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

[stopbeingalentil]

There is no music content in the world that has this type of spectrum.

I think that's the pivotal point... who has the audacity to make an authoritative claim as to what is music and what isn't? Especially to the point that part of MQA's marketing is to claim it preserves those ultrasonic components that allegedly are perceptionally important. Let alone the fact that it has been shown that while you certainly can't hear ultra-sonic sound, it nevertheless can very well be perceived in different ways by different people...

That aside the issue is that MQA has the potential to audibly degrade what was an actual lossless copy of the master output. This is from (cropped at the end copy of) "Poppy"'s "Concrete" sourced in 44.1/16 from Qobuz and Tidal (where Tidal also has an MQA version of this track):

If anything I hope we can at least agree that it's problematic that there's significant differences well within the audible band between those two and not just, as claimed by MQA, in the upper frequencies it allegedly uses to encode whatever they encode

 

[Jimbob54]

Here and elsewhere I've seen many well reasoned posts to counter the points made against MQA . What I have yet to see, anywhere, is a post that supports its continued existence from a technical perspective. For the consumer.

 

[MDT]

Whose to say that the presence of these ultrasonic sounds don't influence what we can hear?

We have a 40kHz transmitter in our teaching labs. In all the years it has been used, I've never heard any difference to other sounds when the transmitter is on vs off.

 

[Raindog123]

What? I go to Tidal to get music. Instead, I would be fed very nasty sounding test tones that could damage tweeters and cause amplifiers to massively oscillate

Tidal deleting his files only because they were not a real music file is wrong, and it's a fact

Tidal has full albums of test tones 'music' (eg, “Audio Line-up Test Tones (Calibration Reference Check)”):

https://tidal.com/album/29581889

 

[Jimbob54]

Tidal has full albums of test music (eg, “Audio Line-up Test Tones (Calibration Reference Check)”):

https://tidal.com/album/29581889

Yup- I use one. Add it to your favourites and shuffle at your peril!

 

[stopbeingalentil]

We have a 40kHz transmitter in our teaching labs. In all the years it has been used, I've never heard any difference to other sounds when the transmitter is on vs off.

there's a body of research going back decades that looks at the effect of ultrasonic sound on the human body.... unfortunately studies have been far and between and typically with few subjects... however, it seems that some people can perceive ultrasonics in some circumstances - not as an auditory impression though...

 

[BDWoody]

Whose to say that the presence of these ultrasonic sounds don't influence what we can hear?

Because there is no convincing evidence yet that it does, despite lots of people who would greatly benefit from demonstrating it.

 

[blueone]

Vast majority of you are in favor of 44.1 kHz sampling because you think there is nothing useful above 22.05 kHz. It is super odd now to get religion and say that what is above 22.05 has a) a ton of amplitude and b) must be preserved.

I think using the term "the vast majority" is a bit of an exaggeration, Amir. I think there are several of us who feel that lossless 16/44.1 is very good, and we don't see any proven advantages to MQA over that format. (Personally, my wish-list format would be 24/48, which would be better for edge-case reasons, like easier to develop filters for flat to 20KHz response, probably eliminates so-called inter-sample overs, practical file size with lossless compression.) My impression is that many of us are just looking for MQA advantages to consider it a plus for consumers. We don't care how technically cool MQA is if it doesn't have practical advantages.

 

[stopbeingalentil]

Because there is no convincing evidence yet that it does, despite lots of people who would greatly benefit from demonstrating it.

as said above, there's a large body of research going back decades... maybe this is a good starting point https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10803548.2013.11076978?needAccess=true

There are several reports on studies on hearing perception of sounds with frequencies over 20kHz. According to Henry and Fast, most lis-teners in their study registered sounds with sound pressure level of 124dB and a frequency of 24kHz [17]. Ashihara, Kurakata, Mizunami, et al. obtained similar results by registering responses to tone signals with a frequency of 24kHz and sound pressure level not over 88dB [18].

admittedly most of that researched looked at detrimental health effects of exposure to high spl ultrasonic sounds - nevertheless it clearly shows that we're likely not entirely impartial to it

at any rate, also again, one of MQAs selling points is to preserve ultrasonic components by encoding them in "irrelevant" parts of the audible spectrum and sell that as a plus... that should be absurd in itself but even more so in lights of people on the one hand insisting that ultrasonic noise is inaudible and has no effect on the listener anyways and a reasearch body indicating that ultrasonic noise exposure can actually have real health ramifications

 

[Raindog123]

I was banned for a few weeks not too long ago. Though it was temporary.
I felt that the (now removed) post I was banned for was anything but uncivil.

Did not know that. So, stand corrected.
(I did not see the post in question, but following you for a while here on ASR, I do believe your civility...)

 

[stopbeingalentil]

I think using the term "the vast majority" is a bit of an exaggeration, Amir. I think there are several of us who feel that lossless 16/44.1 is very good, and we don't see any proven advantages to MQA over that format. (Personally, my wish-list format would be 24/48, which would be better for edge-case reasons, like easier to develop filters for flat to 20KHz response, probably eliminates so-called inter-sample overs, practical file size with lossless compression.) My impression is that many of us are just looking for MQA advantages to consider it a plus for consumers. We don't care how technically cool MQA is if it doesn't have practical advantages.

I mean... from a purely logical point of view it can't technically be better... if can be different and maybe favorable to some tastes but not better because it takes a lossless mastering output and changes it beyond what the mastering engineer intended, so yeah

 

[JohnYang1997]

I did clearly mention this in my video and clearly said "This could be true, it could be Tidal or the Publisher, and if it is indeed the case that MQA was not the one that requested their removal then I apologise for saying that."

But I'd also note that the wording in MQA's response is (as with their other points) VERY careful. They didn't delete my files. They weren't the one to press the button. But their statement does not say that they didn't request that Tidal or the publisher remove them.

In fact when I specifically asked the publisher if it was MQA that had requested the removal they did not answer...

As I said in my video, if it is true that MQA has NOTHING at all to do with the removal of my files. Then I sincerely apologise.

I have to agree with Amir on this one. You are falling into your own trap sort of. You heavily implies something that based on no evidence whatsoever. And Amir has nothing to against or support MQA in general. He was specifically talking about one or two points of yours. You should check it and correct it. Otherwise what's the difference between you and MQA?

 

[Zensō]

Here and elsewhere I've seen many well reasoned posts to counter the points made against MQA . What I have yet to see, anywhere, is a post that supports its continued existence from a technical perspective. For the consumer.

But, but, but, what about temporal smearing?

 

[Jimbob54]

But, but but, what about temporal smearing?

Ah, the bane of all audiophiles, smeared transients. Worst sci fi concept ever: Aliasing Vs Smearing

 

[GoldenOne]

I have to agree with Amir on this one. You are falling into your own trap sort of. You heavily implies something that based on no evidence whatsoever. And Amir has nothing to against or support MQA in general. He was specifically talking about one or two points of yours. You should check it and correct it. Otherwise what's the difference between you and MQA?

I am not saying with certainty that MQA removed my files.
I have made very clear where facts end and my opinion/suspicions start. And addressed this point in the video and say quite clearly that this is my opinion and not something I can prove.

However I DO find the timing suspicious, and the fact that the publisher refused to answer my question about whether MQA requested the removal of the files (and how MQA's point #1 was worded), does not help.

But, these are of course opinions/suspicions and I am not presenting them as anything else.

MQA however has been quite clear about their encoding being lossless despite the fact that it is not. And dodges the question whenever they can.

I'm not dodging questions, I'm giving clear and transparent answers.

If MQA were advertising their product as something that they were of the OPINION that it is perceptually better, then that would be fine. We wouldn't have an issue. It's totally ok to have an opinion and to market a product on opinion as long as it is clear that that is what it is.
But marketing it as lossless OR perceptually better with no clear evidence for either is wrong.

I'm not really sure what else I can say here.

 

[stopbeingalentil]

But, but, but, what about temporal smearing?

 

[MDT]

as said above, there's a large body of research going back decades... maybe this is a good starting point https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10803548.2013.11076978?needAccess=true



admittedly most of that researched looked at detrimental health effects of exposure to high spl ultrasonic sounds - nevertheless it clearly shows that we're likely not entirely impartial to it

at any rate, also again, one of MQAs selling points is to preserve ultrasonic components by encoding them in "irrelevant" parts of the audible spectrum and sell that as a plus... that should be absurd in itself but even more so in lights of people on the one hand insisting that ultrasonic noise is inaudible and has no effect on the listener anyways and a reasearch body indicating that ultrasonic noise exposure can actually have real health ramifications

We already know that a very small number of people can hear up to 28kHz. This is not new? The commonly stated range of 20Hz to 20kHz is for the vast majority of people. The tallest man recorded was 2.7m tall, the shortest, 0.54m. If you described the typical height of a human, would you say humans range from 0.54m to 2.7m tall? Technically true, but highly misleading if describing the range of human heights.

 

[JohnYang1997]

I am not saying with certainty that MQA removed my files.
I have made very clear where facts end and my opinion/suspicions start. And addressed this point in the video and say quite clearly that this is my opinion and not something I can prove.

However I DO find the timing suspicious, and the fact that the publisher refused to answer my question about whether MQA requested the removal of the files (and how MQA's point #1 was worded), does not help.

But, these are of course opinions/suspicions and I am not presenting them as anything else.

MQA however has been quite clear about their encoding being lossless despite the fact that it is not. And dodges the question whenever they can.

View attachment 132331

I'm not dodging questions, I'm giving clear and transparent answers. I'm not really sure what else I can say here.

You also talked about MQA's wording. If that applied to MQA same applies to you. You can't have double standard. Be in the clear that's what we were talking about.

Onto MQA itself, I used to think it's at least CD quality + extra. About a year ago, I tested it with real music on Tidal through FFT analysis. I found standing tone at 16KHz above level of music making it arguably worse than MP3, not even close to CD. I didn't publish it but never personally recommended MQA.

 

[Jimbob54]

View attachment 132332

Beautiful words. Here is a mental image for you. Imagine Donald saying "smearing" with the same kind of tone he reserves for "Chiiiiiiina"

 

[stopbeingalentil]

You also talked about MQA's wording. If that applied to MQA same applies to you. You can't have double standard. Be in the clear that's what we were talking about.

Onto MQA itself, I used to think it's at least CD quality + extra. About a year ago, I tested it with real music on Tidal through FFT analysis. I found standing tone at 16KHz above level of music making it arguably worse than MP3, not even close to CD. I didn't publish it but never personally recommended MQA.

I'm not a linguistics expert but to me, personally, it was very clear from how he worded things where evidence-based facts ended and his own opinion and interpretation began... I'm curious to learn what exactly you took offense with in that regards if you can quote it... at any rate I think there are worlds in between his rethoric and MQA's