• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,412
Likes
18,384
Location
Netherlands
looking at the graphs, MQA seems to better reflect the original FLAC than Vorbis.

I came to the opposite conclusion, so did others ;)

it's very easy to shit on MQA without a comparative analysis.

I agree. This simple spectral visualization is fun to talk about but really needs much more careful analysis to actually say something of substance.
 
Last edited:

Raindog123

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
1,599
Likes
3,555
Location
Melbourne, FL, USA
This is doing a disservice to himself and everyone who believes in using measurements as the basis for evaluating audio, rather than feelings. And ASR is losing credibility.

IMHO, All it proves is that ASR is much more than just @amirm. And Amir is "just" the facilitator, keeping-it-all-together'or, tireless operator of all that wonderful measuring machinery, and a major contributing voice. @JSmith said it all very well here.

And, by now, you all know I do not kiss asses. (Well, not unless there are some serious "curves" involved... :) )
 
Last edited:

Raindog123

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
1,599
Likes
3,555
Location
Melbourne, FL, USA
I could not let this one slide :p Have you actually looked at the graph:

...

index.php


See whats going on here? The HF is a perfect mirror image of the LF, just with a lower level and a sloping.

You know what they call that in circles outside of MQA: aliasing... of the worst kind! So please stop telling us that MQA somehow solves aliasing, because all evidence points towards the expact opposite.

So, if confirmed... Instead of useless, inaudible but at least music-relevant information, they "fold" baseband alias images to the above-22kHz! And the only thing that saves their butts is that it is inaudible in first place! WOW.
 
Last edited:

oursmagenta

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
161
Likes
187
Location
France
So, if confirmed... Instead of useless inaudible but at least music-relevant information, they "fold" alias images to the the above-22kHz! And the only thing that saves their butts is that it is inaudible in first place! WOW.

They (this they is somewhat a placeholder, fill it with what "comfort" you the most) really consider the care-about-audio-quality crowd for a bunch of stupid ignorants packed sheep.

The level of cynicism is just off the chart.
 

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,961
Likes
2,626
Location
Massachusetts
The only reason they weren't is that the hifi press and the music labels are at least as corrupt.

I have a hard time "Liking" that post because I hate the truth of it.

The defenses for MQA are odd. Let me summarize:

  • It's free because Tidal is $10. Is that true. I can't find out without signing up for a free trial? Are they afraid to tell me the price?
  • It's not DRM because the quality limiting technology is not copy protection. No, copy protection can be a feature of DRM but DRM can be more.
  • It provided a single container and multiple quality stream technology. Partially, it does not deliver MP3right?
  • It's not that bad. A stunning endorsement.
  • Those tests use invalid sampling but there are examples from downloads that has holes and aliasing?
The most obvious falsehood was lossless and what is MQA's answer, we have moved beyond terms like lossy and lossless. :facepalm:

The most surprising of all is the attempt to debunk the debunkers.
Where is the direct support for MQA's claims? Is the best you can do, it is not as bad as you say?

If you want to defend MQA, the please actually defend the claims, specifically deblur and correction of timing issues created during mastering.

Please name a single benefit or claim that is substantiated and a benefit to the consumer.
If you want to defend MQA, defend their claims. State that you heard deblur, that you know it is the true master.
That the MQA is actually better than the LPCM that is the master.
Show real commitment! :p

- Rich
 
Last edited:

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,705
Location
Hampshire
So, if confirmed... Instead of useless, inaudible but at least music-relevant information, they "fold" baseband alias images to the above-22kHz! And the only thing that saves their butts is that it is inaudible in first place! WOW.
If what is confirmed? It is blatantly obvious from looking at the decompiled MQA software that this is what is going on.
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,412
Likes
18,384
Location
Netherlands
If what is confirmed? It is blatantly obvious from looking at the decompiled MQA software that this is what is going on.

Indeed I did not uncover anything new here, just made a fun demonstration out of it :cool:.

What I don't get is how the lossless compression comes into play? I don't need that to design a poorly performing oversampling filter. So there must be more to it than just this.
 

Jimbob54

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
11,116
Likes
14,783
(The following is an unfinished narrative of the history of MQA imagined from an insider perspective.)

The story of MQA begins with Bob waking up one morning and thinking, "how can I make some money?" His hardware business, Meridian, was losing money, and his earlier foray into digital formats, MLP, had had limited success. Clearly, a new approach was needed. The labels control the music, Bob thought, and thus the flow of money. Something to tap into, but how?

What do the labels desire the most? "Control," Bob said to himself, "and that's what I'll sell them." In another word, DRM. An end to the scourge of piracy. Of course, the music-buying public had long ago rejected DRM, so something clever was needed.

DRM is based on cryptography, and besides secrecy, cryptography can also be used to verify authenticity. Discerning music lovers care about provenance, and what better assurance could there be than an authentic signature from the label itself? Bob had found his Trojan horse.

With a plan to conquer both the music labels and the consumers, one market player still remained unexploited, the hardware vendors. How could they be persuaded to contribute to Bob's fortune? The answer, he decided, was to insist that his new format be decoded only within the DAC. This would also be a further incentive for the labels in that DRM coverage would extend all the way to the analogue stage, elegantly preventing copying without losses, just like in the good old days.

I agree , its DRM, except its DRM to Bob's proprietary magic blue light, not on copying the file itself. The Digital Rights that are being Managed is Bob's tax. I could buy an MQA file and give it to all my friends , robbing the copyright holders of their tuppence ha'penny, but unless they all stump up the Bob tax on their DACs/ software , they are not getting the "full" benefit of the file.

The best part is, turns out there isnt much if any "benefit" to be had from the unfolded full blue light playback. Genius.
 

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,782
Likes
8,174
looking at the graphs, MQA seems to better reflect the original FLAC than Vorbis.

it's very easy to shit on MQA without a comparative analysis.

The "original" FLAC is not the original. It's a compressed version of the original. And it "reflects the original" PCM source far better than Vorbis or MQA because it manages to reduce the file size of the original by 30-60% (give or take) while being lossless. The main differences between Vorbis and MQA are that Vorbis' lossy compression actually results in a much smaller file for situations where file size is crucially important; and Vorbis' creators and proponents don't make inaccurate (or in the case of MQA itself, knowingly false) claims about whether or not it's actually lossy.
 

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,961
Likes
2,626
Location
Massachusetts
The "original" FLAC is not the original. It's a compressed version of the original. And it "reflects the original" PCM source far better than Vorbis or MQA because it manages to reduce the file size of the original by 30-60% (give or take) while being lossless. The main differences between Vorbis and MQA are that Vorbis' lossy compression actually results in a much smaller file for situations where file size is crucially important; and Vorbis' creators and proponents don't make inaccurate (or in the case of MQA itself, knowingly false) claims about whether or not it's actually lossy.

Vorbis also does not claim, that in processing the file, they have recreated truest master.

- Rich
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom