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

[Tks]

Unless you have better data than me, I observed countless audiophiles react to MQA since inception. For starters, they got completely lost as to what it was and what it did. And the fact that it came from Meridian which hardly any high-end user buys, was a second negative. Their reaction only changed when they played the content and whether it was due to different masters, true benefit of high-res and false conclusions, many changed their mind and adopted it.

Messaging from MQA has always been poor and not to their benefit. Things like "authentication" and such is not something people associate with goodness. Nor "origami," etc.

While Bob Stuart and crew had history in creating a new format in the form of MLP for DVD-Audio, they licensed the technology to Dolby who is the master of marketing the format. So they clearly made a lot of mistakes him in how they have rolled out MQA. And continue to do so to their own detriments. As such, I don't consider anything they have done on marketing front to have been an asset.

And oh, the standard for audiophiles is the live presentation of music, not what the mastering engineer heard. We value the mastering because we attempt to be faithful to a recording. That is not how high-end audiophiles think.

Just wanted to address quickly, that the statement in bold isn't true. Anyone I've talked to MQA about, was mostly concerned with that authentication claim, not simply whether MQA "sounds good". I also being of the same volition. I'd much rather them being able to deliver on their authentication claims (which they can't and have demonstrated they actually don't even if they could seeing as how Golden's content was published without any information of the provenance of his music), instead of them delivering on claims of "better sound". I can EQ and get better sound on my own. What I can't do, is get access to supposed master tapes which MQA claimed they could.

I honestly believe the claims about authentication they have made are far more powerful from a novel perspective, than the ever-lasting claim every company always tries to make about "better sound" from their product. I believe this to such a degree, that even if the sound was worse, but they could still deliver on their claims of provenance (about access to master files that they now bring to consumers, though it would have to be unmolested which the MQA encoder is incapable of doing due to being lossy technically, but alas, transparent audibly to me for the few MQA albums I have) it would still be a greater achievement than if they were ever actually able to deliver on the "better sound" claims to begin with.

I've not met a single person who thinks the claim's MQA's made about authentication are "bad", if indeed they were actually capable of delivering on it as advertised. The only reason it's not considered within the realm of "goodness" as you say - is because they simply can't deliver on something of that caliber. So if you mean it's not something people associate with goodness due to the claim being impossible to deliver on, then I agree. But if you're saying people don't really think it's a good selling point if they were able to actually deliver on it. That's simply a false claim.

 

[pjug]

@amirm I know you have plenty to do but did you see the @John Atkinson post about multiple MQA versions of the Bruno Mars track? Are you inclined to figure out why your spectrum is different from what others have found or are you just going to move on?

 

[Raindog123]

We are discussing MQA which as a content format has no provisions for content protection. Just like FLAC, MP3, AAC, etc. though you can wrap it in a content protection system as streaming services do.

And when someone tells me that what Tidal did to me/us [regarding MQA streaming] ‘is not a form of DRM’, all I think back is ‘Yah, right! You are lucky that did not happened to you’.

FIFY

And, respectfully, I do know exactly what _I_ am interested in discussing and am discussing. I do not care at all whether MQA does not have an intrinsic mechanism _today_ to enforce eg the discussed tiered service… That mechanism can be added at a later point, after the world conquering is done…

 

[DimitryZ]

…As for me, I got MQA (as Tidal Master tier) entirely on the marketing and advertising. Got totally fascinated by what was said, trusted everything too (why would not I?) And their ‘technical specs’ are their marketing and vice versa, but it was fine.

Don’t get me wrong, MQA did not sounded bad. It did not sound better than non-MQA hi-res, but that did not bother me, not then. I was one happy proud MQA consumer.

What got to me personally was when Tidal stopped sending MQA to us, the Auralic DAC users: As an integrated DAC-streamer, Auralic (a) had a Tidal interdation and agreement with Tidal. (Think of it as a ‘Roon with integrated DAC HW’.) And Auralic (b) did implement its own version of MQA decoder nicely integrated into their Lightning DS environment - with user-selectable filters, equalizer, some DSP functions, etc…

Well, ‘it was all good while it lasted‘: One day Tidal just turned off the MQA delivery to Auralic users. Imagine multiple emails and phone calls to both Auralic and Tidal customer service and tech support, with their typical level of incompetence and finger-pointing… Discussions on the Auralic forum, while desperately craving for a hi-res ‘fix’… It was gone for two weeks, and then it came back…

…Only to be gone again, half year later.… ‘Fool me twice…’ So, I ditched Tidal with its MQA. And as I got smarter by then, I sold my ‘[promised to be] MQA capable’ Auralic, and my MQA Dragonfly, and my EarMen Sparrow. And did I mentioned getting smarter by then? So, bought four non-MQA DACs… And letting Auralic’s Lightning DS go forced me to get Roon…

And when someone tells me that what Tidal did to me/us ‘is not a form of DRM’, all I think back is ‘Yah, right! You are lucky that did not happened to you.” And though I had to essentially refresh my entire digital streaming arsenal, I feel I ended up with a much better setup!

Very interesting history.

Auralic history with MQA has been very controversial. There is a discussion of this subject on the PFM MQA thread. They couldn't "decode" MQA on their own, as @mansr explains. They used undecoded MQA and a reconstruction filter they felt was the best match. This seemed like a poor option to me.

I didn't realize that Tidal eventually cut them off - when did this occured? Seems mean-spirited.

 

[DimitryZ]

FIFY

And, respectfully, I do know exactly what _I_ am interested in discussing and am discussing. I do not care at all whether MQA does not have an intrinsic mechanism _today_ to enforce eg the discussed tiered service… That mechanism can be added at a later point, after the world conquering is done…

The only way MQA can interfere with your playback of MQA-CDs or MQA files you purchased is by breaking into your house.

 

[amirm]

@amirm I know you have plenty to do but did you see the @John Atkinson post about multiple MQA versions of the Bruno Mars track? Are you inclined to figure out why your spectrum is different from what others have found or are you just going to move on?

I did. I am measuring another speaker and tending to the garden and haven't had time to do anything about it. I also hate this kind of forensic work for that very reason. The only proper analysis comes from having an encoder or someone with an encoder. Constantly guessing what was used and such is not a path to proper analysis.

 

[amirm]

And, respectfully, I do know exactly what _I_ am interested in discussing and am discussing. I do not care at all whether MQA does not have an intrinsic mechanism _today_ to enforce eg the discussed tiered service… That mechanism can be added at a later point, after the world conquering is done…

The mechanism can be added to Flac, ALAC, etc. just as well then. What kind of argument is that? You are going to penalize a format for what you can imaging to be added to it? Why don't we say that Apple can force you to wear an Apple watch if you want to use the iPhone. You are going to buy that?

There is also a much bigger reason why they can't do what you say, Intellectual Property! There are a handful of entity with core patents in DRM, some of who are quite aggressive in going after you. If you get remotely close to it, you will get hit with more suits than you know how to handle them. Just out recently: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...o-pay-308-5-million-for-infringing-drm-patent

"Apple must pay $308.5 million to closely held Personalized Media Communications after a federal jury in Marshall, Texas, decided on Friday that the tech giant infringed a patent related to digital rights management.

Personalized Media had sued claiming Apple infringed its patent with technology including FairPlay, which is used for the distribution of encrypted content from its iTunes, App Store and Apple Music applications."

http://contentguard.com/company/

"Spun out of Xerox PARC, ContentGuard is a leading inventor, developer and licensor of content privacy and control technologies with more than 300 issued patents worldwide. ContentGuard currently has licensing agreements for its digital rights management technologies in place with leading technology companies, including LG, Microsoft, Nokia, Panasonic, Sharp, Sony, Toshiba, Casio, Hitachi, Time Warner and Xerox. ContentGuard is owned by Pendrell Corporation and Time Warner, and is headquartered in Plano, Texas. "

Microsoft and Warner created this pact to protect against other aggressive patent holders in DRM. So above is not even close to the full story.

You have to have a huge hole in the head these days to get into DRM business. MQA will have its hands full defending against patents in the space they are in.

 

[pjug]

I did. I am measuring another speaker and tending to the garden and haven't had time to do anything about it. I also hate this kind of forensic work for that very reason. The only proper analysis comes from having an encoder or someone with an encoder. Constantly guessing what was used and such is not a path to proper analysis.

Thanks. Don't blame you but you can also push it off on us if you tell us how to find the exact track you were using.

If @Werner is correct and all MQA sourced from 44KHz originals uses a slow filter in the decoding to give the fake mirror ultrasonics, then don't you agree that this is worse than just having the original 24/44?

What I'm trying to get at is the reality of Tidal/MQA. The majority are 16 bit from 16/44 (so I'd say redbook is fine for those no need for MQA-CD). Then most of the remaining MQA are from 24/44 with this fake mirroring. So only a very small percentage of Tidal Masters are MQA that are anything like HiRes.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Thanks. Don't blame you but you can also push it off on us if you tell us how to find the exact track you were using.

If @Werner is correct and all MQA sourced from 44KHz originals uses a slow filter in the decoding to give the fake mirror ultrasonics, then don't you agree that this is worse than just having the original 24/44?

What I'm trying to get at is the reality of Tidal/MQA. The majority are 16 bit from 16/44 (so I'd say redbook is fine for those no need for MQA-CD). Then most of the remaining MQA are from 24/44 with this fake mirroring. So only a very small percentage of Tidal Masters are MQA that are anything like HiRes.

Just trust MQA to have the provenance.

 

[raistlin65]

I specifically quoted both access control through DRM and copy protection in my quote. MQA music is distributed without either. DVD region coding which has nothing to do with CSS by the way, is a form of rights management. You bypassing region coding is against the rights embedded in the content and hence give rise to them going after you although practically speaking, region coding was hardly enforced.

Yes. This does have to do with DeCSS. The EFF and Public Knowledge specifically asked the Copyright Office to grant a fair use exemption to circumvention of protection due to DVD region coding in response to their inquiry, Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, 67 Fed. Reg. 63578 (2002)

https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/dmca_2003/20021218_effpkcomments.pdf

As pointed out in the document, people were using DeCSS to do that.

But I could see how a Microsoft bureaucrat would have no knowledge of fair use exemption efforts.

 

[DimitryZ]

Thanks. Don't blame you but you can also push it off on us if you tell us how to find the exact track you were using.

If @Werner is correct and all MQA sourced from 44KHz originals uses a slow filter in the decoding to give the fake mirror ultrasonics, then don't you agree that this is worse than just having the original 24/44?

What I'm trying to get at is the reality of Tidal/MQA. The majority are 16 bit from 16/44 (so I'd say redbook is fine for those no need for MQA-CD). Then most of the remaining MQA are from 24/44 with this fake mirroring. So only a very small percentage of Tidal Masters are MQA that are anything like HiRes.

I think you may have misunderstood @Werner explanation. This came up on PFM as well.

MQA uses a slow reconstruction or "rendering" filter. Similar filters are available as an option in all modern DACs.

Filter debates have been going on since early days of digital sound. Original CD brick wall filters were faulted for "harsh" sound of early digital. Lots of filter designs followed.

All filter choices are compromises. The main trade-off is between accuracy in the frequency domain vs. accuracy in the time domain.

MQA is using a relatively slow roll off filter as they believe that gains in the time domain performance outweigh losses in the frequency domain.

There is no attempt to "create" fake ultrasonics. What you are looking at is reconstruction process error.

Since the frequency domain "leakage" is well under -100dB (RMS) and your equipment can't reproduce it (and you, therefore, aren't presented with even an opportunity to hear it), their choice seems to be a valid one.

But if you are bothered by this, you can simply stream to a non-MQA DAC (or an MQA DAC that offers MQA disable) after the Tidal unfold and choose a sharp reconstruction filter. The ultrasonic content should disappear, I think.

 

[pjug]

However the fake mirrored ultrasonics are made that are seen after the first unfold (when original is 44KHz), if this always happens then let's hear how this is a good thing.

And I was not talking about the slow rendering filter. I am only talking about first unfold of MQA made from 44KHz original.

 

[DimitryZ]

However the fake mirrored ultrasonics are made that are seen after the first unfold (when original is 44KHz), if this always happens then let's hear how this is a good thing.

It's not a good thing, clearly. Unless you get something good against the bad.

Slow filter will give you better time domain performance against worse frequency domain results.

If time domain performance of this filter is better that that of a fast filter (highly likely), then I will take -100dB ultrasonic noise in return.

I think we will need a more authoritative opinion from @Werner as to whether these artefacts are part of the unfold or part of the rendering processes.

 

[raistlin65]

As you said, you are a lay person and should leave such matters to professionals in the field.

Actually, I'm not a layperson in the context you are using it. A significant part of my professional life involved intellectual property issues. I was talking about being a layperson in terms of knowing intellectual property law, as I am not an attorney.

I also don't need to rely on self-aggrandizing, appeals to authority to discuss intellectual property. I see no reason not to let arguments stand on their own merit.

And so people should believe you represent him?

They don't have to.

Hey, people. My claim was

Meanwhile, to echo what I said previously, corporate intellectual property holders often initiate copyright infringement or DMCA notices because they know many individuals (or small startups) do not have the money to fight for their rights, even if their claims are dubious of having the rights. And that is something that Lessig has stated repeatedly. I've read it, and I have heard him say it in person.

Chapter 7 of Freeculture is one place Lessig makes his argument about fair use and how protectionist IP bullies use lawsuits, even when they are clearly in the wrong. It's a quick and interesting read, for anyone who might be interested.

And for anyone interested in where this happens with the DMCA, the EFF has some discussion of it in their Unintended Consequences: Fifteen Years under the DMCA .

And if anyone else has any questions about some of the things I've said regarding intellectual property, I'd be glad to try to provide resources, instead of repeatedly insisting I'm an expert

 

[raistlin65]

I didn't tell you MQA is free to users. I said MQA is free to those of us who use software decoders in Roon (and Tidal App). None of us have ever paid for MQA. I paid for Roon what I paid without Tidal or MQA. I then subscribed to Tidal and Tidal later added MQA without raising its price. And Roon added decoding for the same without asking me for more money.

C'mon. This is bad faith marketing BS. The consumer is paying for it. Just because your subscription rate wasn't raised, that doesn't mean there wasn't an opportunity cost, as I'm sure you understand.

None of this has anything to do with "understanding intellectual property." Don't use big words whose meaning you don't understand. I do so just makes your commentary look more wrong than it is. How much a license costs has nothing to do with "intellectual property." It is a business terms which could exist with no intellectual property. I could license you to use ASR name. That doesn't mean it is intellectual property.

I disagree. But I understand how that perspective doesn't fit the MQA proxy talking points on how MQA is free to end-users. lol

 

[GoldenOne]

Page 1 of stereophile this month.
MOD Edit:
[full scan of the page deleted].

From our terms of service:

"You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws. You are entirely responsible for the content of, and any harm resulting from, that Content or your conduct. "

You can quote a paragraph and such with proper reference to the origin but not full scans of article pages.

 

[RobS]

So how much did MQA pay Jim Austin to write that?

 

[amirm]

If @Werner is correct and all MQA sourced from 44KHz originals uses a slow filter in the decoding to give the fake mirror ultrasonics, then don't you agree that this is worse than just having the original 24/44?

I don't bother with MQA DACs so don't have to deal with the slow filter.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Page 1 of stereophile this month.
View attachment 134017

I agree with the solution offered. Don't throw out the china, keep the bull out. MQA is sure enough the bull. Loads of bull.

 

[Blumlein 88]

So how much did MQA pay Jim Austin to write that?

Probably nothing. Which isn't to say he knows which side his bread is buttered on. Which is better for stereophile? That CD holds all the info we can hear listening to music or that some hirez sort of thing is worthwhile and leads to sales of gear and recordings all over again plus articles to talk about it all?