• 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.

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,946
Likes
2,611
Location
Massachusetts
To be fair, Stereophile has publish the Jon Iverson article: MQA: Benefits and Costs
MQA: Benefits and Costs | Stereophile.com

In this article, the plans for the audio business.
"Success" would be achieved when MQA is used to master most, if not all, new releases and back catalog of recorded music for streaming, downloading, or other uses.

So MQA will bind compression to deblurring tighter than white on rice, and make it tough to objectively or subjectively evaluate the compression scheme. This makes the job of the rational reviewer impossible: If, in comparing MQA to non-MQA files made from the same master, we hear any differences, we won't know what has caused them. We will be forced to assume that any differences we hear are the results of the synergy between deblurring and compression.

In my book, that's not good enough.

There are two issues here, and with their PR campaign MQA Ltd. has done a great job of focusing our attention on one—sound quality—and not the other: the hazards of a format monopoly. If MQA succeeds, I predict that it will lock in for a decade or two, or even longer. That will mean that all high-resolution files from the major labels during those decades will be formatted in MQA. No alternatives.

THIS ARTICLE IS A MUST READ.

MQA is a business its goals are simple, obtains royalties in every part of music production and music playback hardware and software.
I suspect this was written on the whiteboard and then the features needed to do so were cleverly derived. It is intended to impose a closed and proprietary monopoly. They are not honorable men.

So as we talks about file size this, bits here and there, filter timing, and other disturbing artifacts, please realize the plan is distract while MQA attempt to subvert the open and free market and replace it with an inferior product.
All the while, MQA blocks scientific evaluation of the product.

MQA is a diabolical endeavor and those not willing to directly critique it are aiding this takeover.
It is not possible to respect this regardless of pedigree.

- Rich
 
Last edited:

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,946
Likes
2,611
Location
Massachusetts
As I wrote but you must have missed, the room tone recording was a 24-bit file.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

A 24-bit file that required 13 bits for some portion and more than 16 bits for other higher frequency portions.
Since you know it was more than 16 bits, one can only assume that you had a number in mind.
How how many bit maximum were required to not lose information in your recording?

- Rich
 

JSmith

Master Contributor
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
5,153
Likes
13,211
Location
Algol Perseus
To be fair
Yeah I think the annoyance needs to be directed at MQA, not Amir, not JA etc.
Regardless of MQA's technical elegance and promised increase in sound quality, the removal of consumer choice in recorded music is indeed a relevant issue

https://www.stereophile.com/content/more-mqa

There's no point attacking anyone that is not from MQA or commercially associated with MQA.

As for some of the things I've seen on other audio forums about this site and this thread, being posted by one that should know better... it's not a good look either.



JSmith
 

raistlin65

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
2,279
Likes
3,421
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
I have already referred ASR readers to the articles I have written on MQA. They are easily accessible at Stereophile's website. I don't see why I am obliged to repeat what I have written here.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

Could you point us to the specific article that lays out in summary why MQA benefits consumer?

When I glance at your articles, I see very technical discussions that examine specific aspects of MQA and it's controversies.

So since you wrote the articles, if you could point to where we can find sort of that summary evaluation that is in layman's terms, that would be great.
 

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,946
Likes
2,611
Location
Massachusetts
Could you point us to the specific article that lays out in summary why MQA benefits consumer?

When I glance at your articles, I see very technical discussions that examine specific aspects of MQA and it's controversies.

So since you wrote the articles, if you could point to where we can find sort of that summary evaluation that is in layman's terms, that would be great.

There is one: MQA: Benefits and Costs | Stereophile.com

Let me summarize, MQA benefits are not provable benefits because MQA block analysis.
The cost is a monopolization with little access to Hi-Res and possibly CD quality audio.
Companies will be under great pressure to pay royalties to compete to allow users to avoid the crippleware.

- Rich
 
Last edited:

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,946
Likes
2,611
Location
Massachusetts
Yeah I think the annoyance needs to be directed at MQA, not Amir, not JA etc.


https://www.stereophile.com/content/more-mqa

There's no point attacking anyone that is not from MQA or commercially associated with MQA.

As for some of the things I've seen on other audio forums about this site and this thread, being posted by one that should know better... it's not a good look either.

JSmith

That is a weird comment since the quote comes from a post that does not mention either gentleman, links to a Stereophile article, and explicitly directs my comments at MQA.

It is a mistake to construe technical discussion for confrontation.
However, those who post here should be willing to answer simple questions pertaining to their data.

- Rich
 
Last edited:

JSmith

Master Contributor
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
5,153
Likes
13,211
Location
Algol Perseus
It is a mistake to construe technical discussion for confrontation.
Sorry for the confusion, I was not referring to you.

I'm still deciding whether to name the member and link to the posts or not... trouble is then it spreads the personal information and possible slander further.
However, those who post here should be willing to answer the simplest question pertaining to their data.
Sure, I don't disagree.

What would be great is to actually hear from MQA... but they don't give a shit and are probably happy with the free advertising.



JSmith
 

ebslo

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
Messages
324
Likes
413
As I wrote but you must have missed, the room tone recording was a 24-bit file.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
It was, but I think the confusion stems from the fact that your post was a reply to this snippet which you quoted:
Here is why I don't want what MQA is offering:
Replaces CD quality with13-bit CD quality.
and you opened you post with:
I am not sure where you get the impression that 3 bits of "quality" are lost. The container still has the original bit depth. But there is now a hidden data channel in which data encrypted as pseudorandom noise can be buried without reducing the original resolution of the audio data,
This indicates that you were refuting the text you quoted, about 16-bit data being reduced to 13-bit quality. But the supporting data you presented dealt only with a 24-bit recording and did not address 16-bit at all. This is confusing to people who assume the data presented is in support of your opening statement, which does not appear to be the case.
 

TurbulentCalm

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2021
Messages
82
Likes
196
Location
Australia
This is truly driven. I loved the part where MQA circuits are used, those are different circuits or processing. I looked in my computer that runs Roon and could not find the dedicated circuits.

I believe his ears because he puts an oscilloscope in frame. :p

- Rich

In the first few sentences he sets up a straw-man: he states that there is no such thing as a lossless digital recording, but that is not what is being argued. The issue is that FLAC can be 100% decompressed to a bit-perfect copy of the original PCM data and that MQA cannot. No one is arguing that the original PCM data must be a perfect copy of the original audio signal. So he totally side steps the issue that MQA is a lossy format, while at the same time confirming that it is).

I used to watch his channel but slowly it dawned on me that he is either less knowledgeable than he claims to be or just another shill for the Audio Snake Oil companies.

Oh, and I’ve never seen him use that oscilloscope once.

Anyway, I have to get my latest bit-perfect music file out of the oven. I’ve been baking it for several hours to force all the digital data to aligned correctly before I play it. Bye
 
Last edited:

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,946
Likes
2,611
Location
Massachusetts
It was, but I think the confusion stems from the fact that your post was a reply to this snippet which you quoted:

and you opened you post with:

This indicates that you were refuting the text you quoted, about 16-bit data being reduced to 13-bit quality. But the supporting data you presented dealt only with a 24-bit recording and did not address 16-bit at all. This is confusing to people who assume the data presented is in support of your opening statement, which does not appear to be the case.

Sorry for the confusion. My reference was to losing dynamic range by replacing those bits with MQA folded data.
There are multiple topics covered. One concern is the replacement of CD quallity 44.1 kHz 16 bit files with files of the same size and bit depth that are MQA encoded. That would seem to be a potential for lost dynamic range.

In response, Mr. Atkinson presented the data obtained from his 24-bit recording.
Since these discussions are separated by multiple posts and days, the context can get lost.

John Atkinson corrected my misinterpretation of this data further clarifying that his 24-bit recording contained information in the higher frequencies that exceed 16-bits of dynamic range.

Since the context of this discuss is the limits on dynamic range placed on MQA encoded data, I have followed up by asking how many bits were required greater than16 bits in this 24-bit recording. Presumably, if it is known to be greater than 16 bits, it is reasonable to know the number of bits required.

- Rich
 
Last edited:

blueone

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 11, 2019
Messages
1,179
Likes
1,494
Location
USA
This thread is fascinating. MQA offers consumers no tangible advantages whatsoever, except perhaps the claim of “deblurring”, which has not been shown to be of any audible value, even assuming the problem exists. Bandwidth and storage costs are dropping, so size reduction beyond lossless compression is not worth much for audio files, certainly not worth up-ending the industry over, and even if it was MP3 solves that problem. This is a pirating restriction technology masquerading as a consumer benefit, but there’s little or no benefit to be had. Fortunately, I suspect (hope?) Amazon, Apple, and Spotify are too smart and customer-oriented to fall for this complicating diversion to their streaming businesses.
 

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,946
Likes
2,611
Location
Massachusetts
This thread is fascinating. MQA offers consumers no tangible advantages whatsoever, except perhaps the claim of “deblurring”, which has not been shown to be of any audible value, even assuming the problem exists. Bandwidth and storage costs are dropping, so size reduction beyond lossless compression is not worth much for audio files, certainly not worth up-ending the industry over, and even if it was MP3 solves that problem. This is a pirating restriction technology masquerading as a consumer benefit, but there’s little or no benefit to be had. Fortunately, I suspect (hope?) Amazon, Apple, and Spotify are too smart and customer-oriented to fall for this complicating diversion to their streaming businesses.

There is no doubt that MQA is crippleware and the only benefit is "deblurring" which amounts to a reconstruction filter.
There are many reconstruction filters and it makes little sense to reduce dynamic range and cripple the file for those who realize this will not the last reconstruction filter created.

- Rich
 
Last edited:

TurbulentCalm

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2021
Messages
82
Likes
196
Location
Australia
Which dongles with MQA support you have seen lower than 100$?

I picked up the Hiby FC3 for under AUD$100 and received it on the same day this thread started, no coincidental irony there.

So I dumped my Tidal subscription and I’m now trialing Deezer and Qobuz and I think I’ll stay with Deezer, better app, better matching and it even has an AppleWatch app.
 

Ralph_Cramden

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2020
Messages
2,574
Likes
3,468
And so, here we are: MQA was designed by some of the luminaries of the audio industry.

Yet here is a quote from one of today's audio industry "luminaries", Bruno Putzeys:

Oh hang on, actually I started by asking if besides speculations about neuroscience and physics they had actual controlled listening trials to back their story up. Bob Stuart replied that all listening tests so far were working experiences with engineers in their studios but that no scientific listening tests have been done so far. That doesn't surprise any of us cynics but it is an astonishing admission from the man himself. Mhm, I can just see the headlines. "No Scientific Tests Were Done, Says MQA Founder".

 

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,348
Likes
3,462
Location
San Diego
Mhm, I can just see the headlines. "No Scientific Tests Were Done, Says MQA Founder".

That may sound bad to you but to a large number of audiophiles "science" is a dirty word. I think MQA knows it's target market, audiophiles that are desperate to add "magic" to their system and don't trust "science".
 

TurbulentCalm

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2021
Messages
82
Likes
196
Location
Australia
I have already referred ASR readers to the articles I have written on MQA. They are easily accessible at Stereophile's website. I don't see why I am obliged to repeat what I have written here.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

John, just wondering. Are you posting here as yourself, an audio enthusiast not related to your day job, like most of us here, or are you here in your official capacity with Stereophile?
 

John Atkinson

Active Member
Industry Insider
Reviewer
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
165
Likes
1,022
Are you posting here as yourself, an audio enthusiast not related to your day job, like most of us here, or are you here in your official capacity with Stereophile?

I am offering my personal opinions. However, I feel that I should identify my affiliation with the magazine.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
 

mieswall

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
63
Likes
106
Yet here is a quote from one of today's audio industry "luminaries", Bruno Putzeys:

Oh hang on, actually I started by asking if besides speculations about neuroscience and physics they had actual controlled listening trials to back their story up. Bob Stuart replied that all listening tests so far were working experiences with engineers in their studios but that no scientific listening tests have been done so far. That doesn't surprise any of us cynics but it is an astonishing admission from the man himself. Mhm, I can just see the headlines. "No Scientific Tests Were Done, Says MQA Founder".
I'm really sorry about the term "luminaries", used in a hurry and with English as my second language. You may call them "brilliant engineers", "world class engineers", or just "smart guys". Please choose the one that is less disturbing to you. In the same fashion, what I called "hunch" you may better call it "hypothesis".

Audio Engineering Society, probably the world's most important organization in audio engineering, in almost 75 years of history has awarded 35 people with their Gold Medal Award. You may know some names among them: Georg Neumann, Willi Studer, Claude Shannon, Ray Dolby, Floyd Toole, Rudy Van Gelder. Among them it is also the name of Michael Gerzon, the "father" of most of the foundational patents regarding MQA, and I believe also postumely named in the MQA patent. He was a recognized genius at his time, that sadly died at the age of 50 because of a health condition.
The buddy of Gerzon was Peter Craven (the one that people here seems to believe has lost every remaining neuron in his head, with what surely must be a kind of contagious disease), and with whom he co-authored most of those patents. Both were the main core of the audio engineering department of Oxford University, one of the world's most renowned research institutions in audio.

The one in the center of this photo of the early 70's is Ray Dolby (*), surrounded by Craven and Gerzon in their twenties, already famous for their achievements in audio research. Dolby went to Oxford to discuss with them his patents about its surround sound systems, of which Gerzon and Craven would have been participants if the British government wouldn't have cut research funds at that time. By that time they had already made key research about noise shaping, digital systems analysis, and developed the ambisonics field recording technology and invented the first ambisonics microphone.
(*): another excuse: I called him "Thomas" instead of "Ray" in a previous post.

Craven Dolby Gerzon.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom