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

[DimitryZ]

I mean, this is the same discussion that happens with any lossy compression: How much (and what kind) of the relevant information can be retained while compressing the filesize?

You may argue that it's "perceptually indistinguishable from lossless" in some contexts, which is a separate argument - but either way, if the compression can't be reversed to the original, it isn't lossless.

We are again stuck at point one. MQA is not LOSSY in any way you are using.

CD release from a modern DXD master is also LOSSY by the same definition - you can't get back to the master.

That's why John Atkinson tried to reframe the question of MQA lossyness by asking "compared to what?"

 

[lucretius]

At the risk of inflaming the argument, if you are going to publish opinions and test results that may result in financial consequences for those whom you write about, you must do so under your actual name. With one exception - an exception that was agreed to before I joined the magazine - every contributor to Stereophile signs his work with his real name.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

Who says? You? Or are you just talking about policy at Stereophile?

 

[DimitryZ]

Huh? There's no question about it. It is "lossy".

There is no question that it is mathematically lossy.

But so is a CD release from a modern DXD master.

The relevant question is "compared to what?"

 

[pozz]

Open request to lock this thread and move on until new data is posted.

 

[amirm]

So true!
All the testing, graphs, and charts that you post here would be totally garbage if we did not know your true name.

Right that would be. Why do you think I created the thread that is in my signature on who I am? Because I got tired of reading people say elsewhere, "who is this blogger with an audio precision? Anybody can go and buy an AP and post some graphs."

So I wrote this: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-bit-about-your-host.1906/

That dealt with considerable amount of that criticism. It has also made a big difference in working with manufacturers and attracting others in the industry.

I suggest we move on. You are not doing yourself any good with one sided comments like this....

 

[lucretius]

So true!
All the testing, graphs, and charts that you post here would be totally garbage if we did not know your true name.

Yeah right. Some of us don't want aholes tracking down our employers and calling them up.

 

[amirm]

Open request to lock this thread and move on until new data is posted.

Anyone has anything technical they want to say before we do this?

 

[mtristand]

We are again stuck at point one. MQA is not LOSSY in any way you are using.

CD release from a modern DXD master is also LOSSY by the same definition - you can't get back to the master.

That's why John Atkinson tried to reframe the question of MQA lossyness by asking "compared to what?"

The introduction of the reframing like that, to me, comes off as trying to justify using the word "lossless" in a non-standard way. You can always move the goalposts by saying something is "lossless" with respect to a low-hanging fruit that no one is naturally considering, especially laypeople.

If you can't reverse the compression to get the original, you aren't lossless. Any "reframing" from that is going to be misleading, because most people understand lossless to mean "with respect to the original full file content" - the thing being compressed.

 

[DimitryZ]

The introduction of the reframing like that, to me, comes off as trying to justify using the word "lossless" in a non-standard way. You can always move the goalposts by saying something is "lossless" with respect to a low-hanging fruit that no one is naturally considering, especially laypeople.

If you can't reverse the compression to get the original, you aren't lossless. Any "reframing" from that is going to be misleading, because most people understand lossless to mean "with respect to the original full file content" - the thing being compressed.

Do you not understand that CD is also lossy by your definition?

If you master a DXD file into a CD and MQA-CD, both are mathematically lossy to the master. The two approaches use different criteria and tools to select what parts of the master to preserve.

LPCM mastering uses older toolset - frequency filtering, downsampling, dithering. MQA mastering allows far more flexibility and a more modern toolset for the sound engineer.

And since MQA, if properly decoded, offers the consumer musically relevant near ultrasonics, it is clearly superior to the 40 year old CD format.

 

[DimitryZ]

Anyone has anything technical they want to say before we do this?

Are you going to announce how to donate to the MQA mastering fund?

And honestly, I think this thread is better than most on the subject. If this is allowed here, I petition for one more day

 

[Mountain Goat]

Could MQA Technology end this war by simply providing the encoder to a few carefully-selected reviewers, like Amir? Their opacity hasn't helped their public relations.

 

[lucretius]

Why? MQA encoding tools have tunable parameters and likely informative information they spit out. A mastering house has the option to modify such parameters in the process of encoding. MQA itself is doing a lot of encoding and they could be modifying/optimizing them as well. Here is one of the MQA mastering shops: https://airshowmastering.com/what-we-like-about-mqa-high-res-format]/.

Do you have any expertise here or are you just repeating what BS said? (I feel like I'm talking to the ghost of BS here.) What's the point of repeating what BS says without explaining or demonstrating what's involved here?

"What does Airshow Mastering offer?
Airshow has MQA encoding capabilities, and we can tailor the MQA encoder settings specifically for your project, and deliver MQA files for download and streaming. "

Bob Stuart in his blog response says something similar:

"“To help young artists and small labels get their music encoded in MQA and on to TIDAL, we recently enabled the service you used. However, that service is limited in flexibility and places obligations on the user. First, the encoder is fully automatic, which means it will use analysis to set parameters for each song as a whole; "https://airshowmastering.com/what-we-like-about-mqa-high-res-format/.

What does any of that have to do with Warner's back catalogue that I mentioned?

The statistical nature of their encoder would need some checking to see if it is determining the right things. If I have DSD noise for example, I may opt to not encode that even if the encoder things that is useful info. I may also listen to the baseband and if I hear degradations there, change the amount of information that it encoded from ultrasonic range.

What do you mean by "statistical nature"? If you are talking about mastering, the mastering engineer is going to do all sorts of things, including reducing noise. This is not MQA related. it is true that multiple encoders exist from which to choose -- none of that is going to help the person who goes out and buys an MQA ADC, e.g. the Mytek Brooklyn ADC and is likely not relevant to encoding Warner's back catalogue. [You can find the manual for the Mytek Brooklyn ADC online -- there's no evidence of "tunable parameters".

 

[GaryH]

 

[Newman]

. If you are going to write critical reviews of products, you need to do it under your real name. That is the precedence and is the right thing to do.

I appreciate your motives for requesting this, but I hope you don’t enforce it. Enough IT security people strongly discourage the use of real names on discussion forums for it to be ill advised. The vulnerable, such as people looking for work, but also many other categories, will definitely be discriminated against.
Also, studies show that it also doesn’t make online discussions any nicer.
Simpler to just ban anyone who calls you names or hints that you are corrupt or hiding vested interests or relationships. Strict moderation does make the internet nicer, unlike real names.

 

[DimitryZ]

Could MQA Technology end this war by simply providing the encoder to a few carefully-selected reviewers, like Amir? Their opacity hasn't helped their public relations.

That's a really good idea.

 

[DimitryZ]

Do you have any expertise here or are you just repeating what BS said? (Ifeel like I'm talking to the ghost of BS here.) What's the point of repeating what BS says without explaining or demonstrating what's involved here?




What does any of that have to do with Warner's back catalogue that I mentioned?



What do you mean by "statistical nature"? If yiou are talking about mastering, the mastering engineer is going to do all sorts of things, including reducing noise. This is not MQA related. it is true that multiple encoders exist from which to choose -- none of that is going to help the person who goes out and buys an MQA ADC, e.g. the Mytek Brooklyn ADC and is likely nnot relevant to encoding Warner's back catalogue. [You can find the manual for the Mytek Brooklyn ADC online -- there's no evidence of "tunable parameters".

Reducing noise, especially in older recordings, is exactly what MQA does, and apparently well. I have been listening to Tidal and Qobuz for years and MQA releases do sound like they are a bit quieter between the notes.

 

[mtristand]

Do you not understand that CD is also lossy by your definition?

If you master a DXD file into a CD and MQA-CD, both are mathematically lossy to the master. The two approaches use different criteria and tools to select what parts of the master to preserve.

LPCM mastering uses older toolset - frequency filtering, downsampling, dithering. MQA mastering allows far more flexibility and a more modern toolset for the sound engineer.

And since MQA, if properly decoded, offers the consumer musically relevant near ultrasonics, it is clearly superior to the 40 year old CD format.

I'm not talking about a CD though - I'm talking about the claim that "MQA is lossless." It isn't, and I don't really understand why people want to defend MQA's usage of the word when people are clearly getting the wrong idea.

 

[lucretius]

There is no question that it is mathematically lossy.

But so is a CD release from a modern DXD master.

The relevant question is "compared to what?"

That is misleading. A cd release from a DXD master is not lossy as far as 22kHz and below are concerned.

 

[DimitryZ]

I'm not talking about a CD though - I'm talking about the claim that "MQA is lossless." It isn't, and I don't really understand why people want to defend MQA's usage of the word when people are clearly getting the wrong idea.

Please reread my post and offer an actual response.

 

[lucretius]

Reducing noise, especially in older recordings, is exactly what MQA does, and apparently well. I have been listening to Tidal and Qobuz for years and MQA releases do sound like they are a bit quieter between the notes.

In the few cases I could track down the hi-rez PCM master used for the MQA release, I did not find this. (I also did not find this with 2L's test files.) Do you think it may be the remastering that is improved over some old mastering?