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

[LeftCoastTim]

It could have trivially done that as well. But the market doesn't want that. The market wants the files as created in the "studio" as that sounds like it is better. What you are saying is why the hotel customer doesn't drink tap water instead of paying $5 for the Fuji bottle on the table. Even if they taste the same, some want the Fiji water thinking they are in a paradise for a minute or two. Don't change the value prop and then ask why they did this. They did it because there is market demand.

Also, they conducted controlled test showing that filtering of high-res audio 44.1 khz can have audible effects:

“The audibility of typical digital audio Filters in a high-fidelity playback system,” [peer reviewed] Convention Paper, Presented at the 137th AES Convention 2014

The dotted line was p < 0.05:

“The dotted line shows performance that is significantly different from chance at the p<0.05 level [5% probability of chance] calculated using the binomial distribution (56.25% correct comprising 160 trials combined across listeners for each condition).”

Not a home run as far as night and day but passes the standard used in research for audibility. This paper was published a year or two before MQA as a format was announced so it laid the foundation for why this format should exist.

This is a funky paper.

First of all, research has shown that young people (19-25 yo) can hear up to 28kHz (link).

Here are the conditions and one sided T test results from the paper. I think the way they did Table 2 has a funny smell. Still, let's take it at face value.



According to Table 2, the "hardest to distinguish" was 24kHz filter with no dither. Maybe that was expected. The "easiest to distinguish" was 24kHz filter with 16 bit quantization plus dither.

The paper says there were 8 test subjects aged from 25 to 65, with no breakdown. But looking at the scores (about 60-65% success rate), it's pretty plausible that if there were two 25 year olds with good hearing among the test subjects, one would expect the outcome of the paper. I wish they would have plotted the ability to hear the difference vs subject age.

Even though this paper seems to be saying that high frequency content is important in music, I think it's actually showing that young people can hear a 22-24kHz filter. That's all.

The other stuff (quantization and dither) is well within error bars and nothing can be said about it.

It makes good marketing for hi-res music though: "Oh look, people* can hear beyond CD frequencies."

But let's conveniently hide the fact that * = young people

 

[Raindog123]

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

In my eyes, you’re right. Still, I’ve started a countdown for someone to quickly explain you (and me) why we‘re so wrong…

 

[Music1969]

Apple and Spotify ain't using lossless yet Apple June 1st Spotify?

No what I mean is they are using their marketing right now (even before it's available) to attempt to differentiate.

Apple lossless some time in June. Hi-res lossless end of this year.

Spotify 'selected markets' starts end of this year.

 

[voodooless]

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

By all means.. no, I think I’m with Amir in this one: let the market decide. What I am for though, is influencing this market, as long as it remains within the bounds of free speech (and in case of this forum, within the rules). That is wat MQA does as well, so why should others not?

 

[Music1969]

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.

I don't think the big boys are actively thinking about Tidal and Qobuz - they are competing amongst themselves...

But I would guess Tidal and Qobuz and Deezer will feel the big boys are coming for their necks. Especially with the pricing announced by Apple and copied by Amazon same day.

 

[amirm]

Even though this paper seems to be saying that high frequency content is important in music, I think it's actually showing that young people can hear a 22-24kHz filter. That's all.

That is all it needs to show to make a case for not pre-filtering the content when it is distribute online. The CD is no more. I don't understand why we are stuck with its format as far as digital content.

 

[Raindog123]

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

Thanks. I do not go on PFM. And did not realize it looks so bad here on ASR... I myself clearly graduated from MQA lovers to skeptics - but all I am looking for is a proof of MQA claims. And felt that it’s in the very spirit of ASR - we vigorously demand quantitative measurements and controlled subjective listening tests of every statement made here, of every piece of equipment. And somehow MQA seems to enjoy a special treatment, a ‘free ASR ride’. Go figure…

Still consider myself a moderate, reasonable skeptic - willing to wait for that proof for some time. Before ‘banning/killing’ anything. (And how does one do that anyway?) But should not there be some reasonable deadline, by which - on a science board ASR is - one either coming up with a body of scientific evidence or proclaiming the subject a red herring?

 

[dmac6419]

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

It would be the person who can't swim who jumped in to save the other person who can't swim.

 

[beeface]

Forgetting MQA for a moment: way back in 2012, Monty from Xiph.org argued (convincingly, to me, a layman) that 16 bit is “enough”.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200124190800/https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

would someone smarter than me mind letting me know what I’m missing?

 

[Raindog123]

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.

I think it is true… However the complexity of products, concepts, ideas, etc has increased as well. And even more so, the apparent, superficial access to those complex concepts. Often causing the false sense of ‘understanding’. Ultimately, misused and abused by both the ‘information-seekers’ and the ‘influencers’.

 

[dmac6419]

No what I mean is they are using their marketing right now (even before it's available) to attempt to differentiate.

Apple lossless some time in June. Hi-res lossless end of this year.

Spotify 'selected markets' starts end of this year.

Apple,Amazon, might buy up all the streaming services who knows,maybe Tidal will buy Spotify they haves the monies now who knows.

 

[markus]

For an intelligent person, not prone to dumbly follow any random "influencer"

You're grossly overestimating the size of that group within the general population Catering to KOL's is standard marketing repertoir these days. Even in fields driven by "science". Whatever Amir is doing in favour of MQA couldn't be done by themselves participating here.

 

[dmac6419]

Forgetting MQA for a moment: way back in 2012, Monty from Xiph.org argued (convincingly, to me, a layman) that 16 bit is “enough”.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200124190800/https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

would someone smarter than me mind letting me know what I’m missing?

16 bit is fine as long as it's recorded well, people get caught up bigger is better,why do I need a 1pound burger and one pound of fries and a 64 oz drink.

 

[Music1969]

Apple,Amazon, might buy up all the streaming services who knows,maybe Tidal will buy Spotify they haves the monies now who knows.

Yes the Tidal + Jack is most interesting to watch...

Regardless of how deep his pockets are, I don't think Jack would be happy to watch subscriber numbers go downwards... so all options to make the subscriber numbers go upwards would be on the table.

Down from an already low number (low compared to big boys).

 

[Jimbob54]

By the way, why do MQA CDs and 16-bit MQA encoded streams exist in the first place?

So more stuff makes the blue light come on the new mqa dac you just bought. It means it's better, obviously.

 

[dmac6419]

You're grossly overestimating the size of that group in the general population Catering to KOL's is standard marketing repertoir these days. Even in fields driven by "science". What Amir is doing in favour of MQA couldn't be done by themselves participating here.

Amir is just quoting facts and not hearsay, I can say MQA or FLAC or say anything is bad ( and have no knowledge of what I'm talking about) and if Google algorithm places it #1 in the search I now have followers so it must be true right?

 

[dmac6419]

So more stuff makes the blue light come on the new mqa dac you just bought. It means it's better, obviously.

Same way some people like looking at the others colored lights on their equipment right,lights makes people aroused,am I right?

 

[amirm]

Forgetting MQA for a moment: way back in 2012, Monty from Xiph.org argued (convincingly, to me, a layman) that 16 bit is “enough”.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200124190800/https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

would someone smarter than me mind letting me know what I’m missing?

Let's not get into that discussion here. I will just say that he is making a number of mistakes in there and hand waiving arguments. His ultrasonic signals for example are full amplitude 30 and 35 kHz. Let me know if you ever see music with that kind of spectrum! Indeed MQA says that such spectrum never appears in real music. He also uses the common argument that "if one uses the right dither, all will be fine with 16 bits." Tell me which album uses what dither and I will be right with you. Otherwise, I want the 24 bit source, thank you very much.

 

[stopbeingalentil]

He had no ability to prove this point and simply repeated one of the talking points against this MQA feature.

Funny you should phrase it that way because that's also exactly how MQA acts in this whole conversation.

That would require investigative work across a ton of MQA content to know what is or is not there. His experience of using an automated system which is reserved for smaller distributors is not indicative of the larger usage of MQA that involves MQA and a few major mastering house.

You know very well that a) there is no such thing as proving a negative and b) this argument is based on logic deduction. You cannot retroactively undo the specific sonic degradations introduced by each individual ADC used in a complex production unless you have all the original source material and access to the ADCs used (for examining them to that end). Sure this can be done in new productions with that method in mind from the get-go, but I don't believe that even you would make the argument that this is viable, feasible, or even at all possible for the vast back-catalog of music that progressively gets converted to MQA

And that is what we are examining here, not him repeating an argument he has heard.

If that's your goal, then maybe you as well should stop regurgitating the unsubstantiated MQA marketing claims as if they were proven fact. Or at least either meet them with the same level of doubt and scrutiny as you meet Golden's content or - alternatively - give him just as much benefit of the doubt as you afford MQA.

Remember what I said:

"So the total feature list if you call it that, goes beyond the main focus of OP and what we are talking about in this thread. "

The main focus was on showing that MQA is not lossless. That was easily done and there is no point discussing this because it's simply been proven - unless you want to keep arguing semantics such that somehow it's perfectly reasonable for MQA to silently and implicitly redefine the term to be practically meaningless vs. what's been the established default meaning in audio and signal processing.

However the strong secondary focus was on investigating their other marketing claims as well and since those points aren't easily testable without the support of MQA - which they will never give -, the point of the discussion is to incubate ideas, suspicions, assumptions, which we can then run across each other for basic sniff testing and collaboratively flesh out to maybe something rigid enough to become testable even without MQAs support.

All you're adding to that conversation so far is: "but MQA said..." and "OP is wrong". People learn about this here site - and your body of work - when they're seeking out objective information about audio equipment, measurements, facts, logical, scientific explanations and analysis. With your extensive experience and knowledge you could very well help forming ideas testing methodologies that don't require direct support by MQA but which you think could yield robust results nonetheless. Yet, you chose to not be constructive in the slightest but instead be a mouth piece for Bob Stuart. And you're seriously not understanding how some people would start to doubt your integrity? smh

 

[dmac6419]

Let's not get into that discussion here. I will just say that he is making a number of mistakes in there and hand waiving arguments. His ultrasonic signals for example are full amplitude 30 and 35 kHz. Let me know if you ever see music with that kind of spectrum! Indeed MQA says that such spectrum never appears in real music. He also uses the common argument that "if one uses the right dither, all will be fine with 16 bits." Tell me which album uses what dither and I will be right with you. Otherwise, I want the 24 bit source, thank you very much.

What you doing up,it's 4:30am in the morning, oh I forgot you're on the Westcoast lol