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

[amirm]

One of the differences, as a consumer, is that the benefits of Dolby-B and C on cassettes were instantly obvious. No blind test needed.

Blu-ray format mandated two lossless formats: Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA. There was no benefit to the consumer to have two lossless formats. There was benefit though to scratching each other's back and reducing risk of antitrust scrutiny.

Both of those formats go up to higher sample rates and bit depths. There is no blind test published that backs that value either. Yet they are part of major consumer formats.

 

[Chrispy]

I think people are completely missing what MQA is doing as a technology solution. They created a way to perceptually encode ultrasonic and > 16 bit depth in music. They could have released this as a new format by itself but instead, choose to add a bonus: to encode the new information in a, in-the-clear baseband "16 bit" format. That format is designed to be "good enough." Not lossless but good enough.

The only reason to shed a tear for 16 bit degradation is to claim that all 16 bit formats will go away and get replaced with MQA. There is zero sign of this. Indeed, we have the reverse with Quobuz, Amazon, HDTracks and a bunch of other outfits distributing non-MQA, lossless content. These companies have no motivation to adopt MQA and start paying licensing fees. None.

MQA faces severe risk with respect to only Tidal supporting them. If they go poof, so does MQA.

This is it really. Everything else is being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

Can you expand on the technology behind needing "perceptually encode ultrasonic"? I sure hopes this nonsense dies with Tidal.

 

[RichB]

Blu-ray format mandated two lossless formats: Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA. There was no benefit to the consumer to have two lossless formats. There was benefit though to scratching each other's back and reducing risk of antitrust scrutiny.

Both of those formats go up to higher sample rates and bit depths. There is no blind test published that backs that value either. Yet they are part of major consumer formats.

Both DTS and Dolby have real lossless formats can be decoded to LPCM.
The blind testing does not apply because the lossless claim is virtually undisputed.
Both have lossy formats so there is no need for deception.

Both formats can be process with via PEQ/REQ in native format or decoded to LPCM.
Dolby tried to lock Atmos to their up-mixer to squeeze out DTS and Auro3D but after a bunch of argumentative people got loud and they backed off. Audioholics sounded the alarm one but I don' recall any of the mainstream Audiophile press leading the charge.

DTS won the BD battle with better, possibly cheaper (free) tools.
Dolby is winning the 3D audio battle with Atmos, DTS was too late to the game and Dolby upped their mastering tool game.

MQA is not like either of these products because they are lossless and do not restrict playback options.
Yes, there are royalties but the customers realize the value. If you don't want 3D audio, then you just buy a 7.1 product and your not paying for them. This is not true for DAC with MQA licensing.

Concerning the future of MQA, with the backing MQA has now, things may change so I do believe that MQA is a dangerous product.
I'd rather be wrong than right, but if I am, kiss future access to full HD-Audio tracks goodbye.
On the bright side, you'll have a baseline for DAC/Amp performance going forward, 78 dB

- Rich

 

[Raindog123]

The only reason to shed a tear for 16 bit degradation is to claim that all 16 bit formats will go away and get replaced with MQA. There is zero sign of this.

Amir, I do not know when you last looked at the Tidal catalog, but your ‘zero sign of it’ is plain wrong. I am generally pretty tolerant to this stuff, but after five years of membership I did quit Master Tidal - both for the types of files they offer today and for the ’dynamics’ of them getting there. Not to mention, at some point losing access to any MQA content for weeks, because my streamer is a ‘MQA-unlicensed’ Auralic device.

 

[Chrispy]

Both DTS and Dolby have real lossless formats can be decoded to LPCM.
The blind testing does not apply because the lossless claim is virtually undisputed.
Both have lossy formats so there is no need for deception.

Both formats can be process with via PEQ/REQ in native format or decoded to LPCM.
Dolby tried to lock Atmos to their up-mixer to squeeze out DTS and Auro3D but after a bunch of argumentative people got loud and they backed off. Audioholics sounded the alarm one but I don' recall any of the mainstream Audiophile press leading the charge.

DTS won the BD battle with better, possibly cheaper (free) tools.
Dolby is winning the 3D audio battle with Atmos, DTS was too late to the game and Dolby upped their mastering tool game.

MQA is not like either of these products because they are lossless and do not restrict playback options.
Yes, there are royalties but the customers realize the value. If you don't want 3D audio, then you just buy a 7.1 product and your not paying for them. This is not true for DAC with MQA licensing.

Concerning the future of MQA, with the backing MQA has now, things may change so I do not believe that MQA is not a dangerous product.
I'd rather be wrong than right, but if I am, kiss future access to full HD-Audio tracks goodbye.
On the bright side, you'll have a baseline for DAC/Amp performance going forward, 78 dB

- Rich

Then again in avrs/prepros there are sound modes labeled with names of codecs that confuse people as to what format they're listening to.....

 

[JEntwistle]

One of the differences, as a consumer, is that the benefits of Dolby-B and C on cassettes were instantly obvious. No blind test needed.

The same example I was thinking of.

Blu-ray format mandated two lossless formats: Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA. There was no benefit to the consumer to have two lossless formats. There was benefit though to scratching each other's back and reducing risk of antitrust scrutiny.

Both of those formats go up to higher sample rates and bit depths. There is no blind test published that backs that value either. Yet they are part of major consumer formats.

Be this as it may, the argument I would make (and that I think PierreV is making) is that with Dolby B and C I knew what I was getting in the product. I could hear the reduction in tape hiss, and I could decide whether to record my cassette tapes using Dolby or not (spoiler alert: yes, tape hiss outweighed other factors when I was kid).

With MQA, I have no idea what the difference is. I am told "trust us, it's better." But I don't know how to verify that I am getting "better".

 

[tmtomh]

You're correct that others share your misunderstanding, typified by your earlier comment that "it's even more deeply insulting and disrespectful to respond in turn with something to the effect of, 'I did not say 13 bits is enough; I only noted that in a recording like the one I mentioned in my comment, 12-13 bits was sufficient in the spectrum below 2kHz.'"

I don't understand why it is insulting to offer further clarification. But even if you feel insulted, here goes:

The 24-bit recording of room tone had a spectrum that had an amplitude close to the 13-bit level in the very low bass. However, the specturm sloped down as the frequency increased and In the treble the amplitude of the noise was closer to the 18-bit level. That does not mean, as you falsely claim me as saying, that "MQA-style encoding doesn't impact the resolution of the recording because 'real world' recordings don't need more than 12-13 bits to fully capture them." I haven't made any comment on MQA.

The music recordings I made in the church where I recorded the room tone peaked just below 0dBFS. As it is not possible to record the music without the analog noise, and not feasible to record frequency bands individually, a recording of that music will need to be made with a resolution of at least 18 bits, if information is not to be lost.

18 bits, not 13 bits.

And as I explained, the spectra statistics of the analog noise floor allow a hidden data channel to be inserted in that analog noise floor. And as long as the spectrum of the data embedded in that channel is encrypted as pseudo-random noise, has the same spectral statistics as the noise floor in the recording, and has an amplitude sufficiently below the noise floor at all frequencies, there will be no loss of bits/information/resolution.

Noise is noise.



I look forward to you doing so.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

Thank you for the explanation. I will happily acknowledge that, as you say above, I misunderstood your prior comment to be saying 12-13 bits were needed from 2kHz downward, when instead you were saying the recording would require 18 bits, allowing a hidden data channel to be inserted in the remaining bits of a 24-bit recording.

It is important to note, however, that the scenario you outline applies only to a data channel that is inserted exclusively in the least significant bits, and which does so only from the 19th bit downward. An encoding scheme that uses more than the 6 least significant bits, or that encodes some of its content in the 14th-16th bits, will not preserve the integrity of the original recording.

This is why your example is not instructive when it comes to MQA. You can say, again, that you weren’t talking about MQA, but as this is an MQA thread, it is appropriate to assess the applicability and relevance of your point relative to MQA. At best your hypothetical scenario does not apply. At worst it’s misleading because it does not address the crucial scenario where the “3 bits” are in the 14th-16th rather than the 22nd-24th.

So you jumped in to say the “3 bits” objection was mistaken, but you’ve provided no such evidence that it is in fact mistaken when it comes to MQA. Noise is noise, indeed.

 

[GoldenOne]

What do you mean by "here?" Me? And why do you think the anti-MQA camp doesn't have paid shills? A manufacturer that doesn't want to implement MQA is surely motivated commercially.

So it is absolutely clear: I, nor anyone in my moderation team has any commercial relationship with any company, MQA or not. There are some things worth defending that has nothing to do with money.

Sorry, by 'here' I meant the mqa situation, it wasn't anything regarding ASR.

 

[GoldenOne]

Amir, I do not know when you last looked at the Tidal catalog, but your ‘zero sign of it’ is plain wrong. I am generally pretty tolerant to this stuff, but after five years of membership I did quit Master Tidal - both for the types of files they offer today and for the ’dynamics’ of them getting there. Not to mention, at some point losing access to any MQA content for weeks, because my streamer is a ‘MQA-unlicensed’ Auralic device.

This.
Part of the post/video discusses the fact that on tidal for example. For tracks marked 'master' you cannot access the lossless version anymore.

'master' serves the mqa file and unfolds if decoder is enabled.

'hifi' just serves the mqa file but with flagging removed so it is not recognised by the dac as mqa.

I have no idea if this week's 'hifi plus' change has addressed this but I'll check tomorrow.



Also, mqa is losing £4-8 million per year depending on which year you look at. They certainly aren't planning on continuing that. They plan to grow and become as prevalent as possible.

 

[ebslo]

What do you mean by "here?" Me? And why do you think the anti-MQA camp doesn't have paid shills? A manufacturer that doesn't want to implement MQA is surely motivated commercially.

So it is absolutely clear: I, nor anyone in my moderation team has any commercial relationship with any company, MQA or not. There are some things worth defending that has nothing to do with money.

I did not interpret post #1595 that way at all, especially given @GoldenOne 's demeanor throughout this thread. I understand some sensitivity to this as you have been the target of such accusations multiple times in the past, yet I am befuddled how one with such sensitivities can be so quick to accuse.

Regardless, could you please clarify your last sentence? Are you implying that MQA is one of those things worth defending, or do you remain neutral as you have previously stated?

 

[gatucho]

I think people are completely missing what MQA is doing as a technology solution. They created a way to perceptually encode ultrasonic and > 16 bit depth in music. They could have released this as a new format by itself but instead, choose to add a bonus: to encode the new information in a, in-the-clear baseband "16 bit" format. That format is designed to be "good enough." Not lossless but good enough.

The only reason to shed a tear for 16 bit degradation is to claim that all 16 bit formats will go away and get replaced with MQA. There is zero sign of this. Indeed, we have the reverse with Quobuz, Amazon, HDTracks and a bunch of other outfits distributing non-MQA, lossless content. These companies have no motivation to adopt MQA and start paying licensing fees. None.

MQA faces severe risk with respect to only Tidal supporting them. If they go poof, so does MQA.

This is it really. Everything else is being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

Then, at least Tidal has a great interest in pushing the MQA wagon, as they are indeed doing by arguably misleading advertising.
The fact that MQA is getting pummeled is just because it's shortcomings. Even shills cannot pump such a negative sentiment without something real to hold onto.
I indeed fear for Tidal, since they are latching to MQA, not caring that MQA is a hollow tree. I see no reason to defend MQA other than it being a rather clever use of signal processing, alas.. without value for many users.

 

[gatucho]

The same example I was thinking of.



Be this as it may, the argument I would make (and that I think PierreV is making) is that with Dolby B and C I knew what I was getting in the product. I could hear the reduction in tape hiss, and I could decide whether to record my cassette tapes using Dolby or not (spoiler alert: yes, tape hiss outweighed other factors when I was kid).

With MQA, I have no idea what the difference is. I am told "trust us, it's better." But I don't know how to verify that I am getting "better".

Want to enjoy MQA?

Easy, just focus on "hearing" all that nice added ultrasonic details (you will scream: "OMG I didn't hear THAT kind of detail before!") and all that added "organic grain" in quiet passages (nothing screams more of digital that that artificial over 79dB SNR).

 

[PO3c]

I think people are completely missing what MQA is doing as a technology solution. They created a way to perceptually encode ultrasonic and > 16 bit depth in music. They could have released this as a new format by itself but instead, choose to add a bonus: to encode the new information in a, in-the-clear baseband "16 bit" format. That format is designed to be "good enough." Not lossless but good enough.

The only reason to shed a tear for 16 bit degradation is to claim that all 16 bit formats will go away and get replaced with MQA. There is zero sign of this. Indeed, we have the reverse with Quobuz, Amazon, HDTracks and a bunch of other outfits distributing non-MQA, lossless content. These companies have no motivation to adopt MQA and start paying licensing fees. None.

MQA faces severe risk with respect to only Tidal supporting them. If they go poof, so does MQA.

This is it really. Everything else is being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

Qobuz already streams what their provided from record labels. So will others when labels only provide MQA in FLAC containers for 16b playback.

 

[Grumple]

Blu-ray format mandated two lossless formats: Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA. There was no benefit to the consumer to have two lossless formats. There was benefit though to scratching each other's back and reducing risk of antitrust scrutiny.

Both of those formats go up to higher sample rates and bit depths. There is no blind test published that backs that value either. Yet they are part of major consumer formats.

If MQA had named their business, Lossy but Clever Codec then fine. They could have demonstrated the niche benefit and that would have been the end of it. But they didn't, they chose a deliberately misleading name and they set out to take people's money through deception. Unacceptable.

 

[Jimbob54]

There may be one other explanation. Maybe, just maybe Mr JA is under NDA. He seems to know a lot but stops just before spilling the beans, teasing readers and leaving them wanting for more. I don't know how often that comes about in his position but if i were a mfg with what i consider to be proprietary design or information (and that info was needed to explain more about my product to a prominent reviewer) an NDA would be one of the first things i would put in place.

Not a lawyer and dont play one on TV but my interpretation is Mr A knows a lot more than he is or can say. If so, you sort of have to give him a get out of jail free card, no?

In which case posting on this here wasn't a very smart move. So I doubt it.

 

[PO3c]

Amir, I do not know when you last looked at the Tidal catalog, but your ‘zero sign of it’ is plain wrong. I am generally pretty tolerant to this stuff, but after five years of membership I did quit Master Tidal - both for the types of files they offer today and for the ’dynamics’ of them getting there. Not to mention, at some point losing access to any MQA content for weeks, because my streamer is a ‘MQA-unlicensed’ Auralic device.

Agree. Qobuz have MQA not even labeled as so. I'll not be surprised if other streaming services have similar infections. Warner and 2L are the usual suspect to watch out for.

 

[guenthi_r]

Agree. Qobuz have MQA not even labeled as so. I'll not be surprised if other streaming services have similar infections. Warner and 2L are the usual suspect to watch out for.

Thats the biggest problem. Maybe we need a MQA-Detector tool to be on the safe side (eg. in DACs..)

 

[sandymc]

Thats the biggest problem. Maybe we need a MQA-Detector tool to be on the safe side (eg. in DACs..)

Agreed. But it would have to detect the watermark, not just rely on tags.

 

[amirm]

Both DTS and Dolby have real lossless formats can be decoded to LPCM.
The blind testing does not apply because the lossless claim is virtually undisputed.
Both have lossy formats so there is no need for deception.

No deception? Here is what Dolby says about TrueHD:

"Most movie and TV soundtracks are recorded at 48k. Unfortunately, the 48k recording process can introduce an unnatural harshness or edginess to the sound during the conversion from analog to digital. Dolby TrueHD corrects this problem by applying higher sample rates and increased playback quality through an advanced apodizing filter. "

You buy the bolded section? How about Apodizing filter bit which is what is used in MQA? They go on to say:

"The 96k upsampling process applies higher sample rates and increased playback quality through an advanced apodizing filter that masks undesirable digital artifacts in 48k material. The upsampling takes place before Dolby TrueHD encoding."

How is this lossless if there is upsampling of the content prior to encoding?

 

[amirm]

MQA is not like either of these products because they are lossless and do not restrict playback options.

They sure as heck do. How do I play DTS or Dolby stream *without* a decoder like I can with MQA? They are totally locked down formats and have mandatory decoder or you are out of luck. With MQA, I can play the baseline format with no need for any decoder.