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

[pjug]

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

Again, I wasn't talking about the rendering, just the first unfold. @Werner said that the fake mirroring (like we see in the spectrum that Bruno Mars track) will occur for every MQA made from 24/44 original.

 

[GoldenOne]

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.

Perhaps if they didn't want someone to try throwing a bull in their shop they shouldn't have advertised 'shatterproof china'.

If your argument is that your product only failed because it was tested something needs a rethink.

In other news, I don't need fillings cause I've not been to the dentist.

 

[DimitryZ]

Again, I wasn't talking about the rendering, just the first unfold. @Werner said that the fake mirroring (like we see in the spectrum that Bruno Mars track) will occur for every MQA made from 24/44 original.

We will just have to wait for confirmation.

Again, less than -100dB.

 

[DimitryZ]

Perhaps if they didn't want someone to try throwing a bull in their shop they shouldn't have advertised 'shatterproof china'.

If your argument is that your product only failed because it was tested something needs a rethink.

In other news, I don't need fillings cause I've not been to the dentist.

Have you ever done actual professional testing in any engineering discipline?

 

[GoldenOne]

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.

Bulls are outside 'natural' tea drinking conditions so they don't count.

But the China is definitely shatterproof. 'Better than shatterproof' in fact... Trust us

 

[noobie1]

If your argument is that your product only failed because it was tested something needs a rethink.

Not a fan of Jim Austin but that's not close to what he said.

 

[amirm]

For starters, Archimago's source file was 44.1kHz, MQA-encoded. He wrote that clearly here https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/.

I read that useless explanation -- multiple times actually. There is nothing clear about it:

"We actually can show this effect quite prominently when looking/listening to MQA-encoded music that began life as 44.1 or 48kHz. Very obvious examples are pop recordings such as this Bruno Mars album below originally of 44.1kHz sampling rate, fed into the MQA encoder and then unfolded to 88.2kHz within the Tidal software. "

How the heck does he know what master the MQA file came from? And if he does, why doesn't he know if it was 44.1 or 48 kHz?

You need to know what the labels gave them to encode. I have seen tons of horror stories which I have documented. You don't need MQA to screw things up -- the labels do that routinely.

Regardless, my point was that this is just a bunch of guessing games which contrary to what Archimago said, require fair bit of expertise just to know the vocabulary let alone what is really going on. The notion then that he can be Joe-anybody online to do this analysis is a farce.

 

[amirm]

Not a fan of Jim Austin but that's not close to what he said.

I am not either and thought he summarized the issues with Golden's video just fine.

 

[GoldenOne]

How the heck does he know what master the MQA file came from?

This information is contained in the mqa file. Software like Roon will tell you what the source sample rate was.
(I think I also mentioned this in my video)

 

[Chrispy]

This information is contained in the mqa file. Software like Roon will tell you what the source sample rate was.
(I think I also mentioned this in my video)

Curious, how trustworthy is this provenance? It will tell you things like the particular date/production team for a master?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Curious, how trustworthy is this provenance? It will tell you things like the particular date/production team for a master?

 

[DimitryZ]

I read that useless explanation -- multiple times actually. There is nothing clear about it:

"We actually can show this effect quite prominently when looking/listening to MQA-encoded music that began life as 44.1 or 48kHz. Very obvious examples are pop recordings such as this Bruno Mars album below originally of 44.1kHz sampling rate, fed into the MQA encoder and then unfolded to 88.2kHz within the Tidal software. "

How the heck does he know what master the MQA file came from? And if he does, why doesn't he know if it was 44.1 or 48 kHz?

You need to know what the labels gave them to encode. I have seen tons of horror stories which I have documented. You don't need MQA to screw things up -- the labels do that routinely.

Regardless, my point was that this is just a bunch of guessing games which contrary to what Archimago said, require fair bit of expertise just to know the vocabulary let alone what is really going on. The notion then that he can be Joe-anybody online to do this analysis is a farce.

Occum's razor. @Werner explanation fits available facts and is the simplest rational one.

At well under -100dB (~RMS), it simply doesn't matter functionally.

A very interesting nothing burger.

 

[DimitryZ]

I am not either and thought he summarized the issues with Golden's video just fine.

Agreed. A missed opportunity.

 

[lucretius]

Tidal, just like other streaming services deploys rights management or you could subscribe for a month, steal all of their 70 million songs and then quit. They must provide this type of protection or they can't license content from the labels for just a monthly fee.

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.

You could steal all Tidal's tracks but it would take more than 1 month.

 

[DimitryZ]

You could steal all Tidal's tracks but it would take more than 1 month.

How would you duplicate even a single Tidal (or any other commercially streamed) track perfectly digitally and give it to a friend? Be specific - do you mean by recording the LPCM stream?

I can duplicate a purchased MQA track with copy/paste and give it to anyone I want.

Which one has DRM? - one guess.

 

[amirm]

You could steal all Tidal's tracks but it would take more than 1 month.

You mean with real-time capture? Yes, another indication that record labels don't care. Video people on the other hand, don't allow any unprotected digital paths and hence the HDCP copy protection over HDMI.

 

[noobie1]

How would you duplicate even a single Tidal (or any other commercially streamed) track digitally? Be specific.

I can duplicate a purchased MQA track with copy/paste.

DAW could do record streamed music in real time. That’s probably how most people are analyzing MQA files. There is at least one media file downloader although I’m not sure of its legality.

 

[Raindog123]

The mechanism can be added to Flac, ALAC, etc. just as well then. What kind of argument is that?

ALAC - maybe, FLAC - no. Because it’s an open standard, controlled by an open community protecting its (our) interests. We can argue till cows come home, but honestly I am tired, bored, and lost interest.

And it’s a funny argument: I am telling you it _has_ happened to me - Tidal says It works on Auralc’s. And Tidal says Pay us and we get you MQA... But when I tell you I am one unhappy customer - because despite all that Tidal stopped sending me MQAs, the MQA service they promised was not delivered, and I lost tons of time and nerves… all you’re telling me is to be happy with MQA [as it’s not their fault]”. Heck, no! I do not give two schiits about whose fault it is, I am just an unsatisfied Tidal and MQA customer here - as all my troubles were gone the moment I switched to Qobuz with their hi-res.

Now, hear me again. The above it’s just one single ‘personal experience’ argument. (Though those tend to be the strongest)…. Earlier I/we gave you another - “MQA gets in the way of equalizing”. You response was something like “But it does not bother me, Amir, with my Roon, so I, Amir, can‘s see why everyone else is unhappy?!”

To the next argument “of needing proprietary SW [for core unfold]”, your answer is “but there is Tidal and Roon, that I, Amir, consider ‘mainstream’ and happen to own, so why ain’t you all happy too!?” And “Who owns MQA files anyway, all MQA come from Tidal!” … (Well, see the the previous paragraph.)

To the “need for custom MQA HW (an MQA DAC)“ , your reply is - “Yah, those are coming. For free, believe me…”

…And to the most fundamental question of “At the end, what is the SQ benefit of MQA?”, there is anything but an answer…

And so on. I am honestly not interested in rehashing the 200+ pages of arguments, but there are many more…

Bottom line: It is your right liking MQA, or be as you call it “impartial”. But it would take significantly stronger and significantly more scientific and consistent arguments than have been offered so far, for me to see MQA's benefits. And in the absence of those, you only alternative is to catch and lobotomize me….

 

[lucretius]

How would you duplicate even a single Tidal (or any other commercially streamed) track perfectly digitally and give it to a friend? Be specific - do you mean by recording the LPCM stream?

I can duplicate a purchased MQA track with copy/paste and give it to anyone I want.

Which one has DRM? - one guess.

Simply capture the bits, real-time. I didn't think it was a mystery.

 

[levimax]

You could steal all Tidal's tracks but it would take more than 1 month.

Tidal says they have 60,000,000 tracks, if you assume 3 min per track that works out 342 years to download all of them.