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

[amirm]

Isn't the rendering the meat of the matter (considering just sound fidelity)? Otherwise it is just a different way of encoding the same information as ordinary PCM, just more complicated and a little less efficient compared to something like 17/96.

It is part of their full feature list. The filter alone is not as you could have that without MQA. But again, in this thread we are discussing OP's video which was a digital analysis, not analog.

 

[MDT]

No I didn't. You wanted to scare people by saying MQA is going to take over the world so people should be afraid of it despite its tiny piece of land it exists on today. I answered that the big boys have already spoken and didn't adopt MQA so your prediction that the world is going to adopt MQA is dead wrong.

Is this the quality of discussion you want for this site? Where you set up straw men so you can make a point because you have nothing else useful to say? Nowhere did I say or predict that MQA was going to do anything. If you wish to respond to what I actually wrote, as opposed to what you wanted me to have written, I'll happily respond. But if you're going to make things up so you can feel like you are right about something, I'll leave you to it. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[levimax]

BTW, making a deal with one label will upset their competitors and they will then refuse to help you. Why would Sony Music for example commit to MQA make them famous and go public, only to enrich Warner music? I have been in those chairs and heard the very warnings and arguments. Don't assume the Warner endorsement is a good thing beyond the initial PR push. Naive start-ups think it is big deal but soon find out that the label won't do much to help them. Has Warner come to defense of MQA on any of these food fights? They have not.

OK thanks for the perspective. I never thought much about MQA before my favorite Warner titles were all replaced on Tidal with MQA versions. Probably not that big of a deal as you point out.

 

[amirm]

So off course this is also what everybody thinks, when MQA claims "losslessness".

They did. Now MQA has clarified what they mean so folks better not keep harping on that. Your mission is now to show that encoding all that there is in music, is not lossless enough for you.

I said at the outset that OP provided the obvious: that you can't encode the full spectrum of high-res audio, in standard res audio. Information theory would not allow it. He provided good proof of that for the lay person so that was fine.

MQA is countering back and saying we encode all the music so what is your problem?

 

[amirm]

Nowhere did I say or predict that MQA was going to do anything.

Oh? This is what you said which is what I responded to:

Regardless of what MQA can do, or can't do, its closed nature is a long-term problem (and the fact that only a small portion of the files on streaming services use MQA is a rubbish argument - before anyone tries to bring that up again. Ignoring it until it becomes a widespread problem is how it becomes a widespread problem in the first place!)

Now you say you didn't make any such prediction? What the heck is that if it is not a prediction that it is going to become popular so we best kill it now?

 

[pjug]

It is part of their full feature list. The filter alone is not as you could have that without MQA. But again, in this thread we are discussing OP's video which was a digital analysis, not analog.

I think if you are talking about "perceptually lossless" then analog has to be considered. MQA says their process is perceptually lossless from analog to analog. Maybe you are only talking about digital, but then it is confusing to use the MQA terminology.

 

[jensgk]

Your mission is now to show that encoding all that there is in music, is not lossless enough for you.

I want lossless music, meaning the master file must be encoded in a lossless format. QED.
I do not need to explain why I want this. I just want it.
If someone says they sold me that, and then it turns out they didn't, then they lied to me and I, as a consumer, will write bad reviews.

 

[voodooless]

As to Warner, they will give you MQA, or anything else you want. They made a commitment to the technology and got some warrants in return. Standard deal that has gone bust for many, many start-ups who have made similar deals with labels.

I think on this you are absolutely correct. Looking at the bits of information we have on the MQA financials, they must be spending a lot of money to push the technology. Sweet deals (probably for Warner) like these fit into that picture very well. Will it work? Who knows.. But your prediction might not be far off. Tidal is still a tiny, tiny player in the market. It’s obvious MQA has bigger plans. On the hardware side they seemingly have much more success in integrating their IP, seeing that almost every major player has an implementation. It’s a rather curious contrast to the small amount of Tidal subscribers, of which even less have access to the correct subscription to play MQA files. I cannot imagine those numbers alone justify the massive hardware adoption were seeing.. I might be wrong on this.. Anyone with more insights on this, feel free to correct me.

 

[amirm]

I think if you are talking about "perceptually lossless" then analog has to be considered. MQA says their process is perceptually lossless from analog to analog. Maybe you are only talking about digital, but then it is confusing to use the MQA terminology.

No, they don't have a perceptually lossless process or they would not encode any ultrasonics! They are saying that they are coding everything in music based on its necessary dynamic range/quantization noise floor. If that is the case, the OP's analysis means nothing. None of us care about impulse response, white noise fidelity, etc. We care about the music being encoded.

 

[bboris77]

Just stepping back to take a look at the big picture here, I wanted to pose a few technical questions. They may have been partially or fully answered in the preceding 124 pages, so I apologize in advance. I am just trying to gain some perspective here.

1. Why would a consumer want to stream or purchase an MQA version of a song if they can stream the original uncompressed PCM file in a lossless FLAC or ALAC format? I am asking this question sincerely because I do not understand the appeal. I mean, MQA codec cannot extract more detail than there is in the PCM original. Is the only reason to save their internet bandwidth?

2. If MQA claims that they encode whatever they define as music (let's not go there) in a lossless fashion, would it not be possible to test this claim by nulling the original PCM file and the MQA version? Assuming this is true, should these two files not produce identical output?

 

[voodooless]

None of us care about impulse response, white noise fidelity, etc. We care about the music being encoded.

Why should we care about ultrasonics then ? And the impulse response we should care about, it describes the system and therefore dictates the frequency response, aliasing and many other things that are rather important for accurate music reproduction.

 

[abdo123]

Just stepping back to take a look at the big picture here, I wanted to pose a few technical questions. They may have been partially or fully answered in the preceding 124 pages, so I apologize in advance. I am just trying to gain some perspective here.

1. Why would a consumer want to stream or purchase an MQA version of a song if they can stream the original uncompressed PCM file in a lossless FLAC or ALAC format? I am asking this question sincerely because I do not understand the appeal. I mean, MQA codec cannot extract more detail than there is in the PCM original. Is the only reason to save their internet bandwidth?

2. If MQA claims that they encode whatever they define as music (let's not go there) in a lossless fashion, would it not be possible to test this claim by nulling the original PCM file and the MQA version? Assuming this is true, should these two files not produce identical output?

as for the number 1 the answer is marketing, people consume Hi-res content because of marketing and MQA is cashing on that by creating a Hi-res format that benefit the services hosting the files by reducing the dynamic range allocated to ultrasonics like Amir explained.

as for the number 2 i don't get what you mean by nulling.

 

[amirm]

Why should we care about ultrasonics then ?

Because it is part of the original music production and some may want to pay extra to get that.

 

[KSTR]

2. If MQA claims that they encode whatever they define as music (let's not go there) in a lossless fashion, would it not be possible to test this claim by nulling the original PCM file and the MQA version? Assuming this is true, should these two files not produce identical output?

Has been done and shown here, and no, not identical.

 

[voodooless]

1. Why would a consumer want to stream or purchase an MQA version of a song if they can stream the original uncompressed PCM file in a lossless FLAC or ALAC format?

Because they claim to “deblur” the track.. so far, this is the least touched subject here.. except for some marketing material no evidence of this deblurring can be found.

2. If MQA claims that they encode whatever they define as music (let's not go there) in a lossless fashion, would it not be possible to test this claim by nulling the original PCM file and the MQA version? Assuming this is true, should these two files not produce identical output?

No the files will not be bitperfect. The only thing they mean is that it will retain all of the music ( whatever that means).. so basically telling you it will sound the same.. just better

 

[amirm]

And the impulse response we should care about, it describes the system and therefore dictates the frequency response, aliasing and many other things that are rather important for accurate music reproduction.

Not in the scope of what was done in the OP video as I explained. It is also outside of the scope of how the content is encoded. It only matters with respect to digital to analog conversions.

A lot of things are important that way. It doesn't mean it is in the scope of this thread or discussion.

 

[amirm]

The only thing they mean is that it will retain all of the music ( whatever that means)

MQA explains exactly what this means. You can't dismiss that and then have any kind of merited discussion.

 

[MDT]

Oh? This is what you said which is what I responded to:



Now you say you didn't make any such prediction? What the heck is that if it is not a prediction that it is going to become popular so we best kill it now?

Do you understand the difference between a statement of caution and a prediction? But of course you do. You'll just pretend you don't so you can make whatever irrelevant point you were trying to make.

If you read my whole post, I was talking about the closed, proprietary nature of the likes of MQA, and the problems that these can have in the long term. Nowhere did I predict that MQA was going to take over. So I have no idea where your rant about Apple or Amazon came from.

 

[voodooless]

MQA explains exactly what this means. You can't dismiss that and then have any kind of merited discussion.

Sure, I know what they say.. That still doesn’t mean I know what it means though.. In the deeper sense I mean.. technically it’s clear enough. What is meaningful in retaining all of the music? Just because some people want to have the ultrasonic content? In that case it’s purely a marketing instrument. Meaning should bring value.. and I don’t see it, at least not for me..

 

[SKBubba]

I was going to say something, but everything has already been said. Oh, wait. I said something. Sorry.