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

[DimitryZ]

Yeh, but it still sucks, right?

Ostensibly, our new MQA mastering campaign can make a real difference!

Wether you are pro or against donate to the good cause! Let results fall where they may.

 

[tmtomh]

So what does it mean to suggest? I don't think any signal is illegal for MQA. It just needs to be in the encodable space, which OP failed to conform to. That's why the decoder spat out 11 of his 13 files.

This is getting surreal. I'm not the one who's saying the signal was - choose whatever term you like - illegal/not-real-music/not-what-the-encoder-was-designed-for. MQA is saying that. You're not understanding the conversation here.

 

[JohnYang1997]

No I didn't say you get the final unfold. Just the first unfold. To get the 2nd unfold I guess you need to record analog. But since MQA says ADC are messed up, you can never do it!

But this makes the test useless? You couldn't make any conclusion.
Using IIS capture or ADC, at least I can make conclusion if the result is bad enough.

 

[DimitryZ]

Yes, that has been my argument so far: I take issue with their marketing.

But I am also disagreeing with your usage of the word "lossless" for the same reasons.

Not sure what "virtue signaling" has anything to do with any of this.

You can't tell if something is lossy, if its losses are below your system's ability to reproduce it.

It will be identical to mathematically lossless to your system and by definition, to you.

Once distortion/lossyness is below 120dB, it just doesn't matter.

 

[DimitryZ]

This is getting surreal. I'm not the one who's saying the signal was - choose whatever term you like - illegal/not-real-music/not-what-the-encoder-was-designed-for. MQA is saying that. You're not understanding the conversation here.

Quite the opposite, sadly.

MQA will not encode high amplitude utrasonics, as they don't exist in music, at least with an automatic encoder.

Do you understand? If not, read the first word and see if you do. Proceed to the next word and repeat.

 

[pjug]

But this makes the test useless? You couldn't make any conclusion.
Using IIS capture or ADC, at least I can make conclusion if the result is bad enough.

Yes but when the results show differences you will never convince those that are in love with the slow reconstruction filter that the MQA is the inferior one.

 

[DimitryZ]

None whatsoever. Just learning. Absorbing even.

…while considering checking the wellbeing of pickled Mother in the freezer.

Ok. I guess that's just a morbid joke...

You are not trying to scare me of, are you?

 

[lucretius]

You can?

The other side of the virtual cable will be attached to "recording" software (like Sound Forge) capturing the bits output by the player/decoder software.

 

[Helicopter]

Yes but when the results show differences you will never convince those that are in love with the slow reconstruction filter that the MQA is the inferior one.

I am convinced it is crap. Does that help?

 

[Raindog123]

Using IIS capture or ADC, at least I can make conclusion if the result is bad enough.

John, Can your DACs do digital loopback? That you can subsequently capture? We check our implementations by loopback-ing all the time…

 

[DimitryZ]

I am on LPCM listening tonight. And it's also an excellent format - no complaints at all.

 

[lucretius]

I don't think you can fully decode unless you make hardware to recapture the iis signal on the board. And there needs to be MQA filtering in the DAC.

Sure, without a full hardware decoder, (beyond the first unfold) you will not get any of the upsampling and the leaky MQA filters.

 

[pjug]

But this makes the test useless? You couldn't make any conclusion.
Using IIS capture or ADC, at least I can make conclusion if the result is bad enough.

By the way @mansr did this a long time ago. The decoded MQA tracks PCM pretty well to 44KHz or 48KHz. But the rendereed MQA (2nd unfold) does not. So this I think would be typical.
From https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/page/185/

 

[DimitryZ]

Sure, without a full hardware decoder, (beyond the first unfold) you will not get any of the upsampling and the leaky MQA filters.

So leave them out. Focus on the MQA core process. Mansr grudgingly admitted in PFM that the core process is probably transparent.

 

[JohnYang1997]

By the way @mansr did this a long time ago. The decoded MQA tracks PCM pretty well to 44KHz or 48KHz. But the rendereed MQA (2nd unfold) does not. So this I think would be typical.
From https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/page/185/
View attachment 132828

Emmm. This is better than anything else tested.

 

[DimitryZ]

By the way @mansr did this a long time ago. The decoded MQA tracks PCM pretty well to 44KHz or 48KHz. But the rendereed MQA (2nd unfold) does not. So this I think would be typical.
From https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/page/185/
View attachment 132828

I would caution that Mansr's software decoder is based on Bluesound's firmware from several years ago.

Also, capturing rendered MQA is tricky at best.

All more reason to contribute to Amir's MQA mastering project!

Give 'till it hurts!

 

[lucretius]

Do you understand what sampling is? DXD has 8 samples for each time period, which has to be reduced to 1 for CD. The very definition of LOSSY.

Obviously, you didn't read the theorem I posted. Audio is not like video in this regard.

 

[DimitryZ]

Obviously, you didn't read the theorem I posted. Audio is not like video in this regard.

I see what you mean and thank you for patiently sticking with me. I appreciate it, I do. Like I said, aerospace, not EE, so I am learning. The only meaningful difference would be dynamic range. But that is also a big deal, as Amir has pointed out.

Outside of this reasoned technical debate, though, CD release is by no means bit-perfect, mathematically lossless to the master. This is what all lay audiophiles want.

Disagree?

 

[pjug]

I would caution that Mansr's software decoder is based on Bluesound's firmware from several years ago.

Also, capturing rendered MQA is tricky at best.

All more reason to contribute to Amir's MQA mastering project!

Give 'till it hurts!

OK maybe I should not have said it s typical. Maybe the decoder gets updated. Maybe analog output varies all over the place depending on the DAC. So then which is the authentic sound heard in the studio?

 

[tmtomh]

Quite the opposite, sadly.

MQA will not encode high amplitude utrasonics, as they don't exist in music, at least with an automatic encoder.

Do you understand? If not, read the first word and see if you do. Proceed to the next word and repeat.

Here's a word for you: dilettante.

Beyond that, I'm content to let anyone who's interested read our exchanges - and your quite entertaining attempt to try to tell @lucretius what lossiness is - and decide for themselves who does, and who does not, understand.