• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rottmannash

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 11, 2020
Messages
2,969
Likes
2,606
Location
Nashville

Rottmannash

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 11, 2020
Messages
2,969
Likes
2,606
Location
Nashville

bidn

Active Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2019
Messages
195
Likes
821
Location
Kingdom of the Netherlands
Moby is MQA.
The problem is that the 'hifi' version is simply MQA but with MQA flagging removed. meaning any tools to check for MQA flagging will say it is not MQA. But actually it is.

Here is the deltawave comparison between the MQA version and Hifi version of Moby - Porcelain:
View attachment 125480

The audio content of the file is 100% bitperfect identical.
The only difference is the "Master" track has MQA flagging. That's it
But the hifi version is still the MQA release just disguised as regular FLAC.

The same happened with my tracks, the "HiFi" version had no MQA flagging at all and nothing would recognise it as MQA. But it was 100% bitperfect to the MQA release and was not the same as my master.

@Glasvegas @snowsurfer Tidal is serving MQA and falsely describing it as "Lossless CD Quality"

This is very interesting, GoldenOne.

From the cynical perspective of a company having no qualms about lying about their very core service (like pretending to stream lossless),
I could see several reasons to provide the same MQA files as non-MQA files :

1. They save on storage space and maintenance software

2. They can mislead their customers into believing that they still can choose between MQA and non-MQA:
= very useful in case some start loosing faith in MQA

3. (the craziest!) Would their doubting customers want to compare the MQA file to the non-MQA file, they wouldn't be hearing any difference! See you loose nothing with MQA... no reasons to have any doubts...

... a perfect plan from all perspectives...
maybe only until... you succeeded in throwing a spanner in the works... :)
 

Sir Sanders Zingmore

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
947
Likes
1,898
Location
Melbourne, Australia
the craziest!) Would their doubting customers want to compare the MQA file to the non-MQA file, they wouldn't be hearing any difference! See you loose nothing with MQA... no reasons to have any doubts...
You aren’t thinking crazy enough! As I said a few posts back, if every version is really MQA they can easily engineer a situation where the “non-MQA” version is made to sound worse.
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire
Because when they control both versions they then have the ability to hobble the non-MQA version thus “proving” the MQA version is better.

Not saying they are doing this (yet) but they could if they choose to. Then you get a situation where you need an MQA capable DAC and they get licensing fees at every step.
MQA is all about "selective availability." Even the earliest patent filings and other docs talk about enabling varying levels of quality on playback depending on whether the user has purchased a licence, either generic or for a specific file.
 

AdamG

Proving your point makes it “Science”.
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
4,636
Likes
14,918
Location
Reality

Jimbob54

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
11,066
Likes
14,697
MQA is all about "selective availability." Even the earliest patent filings and other docs talk about enabling varying levels of quality on playback depending on whether the user has purchased a licence, either generic or for a specific file.

Sounds almost like a system for managing one's rights (or collecting one's pound of flesh) from digital media.
 

Rusty Shackleford

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
255
Likes
550
No it is not. Whataboutism tries to shift topic to some other thing. Apple's conduct here is not some other thing. They have used their "format" (OS) to take away choice from you and to tax every developer for software distribution on their device unlike previous practice (on Windows, Linux, MacOS) to have none of that. This is what you claim with MQA, right? That you are not a user of high-res audio but fear that it would take over the world as far as baseline lossless audio as well. And charge everyone. Well, Apple has done that but you don't seem to want to go there. That tells me you have an emotional need to fight MQA and not any kind of principled reason to go after it.

Indeed, same thing is said about whataboutism as I explained above. From the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

"Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair. "

You fail the bolded section if you are OK with Apple, Blu-ray, Netflix, heck the entire scheme Tidal uses to for subscription business.

I think you need to read more of the Wikipedia post. It’s perfectly reasonable for audiophiles to care about poor business practices in the audio industry, but not care about it in the software industry. By the logic of whataboutism, this site shouldn’t even exist, because we should all be spending our energy curing world hunger, etc.

More importantly, I never said anything about MQA’s business practices! You are referring to a previous poster. (And, as a point of fact, I’m also opposed to the other business practices you mention. I’m sure I’m quite far to the left of almost anyone on this site when it comes to my views of large corporations.)

I responded to your statement that opposition to MQA needs to be based on “something else.” I said yes, and that something else is that it claims to be lossless and isn’t. That’s enough reason for me to oppose MQA!

This site is focused on measuring audio equipment, but there’s no point in buying transparent audio equipment if you’re feeding it lossy garbage with a leaky filter like MQA.
 

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,636
Likes
7,487
Sorry, my letter heading below is because my limitations, that alude to your paragraphs in same order:

A- Well, that's an interesting shit. Now we are discussing if capturing ultrasonic is important at all, not the "lossyness" detected in these tests. That's a step forward, and I would be very interested in the refutals. But I'm not able to talk in behalf on Meridian or MQA in this.

B- The same relevance as described in the audible band. Ultrasonic band also has noise floor that you don't need to recover; and the slice of data captured by ADC there, instead of all the noise and artifacts added by the capturing process; data that is even smaller, and so, much more compressible to "fold" it in previous bands (folds) of the origami process: the chunks of 0-48 / 48-96 (less data) / 96-192 (even less) / 192-352 (tiny) of a the DXD source. And, again, if we engage in if that information is statistically relevant we would have, at last!, moved the discussion from this nonsense of lossless to a more substantial point. Perhaps it is relevant, perhaps not: wouldn't it be more useful for us all to be diccussing about that instead of the desire of a lossnessy that is out of context in this subject?

C- "Dither a regular PCM and file and you get more DR". But the point is that Redbook doesn't do that. Meridian chooses one way to regain that wasted space. Of course creative audio engineers may find others. But, again, we are making is a step forward in the discussion: now we would not be questioning what MQA does, but instead if it does it the best way.

D- The noise floor of the incoming signal in the 0-24Khz region (and please remind that MQA is 24-bit depth, giving more headroom that even the best reproduction chain is able to resolve, among other considerations). It was just discarded and replaced like said in B above.


A - It's not either-or, discussing ultrasonic retention vs discussing lossiness. Lossiness is both the method and the consequence of MQA's encoding of ultrasonic content, and so the two issues are fundamentally linked in any discussion of MQA. The method is lossy because the "folding" must throw away ultrasonic content in order to fit it into the MQA container; and the consequence is lossy because the encoding process compromises the 2-3 least significant bits of each PCM word in the file.

But putting that aside, sure, we are talking about whether or not capturing the ultrasonics is important at all. And the evidence shows it's not. The only importance of ultrasonics for listening to high-fidelity music reproduction is keeping them out of the audible range, so they don't degrade the fidelity of the signal through aliasing and intermodulation distortion.

So I would say lossiness is more relevant and more of a concern than ultrasonic retention, and that doing the latter at the expense of the former is a bad deal - which is precisely a major line of critique of MQA, that it's trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

B - Nothing can be said to have the same relevance in the ultrasonic band as it does in the audible band unless it is first established that the ultrasonic band is relevant to audio reproduction for humans - which it is not.

C - The best way to regain lost space in PCM files is to get rid of it; hence the existence of FLAC, ALAC, and multiple other lossless codecs. I disagree that it would be a step forward in the discussion to no longer question what MQA does but rather if it does it in the best way, because that changing of the subject is based on the assumption that what MQA claims to be trying to do is something that is in fact good and necessary to do. I do not accept that assumption.

D - For compatibility reasons, MQA does not store all of its encoded ultrasonics in the least significant bits of a 24-bit PCM word. It encodes at least some of it in the least significant bits of the first 16 bits. So depending on whether or not one is listening to MQA content undecoded or decoded, a claimed 24-bit MQA source will deliver, as far as I know, a maximum of about 17 bits' worth of signal to noise, and (again as far as I know) those 17 bits aren't necessarily really 17 bits because they are not contiguous (in other words it's not simply the 7 least significant bits that are impacted in a 24-bit file).
 
Last edited:

Sir Sanders Zingmore

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
947
Likes
1,898
Location
Melbourne, Australia
MQA is all about "selective availability." Even the earliest patent filings and other docs talk about enabling varying levels of quality on playback depending on whether the user has purchased a licence, either generic or for a specific file.
Precisely, it’s been there from the start. Once they control the chain it’s end to end DRM. And if they control the chain up to the point where the only “master” that exists is MQA then everyone is held hostage.

That is my fundamental objection. I know it’s not quite the topic being discussed here but this thread has shown what seems to be quite an aggressive move to replace as much content as possible with MQA (even when it’s not labelled as MQA).
 

dorirod

Active Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
249
Likes
249
If they are able to push their way in, and get a big label to turn over their catalog to MQA, you can bet they are offering something to the labels, and it's not a higher quality of music. Most easily guessed, it's DRM, because it's always been DRM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Compact_Disc_and_DVD_copy_protection_schemes). The labels (and RIAA, aka MAFIAA) view this is a way of boiling the frog to accept DRM. For those that complain about Apple, Netflix, etc. doing the same, yes, we shouldn't accept it either, however, we have the CD (sure with protection at times, but basically a joke) and FLAC available now for audio. Their goal is to get rid of CD/FLAC and go with something with DRM only that they can control. They just have gotten stuck with the Red Book CD. They cannot do this overnight or there will be consequences. However, they can try doing it slowly. Initially you introduce MQA (or something like it) somewhere, e.g. Tidal, then you convert the "master" to only be MQA on Tidal, then you try another service, then another. Then eventually, they hope to say CD sales are miniscule, most people are only doing streaming, let's get rid of CD, and when people complain, fine, here's MQA-CD for you complainers. The fact that MQA has the cojones to bully device makers, makes me believe that they think they have some aces up their sleeves (namely label support and brainwashed masses).

So far all those saying, why are you complaining, especially if you don't even use MQA, it's because I don't like being boiled even if it's slowly. Fight them now before they get a big enough foothold, make enough noise, and hopefully MQA won't take hold like the weed it is, and they'll leave CD/FLAC alone. For those saying, this is paranoid, it would be except that they've been doing the same thing for decades now. Can't keep calling it paranoia if it keeps happening.

The dumb move they made is they made MQA worse than FLAC for no real benefit. If they'd been smart, they would have done a good implementation, just with DRM thrown in, and avoided a bunch of "flack." Some people are perfectly fine with DRM, and lower quality, etc., but many aren't. That's why we're making noise about MQA. And yes, it would be nice if Apple, Netflix, and the rest didn't try and shove DRM down our throats, but that battle is lost, doesn't mean we use that defeat as an excuse to wave the white flag on this one too. Btw, I try and avoid Apple as much as possible, Android is somewhat better in that regard. I also use Linux, not Windows personally. Most of these DRM solutions avoid Linux entirely. So most likely there would be no MQA support for Linux if it becomes widespread.

P.S. Can't wait for MQA region codes, maybe I shouldn't be giving them ideas on future features
 
Last edited:

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,946
Likes
2,611
Location
Massachusetts
Here is a video from the first MQA roundtable meeting:


Gandalf has spoken, it is all together evil.

- Rich
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,386
Location
Seattle Area
I think you need to read more of the Wikipedia post. It’s perfectly reasonable for audiophiles to care about poor business practices in the audio industry, but not care about it in the software industry.
You need to read more about audio industry. :) MP3 was not free until patents ran out. AAC was not free until patents ran out. Dolby and DTS codecs are not free. All subscription services use some content of content protection to tie content to a user.

And no, it is not perfectly reasonable. Someone has agitated people to care about this tiny thing called MQA, instead of focusing their energy on much, much larger problems in technology in their lives. It is one of the most ridiculous developments in technology.

This site is focused on measuring audio equipment, but there’s no point in buying transparent audio equipment if you’re feeding it lossy garbage with a leaky filter like MQA.
This site is focused on science and engineering in audio. Measurements are one aspect of that. That aside, your point is without merit. People consume content from many sources. I listen to Amazon music when on the road and am fine with its compression there. At home, I play a full range of content from my own CD rips to high-res downloads and Tidal content (with and without MQA).

That important point aside, leaking filter gives you no excuse to manufacture noise and distortion in the gear itself. Now, if you are into whataboutism, I can see why you brought this up but it has no merit. :; :)
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire
(The following is an unfinished narrative of the history of MQA imagined from an insider perspective.)

The story of MQA begins with Bob waking up one morning and thinking, "how can I make some money?" His hardware business, Meridian, was losing money, and his earlier foray into digital formats, MLP, had had limited success. Clearly, a new approach was needed. The labels control the music, Bob thought, and thus the flow of money. Something to tap into, but how?

What do the labels desire the most? "Control," Bob said to himself, "and that's what I'll sell them." In another word, DRM. An end to the scourge of piracy. Of course, the music-buying public had long ago rejected DRM, so something clever was needed.

DRM is based on cryptography, and besides secrecy, cryptography can also be used to verify authenticity. Discerning music lovers care about provenance, and what better assurance could there be than an authentic signature from the label itself? Bob had found his Trojan horse.

With a plan to conquer both the music labels and the consumers, one market player still remained unexploited, the hardware vendors. How could they be persuaded to contribute to Bob's fortune? The answer, he decided, was to insist that his new format be decoded only within the DAC. This would also be a further incentive for the labels in that DRM coverage would extend all the way to the analogue stage, elegantly preventing copying without losses, just like in the good old days.
 

scott wurcer

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
1,501
Likes
2,821
The answer, he decided, was to insist that his new format be decoded only within the DAC. This would also be a further incentive for the labels in that DRM coverage would extend all the way to the analogue stage, elegantly preventing copying without losses, just like in the good old days.

I'm not sure how many folks here realize that the RIAA tried decades ago to force all DAC manufacturers to hard code DRM into all their IC's.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,386
Location
Seattle Area
What do the labels desire the most? "Control," Bob said to himself, "and that's what I'll sell them." In another word, DRM. An end to the scourge of piracy. Of course, the music-buying public had long ago rejected DRM, so something clever was needed.
This is a statement from 20 years ago and is completely wrong. Labels stopped caring about control when they decided to give Steve Jobs permission to distribute MP3/AACs with no Fairplay (Apple DRM). That then led to outfits like HDTracks and their competitors to distribute even high-resolution content without copy protection. All the people in the labels that used to care about this were fired years ago (after failure of SACD/DVD-A).

You can show up to a label tomorrow and license everything they have. They will ask for an up front check, MG (minimum guarantee of royalties) and you too can have a store. There is zero stipulation as far as any control over you, or the end user.

I can't believe this myth continues to this day when the evidence of it being wrong is everywhere around it. Here is my HDTracks folder alone:

1619049183367.png


218 albums I have bought with vast majority of them high-res. No DRM. No control. No nothing.

I don't even know of an article about labels wanting to control content in the last 10+ years. Who is spreading this kind of propaganda???

As I have explained many times, the authentication is no different than Windows activation with a key. They use it to control licensing of the decoder. It has no benefit or use whatsoever to the labels since it controls nothing anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom