• 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.

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,390
Location
Seattle Area
Concerning the future of MQA, with the backing MQA has now, things may change so I do believe that MQA is a dangerous product.
The dangerous products have come and gone and you seem to be OK with them such as Blu-ray format. Do you know a legal method to copy one? I know how to do that with MQA. Do you know how to play them without a bunch of proprietary technology with high licensing fees? I assure you MQA costs a fraction of these. So let's not be a part-time vegetarian. You have let the biggest dogs out of the gate and are worrying about the little ones...
 

PO3c

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2021
Messages
67
Likes
123
Thats the biggest problem. Maybe we need a MQA-Detector tool to be on the safe side (eg. in DACs..)
Yeah, but will rather prefer the streaming service let us filter MQA encoded content with the low cost MP3/Ogg plan. Tidal finaly seem to undertsand they are now actually streaming lossy and have adjusting price to reflect this in some markeds.
 

bambadoo

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
67
Likes
96
Probably old news but.....
Regarding people stating that MQA is offered for free through Tidal (that the price was not increased). It seems Tidal is making a move towards Spotify lossless plan.

https://support.tidal.com/hc/en-au/...jgn3v_oHH2PiUl9_RQcNmVN8NEPux9YKIui9uFcOQ35F8


So a 33% increase in price if you want MQA compared to 16(13-15)/44.1... Still free?
 

sandymc

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2021
Messages
98
Likes
230
Probably old news but.....
Regarding people stating that MQA is offered for free through Tidal (that the price was not increased). It seems Tidal is making a move towards Spotify lossless plan.

https://support.tidal.com/hc/en-au/...jgn3v_oHH2PiUl9_RQcNmVN8NEPux9YKIui9uFcOQ35F8



So a 33% increase in price if you want MQA compared to 16(13-15)/44.1... Still free?

It's going to be very interesting to find out what Tidal's policy is with the HIFI tier - MQA encoded (aka not really 16 bit), or straight up CD quality. My bet is mostly MQA infected tracks. But I would also bet that Tidal will never come out and say what they intend.
 

Grumple

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
89
Likes
152
Location
Shropshire, UK
The dangerous products have come and gone and you seem to be OK with them such as Blu-ray format. Do you know a legal method to copy one? I know how to do that with MQA. Do you know how to play them without a bunch of proprietary technology with high licensing fees? I assure you MQA costs a fraction of these. So let's not be a part-time vegetarian. You have let the biggest dogs out of the gate and are worrying about the little ones...
This is not a logical reasoning. The just of this argument seems to be, You didn't ever complain about X so you have no right to complain about Y.

So much for learning from the past and trying to avoid previous mistakes.
 

Vladimir Filevski

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
550
Likes
712
Your are a nice person, but I would not let Mr Atkinson escape with his credentials so easy.
Unfortunately, its more of the same snake-oil, if you scratch the surface: bachelor degree... full AES membership is anyone’s for only $115/year, IEEE membership - $104/year, ‘former NARAS member’ - all one need is two artists for buddies and a couple of articles in those ‘highly engineering’ Stereophile pages... Totally petty, I know, but that‘s what it is, and Mr. Atkinson started it. (I have zero affiliation with audio industry and my audio credentials are more impressive. So total sham - bringing such credentials as an argument for in-depth technical discussion.)
To clarify, I am/was not calling Mr Atkinson a sham. I do not know Mr Atkinson, so he might be a fine, genuine person. I leave it up to readers to decide.
What I was solely rebutting is that an AES, IEEE, etc. memberships - that Mr Atkins happened to bring to the discussion - are hardly a "hard earned credential". I apologize for the confusion, and clarified it (while standing behind my position).
Associate member of the IEEE but to avoid any confusion on this issue, I am a full member of the AES, not an associate member.
And as I wrote, I am not "arguing by credential." I was responding to a poster's misleading implication that I don't have any audio engineering credentials.
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
Mr. Atkinson is too modest here - actually he is the author of AES paper (which is not a small feat, believe me):
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=7171
Also, he presented the AES Richard C. Heyser Lecture (an honor given to a very few):
https://www.aes.org/press/?ID=128
 

PO3c

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2021
Messages
67
Likes
123
The dangerous products have come and gone and you seem to be OK with them such as Blu-ray format. Do you know a legal method to copy one? I know how to do that with MQA. Do you know how to play them without a bunch of proprietary technology with high licensing fees? I assure you MQA costs a fraction of these. So let's not be a part-time vegetarian. You have let the biggest dogs out of the gate and are worrying about the little ones...
Whats the point of you measuring and comparing DAC's. I follow your recommendation, then I pay Qobuzfor for Hi-res content and are served a FLAC file under false premises with degraded MQA content? This is happening right now and you will not take part in flagging this as a problem but rather list a number of historical moments that at some time met its maker course better technology made waves.

Whats the point of a -144dB DAC when the media add +6dB noise to the original recording? Whats the point of your work then? Please take part in a solution to stop spreading this degradation of music media.
 
Last edited:

sandymc

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2021
Messages
98
Likes
230
The dangerous products have come and gone and you seem to be OK with them such as Blu-ray format. Do you know a legal method to copy one? I know how to do that with MQA. Do you know how to play them without a bunch of proprietary technology with high licensing fees? I assure you MQA costs a fraction of these. So let's not be a part-time vegetarian. You have let the biggest dogs out of the gate and are worrying about the little ones...

Yes, but the practical question for users is really whether to support MQA by (a) subscribing to services like Tidal that use MQA, and (b) buying MQA capable DACs. The only thing we can do is vote with our feet to the extent possible.
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,226
Likes
17,805
Location
Netherlands
My speculation: They may use that empty space to allow a set of special soft-slope filters (perhaps some kind of bezier or adaptive type) in order to reach the now higher Nyquist fr (48Khz or 96Khz) in a much softer way, so as not to shift phases of high frequency content and also completely avoiding aliasing.

Here we go again... Again with the bezier filtering... So again: those filters are not phase-linear and do not avoid aliasing. If you think they do, please bring some proof!

While, say, 300-400db/octave antialiasing filter could be required in Redbook (which I understand is nearly impossible and so, some degree of aliasing must be allowed in Redbook)

At least they are almost free from aliasing and do not distort phase as those are (for the most part) phase linear. You cannot have soft slope filters without aliasing!

It's almost like us standing in front of a red car, and you keep telling us it's blue! One of us is colourblind for sure ;)


Yes, they surely do say a lot!

1- square waves, high amplitude white noise, and presumably big amplitude impulse tones completely outside the maximum amplitudes of the music the system is programmed for, as all of them contain upper octaves and ultrasonic in high amplitudes. MQA is not intended to register high amplitude in ultrasonics, because there is NO MUSIC with that profile, and because that space is better used for custom filters fixing time domain issues. If you understand what MQA does (and if both accomplished amateurs are in fact accomplished, they knew it BEFORE doing those tests), you don't need a test to know a square wave will not perform OK.

This is pure conjecture. In reality, we have no idea what exact compression scheme is used. In the paper I linked earlier they actually concluded that MQA has very little issue with high amplitude signals in the HF part.

the system is intended to be lossless compared with analog input; but to fix the flaws of that input (by correcting time domain issues) if instead that input is digital.

This is probably the very most bullshit claim of them all. Until now there has not been a shred of evidence to support this. Do you have any?

I'm pretty sure the people that say it doesn't haven't tried, at least in long auditions and/or with MQA DAC's or properly configured. Otherwise, we won't be reading all this hate.

We haven't been discussing the audibility of the codec very much. Otherwise, we would not have somebody ask about it after almost 80 pages. The "hate" is not about how it sounds, and you know it.

But when it comes to MQA files, the switch from the Chord to the Project (with the DAC properly configured in the pc to decode by hardware, not that obvious) is instantly noticeable, even with the Chord already playing MQA unfolded by software. The sound opens up..

And now do it in a controlled double-blind test...
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,390
Location
Seattle Area
This is not a logical reasoning. The just of this argument seems to be, You didn't ever complain about X so you have no right to complain about Y.
That's not the gist of it. OP brought up Dolby:
Look at what happened with dolby. There is absolutely no room for innovation in that market because dolby has a monopoly.
I explained how the analogy was wrong and that there is alternative to Dolby. Then folks tried to defend Dolby and DTS as being better than MQA and I explained the opposite is true.

This aside, as I have explained, your position makes no sense. Either you are for ALL open formats or not. You can't be selective in wanting high-res audio open, but perfectly fine with other closed audio formats. I don't know how you rationalize it in your mind, much less say I am not making sense.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,390
Location
Seattle Area
Yes, but the practical question for users is really whether to support MQA by (a) subscribing to services like Tidal that use MQA, and (b) buying MQA capable DACs. The only thing we can do is vote with our feet to the extent possible.
That's cool.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,390
Location
Seattle Area
So a 33% increase in price if you want MQA compared to 16(13-15)/44.1... Still free?
Not if you are Australian. :) That is bad for MQA then since they no longer get to be there for every user and use that to drive hardware adoption....
 

Grumple

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
89
Likes
152
Location
Shropshire, UK
That's not the gist of it. OP brought up Dolby:

I explained how the analogy was wrong and that there is alternative to Dolby. Then folks tried to defend Dolby and DTS as being better than MQA and I explained the opposite is true.

This aside, as I have explained, your position makes no sense. Either you are for ALL open formats or not. You can't be selective in wanting high-res audio open, but perfectly fine with other closed audio formats. I don't know how you rationalize it in your mind, much less say I am not making sense.
I'm not ok with it and never suggested I was you maybe have me confused with someone else.

I'm not an expert in the matter so rely on others to provide information. In this instance the discussion is about MQA, and regardless of the technical details of theirs or others codecs, MQA are plain misleading and borderline illegal in their marketing.
 

PO3c

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2021
Messages
67
Likes
123
Probably old news but.....
Regarding people stating that MQA is offered for free through Tidal (that the price was not increased). It seems Tidal is making a move towards Spotify lossless plan.
https://support.tidal.com/hc/en-au/...jgn3v_oHH2PiUl9_RQcNmVN8NEPux9YKIui9uFcOQ35F8
So a 33% increase in price if you want MQA compared to 16(13-15)/44.1... Still free?
Notice the wording: "Master Quality audio reflects the original source".

It seems much of MQA marketing material now have been adjusted to better escape any legal scrutiny.
 
Last edited:

PierreV

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,437
Likes
4,686
I explained how the analogy was wrong and that there is alternative to Dolby. Then folks tried to defend Dolby and DTS as being better than MQA and I explained the opposite is true.
This aside, as I have explained, your position makes no sense. Either you are for ALL open formats or not. You can't be selective in wanting high-res audio open, but perfectly fine with other closed audio formats. I don't know how you rationalize it in your mind

AFAIC, it is quite simple.

I prefer open formats but will live with closed, proprietary formats if they improve my audio experience.
MQA doesn't improve my audio experience.

Most of the people in this thread aren't worried about Hi-Res audio but are worried about how MQA is used to replace completely standard and open 44.1kHz 16-bit streaming/CDs and how it demonstrably loses a significant amount of data on non-MQA devices.

There is a difference between the eco-system in which Dolby and DTS appeared and the eco-system in which MQA finds itself now. Dolby and DTS brought the benefit of standardization in a new, developing, field. MQA attempts to replace existing open and fully functional existing standards.

There is a difference between

no solution -> proprietary solution

no solution -> proprietary solutions -> open solutions -> proprietary solution

or even worse

no solution -> proprietary solutions -> open solutions -> proprietary solution with underhanded replacement of previous open solutions.

Either you are for ALL open formats or not.

That has to be the weakest argument in all of this thread... "paid shills", "tools", "inability to rationalize" etc are not even arguments.

Yes, Stuart/Craven etc are clever persons and, who knows, they may have developed the best method there will ever be to fold the high-frequency content of Hi-Res files, but again...

which problem are they solving for the customer? What is the benefit?
 
D

Deleted member 13028

Guest
Somehow I find this quote by Richard Stallman appropriate:

„The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, we encourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this way, it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming it always works this way. If the runners forget why the reward is offered and become intent on winning, no matter how, they may find other strategies — such as, attacking other runners. If the runners get into a fist fight, they will all finish late.
Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runners in a fist fight.“
 

Mnyb

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
2,641
Likes
3,617
Location
Sweden, Västerås
At least both Dolby and DTS served some purpose to limit disc space and limit bitrate when reading discs , so there whas a need for an encoding technique ? and there still is a need for these encodings with blue ray ? I suppose . A blue ray is not big if also video is present so lossles packing of audio serves a purpose and is a valid business case .

There is no need to replace perfectly functional 16/44.1 files with MQA infested 16/44.1 files of the same size ? it truly is a solution in search for a problem .

Further if you can't stream 24/96 for some reason and want it smaller stream 24/48k ffs ! A good resampling to 48k will show less artifacts and problems and have even smaller file size :) so yet there is still no actual need for this .

So this is a hostile takeover meaning to force an un needed licensed encodings scheme without any real technical problem to be solved to an area of media where no such thing is needed . We already have to many audio formats even "yet another format" is a bad idea imho.

"Perceptual coding of ultrasonics" is jumping the shark btw.
 

Mnyb

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
2,641
Likes
3,617
Location
Sweden, Västerås
AFAIC, it is quite simple.

I prefer open formats but will live with closed, proprietary formats if they improve my audio experience.
MQA doesn't improve my audio experience.

Most of the people in this thread aren't worried about Hi-Res audio but are worried about how MQA is used to replace completely standard and open 44.1kHz 16-bit streaming/CDs and how it demonstrably loses a significant amount of data on non-MQA devices.

There is a difference between the eco-system in which Dolby and DTS appeared and the eco-system in which MQA finds itself now. Dolby and DTS brought the benefit of standardization in a new, developing, field. MQA attempts to replace existing open and fully functional existing standards.

There is a difference between

no solution -> proprietary solution

no solution -> proprietary solutions -> open solutions -> proprietary solution

or even worse

no solution -> proprietary solutions -> open solutions -> proprietary solution with underhanded replacement of previous open solutions.



That has to be the weakest argument in all of this thread... "paid shills", "tools", "inability to rationalize" etc are not even arguments.

Yes, Stuart/Craven etc are clever persons and, who knows, they may have developed the best method there will ever be to fold the high-frequency content of Hi-Res files, but again...

which problem are they solving for the customer? What is the benefit?

+1 you wrote it much better than me thankyou .

Yes audio has always been filed with licensed schemes like RIAA and Dolby B/C but there was a need solved by commercial entity as you described.

I would add the non benefit of "yet another format" such things forms even more information silos and fragmentation of the market .
Historically iTunes has been a wet blanket over much of the music player and music file market it dissolves nowadays but was there for a very long time .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom