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

[DimitryZ]

What is a lossy "masking" algorithm?

@amirm how about “CD doesn’t apply a lossy masking algorithm to the audible music spectrum”? Because TBH that is the convention when distinguishing CD from “lossy compression”.

Where does MQA sit against that criterion?

So anyone with an older DAC/MQA decoder needs to scrub it for an updated one to properly hear MQA music? More MQA tax.

Or you can ask him to update his.

 

[DimitryZ]

Hi guys, your messages show that it's hard to follow every posts on this thread, maybe I should have created another thread for that, but I already posted here at least two times what you're talking about ;-)
On the previous page, I show some signals from the same track :
- one from the FLAC file directly
- one from the digital recording of the same FLAC file, which looks matching the original file (so the digital recording method I used should be OK, but I will do a null test on this)
- one from the digital recording of the MQA file after decoding

Here is the Null test from DeltaWave of the last track I check (the one we were talking some pages ago, bought by one member and that appeared to be a 44.1kHz upsampled to 96kHz (fake HiRes)

Null test between 24/96 FLAC file and MQA 24/48 decoded to 24/96 :
View attachment 132889

NOTE : Deltawave is used here with @pkane setting from the DA-AD loopback test where I get 107.9dBFS on my device (don't used in this test as this one is fully digital)
Maybe we need to use different settings

If I do the same with the original FLAC file and its digital recorded version, it gives this result :
View attachment 132906

So I may need to disable the non-linear feature, in this case, the original FLAC file and its digital recorded version gives this :
View attachment 132908

And in this case (without non-linear feature), MQA decoded get a higher PK Metric result, but a lower difference result :
View attachment 132921


Right, I will check it again and add numbers, it was zoomed a lot


You're perfectly right if we consider the full process up to the istening point, as they don't use the same filters, but if we want to compare the files themselves, we can stop before that after the decoding, as known as the first unfold, which may be the only real unfold as the folowwing looks more like upsampling if needed (for master of more than 24/96).

I was thinking that since DimitryZ post, we were talking of file only, so encoding only, and not what happens after that because the filter are different.
@DimitryZ , can you confirm that please ? because I checked your first post and didn't really find a test but only a graph.

I thought the person who did the graph (Archimago, I was told) may have done the null as well, but I don't know how to find it.

 

[dmac6419]

if I were you, I would simply ignore @dmac6419. He’s simply a troll, and yet to produce a quit, or even a simple bit of original technical content in this thread. IMHO.

@ raindog why would I be a troll,I didn't join this forum to comment on MQA like you and a lot of others did,I subscribe to Amazon,Tidal,Qobuz,and now Apple Music and I enjoy them all,I understand music because Ive been playing various music instruments since the age of twelve and just turned 57 y/o this month,I enjoy music,i don't try to over complicate it like some of you on this forum do.

 

[amirm]

No degree needed, just common sense

Degree was needed (or equiv thereof) to understand the answers MQA gave you *prior* to your publication of both videos. You didn't understand the coding scheme but ran off with your lay messaging hot and heavy. You were partially justified in strongly stating that the technique was not mathematically lossless (which is an impossibility). But beyond that, you were out of your depth as our discussion here has shown. You have created a ton of new confusion around MQA as technology.

The fact that you produced a second video without asking for feedback from the experts, you doubled down making things much worse because this time MQA provided very detailed and public response that you got wrong on multiple fronts. Instead of accept all of this, you continue to defend what you did. That's wrong.

 

[PierreV]

This guy is qualified and did harm - you may have caused less harm

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...entenced-for-carrying-out-needless-operations

I'm sure there are hundreds/thousands more examples

Private clinics are mostly high-end audiophile hospitals.

 

[danadam]

So far, no one offered a competing assessment.

The important number is for MQA. By the data published by Archimago (as I was told), MQA nulls against "etalon" LPCM extremely well. I looked at the peaks at low frequency, which is the most conservative way. Correctly averaged and weighted, the number will be only better.

In case you missed it, I am still interested in the formula:

"24/0.2", where did you get this formula from? AFAIK the null between -24.0 dBFS and -24.2 dBFS signals is at -56.86 dBFS.

 

[abdo123]

So basically to put everything in chronological order:

1) MQA is released and the 'triangle' scheme is explained, some marketing words were also used that some might argue are not technically correct. (but even if you go to court against MQA you wouldn't really win because you can't prove that their false marketing caused any damage)

2) a person publishes test tones in MQA format, some of the test tone used would inherently break the triangle scheme they use and cause audible aliasing

3) MQA has to respond because the video goes viral, and they mention that the test inherently breaks the codec, and borderline belittle customers and the person who published the test tones for not understanding how a product works before using it and then asserts that the product works exactly as intended. (Whether it's a good product or not)

 

[amirm]

Let him cool his jets. He'll be fine.

He's a great asset to this forum and let's face it, we all get get steamed up now and then and shoot off our mouths. It's just one of our male traits.

As the site and the forum matures, there's plenty of people I'd like to have a drink with, he's one, and so are you, Amir.

Your sentiments are great and your wisdom much appreciated.

But the situation is not as you see. Mansr is not only insulting me and getting way too emotional, he has spun conspiracy theories as to me being paid by MQA to say what I do. This is totally unethical and improper. I don't care what value anyone brings to this forum. Cross a line like that and you don't belong here.

So it is clear, OP has done exactly the same and I am considering banning permanently. I don't care if I am sitting here by myself doing reviews. My ethics and standards of conducts do not allow the shenanigans that these people are pulling. In no way do I want to be part of anything the encourages this type of conduct from these people.

 

[DimitryZ]

Stop with the credentials top trumps. The tests done are honestly fairly basic and don't require an EE degree. You don't need a calibrated colorimeter to tell that the sky isn't pink.
I never claimed to be an "expert", and the idea that you have to have 20 years industry experience to conduct a fairly basic test is quite frankly ridiculous.



They don't no.
But their choice not to then leaves it open to rightful criticism.

Would you use the same defense for $5000 cables?
They keep their design process a secret, they don't have to open it up to you. Should we therefore just start taking them at their word?

This is a silly double standard. Closed-off products with no proof of benefit SHOULD be criticised and questioned. Isn't that half the point of this forum?

Your tests were entirely botched. The fact that MQA wasn't mathematically lossless has been known since its' inception.

 

[levimax]

Do you want me cutting on you or a qualified surgeon ?

Don't need an MD to apply a band aid.

 

[DimitryZ]

That depends. If the process will be completely open and transparent as to what is being configured or adapted then yes absolutely. I will happily put money towards it.

But that won't happen, I'm sure the studios are probably not allowed to talk about what they can/can't change in the MQA encoder or what they have access to. I would love to be shown wrong though, because this would be incredibly useful information.

And to reiterate, the fact that the encoder NEEDS configuring in the first place indicates it isn't lossless. You can't configure how identical something is.
It's either identical or it isn't.

And I'm not interested in a "perceptually lossless" option. I want either ACTUALLY lossless, with no loss of any information, or something which dramatically reduces file-size like MP3 or the 20 bit sox config someone posted a couple pages back.

Even if we go by the 'perceptually lossless' argument MQA is seemingly trying to use, MP3 could be argued to be perceptually lossless for most people.
And there is also no proof that MQA is perceptually lossless either, just their word.
In fact the fact they are also claiming it sounds better, indicates it's perceptually different and therefore not lossless!

Whatever the process is, the main point would be to keep you away from preparing the input file.

 

[PierreV]

Your tests were entirely botched. The fact that MQA wasn't mathematically lossless has been known since its' inception.

It is fair to say he tested the marketing claims, not the math. And, by pure coincidence, the marketing claims suddenly evolved.

 

[dmac6419]

Don't need an MD to apply a band aid.

You'll need more than a band-aid

 

[DimitryZ]

It is fair to say he tested the marketing claims, not the math. And, by pure coincidence, the marketing claims suddenly evolved.

If that was his intent, his video would be very different. He would start by explaining MQA encoding scheme and tell the viewer that he is purposely is trying to encode signals out of the encoder's capability - to break it so to speak.

But that kind of test would be structured very differently. One would start low and raise the amplitude of the test signal in successive tracks to define the encoder's breaking point. That, at least, would be interesting.

 

[amirm]

Also in regards to my real name. Just to be clear I'm not keeping it 'secret'. MQA knows my real name, when I speak to industry contacts or manufacturers I give them my real name and will often call via video too. I just don't want my name/face/identity broadcast over the internet publicly.

If @amirm , @John Atkinson etc have genuine concerns about me or anything as a result of content being posted under GoldenSound instead of my real name I'm happy to disclose my name to them in private and answer any questions about who I do/do not have connections with just as I have already done so with others.

Privacy =/= secrecy

Of course you wouldn't want your name out there. Why would you? Because folks like you would do this when they know my name:

I kept my company going during the hardest economic times in US when all construction was shut down and we could do no work. Not one employee was let go. Not one payment of rent or any kind of bill was missed. I have not accepted one penny from anyone for any purpose to write or do what I do here. Yet we get a despicable individual like you with zero regards for facts standing on high horse now saying you don't want to tell people who you are?

You have taken my name and who I am and spun it in the most unethical, untruthful way into your anti-MQA campaign to promote a video. You have milked every bit of traffic we have sent to your video and to you personally. Yet you go and say stuff like that behind my back?

I have a thick skin about what people say to me here and elsewhere. But when they spin their conspiracy theories about me into their their arguments, i.e. MQA is evil, then you have crossed a serious line. Your time here is very short. Say whatever you want now because you won't be here much longer.

 

[danadam]

I thought the person who did the graph (Archimago, I was told) may have done the null as well, but I don't know how to find it.

AFAIK he did not do the null for this track (which is from here: https://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/06/measurements-audioquest-dragonfly-black_24.html ) but he did for others:

• software decoded vs flac: https://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/01/comparison-tidal-mqa-music-high.html
• hardware decoded vs flac: https://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/02/comparison-hardware-decoded-mqa-using.html

But he is not using DeltaWave there because there was no DeltaWave back then.

 

[amirm]

So you're saying that (1) you have music with a dynamic range > 96 db and (2) you playback that music 96 db louder than the noise floor in your listening environment (i.e. stupid loud)? Do you have a reference for the "psychoacoustics says" statement (other than BS' writing)?

All of this has been addressed repeated in this thread including in the last few days. Read them before repeating myths about dynamic range. Or at least watch this video of mine:

 

[Grooved]

OP doesn't show their face, doesn't show their name, puts nothing personal on the line. RISKING ZERO PERSONAL REPUTATION.

Amir actually has qualifications, industry reputation on the line, in public view.

You should check out OP's youtube channel where they opine on the sonic differences between DACs... "smooth, refined, laid back"

Sometimes people have astounding skill and knowledge outside their field of expertise - and you are right not to give ultimate preference - but we are waaaaaaay beyond that now.

Don't you realize that we are several to realize the problem in his test, and we are still searching other things. At least his test tried to bring another method that even people working since 20 years ago didn't tried.
I don't care if comes from Mars or Neptune, or is the The Invisible Man, I know and understand what he did, and what was wrong. Don't need to create one thousand of posts to repeat such a thing.

Most people who listen to music are listener,most people who drive fast cars are not race car drivers,I play music but I'm not a professional (very hard work) I record music at home,but if i want it publish for the masses,it have to go to other engineers for it to be mastered,etc.

Now, it's irritating me a bit
Don't you realize that you're on these last days posting more than anyone on this thread while never trying/bringing any new technical elements ?
You like Tidal and other providers, so do I, it doesn't change the fact that even if I was perfectly fine with how I used it, having some 16bit MQA files in the Hifi setting while they claim it's 16bit FLAC is not normal for consumers, unless at least we can get a result that it doesn't change anything.
If you are not interested to know, then stop it. If you are interested, stay but please stop doing what I would call "constant soft-trolling"
And by saying that, I'm not attacking you as I don't know you, but I'm attacking your action on this thread.
Keeping Amir aside of this example and never implying that you can do that because you would know him, you are reminding me this kind of guy in nightclubs who constantly subtly triggers general fights, night after night, but who is always there because he's a friend of the boss

You just answered me on the part that was interesting for your answer, but you have yet to provide an answer on the simple question I asked you that just needs some logic
Some weeks ago, it was written under your name "Addicted to fun and learning", you seem to have at least forgot the "Fun" part before turning into "Major contributor"

If Amir confirms this thread is only on repeating that this test had problems, then we need to start another thread to continue the search and analysis and let the people fight on this one. It looks like some are searching a little thing yet important in middle of a football field while the game is on

I don't care what value anyone brings to this forum. Cross a line like that and you don't belong here.

One big post or repeated smaller ones should get at least the same warning for both sides, and it will be easier for people in the middle to continue

 

[amirm]

So let me get this straight, you're attacking the guy’s accent saying he seems more credible than he is due to his British accent. Huh? Bob Stuart himself also has a British accent yet you seem to have no problem with that and do not attack his accent.

Your own logic can apply even more to Bob Stuart himself and all the 'just trust us' nonsense he spews about MQA.

No you don't have it straight. What I said about him was a pure compliment. That for many people that kind of asset gets them to believe more than the facts. A true story.

I was having dinner with a CEO of a US company who was British. He was telling me that he had just moved his entire company to US. I asked how his children were adjusting to US life. He said his daughters at first could not wait to shed their English accent to blend in. But quickly realized that boys loved their British accent and they are now happy to keep it!

I also had a British person reporting to me and I told the above to story to him. He said his wife was a bartender and was getting job after job because of her British accent.

So yes, this is a thing. We in US at least associate this type of presentation attractive and associate it with the truth.

Bob Stuart has some of this as well but nowhere near OP and hasn't produced any videos like that. So he is not quite on even keel there.

 

[abdo123]

No you don't have it straight. What I said about him was a pure compliment. That for many people that kind of asset gets them to believe more than the facts. A true story.

I was having dinner with a CEO of a US company who was British. He was telling me that he had just moved his entire company to US. I asked how his children were adjusting to US life. He said his daughters at first could not wait to shed their English accent to blend in. But quickly realized that boys loved their British accent and they are now happy to keep it!

I also had a British person reporting to me and I told the above to story to him. He said his wife was a bartender and was getting job after job because of her British accent.

So yes, this is a thing. We in US at least associate this type of presentation attractive and associate it with the truth.

Bob Stuart has some of this as well but nowhere near OP and hasn't produced any videos like that. So he is not quite on even keel there.

you reminded me of this meme