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

[voodooless]

So then it's confirmed: all we needed was a 20/96 which FLAC that compresses to about the same file size as a 24/48 MQA encoded file, and it totally lossless, even for the ultrasonics.

It even makes sense that you can store more audio information losslessly than lossy the way MQA does in a FLAC encoded file. The MQA encoder converts the ultrasonic data to noise (not even metaphorically, but it literally converts something we can't hear to something we could potentially hear ). The FLAC encoder will do a very bad job at encoding that part efficiently. Whereas the 20-bit file contains very little noise and almost exclusively music. And that is exactly what FLAC is good at. So on average, it can do a much better job with the 20/96 file, even though it has double the spectrum to compress.

 

[tmtomh]

you didn't miss much, everyone is just vomiting the same arguments over and over since like page 50.

Not true.

 

[Raindog123]

you didn't miss much, everyone is just vomiting the same arguments over and over since like page 50.

Not true.

@RayDunzl: I agree with @tmtomh. A few of us have tried to be constructive and informative, as much as we can... Suggest sampling a few newer posts, eg against the names, to 'see for yourself'.

 

[Steve H]

MQA has many forms. I don't see them gone soon.

They will last as long as Reinet Investments is willing to fund them.

 

[Steve H]

In general, when it comes to online delivery of music and movies, the major labels and studios don't do any encoding themselves. The contract with labels to get their content is the just right to distribute. You are on your own to get the bits.

The distributor can do the encoding or go to service providers that have the content encoded and available in different formats. I would be very surprised to see Warner doing any encoding of MQA themselves. Likely this work is being done by MQA itself.

Leading to the question, just what services did the major labels and Merlin contribute for their stock in MQA Ltd? Nine million pounds would have bought a lot of some kind of services why not encoding?

 

[RichB]

We don't know if it was Tidal or the publisher. The publisher had licensed the encoder from MQA so it is possible it ran foul of their licensing terms and so they decided to pull the plug.

As to your final statement, no, we don't know that. MQA likely contacted the publisher to get the detail/error messages. Publisher then realized what happened and pulled the plug. We have MQA on record saying they did not make any take down requests:

"

1. MQA did not delete his files; that accusation is false. MQA is not a rights holder nor distributor. We do not issue takedown notices to distributors or DSPs."

That is a very strong denial with no counter evidence to say otherwise.

Either way I hope we are all in agreement that neither the DSP (publisher), nor Tidal would be willingly participating in any kind of food fight like this. They were taken advantage of and they responded once they realized what had happened. Neither would have needed pressure from MQA to do so.

Disclaimer
Nothing contained in MQA's response should be construed as legal or informative. Without limitation, nothing contained herein should be considered evidence.

It has come to our attention the following file can damage users systems.

- Rich

 

[Steve H]

Disclaimer
Nothing contained in MQA's response should be construed as legal or informative. Without limitation, nothing contained in the should be considered evidence.

It has come to our attention the following file can damage users systems.

- Rich

Rich, would Bob Stuart's presentation at the LA Audio Show in 2017 be evidence? Was watching Ken Forsythe twist the Roon guys arms after he and I had a brief conversation at RMAF 2017 evidence?

 

[dr dong]

talk with lindberg 2l
(you might need to find the english text in the video settings)

 

[RichB]

Is MQA lossless to the CD quality?

Tidal HiFi is 44.1/16 so anything MQA encoded is not lossless to CD.
Tidal invented their own quality terms, Master, presumably for MQA.

- Rich

 

[RichB]

What issue is MQA trying to solve? If Amazon and Apple can stream lossless...was this not possible previously?

The problem that need solving was how to obtain royalties from content producers, distributers, and hardware/software manufacturers.
All they needed was a story to tell. In audio, there are many stories and it is amazing how, otherwise intelligent people buy into it.

MQA is a lossy codec with a "deburring" leaky filter that includes astounding levels of BS.
Has anyone every seen a company called out on the false lossless claim, that then, claims it is better than the PCM source because it recreates the artists intent.
I think we need a competitor like Quantum deblurring. Temporal was 90's Star Trek talk, it is time to move on to the Marvel age.

- Rich

 

[RichB]

Rich, would Bob Stuart's presentation at the LA Audio Show in 2017 be evidence? Was watching Ken Forsythe twist the Roon guys arms after he and I had a brief conversation at RMAF 2017 evidence?

Was he under oath?

- Rich

 

[RichB]

You see where the real battleground is? We need to get the masters cleaned up and have them released without loudness compression. That is the battle we should put our energy toward.

Amen brother.

Not these little squabbles over MQA.
I am going to go on hot dogs and water dinners for the next few days to make up for the $20 loss on this....

Or focus on measuring MQA to prove or disprove its statements. Support DBTs and such.
Perhaps even contact MQA and get quality recording in MQA and the original LPCM master.
Then, the analysis can begin.

The very best audio companies don't come close to making the claims made by MQA, better than the master and such.
Many here are nauseated by their marketing.

- Rich

 

[lucretius]

So then it's confirmed: all we needed was a 20/96 which FLAC that compresses to about the same file size as a 24/48 MQA encoded file, and it totally lossless, even for the ultrasonics.

Why not a 20/48 FLAC?

 

[tmtomh]

Why not a 20/48 FLAC?

That would be fine too. I think @voodooless is citing 20/96 because it would be sufficient even by Stuart's own standards: 20 bits' worth of depth, plus a sample rate that permits encoding of frequencies at 26kHz (per Stuart's AES paper) and has a Nyquist of 48kHz (MQA's maximum).

 

[DimitryZ]

talk with lindberg 2l
(you might need to find the english text in the video settings)

@Rosewind published a version with helpful English subtitles on PFM.

Thank you.

Seems very sincere to me.

 

[ebslo]

it can be perfectly possible that DSD 18/96 FLAC, for example, achieves as good or better results Tham MQA (at the cost of a much more difficult to stream file size, that is at no cost at all and even with some savings)

FTFY

I was looking back through the early part of the thread, and noticed this was your first comment, all the way back on page 25. It received no likes, responses, or further discussion at the time. Sorry it took this long to catch on.

 

[amirm]

Or focus on measuring MQA to prove or disprove its statements.

Focus on what? I don't have an encoder and not a fan of keep reverse engineering and reading tea leaves.

 

[RichB]

Focus on what? I don't have an encoder and not a fan of keep reverse engineering and reading tea leaves.

You could request a MQA encoding of a known master for analysis.
Measurements are not reverse engineering for proof of efficacy.

- Rich

 

[amirm]

You could request a MQA encoding of a known master for analysis.

That's not going to give us much as we will be back to reading tea leaves from an encoding.

 

[DimitryZ]

That's not going to give us much as we will be back to reading tea leaves from an encoding.

@amirm , can you keep us updated on how the MQA music encoding effort is going? I think many people here and elsewhere are ready to contribute, myself included.