• 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.

Vince2

Active Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2019
Messages
109
Likes
82
Location
Kentucky
1. Thanks to this discussion it has become more obvious that if you care about transparent music listening, as close as it was originally recorded, mqa is not the way. If you just like nice music, pick anything you like.
2. If you care about keeping musicians interested in making music, consider how much a musician receives from each streamed track. (Qobuz pays them 10x as much as tidal!)
3. Support what you care about even it comes as a package and you can't pick and choose.
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,703
Location
Hampshire
The important thing to keep in mind is the potential long con. Just because MQA 1.0 doesn't have stringent DRM or cost much now, doesn't mean MQA 2.0, 3.0,...,4.3.6 won't. It has no benefit, probably degrades the original, it's proprietary, the company is secretive and bullies those trying to learn more, that's all you need to know to soundly reject it and call it out. We don't need it to get more widespread and more onerous before rejecting it.
Back when they were still trying to partner with Neil "Pono" Young, they talked openly about how the format would enable downloads locked to a specific device or user key. Without the key, playback would be allowed at a degraded quality level as set by the owner of the content, including the possibility for no unauthorised playback at all. Such features are also the topic of one of the patents filed by Bob Stuart and Peter Craven (an apt name, btw), and least some such functionality has been in the MQA decoder since the start.

Another way of looking at MQA is as a counterpart to the idiotic blank media tax the music industry has bullied many governments into imposing. If they can't stop you copying the files, the next best thing is to make you pay the rights holders in some other way. The media tax makes you pay for storing the files, even if you never touch a pirate copy. MQA makes you pay for playing the files regardless of you how acquire them.
 

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,948
Likes
2,617
Location
Massachusetts
Maybe it gives them an out just in case... if they one day dump MQA, they can replace MQA content with 'the real deal' and nothing changes on the surface with Tidal Masters

Dunno, just guessing

You see here-in lies the problem MQA is a lossy format stuffed into a lossless container.
Where is what WikiPedia says about Hi-Res audio:

High-resolution audio - Wikipedia
High-resolution audio (High-definition audio or HD audio) is a term for audio files with greater than 44.1 kHz sample rate or higher than 16-bit audio bit depth. It commonly refers to 96 or 192 kHz sample rates. However, there also exist 44.1 kHz/24-bit, 48 kHz/24-bit and 88.2 kHz/24-bit recordings that are labeled HD Audio.
I thought I have captured this now before MQA gets to editing it.

DigitalTrends:
What is Hi-Res Audio? Here's Everything You Need to Know | Digital Trends
Now here’s the important part: The bit depth and sampling rate of CD-quality audio is 16-bit (bit-depth) /44.1kHz (sampling rate). Hi-res audio, on the other hand, uses a minimum bit-depth of 24-bits and a minimum sampling rate of 48kHz — the next steps above CD resolution, though many files offer much higher sampling rates. Combined, a higher sampling rate with a higher bit-depth should result in more detail, subtlety, and nuance in music and an expanded frequency range (deeper bass, higher treble). In theory, all this translates into music that sounds more realistic, deep, and rich.

MQA may be down-sampled to 44.1kHz, so not HD. That's the sample rate of the file. MQA argues they saved the lossy bits and put them back, mostly anyway.
There is no universe where MQA is 24-bit depth. In fact, it reduces bit depth, so again, not HD-Audio.

The HD-Audio definition by publishers gets a bit squishy focusing on the source and finding way to make analog HD-Audio.
Obviously, not wanting to admin that many masters are not HD-Audio but sell them that way. These folks have common cause with MQA.

By the original definition MQA is not HD-Audio and I don't see Hi-Res logo on their offering.

QOBUZ on the other had this add when I searched:


I don't think we will see MQA suing QOBOZ over this demonstrably provable statement.
There can be many pitfalls to discovery. ;)

- Rich
 

KeithPhantom

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 8, 2020
Messages
642
Likes
658
Lossless is important for me, it not for the reason many normally cite. I don’t stream lossless because high frequency content or more “resolution”. The problem with the type of music I listen is that is made by people without formal training in audio engineering, mixing, or mastering (even the largest releases are mastered by someone else that truly knows how to do it [usually foreigner], while the mixing engineer is one of the artist’s friends). They even mix using mp3 transcoded to WAVs by the DAW for what I have heard from people in my country. So yes, many times the master is a mp3 file, and don’t even think they know the difference between 320 and 192 kbps, because they usually the preset of the DAW, and yes, it’s something lower than 320. So yes, many times when the master gets to the streaming service, they provide a FLAC transcoded from mp3. I analyzed a few of the resulting files, and they have no content above 16 kHz and you can even find encoding artifacts due to the quality of the encoder or how many times is has been transcoded from the time it was mixed to delivery.

Another issue is that in my country they sell these CDs that have about 100 songs. Do you think they use WAVs for encoding 100 songs? Hell no, they encode everything in mp3 so they can fit a bunch of songs in the disc. These recompilations of music usually also make it to streaming services, and you guessed right, they take he mp3 master, reduce the file size for the compilation, and when they provide this music to the streaming service, if it is lossy, you get even more transcoding. At least a lossless streaming service assures me that it was not transcoded from the master they get, and one stage of transcoding less to deal with.
 

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,948
Likes
2,617
Location
Massachusetts
Lossless is important for me, it not for the reason many normally cite. I don’t stream lossless because high frequency content or more “resolution”. The problem with the type of music I listen is that is made by people without formal training in audio engineering, mixing, or mastering (even the largest releases are mastered by someone else that truly knows how to do it [usually foreigner], while the mixing engineer is one of the artist’s friends). They even mix using mp3 transcoded to WAVs by the DAW for what I have heard from people in my country. So yes, many times the master is a mp3 file, and don’t even think they know the difference between 320 and 192 kbps, because they usually the preset of the DAW, and yes, it’s something lower than 320. So yes, many times when the master gets to the streaming service, they provide a FLAC transcoded from mp3. I analyzed a few of the resulting files, and they have no content above 16 kHz and you can even find encoding artifacts due to the quality of the encoder or how many times is has been transcoded from the time it was mixed to delivery.

Another issue is that in my country they sell these CDs that have about 100 songs. Do you think they use WAVs for encoding 100 songs? Hell no, they encode everything in mp3 so they can fit a bunch of songs in the disc. These recompilations of music usually also make it to streaming services, and you guessed right, they take he mp3 master, reduce the file size for the compilation, and when they provide this music to the streaming service, if it is lossy, you get even more transcoding. At least a lossless streaming service assures me that it was not transcoded from the master they get, and one stage of transcoding less to deal with.

Some of these recording artists and mixers did not intend to lose information. Rest assured, MQA can correct their mistakes and restore the true master (their hearts desire) lying dormant in those lossless files.

- RIch
 

Music1969

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
4,669
Likes
2,845
You see here-in lies the problem MQA is a lossy format stuffed into a lossless container.
Where is what WikiPedia says about Hi-Res audio:

Yes but Tidal don't call it Tidal Hi-Res, they call it Tidal Masters.

Anyway this was just a guess on my part why "MQA" doesn't really appear anywhere in the Tidal app itself.

Maybe just for future flexibility, in case Tidal Masters means something else one day, 'under the hood'. But on the surface (in the app) it remains Tidal Masters.

Who knows how things will play out.
 

KeithPhantom

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 8, 2020
Messages
642
Likes
658
Some of these recording artists and mixers did not intend to lose information. Rest assured, MQA can correct their mistakes and restore the true master (their hearts desire) lying dormant in those lossless files.

- RIch
Yeah, when they still using analog chains in their studios....maybe in 50 years when their gear doesn’t have more fixing and have to buy replacements.

PS: that was a good one.
 

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,948
Likes
2,617
Location
Massachusetts
Yes but Tidal don't call it Tidal Hi-Res, they call it Tidal Masters.

Anyway this was just a guess on my part why "MQA" doesn't really appear anywhere in the Tidal app itself.

Maybe just for future flexibility, in case Tidal Masters means something else one day, 'under the hood'. But on the surface (in the app) it remains Tidal Masters.

Who knows how things will play out.

They call it Tidal Masters precisely because they cannot get away with calling it Hi-Res Audio.
I appreciate your optimism though.


- Rich
 

Music1969

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
4,669
Likes
2,845
They call it Tidal Masters precisely because they cannot get away with calling it Hi-Res Audio.
I appreciate your optimism though.

I would have guessed MQA Ltd would prefer MQA be everywhere in the Tidal app instead. Not even 'hi-res' but their logo and name.

Like in Roon and Audirvana apps

Who knows tho
 

EB1000

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2020
Messages
484
Likes
579
Location
Israel
This is truly driven. I loved the part where MQA circuits are used, those are different circuits or processing. I looked in my computer that runs Roon and could not find the dedicated circuits.

I believe his ears because he puts an oscilloscope in frame. :p

- Rich
John Darko did the same. I've posted the link in the comments of his last video. 20 minutes later, it was deleted...
 

Rusty Shackleford

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
255
Likes
550
Back when they were still trying to partner with Neil "Pono" Young, they talked openly about how the format would enable downloads locked to a specific device or user key. Without the key, playback would be allowed at a degraded quality level as set by the owner of the content, including the possibility for no unauthorised playback at all. Such features are also the topic of one of the patents filed by Bob Stuart and Peter Craven (an apt name, btw), and least some such functionality has been in the MQA decoder since the start.

Another way of looking at MQA is as a counterpart to the idiotic blank media tax the music industry has bullied many governments into imposing. If they can't stop you copying the files, the next best thing is to make you pay the rights holders in some other way. The media tax makes you pay for storing the files, even if you never touch a pirate copy. MQA makes you pay for playing the files regardless of you how acquire them.


It may be of interest, but I had a conversation with someone who shared a little insight.

Im not 100% sure how much of this is already known.

But, Bob Stuart apparently created a new format originally for what was the Ponoplayer.
After it became apparent that the format would be somewhat locked down/proprietary, Neil Young basically told Bob to shove it.

Bob then later began marketing it standalone as MQA.

Additionally, and I'm intentionally leaving details out for now until a few things are confirmed but, it might actually be the case that MQA doesn't have the full intellectual property rights to their product and the way they are currently operating may not be legal.
GPL is an interesting area....

Yes, this was all discussed in Neil et al.’s To Feel the Music:

“Stuart had been attending our monthly development meetings at Neil’s ranch as the team’s audio expert. But as we progressed with the development of the player, it was Gallatin who designed the player’s electronics, while Stuart provided suggestions and comments along the way. Stuart’s main contribution was to be his software.

In these meetings Stuart would describe his software in general terms with little specificity. He explained it as something very complex that involved encoding and decoding using both software and hardware. But he was always reluctant to provide specific details about when we’d see it.

I could sense that Neil was becoming frustrated and impatient, because that software was critical to completing and testing the player. It was not only Neil; the entire development team had begun to wonder whether we’d ever see anything. It made us all very nervous.”

To signify that a file was authentic, Bob Stuart came up with the idea to put a blue light on the Pono player that would go on when a Pono recording was being played, letting the user know that the recording was Pono: the highest resolution, a pure, unaltered file.”

“Finally, in our November monthly meeting, Stuart said he was ready to discuss the terms for Pono using the software. Hamm flew to the UK to meet with him and the investors in Meridian: the Richemont Group, a Switzerland-based company that owns a number of European luxury fashion brands.

The terms they proposed to Hamm included monthly payments, royalties for each player sold, more stock, and no exclusivity. The terms were much more onerous than Pono could afford and made no business sense based on normal industry standards. Not only would the software not be exclusive to Pono, but it also restricted what Pono could do with it. For example, if Pono was sold or licensed its player to be built or sold by another company, then his technology could not be included.

During these negotiations, Hamm explained our economics and tried to negotiate a more favorable arrangement. Discussions and negotiations continued for several months and included Hamm, Elliot, Neil, Cohen, and Stuart and his investors, but they never were able to come to an agreement.

When I interviewed Stuart for this book, he thought that Pono management had been unreasonable by not accepting his terms, because of the value his software would provide. Stuart felt its value was much greater than what Pono believed it to be. Stuart’s software eventually became the basis for a proprietary compression technology called MQA.

Charley dismissed Stuart’s technology as solving a problem that didn’t exist and therefore no longer needed solving. We had no reason to shrink the files at all, since memory and file size were not the issues they had been years earlier. Like Neil, he was opposed to a new proprietary music format that added new restrictions to the music files and was controlled by for-profit companies.”

“Bob Stuart contacted our lawyer, Rick Cohen, and said we were disclosing confidential information on our Kickstarter website. He was referring to an image of the inside of the Pono player that showed the prototype circuit board, including the programmable memory chip that was to store his software—the software that hadn’t arrived.

I thought his complaint was unfounded because there was nothing that was proprietary in the image that would indicate anything related to his technology, and nothing that he designed. In fact, his backing out of our arrangement required us to design around the chip in order to get our early prototypes to work. The chips simply just sat on the boards unused.”
 

Sineira

New Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
2
Likes
0
MQA in Broadcast | Bob Talks ... and tails wag :)

In all areas of sound, the key benefits of MQA include:



Clearly mostly false, since multi-track recordings may not be using the same encoding.
Encoded audio files are always decoded by matching decoding.
MQA attempts to make proprietary currently open HD-Audio formats.


I'd hate to fill my landfills with wasted data. There are cases where 44.1/16 have been MQA encoded creating wrong-sized data.


This is a key feature? I am not sure this is even a coherent statement.
What the hell is "last mile" technology?


Neil Young does not agree. He demanded that Tidal remove his work precisely because they had altered his masters.


This little blue light indicated that up to 70% of the file is intact.
I have downloaded numerous tracks from HDTracks, no bits are missing or altered.

- Rich

Answers like this makes me wonder why the obnoxiousness of some people?
The acolytes praying at the temple of lossless are sad.

If something you can't hear is modified how do you then hear it and what did you lose? I mean, lol.
 

Katji

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
2,990
Likes
2,273
Lossless is important for me, it not for the reason many normally cite. I don’t stream lossless because high frequency content or more “resolution”. The problem with the type of music I listen is that is made by people without formal training in audio engineering, mixing, or mastering (even the largest releases are mastered by someone else that truly knows how to do it [usually foreigner], while the mixing engineer is one of the artist’s friends). They even mix using mp3 transcoded to WAVs by the DAW for what I have heard from people in my country. So yes, many times the master is a mp3 file, and don’t even think they know the difference between 320 and 192 kbps, because they usually the preset of the DAW, and yes, it’s something lower than 320. So yes, many times when the master gets to the streaming service, they provide a FLAC transcoded from mp3. I analyzed a few of the resulting files, and they have no content above 16 kHz and you can even find encoding artifacts due to the quality of the encoder or how many times is has been transcoded from the time it was mixed to delivery.

Another issue is that in my country they sell these CDs that have about 100 songs. Do you think they use WAVs for encoding 100 songs? Hell no, they encode everything in mp3 so they can fit a bunch of songs in the disc. These recompilations of music usually also make it to streaming services, and you guessed right, they take he mp3 master, reduce the file size for the compilation, and when they provide this music to the streaming service, if it is lossy, you get even more transcoding. At least a lossless streaming service assures me that it was not transcoded from the master they get, and one stage of transcoding less to deal with.

Understood. Pretty much the same as me - Soundcloud only, probably 99% of the time now. Because of the music I listen to. When they enable downloads, you get to see what they uploaded in the first place and it's usually MP3, usually 320 Kbps but sometimes lower. And then SC makes it 128. Although that almost all mixes nowadays - maybe if I downloaded single tracks more often, I would find more WAVs and Flacs.
And many of the 320 Kbps files they upload are obviously "converted" from lower bitrate files. :facepalm: ...DJ/producers... :rolleyes:
...Whichever country it is you're in, that sounds like here. But the uploading MP3 to Soundcloud and "converting" to 320, that's global.
 

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,948
Likes
2,617
Location
Massachusetts
Answers like this makes me wonder why the obnoxiousness of some people?
The acolytes praying at the temple of lossless are sad.

If something you can't hear is modified how do you then hear it and what did you lose? I mean, lol.

Welcome.

Other than the superiority of lossy encoding to preserve the inaudible, which of MQA claims do you support and do you have evidence supporting them?

- Rich
 

Katji

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
2,990
Likes
2,273
^^I'm amazed at the patience of some people here.
 

guenthi_r

Active Member
Joined
May 8, 2019
Messages
130
Likes
103
Location
Europe/Austria
Maybe someone can answer my question:
Is unfolded MQA´s high frequency hump dangerous for tweeters, amps or human ears?

BLUE = original 88.2 khz
WHITE = Unfolded MQA 88.2 khz
mess.jpg
 

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,948
Likes
2,617
Location
Massachusetts
^^I'm amazed at the patience of some people here.

I am a terrible person, conceded. :p
Now, which of MQA claims do you support and do you have evidence supporting their veracity?

- Rich
 

Katji

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
2,990
Likes
2,273
:D No, wrong way around. I meant your patience.
And...MQA - and Spotify too - my feeling is that it comes close to what I would call "my AK47 threshold."
 

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,496
Answers like this makes me wonder why the obnoxiousness of some people?
The acolytes praying at the temple of lossless are sad.

If something you can't hear is modified how do you then hear it and what did you lose? I mean, lol.

Oh thats simple. Lossy exists for the sole purpose of mitigating storage requirements and bandwidth. Barring limits to this (which is the actual case for most music consumption today, with respect to most people not having too much issue with either streaming or storing lossless files) there is no appreciably sane reason to care about lossy formats at all given the two aforementioned caveats.

Where MQA blunders is, unlike codecs for lossy compression we have access to, you dont get to use such encoder to reduce your filessize if you need more compact or bandwidth friendly music delivery or storage. But EVEN IF they gave us the encoder to do so, when you compare lossless to MQA, it fails in its primary purpose of a lossy encoder in the first place by not being any smaller in filesize compared to most FLACs anyway.

You would have to be an idiot to want a lossy format practically speaking if the lossless has similar filesize properties. Unlike FLAC where you can encode the file to some extremely smaller filesize by MusePack or Opus, and incur a single lossy penalty. By converting an MQA file, you incur always another extra lossy penalty since you're starting from lossy.

This is one of the primary reasons MQA fails. Its only compounded by the fact they cant deliver on their fantastical claims about "Original, Authentic, Masters", which would actually be kinda cool if they could.

So even without mentioning how MQA compares sonically or its actual content from a spectral point of view. The format itself literally doesnt make sense to use even if you had access to the encoder if you already have access to the lossless version.

Thats why people like lossless.
 

Sineira

New Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
2
Likes
0
You already paid the high tier for Tidal to include MQA access even though you didn't have it? Roon isn't free either. The bullshit for me lies in it's basic no need to exist category.

Roon is an add-on software player not necessary to play MQA files and it also plays any other file just fine. How on earth is paying for Roon paying for MQA?

Tidal Hi-Fi tier is not just for MQA.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom