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

[JSmith]

JSmith

 

[gatucho]

"Transforming your everyday listening experiences" Yes... as in making it worse...

 

[Grumple]

People have been fed misinformation and they are running with it with no impact on their own lives. What else would you call it?

It isn't misinformation to call out MQA for their dodgy marketing and their misleading name. They are clearly trying to decieve people. Why would anyone defend that practice?

Your stance on this subject is baffling.

 

[goldenears]

Have you heard of 5G? What about WiFi6? Starlink?

Which one of those has infinite bandwidth?

I am guessing you’re talking about FLAC’s nearly 100% (compressed file is 1/2 [50%] of the original) lossless compression? Of course we use it, all the time!

? Yes, that's what I said. FLAC is lossless and 50% the filesize. It doesn't take much CPU to decode so why not use it?

 

[Grooved]

How long before bandwidth is so accessible as to make even any lossless compression routine just something not needed?

I'm not sure that they think about "our" bandwidth (except in the case of stating it will take less on your storage), it's more on reducing cost from provider sending the files from their servers.
I imagine Amazon has less cost than Tidal has based on their infrastructure

MQA may be down-sampled to 44.1kHz, so not HD. That's the sample rate of the file. MQA argues they saved the lossy bits and put them back, mostly anyway.
There is no universe where MQA is 24-bit depth. In fact, it reduces bit depth, so again, not HD-Audio.
...
- Rich

Actually, you can create higher than that, I've seen folded MQA files that are higher than 44.1 (not after unfold)
Would be interesting to see if this case the 24bit are fully used and not one 1/3 of that used to fold anything under the noise floor.

so you think MQA is free?
Just have a look at the Topping D90 with and without MQA prices and tell me whether the customer pays for decoding or not.

It's not the best example, if it was $100 increase, then there would be no MQA compatible dongle for less than $100.
Here, it's Topping getting more (except they replaced the XU208 by a XU216), unless MQA cost is proportionally set on the device price.

-43.5 dB
Inaudible for tweeter and amps?
My AMT´s go easy over 30khz, and i am often playing very(!) loud music, so that seems dangerous for my equipment.

It's also the signal as it is, before he reaches the DAC so you can have filters on the path before it reaches your amp/speakers

 

[abdo123]

I'm not sure that they think about "our" bandwidth (except in the case of stating it will take less on your storage), it's more on reducing cost from provider sending the files from their servers.
I imagine Amazon has less cost than Tidal has based on their infrastructure



Actually, you can create higher than that, I've seen folded MQA files that are higher than 44.1 (not after unfold)
Would be interesting to see if this case the 24bit are fully used and not one 1/3 of that used to fold anything under the noise floor.



It's not the best example, if it was $100 increase, then there would be no MQA compatible dongle for less than $100.
Here, it's Topping getting more (except they replaced the XU208 by a XU216), unless MQA cost is proportionally set on the device price.


It's also the signal as it is, before he reaches the DAC so you can have filters on the path before it reaches your amp/speakers

Which dongles with MQA support you have seen lower than 100$?

 

[JSmith]

Which dongles with MQA support you have seen lower than 100$?

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000628759396.html

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005002482445566.html



JSmith

 

[abdo123]

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000628759396.html

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005002482445566.html




JSmith

Couldn’t find them on the MQA website, certification is probably fake.

 

[JSmith]

certification is probably fake

True... but that was the case when the Gustard came out for example and now it's on the DAC "approved list". I'd imagine they would function as advertised or they be getting many returns.



JSmith

 

[raistlin65]

Oh thats simple. Lossy exists for the sole purpose of mitigating storage requirements and bandwidth. Barring limits to this (which is the actual case for most music consumption today, with respect to most people not having too much issue with either streaming or storing lossless files) there is no appreciably sane reason to care about lossy formats at all given the two aforementioned caveats.

Where MQA blunders is, unlike codecs for lossy compression we have access to, you dont get to use such encoder to reduce your filessize if you need more compact or bandwidth friendly music delivery or storage. But EVEN IF they gave us the encoder to do so, when you compare lossless to MQA, it fails in its primary purpose of a lossy encoder in the first place by not being any smaller in filesize compared to most FLACs anyway.

You would have to be an idiot to want a lossy format practically speaking if the lossless has similar filesize properties. Unlike FLAC where you can encode the file to some extremely smaller filesize by MusePack or Opus, and incur a single lossy penalty. By converting an MQA file, you incur always another extra lossy penalty since you're starting from lossy.

This is one of the primary reasons MQA fails. Its only compounded by the fact they cant deliver on their fantastical claims about "Original, Authentic, Masters", which would actually be kinda cool if they could.

So even without mentioning how MQA compares sonically or its actual content from a spectral point of view. The format itself literally doesnt make sense to use even if you had access to the encoder if you already have access to the lossless version.

Thats why people like lossless.

I think you have summed it up perfectly. MQA has no need to exist since we have FLAC, for which there is no licensing fee. It's sort of like going back to CFL light bulbs and paying extra for them when we now have LED. LOL

 

[tw99]

True... but that was the case when the Gustard came out for example and now it's on the DAC "approved list". I'd imagine they would function as advertised or they be getting many returns.



JSmith

How would one know if they're functioning correctly though since there's no way to check ?

 

[JSmith]

How would one know if they're functioning correctly though since there's no way to check ?

I guess one needs to listen for that unique night and day difference MQA "sound"... especially if there are no green or blue lights.



JSmith

 

[Raindog123]

Which one of those has infinite bandwidth?

Literally - neither, practically - at least the first two. (But I am not arguing, just thought it would be cool to point at emerging technologies - very real yet pretty “sci-fi” in their capabilities, if you think about it.)

Yes, that's what I said. FLAC is lossless and 50% the filesize. It doesn't take much CPU to decode so why not use it

Cool. “Great minds think alike”

 

[Music1969]

Streaming grows at a very healthy rate (for the labels). And with that growth I assume music piracy goes down each year too.

A great reason labels shouldn't bother with MQA.

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide....r-in-q1-and-expects-to-go-public-in-the-fall/

 

[Grooved]

Couldn’t find them on the MQA website, certification is probably fake.

I was thinking about this one but more the Hiby ones like https://ww.aliexpress.com/item/1005002003179693.html or https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005001607435287.html
You also has this one certainly better and tested here for $99 : https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...elm-audio-bolt-review-portable-dac-amp.20395/
Anyway, I don't think it's fake, just that renderer only licence cost less than Core decoder licence.

For a full MQA Core decoder + renderer, you take another example like the Khadas Tone, the 1 with only the board and XU208 without MQA is $100, and the 2 Pro for $200 adds XU216, full MQA decoder+renderer, balanced output, headphones preamp with unbalanced and balanced outputs, finished product (instead of just a board)... so they are clearly not paying $100 for MQA Core decoder licence or they would have just add this on the Tone1 (that wouldn't have work because XU208 is just able to do the rendering, but not the decoding)

 

[abdo123]

I was thinking about this one but more the Hiby : https://fr.aliexpress.com/item/1005002003179693.html
Anyway, I don't think it's fake, just that renderer licence cost less.

the product you linked is a full decoder.

 

[AdamG]

MQA DAC’s/Amps reviewed by Amir for $100 or less:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...lla-mqa-phone-headphone-adapter-review.11785/

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...elm-audio-bolt-review-portable-dac-amp.20395/

 

[ebslo]

MQA DAC’s/Amps reviewed by Amir for $100 or less:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...lla-mqa-phone-headphone-adapter-review.11785/

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...elm-audio-bolt-review-portable-dac-amp.20395/

First one comes in MQA and non-MQA, $99 and $65 respectively. For this example, $34 or 52% extra for MQA.

 

[Music1969]

$34 or 52% extra for MQA

Having 2 separate prices for gear like this gives us a pretty good idea of the hardware license fee... without any NDAs being broken.

Something around the US$30 mark.

 

[RichB]

MQA DAC’s/Amps reviewed by Amir for $100 or less:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...lla-mqa-phone-headphone-adapter-review.11785/

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...elm-audio-bolt-review-portable-dac-amp.20395/

They appear to come equipped with the blue-light authentication (key feature).

- Rich