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

[Tks]

@GoldenOne , Schiit Audio mention MQA in yesterdays livestream @13:34
" We Don't Support Hostile Takeovers "

Later on in this video, they talk about designing their own Sigma Delta chip... The heck?

 

[vavan]

Mark Waldrep mentioned @GoldenOne video

 

[dmac6419]

Later on in this video, they talk about designing their own Sigma Delta chip... The heck?

Right

 

[dmac6419]

Yep this is exactly what's happening and I've cancelled my subscription for this reason.

I paid for lossless. If they don't offer that, I'll take my money to deezer/qobuz and would encourage others to do the same

I'm staying with Tidal and Amazon,I make my own choices besides I own all the music I listen to.

 

[Jim Matthews]

There's an absolutist strain to this thread that ignores convenience.

Flawed as it well may be, with a Best Buy "discount" the mid tier Tidal subscription costs less in a year than my cable service.

Most of what anyone streams is Redbook, anyway.

 

[nimar]

There's an absolutist strain to this thread that ignores convenience.

Flawed as it well may be, with a Best Buy "discount" the mid tier Tidal subscription costs less in a year than my cable service.

Most of what anyone streams is Redbook, anyway.

I combed through my library and I'd say at least 100 albums I have are only available in MQA. Eg. All of Creedence, Joni Mitchell, obviously everything from 2L.

Basically anything that shows up as MQA 16/44.1 is only available in MQA and when setting Roon to HiFi, it says it is playing FLAC but its actually just treating the MQA files as FLAC. So you end up with a 13bit file with noise in the low / hi bands. To be fair, 13bits is probably more than enough for 99% of music on Tidal but the other noise/artefacts are less ideal.

 

[Mnyb]

There's an absolutist strain to this thread that ignores convenience.

Flawed as it well may be, with a Best Buy "discount" the mid tier Tidal subscription costs less in a year than my cable service.

Most of what anyone streams is Redbook, anyway.

I combed through my library and I'd say at least 100 albums I have are only available in MQA. Eg. All of Creedence, Joni Mitchell, obviously everything from 2L.

Basically anything that shows up as MQA 16/44.1 is only available in MQA and when setting Roon to HiFi, it says it is playing FLAC but its actually just treating the MQA files as FLAC. So you end up with a 13bit file with noise in the low / hi bands. To be fair, 13bits is probably more than enough for 99% of music on Tidal but the other noise/artefacts are less ideal.

This is the problem there will be no Redbook even if that's is what you think your streaming they serve you thoose "MQA CD" files instead with 13bit resolution+unwanted noise

 

[pjug]

Do MQA CD files have any real information above 22KHz? 2L has MQA CD versions of their sample files, but unfortunately I don't have the chops to know how to look at the spectra of the unfolded MQA.

I thought that @mansr determined that MQA-CD are usually 15 bits below 22Khz, with nothing to unfold.

 

[SKBubba]

I combed through my library and I'd say at least 100 albums I have are only available in MQA. Eg. All of Creedence, Joni Mitchell, obviously everything from 2L.

Basically anything that shows up as MQA 16/44.1 is only available in MQA and when setting Roon to HiFi, it says it is playing FLAC but its actually just treating the MQA files as FLAC. So you end up with a 13bit file with noise in the low / hi bands. To be fair, 13bits is probably more than enough for 99% of music on Tidal but the other noise/artefacts are less ideal.

This is why I switched to Qobuz. It's not that MQA with the first unfold sounds "bad" on my mid-fi setup. I just refuse to support a rent-seeking solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist, nor all the complications that go with it v. industry standard file formats and playback devices. Plus, their aggressively obnoxious marketing is so misleading as to border on fraud. MQA serves no purpose and is bad for he industry.

Sadly, Tidal apps, mixes, playlists, radio, suggestions, etc. are WAY better than Qobuz, which doesn't even have most of those features. At least roon provides some of the missing functionality, but not for mobile. Too bad Tidal has chosen this path. Maybe the new owners will correct course.

 

[Grooved]

How can you be a professional musician and not listen,that don't make a bit of sense, you'll never get a job.Being a musician you gonna either learn it by ear or read it if it written

Bad writing from me leading you to misunderstand my idea ;-)
By saying "most people (I know some that don't at all) making music/working in music industry", I wanted to make a difference between the "most people (I know some that don't at all) making music" part in which I was thinking about the non-professional people (and yes, there are non professional that can play in band but that are not very good at listening, but will creates some problems at a moment or another), and "working in music industry" in which you better have to be able to listen

 

[dmac6419]

This is why I switched to Qobuz. It's not that MQA with the first unfold sounds "bad" on my mid-fi setup. I just refuse to support a rent-seeking solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist, nor all the complications that go with it v. industry standard file formats and playback devices. Plus, their aggressively obnoxious marketing is so misleading as to border on fraud. MQA serves no purpose and is bad for he industry.

Sadly, Tidal apps, mixes, playlists, radio, suggestions, etc. are WAY better than Qobuz, which doesn't even have most of those features. At least roon provides some of the missing functionality, but not for mobile. Too bad Tidal has chosen this path. Maybe the new owners will correct course.

You gotta tell that to the industry, average Joe ain't buying $6000 Dollar headphones or $20000 DAC,amps,etc,agree that Tidal is way superior to Qobuz and a file doesn't have to be FLAC to be a Quality recording, FYI Apple own Beats now and Jack owns Tidal now so some of y'all can relax now.

 

[Grooved]

Do MQA CD files have any real information above 22KHz? 2L has MQA CD versions of their sample files, but unfortunately I don't have the chops to know how to look at the spectra of the unfolded MQA.

This question is also linked, IMHO, to one of the marketing options of MQA (talking about recreating higher frequencies), and one of the biggest misinterpretation it creates :
- a thing that just extend the frequency range, but even if there's still a possibility that higher than 22.05kHz frequencies may be felt (I used "felt" and not "heard"), not necessary by your ears but, why not, by your teeth,... for 95% of people, but in this case, from what part of the MQA file comes these frequencies, and it has less chance to improve anything than the other argument you can find :
- the fact that higher sample rate = more samples, which by any logic, reduce the time between each sample and so should provide a "more fuild" rendering, closer to a live listening, and this the thing I see in 5% of comments on Hi-Res files.

In this MQA case, where are and what are the intermediate samples in a first unfolded MQA file (from 24/44.1 to 24/88.2 for example) compared to the ones of a 24/88.2 FLAC file you get from Qobuz ?
This is for me the main question, more than the fact of having or not frequencies above 22.05kHz, even if they are linked.
In a 24/88.2 file from Qobuz, made from a 24/88.2 master, you get 88200 true samples each second, easy.
In an 24/44.1 MQA file made from a 24/88.2 master, you have 44100 samples each second, but from where come the 44100 other samples once the first unfold is done, since they say they recreate higher frequencies ? Do they are in the MQA information inside the file ? if Yes, do they are lossless or lossy ?...

This is the thing I would like them to explain, more than talking about any interest of hearing above 22.05kHz

 

[dmac6419]

This question is also linked, IMHO, to one of the marketing options of MQA (talking about recreating higher frequencies), and one of the biggest misinterpretation on sample rate from 95% of people talking about sample rate :
- a thing that just extend the frequency range, but even if there's still a possibility that higher than 22.05kHz frequencies may be felt (I used "felt" and not "heard"), not necessary by your ears but, why not, by your teeth,... there are big chances that it has less chances to be felt than...
- the fact that higher sample rate = more samples, which by any logic, reduce the time between each sample and so should provide a "more fuild" rendering, closer to a live listening, and this the thing I see in only 5% of comments on Hi-Res files.

In this MQA case, where are and what are the intermediate samples in a first unfolded MQA file (from 24/44.1 to 24/88.2 for example) compared to the ones of a 24/88.2 FLAC file you get from Qobuz ?
This is for me the main question, more than the fact of having or not frequencies above 22.05kHz, even if they are linked.
In a 24/88.2 file from Qobuz, made from a 24/88.2 master, you get 88200 true samples each second, easy.
In an 24/44.1 MQA file made from a 24/88.2 master, you have 44100 samples each second, but from where come the 44100 other samples once the first unfold is done ? Do they are in the MQA information inside the file ? if Yes, do they are lossless or lossy ? Do they are interpolated samples ?...

This is the thing I would like them to explain, more than talking about having or not frequencies above 22.05kHz

If you buy a Hybrid MQA disc it has the MQA version and the CD version,so you can listen to what ever format suits your taste.

 

[mansr]

If you buy a Hybrid MQA disc it has the MQA version and the CD version,so you can listen to what ever format suits your taste.

Ain't no such thing. You're thinking of SACD.

 

[pjug]

If you buy a Hybrid MQA disc it has the MQA version and the CD version,so you can listen to what ever format suits your taste.

But apparently Tidal is eliminating the redbook and only giving you the option for MQA-CD.

 

[Grooved]

If you buy a Hybrid MQA disc it has the MQA version and the CD version,so you can listen to what ever format suits your taste.

If I'm not wrong, a Hybrid MQA disc would (as I'm not sure it's really Hybrid and have both version in the same CD) have a 16/44.1 (maybe 48) MQA file only, and since a 16/44.1 MQA file has just a bit more size than the same 16/44.1 non-MQA file, it's not the best example to work on it. These few information are certainly just an order to the decoder to upsampling it and adding a filter.
On the opposite side, an 24/44.1 MQA file makes about x2 the size of the same 16/44.1 MQA file, while it should be x1.5 (going from 16 to 24 bits), which leads me that 24bit MQA file have more MQA information than the 16bit MQA file.

Ain't no such thing. You're thinking of SACD.

That's I think too, but it's not so important, fact is that a 16/44.1 MQA file is about the same size than the 16/44.1 non-MQA file.
I'm making tests to see if they are the same with just an order added, or if they are really encoded differently. I'm pretty sure 16bit MQA don't work OR are not created like 24bit MQA are.

But apparently Tidal is eliminating the redbook and only giving you the option for MQA-CD.

They just did it on "Blood Sugar Sex Magik" :
Some months ago, there were 4 versions, including the FLAC only versions of both "original" and "2014 remastered"
Some weeks ago : they deleted one, and now, they deleted one more, with only 16/44.1 MQA and 24/96 MQA both from the 2014 remastered version. These two don't have any FLAC version, if you play it by selecting HiFi instead of Master, it still the MQA version.

 

[SKBubba]

You gotta tell that to the industry, average Joe ain't buying $6000 Dollar headphones or $20000 DAC,amps,etc,agree that Tidal is way superior to Qobuz and a file doesn't have to be FLAC to be a Quality recording, FYI Apple own Beats now and Jack owns Tidal now so some of y'all can relax now.

According to one report, streaming subscriptions as of Q1 2000 were:

Spotify: 128 million
Apple Music: 72 million
Amazon Music: 56 million
Tencent Music: 44 million
Google Play / YouTube Music: 24 million
Deezer: 8 million
Pandora: 4 million
Others: 64 million

Among “others,” Tidal claims 3 million subscribers, or about 0.7% of all streaming subscribers.

So 99.3% of music streaming subscribers do not have access or listen to MQA. In fact, 97% don’t even seem to care about CD quality lossless streaming.

So basically MQA is a rounding error in the marketplace. It will not be the differentiator that drives Tidal to overcome Spotify.

 

[Kagemusha]

Hybrid-MQA? What is that? For what I know, the whole concept of MQA was for saving wideband, to be able to stream at lower bit rate, so why would somebody by a CD with MQA? I would be happy with the CD in any case.

.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

>97% of people can't actually hear any difference at all between 320kb mp3 and lossless...so there's that.

 

[Grooved]

According to one report, streaming subscriptions as of Q1 2000 were:

Spotify: 128 million
Apple Music: 72 million
Amazon Music: 56 million
Tencent Music: 44 million
Google Play / YouTube Music: 24 million
Deezer: 8 million
Pandora: 4 million
Others: 64 million

Among “others,” Tidal claims 3 million subscribers, or about 0.7% of all streaming subscribers.

So 99.3% of music streaming subscribers do not have access or listen to MQA. In fact, 97% don’t even seem to care about CD quality lossless streaming.

So basically MQA is a rounding error in the marketplace. It will not be the differentiator that drives Tidal to overcome Spotify.

- It will change the proportion now that Spotify will add CD equivalent FLAC
- we can't use it as a conclusion that they "don't care", but more than they "seem to not care about paying more for having CD Quality"

>97% of people can't actually hear any difference at all between 320kb mp3 and lossless...so there's that.

that's also a wrong conclusion, because like explained in a previous post, most of ABX tests are biased as long as you make them with people not knowing what to listen in the music to hear the differences, and/or don't have the system to do it, and by saying that, I don't say you need a millionaire system, but at least a well positioned system.
I find that some tracks are easier to see the difference on speakers that they are on headphones, which would mean that the difference for these tracks is more in the stereo field.
I also know people who at first would not find anything, but once trained a bit, can find it. So any count of user doing a test for the first time, and not knowing if they do this while they are tired for example, can't be used to any conclusion.

It's a bit like a big majority of people were thinking human were not be able to see more than 60FPS in fast moving scene/objects in video game, while it's just that most have not try/don't need it, but strangely, once tried, no one want to go back playing the same high demanding FPS game at 60FPS. It's like having your vision being "under sampled", but you really feel it once you tried 120FPS, and then go back to 60FPS, more than the first time you go from 60 to 120.