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

[levimax]

@amirm I look forward to your objective testing of MQA performance, hopefully you can complete what @GoldenOne has started. I can understand MQA is an interesting codec technically but for me as a consumer I see no utility to it as I can't hear frequencies above 20 KHz, I have no content and have never heard of any content with more than 16 bits of dynamic range, I don't care about the file size difference involved, and unless your testing shows otherwise I prefer to use a proper "fast" reconstruction filer. Pending your analysis I put MQA in the same category as "expensive interconnects".... they don't really harm anything but are a waste of money and their marketing tactics are annoying.

 

[voodooless]

I think that what anyone that actually listens to MQA is arguing is that it has a right to exist and can succeed or fail based on the market decisions.

I don’t think the audio performance has a lot to do with right to exist.. I don’t even think anyone would question that right. It (mostly) a free enough world that companies can sell whatever they like, bad or good. But I have the right to dismiss it just as well. I’d doesn’t matter on what grounds even. But the point is, based on the same objective information present I reach a different conclusion. None of this has even anything to do with the technical prowess that went into this product, or that I think it would not sound any good.

This should not be a controversial position.

If we’re talking “right to exist”, no that should not be controversial.

 

[Ultor]

Quick question, am I the only one surprised by the following statement (in Bob's article):


If I'm not mistaken, we must distinguish between Native FLAC (which is the container) and FLAC which is the codec. And it's not for nothing that you can put FLAC in an Ogg container https://xiph.org/flac/faq.html

I'm sad, seems only a few people noticed this xD

 

[DimitryZ]

I don’t think the audio performance has a lot to do with right to exist.. I don’t even think anyone would question that right. It (mostly) a free enough world that companies can sell whatever they like, bad or good. But I have the right to dismiss it just as well. I’d doesn’t matter on what grounds even. But the point is, based on the same objective information present I reach a different conclusion. None of this has even anything to do with the technical prowess that went into this product, or that I think it would not sound any good.



If we’re talking “right to exist”, no that should not be controversial.

I come from an experience where folks vehemently against MQA want it destroyed/banned - lots of hatred.

I use/enjoy MQA, but I will be fine if it fails. My MQA-enabled DACs will work just as well on LPCM.

 

[DimitryZ]

I'm sad, seems only a few people noticed this xD

Format/container distinction seems complicated. Perhaps you can eleborate on your sadness.

 

[amirm]

I'm sad, seems only a few people noticed this xD

I read it, but couldn't figure out what point you are trying to make. MQA uses both Flac as a container and lossless encoder. PCM audio delivered does the same thing. What is it that you wanted to say in this regard?

 

[dmac6419]

Since Amazon and Apple and Spotify are now using lossless/hi-res to differentiate , I think if Tidal are really 'all in' with MQA as the main MQA streaming services (there's small amount of MQA on Qobuz by 2L) they need to take on some responsibility and take on some of the messaging work.

Either share the marketing responsibility with MQA Ltd or dump MQA completely or just they (Tidal) can just watch their subscriber numbers disappear.

Tidal can't be half assed with the big boys coming for their necks. Especially with the huge recent game changer with pricing - Amazon Music HD and Apple Lossless will be same price as Spotify's current lossy service. The pressure is really on for Tidal's survival and hence MQA Ltd's survival.

We still don't know what move Google will make with YouTube Music.

Tidal actually just recently re-jigged their pricing, having the MQA tier priced higher than CD quality tier . But that will need to be re-done with the recent Amazon Music HD and Apple Hi-res Lossless pricing news.

I personally don't want MQA anywhere but will be interesting to watch what Tidal do with both pricing and MQA.

Strap yourselves in for a wild ride ahead

Apple and Spotify ain't using lossless yet Apple June 1st Spotify? Who knows when, if you think they're coming for Tidal they must be coming for Qobuz and all the rest,psst Jay-Z doesn't own Tidal anymore Jack and companies does.

 

[Raindog123]

Format/container distinction seems complicated. Perhaps you can eleborate on your sadness.

It‘s more clear with the original quote preserved. Not a biggie, more of the same ‘quality argument’…

 

[dmac6419]

It is not and never has been. Market for high-res audio is small and the subset that are convinced MQA provides value there is much smaller still. MQA actually copies some of the techniques in HDCD which provided backward compatibility just the same by creating a channel in baseband audio to encode 20 bits into 16.

What I hope has been "won" is a more clear understanding of the topic so we don't say things that can be effectively countered by someone like me, or officially as Bob Stuart did in his blog post. Best to not step into things and then have to dig out of a hole.

Like they say,if you can't swim don't jump in the waters, they'll be rescuing two bodies.

 

[DimitryZ]

Like they say,if you can't swim don't jump in the waters, they'll be rescuing two bodies.

I may be slow at this hour on the US east coast. Who are the two bodies?

 

[Ultor]

I read it, but couldn't figure out what point you are trying to make. MQA uses both Flac as a container and lossless encoder. PCM audio delivered does the same thing. What is it that you wanted to say in this regard?

Well, Bob in his explanation sums up FLAC as a simple container, while this is completely incorrect. And yes, it bothers me a bit that this wrong argument is used to defend MQA.

 

[voodooless]

I come from an experience where folks vehemently against MQA want it destroyed/banned - lots of hatred.

I think there is a big difference between being vehemently against something and destroying or banning something.. But I think in these modern times with Cancel Culture this distinction has become ever more under pressure.. That is sad really.

 

[Raindog123]

Well, Bob in his explanation sums up FLAC as a simple container, while this is completely incorrect. And yes, it bothers me a bit that this wrong argument is used to defend MQA

3… 2… 1….

 

[DimitryZ]

I think there is a big difference between being vehemently against something and destroying or banning something.. But I think in these modern times with Cancel Culture this distinction has become ever more under pressure.. That is sad really.

It seems to me that.the anti-MQA crowd wants it gone by all means necessary. What is your take?

 

[Raindog123]

I come from an experience where folks vehemently against MQA want it destroyed/banned - lots of hatred.

Out of curiosity, where did you experience all that? Sounds gruesome.

 

[DimitryZ]

Well, mostly on PFM, but certainly in the anti-MQA centiment here as well.

 

[Ultor]

3… 2… 1….

Am I wrong?
Maybe my english is rusty and my brain have translation issues

Edit: I'm not sarcastic, 100% honest, I don't practice my English a lot except when I'm watching Netflix, ha ha ha

 

[Hai-Fri. Audio]

I come from an experience where folks vehemently against MQA want it destroyed/banned

This is something that doesn't compute for me. What do people expect is the best case scenario for taking up such extreme positions anyway?

My guess is they're only a vocal minority. I've got faith in the lurkers to recognize what is of value here.

 

[KSTR]

It would be interesting to see if there is any scientific backup for this statement. From my perspective, including living during a decent part of the last century, I would conclude the opposite. To me it appears the internet has dumbed down most people when it comes to technical issues and they more or less go along with what ever the "influencers" are peddling much of which is pseudoscience at best. Back in the early Hi-Fi days of the 1950's and 60's people were really engaged in Hi-Fi as a hobby and read up and studied and often built their own equipment.

For an intelligent person, not prone to dumbly follow any random "influencer", it is soooo much easier to get information and learn something these days, with so many resources availabe for free or very low cost, and accessible with so much reduced effort. Of course there is a lot of bullshit and fake news floating around.
I finished my education (computer and electronic engineering) in the early eigthies and it was so tedious and time consuming to gather information, with the only source being universitary libraries and some well-sorted book stores in major cities. Basically a 1:100 ratio, for the information I can collect in one day today on any topic I'm interested in I've spent many months back then... like as you mention, DIYing electronics. The DIY scene is bigger than it ever was, or at least it is feasible to connect with people all over the world. When I started getting into DIY electronics as a child/teenager, the only resources was the local TV/radio repair shop, and luckily our town was big enough to have a small store were you could buy components and some literature.

 

[DimitryZ]

This is something that doesn't compute for me. What do people expect is the best case scenario for taking up such extreme positions anyway?

My guess is they're only a vocal minority. I've got faith in the lurkers to recognize what is of value here.

I can't tell. But the actual anti-MQA posters seem to want it destroyed