to analogue.

A key implementation point is how to bring these insights to bear on current equipment, so that distribution files can be enjoyed on existing equipment while at the same time not accepting compromises in the potential to overcome key problems in processing or in the gateways (A/D and D/A) or to innovate in the future.

Because it has a different conceptual frame of reference, MQA is a philosophy more than it is ‘just a codec’.

 

[RichB]

Because it has a different conceptual frame of reference, MQA is a philosophy more than it is ‘just a codec’.

Quite true, it is a sham, scam, flim-flam.

- Rich

 

[GoldenOne]

If mods wish to merge this thread would it be possible for me to at least edit the now original post with the proper full testing?
I can't edit it, but would like to replace the original post with this one: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...n-tidal-to-test-mqa.22549/page-11#post-748415

 

[Oukkidoukki]

Out of topic but after listening that album I just posted....all acustic musicians here...really consider walking away from the mastering part of the process....there is no need for loudness war here and equipment are so quiet now that we can easily turn up the volume without bringing noise to equation......it is much more mesmerizing that way.

 

[RichB]

If mods wish to merge this thread would it be possible for me to at least edit the now original post with the proper full testing?
I can't edit it, but would like to replace the original post with this one: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...n-tidal-to-test-mqa.22549/page-11#post-748415

I thought MQA was evil, destructive, and balderdash.
Your tests have shown that is it is worse. I am running out of adjectives.

This is why I have QOBUZ/Roon, though I wish Roon had passed on MQA and saved on royalties.

- Rich

 

[sq225917]

Re enrichment of Bob Stuart and mqa Ltd, no they've lost a 5hit tonne of money if you check company accounts.

If mqa did correct for flaws in production that would be great. But it doesn't it's just a firmware licence fee generator that costs money, robs quality and increases our hardware costs.

If it worked as advertised they'd show working examples where the digital data out the dac was compared to the pre mix.

 

[SKBubba]

Re enrichment of Bob Stuart and mqa Ltd, no they've lost a 5hit tonne of money if you check company accounts.

Exactly. Except, according to UK financial reports, BS is still drawing very nice compensation from MQA Ltd despite the losses. Subsidized by investors and debt, apparently. Seems like he is pretty good at working all the angles.

 

[Steve H]

I was going by what someone had posted earlier, but yeah it looks like Tidal fudged that number in the past. So let's say they have somewhere between 1.5-2M subs; that's still a nice chunk of change.

Maybe from an investor perspective, but consumers buy the MQA plan because they believe MQA will sound better. I highly doubt the majority of them know who Bob Stuart is.

Not enough change to pay their to pay their bills. As of 12/31/19 Current Liabilities almost equaled revenue.

Consumers buy into MQA because John Atkinson and Robert Harley promoted it and there is an unease in high end audio about not having a new format. Ken Kessler wrote about this in 2015.

In my everyday life and professional life nobody is talking about High Resolution Audio, its just audiophile marketing.

I was surprised audiophiles do know who Bob Stuart is. It must be an origin story thing.

 

[AdamG]

If mods wish to merge this thread would it be possible for me to at least edit the now original post with the proper full testing?
I can't edit it, but would like to replace the original post with this one: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...n-tidal-to-test-mqa.22549/page-11#post-748415

Done by BDWoody.

 

[cursive]

Just wanted to say thanks for all your efforts GoldenOne. I especially enjoyed the youtube video, as it was nice to be walked through the tests and reasoning. Started a free trial of Qobuz because of it, definitely tired of the worrying about MQA and unfolds, device compatibility, and settings etc, all just to get a file that's worse than standard FLAC.

 

[Grooved]

All recent 2L releases are MQA only. I don't know whether older ones have been replaced, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I can see (in Roon) that this track ("Carol of the Bells by Morten Lindberg ") is MQA on Qobuz.: https://open.qobuz.com/track/109196646
(On this record "2L — The MQA Experience (Compilation) ": https://open.qobuz.com/album/zp2decdfabinb )

Thanks, I see only MQA from 2L, with the exception of the free files of their website (they are also on Tidal and Qobuz) that have all formats.

On this track, Roon says that Qobuz version is FLAC 24/44.1 without adding MQA info

You need to launch the track to see it's an MQA file in Roon

On Qobuz app, it says "from the MQA compliation" without saying it's an MQA file, you can select 96 or 192 in the menu

But in the end, playing from Qobuz app, my MQA DAC is turning Blue, and I confirm it's the same file from Qobuz and Tidal as I recorded the song playing from both, and got the Bitperfect result in Deltawave :

There is (or at least there wasn't when I last looked) an mqa plan. There is a 320 kbps plan and a hifi plan, which is the top level. When you subscribe to hifi, you can tell the app to either give you "hifi" (lossless but seemingly not mqa) or "master" which streams /flags mqa.
Technically mqa costs no more than lossless. But you can't choose not to have the ability to use it and pay less.
Now others are suggesting the lossless but not master streams may just be mqa with the flag turned off.

I thought at one point that they could have made three offer, one AAC, one FLAC and one MQA, but now, I understand why they kept FLAC and MQA in the same offer since they are deleting FLAC files.

Regarding your last line, the problem is in Tidal app, not in Roon where you can see it's MQA. In Tidal app, it shows HiFi (when you select HiFi, because if you select Master, it will show Master as it's an MQA file). You can also see it with your DAC turning Green or Blue while it's showing HiFi on Tidal app, something that was never happening before.
And at this moment, it's not on all tracks, it's mainly in the Warner catalog.

 

[Grooved]

@Grooved I just checked. Amazon music HD IS bitperfect, but only if you manually set the DAC to the correct sample rate. And also disable volume normalisation which is enabled by default.

If you do those two things it is bitperfect though.
Annoying about the sample rate thing :/

Thanks for the confirmation, I was about to test it ;-)

 

[John Atkinson]

JA's post showing signal aliasing: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/?do=findComment&comment=980401

Thank you for posting the graphs and text of your testing. However, the link you give above is for my initial testing with Mansr's original 10kHz file, which had intersample "overs" that created the distortion I found with the Mytek Brooklyn DAC. Please replace the link with that below, in which I repeated the spectral analysis with a file Mansr created with 10kHz at -3dBFS. This didn't have intersample overs and while the spectrum revealed aliased products. there was no distortion other than that created by the Mytek DAC.
https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/?do=findComment&comment=980420

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[GoldenOne]

Thank you for posting the graphs and text of your testing. However, the link you give above is for my initial testing with Mansr's original 10kHz file, which had intersample "overs" that created the distortion I found with the Mytek Brooklyn DAC. Please replace the link with that below, in which I repeated the spectral analysis with a file Mansr created with 10kHz at -3dBFS. This didn't have intersample overs and while the spectrum revealed aliased products. there was no distortion other than that created by the Mytek DAC.
https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/?do=findComment&comment=980420

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

I will do that, thank you

 

[bboris77]

@Grooved I just checked. Amazon music HD IS bitperfect, but only if you manually set the DAC to the correct sample rate. And also disable volume normalisation which is enabled by default.

If you do those two things it is bitperfect though.
Annoying about the sample rate thing :/

This is great news! Thank you for confirming this as a lot of people were unsure whether Amazon Music HD would pass 16 bit 44kHz PCM source as bit perfect to your DAC if your Windows mixer settings matched that output.

Since their app appears to be able to pass a bit perfect signal, now it is just a matter of them patching it so it is independent of Windows system settings.

 

[Soniclife]

I did contact MQA prior to posting the video (and this post), but their reaction was to immediately have my tracks removed from Tidal, and to have the publisher remove all my content.

Did you sign away your rights to them when publishing your music to allow them to do this?