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

[Thomas savage]

Your words are wise Thomas as usual. From consumer point of view though, MQA has been provided to me and all of its users free of cost. I play it without paying a cent for it. None of the people who complain about MQA have been harmed in any way by MQA. The harm they say will come in the future which as you said, I predicted wouldn't come to pass and has not.

Something you didn't mention but I value is elegance in efficient coding of music. I have always considered PCM format to be highly wasteful. As a person who has spent decades optimizing technology, it seems like such a poor solution. Going from 44.1 kHz to 88.2 kHz doubles the data rate yet there is hardly any musical information to be gained from that doubling. In that regard, MQA's approach of noticing the statistical aspects of music and encoding that is appealing to me. It is simply neat!

Folks expect me to operate from their vantage view, but I can't. I have to operate from my own with all of my experiences and sense of fairness and evenhandedness about the topics being discussed.

Preception vs reality, People want you to be what they expect you to be and when your not they get upset . Youd think they would of learned by now that your stubbornly individually minded . In the end its all about them , there's very little true communication in these arguments between active parties . I think its different for the wider readership though, they hopefully will be informed by the overall ballance and merit of whats put forward and I know you know its to them you really speak .

You've actually made some great points lately in this thread, of course pant leg tuggers won't let that discourage them . Thanks to some over confidence and reckless offence from the red corner , amrim scores a knock down in the 7th to go 2 rounds clear with 4 to go.., its been a hard fight and no one ringside can believe both sides have another 4 in them . Of course I know your good for 15 being the old skool champion you are ha ha .

At this rate we will struggle to get sparring partners for you so go easy champ.

 

[Thomas savage]

If you would just say MQA is the Devil you would be God in their universe.

I think its more correct to say its the spourn of satan ...

 

[Grooved]

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?

1 : good question, as I think consumers never asked to get a smaller file than FLAC, what's why I said the argument of saving bandwidth is certainly only used to sell MQA to the labels/providers

2 : I did with 24/48 MQA files unfolded to 24/96 and the same in 24/96 FLAC. So it's only after the first unfold (but supposed to be the last one as the original master is 24/96). It's all in digital domain so no loss of conversion, and their are not the same, in the range of what you get from a good conversion cycle DA-AD.
But as we know, once sent into the DAC, the PCM file will get a filter that is not the same than what the MQA file will get.
I hear differences clearly on some tracks, but are they here because of the difference of the PCM file and the unfolded MQA file, or because of the difference of process once in the DAC ?...

As for deblurring claim, again, how can one claim to extract more clarity from the original without modifying the original PCM file? It seems totally paradoxical to me. The only way I could see this work would be if you worked with analogue tapes and claimed that PCM encoding introduces this digital blur. I think I am getting a sense of deja vu when it comes to others making this claim about retaining original samples and eliminating digital temporal blur

Yes, it's a big paradox. Espacially when they also said that the labels should keep the real master and never distribute it.
The company that made Soundscope had a software able to delete the pre-ringing, so a part, maybe the main part of what MQA playback is providing to you.

For me, it's a bit like listening a PCM file but with an added processing between your DAC and your amp.
Maybe nearer than that : process the PCM file in the software to delete pre-ringing, then play it with your DAC but add an exciter before your amp. You should come close.
PS : I will try it when have time to do it.

 

[arboleda]

OP has added a prominent comment on his second video identifying his mistake about the paper being peer reviewed and a mea culpa.

 

[Jimbob54]

I think its more correct to say its the spourn of satan ...

Mammon

 

[jensgk]

None of the people who complain about MQA have been harmed in any way by MQA.

Yes, we have been harmed in the consumer sense.
We bought music, that: (1) They claimed was lossless, (2) Came directly with special care from the artist, (3) Undid some artifacts from bad AD conversion, etc. etc. And it was all a lie. That is the definition of consumer harm.

 

[Jimbob54]

Yes, we have been harmed in the consumer sense.
We bought music, that: (1) They claimed was lossless, (2) Came directly with special care from the artist, (3) Undid some artifacts from bad AD conversion, etc. etc. And it was all a lie. That is the definition of consumer harm.

You bought it? Crikey, I'm pissed off enough just having paid to a streaming service that served me some.

 

[jensgk]

You bought it?

Yes, I bought one MQA album, and I subscribed to Tidal.

 

[Grooved]

After thinking it twice, the best thing to do some correct tests would be to get files from an original master, FLAC version from Qobuz and MQA file from Tidal.
I did a fast check on albums from some artists I know who can easily give me their original master, and sadly, they are in FLAC on Tidal and not in MQA
Will continue to search, or need to convince one to ask for getting their files in MQA.

 

[Zensō]

If MQA charges licensing, of course users end up paying for it.

At least Bob Stuaet said in 2016 that they were licensing it. Are you saying they never charge for the licenses?

https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/ca-academy/a-comprehensive-q-a-with-mqa-s-bob-stuart/

On the Roon forum, the COO of Roon said they pay for every MQA core decode:
https://community.roonlabs.com/t/why-do-manufacturers-support-mqa/155965/294

 

[dmac6419]

Yes, I bought one MQA album, and I subscribed to Tidal.

Subscribe to one of the other streamer and buy 2 digital CDs, then you'll be ahead

 

[diddley]

MQA it's all between the ears.
I am satisfied with just Flac ripped from cd's i buy.My ears are getting older and i never believed the bullshit "like the artist intended".
But some people are never satisfied i guess.

 

[Thomas savage]

Yes, we have been harmed in the consumer sense.
We bought music, that: (1) They claimed was lossless, (2) Came directly with special care from the artist, (3) Undid some artifacts from bad AD conversion, etc. etc. And it was all a lie. That is the definition of consumer harm.

Worse still audio enthusiasts were told all this and many would of felt compelled to buy a MQA DAC , not wanting to miss out on all the claimed benefits. A bunch might of done that and signed upto tidal just for MQA .

False advertising claims that prey on a audio enthusiasts needs , cynically so is definitely a consumer issue. Much much more so than one audibly transparent dac vs one less performant but still transparent dac .

This is one thing I dont understand when it comes to Amirms position. People are going to want the full unfold , many audio enthusiasts definitely won't feel OK having read all the marketing copy to be ' missing out' on the blue light.

So its creating doubt and insecurity in the consumer, thats negative and something we should of been recognising from the off and certainly now we have more information.

 

[Grooved]

On the Roon forum, the COO of Roon said they pay for every MQA core decode:
https://community.roonlabs.com/t/why-do-manufacturers-support-mqa/155965/294

Based on what you have to pay to get the Core decoder extra feature in USB Audio Player Pro, it should not be a high price (I think I paid not more than $5)
But Roon may pay more because they are allowed to decode it, add convolution, PEQ,... and "re-tag" in MQA to allow a MQA DAC to do the rendering after that.

 

[jensgk]

Subscribe to one of the other streamer and buy 2 digital CDs, then you'll be ahead

I already do that now, but that does not undo the fraud I was exposed to.

If I buy a vegan burger from AA Foods, that deliberately turns out to contain meat, then I was exposed to fraud by AA Foods. Buying a genuine vegan burger from BB Foods after that, does not undo the fraud of AA Foods.

 

[dmac6419]

I already do that now, but that does not undo the fraud I was exposed to.

If I buy a vegan burger from AA Foods, that deliberately turns out to contain meat, then I was exposed to fraud by AA Foods. Buying a genuine vegan burger from BB Foods after that, does not undo the fraud of AA Foods.

But did that burger taste good

 

[jensgk]

But did that burger taste good

That doesn't matter, and you know it.

 

[restorer-john]

This is why you don't see me posting impulse response measurements.

For D/A converters, impulse or an assymetrically clipped sine is useful for absolute polarity comments. I always like to know whether part of the chain is inverting or not. Becomes important with multi-amp/D/A systems too.

 

[Grooved]

But did that burger taste good

The problem is that it's not the problem, it's not because it can be good to him that it will to everybody.
Even if I was sure to prefer the "taste" of MQA over FLAC, I would still not agree on marketing lies

 

[pkane]

But did that burger taste good

As I was eating it I was consumed with an inexplicable feeling that the burger was simultaneously a bit less blurry, and at the same time tasting better than lossless. That feeling passed completely once I understood the deception, to be replaced with disgust and a bad aftertaste.