• 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.

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,348
Likes
3,462
Location
San Diego
You are purposely leaving a stain in what I believe, and my ears tell me, is a system that performs admirably playing music (If the criteria is how it sounds, installing a MQA DAC is among the best upgrades I have ever made to my equipment, for a fraction of other costs) Which in the end, I thought it was the purpose of this, after all. The reason why we all read this site.

You are disparaging Goldenone's work yet all you offer in addition to some weak technical arguments is your subjective listening to make your case about how great MQA sound quality is. I asked you earlier if you had ever compared a MQA version and Redbook version of the same mastering of a song in a blind level matched ABX test and you never responded. If you are going to rely on listening test to refute another's hard work the least you could do is post some ABX test results showing that you can even hear a difference between MQA and non MQA which you have not done.
 

dmac6419

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 16, 2019
Messages
1,246
Likes
770
Location
USofA
Notice to all Thread participants: This tread has caused significant and unending arguments and circular logic. Beating a dead horse comes to mind. So, it is my decision to close this thread to further comment tomorrow afternoon. Get in your last words now. Please try to be brief ;)
Thank God
 

mieswall

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
63
Likes
106
You are disparaging Goldenone's work yet all you offer in addition to some weak technical arguments is your subjective listening to make your case about how great MQA sound quality is. I asked you earlier if you had ever compared a MQA version and Redbook version of the same mastering of a song in a blind level matched ABX test and you never responded. If you are going to rely on listening test to refute another's hard work the least you could do is post some ABX test results showing that you can even hear a difference between MQA and non MQA which you have not done.

Sorry, I can't answer each and every comment here, it's about a 1 to 100 proportion (too passionate many of them, many even go against the very Amir because he doesn't plainly condemn MQA, go figure!). I did write about how I listen MQA, comparing it to my non-MQA setup. I do believe it sound fantastic, and I'm restraining myself a lot, a lot with that description. If you have listened MQA in the proper conditions, have a different opinion, and believe it sounds as awful as these test may lead you to think, fine! Then we may progress in this discussion.

But the fact is... 99% of the comments here, some of them insulting I must say, are based in the results of an absolutely biased test that, I believe, was purposely made for the system to fail to a set of benchmarks that is obviously not intended to accomplish. I have made my points of why is that, and after over 1800 comments, not a single one has addressed these observations, but instead, derive in commercial subjects, the absurd discussion of the 13bits, etc, without ever acknowledging the criticism of some of us about the procedures employed. But, most dramatically, not a single one has made a comment about his audition of MQA. Not one! Because, I'm pretty sure, very few if any has ever tried a MQA DAC.

We are in pandemic, and in my country we are in a very prolonged lockdown. Rest assured that whenever I'm able to make blind A/B tests with the people I trust, I'll do it. But.... in my opinion, you don't need blind tests to asses how much better MQA sounds. When decoded by hardware, it is one of the most evident things I have ever tried in my system. I know you won't believe me.. because your test says the opposite... I would suggest you make a test and check it for yourself.
 

gatucho

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2020
Messages
46
Likes
149
@amirm, clearly you think many of us are hypocritical inconsistent due to liking BD, UHD, Dolby and DTS products but that is really beside the point.

What cannot be reconciled are measurements like this:
MQA Tested Part 2: Into the Fold | Stereophile.com
View attachment 126922

In this example, the true master is DXD and the MQA encoding introduces noise in the audible and ultrasonic frequencies.
If the MQA (turquoise) was a DAC, it would be called out for its lack of design hygiene.
Would its SINAD be even 96 dB?
The point would be made the $100 desktop DACs can outperform this.

The failure to address posts like these on the merits is what seems inconsistent and somewhat illogical.

- Rich
You just do not understand... MQA has bettered the original master. You are getting more (noise?) for free!
 
Last edited:

mkawa

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 17, 2019
Messages
788
Likes
695
i think it's pretty clear that MQA is pointlessly lossy since it doesn't typically result in smaller files, that their marketing text is disingenuous at best, and they're bleeding cash and will go belly up when not if. but seriously, we're on page 92 and so far one person has paid 50$ for MQA that they didn't need to.
 

goldenears

Active Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
110
Likes
134
I am blown away that amir does not seem concerned by MQA's blatant lies and deception.

A DAC that claimed to improve quality by turning 16 bits into 13 and "correcting temporal blur" would be rightfully ridiculed into irrelevance with the headless panther of shame.

Then to add a blue led that doesn't even correlate with the claims of verifying anything is an insult to everyone's intelligence. Cable risers for digital.

Although I love his reviews and videos and do believe that he is a shining light in the sea of audiophile bullshit, Amir's baffling inconsistency on this issue brings the entire premise of this site into question.

To claim a provably lossy compression is lossless is clearly false and obviously untrue.

And then to further add insult to injury, this particular lossy compression doesn't even result in smaller files!!

To quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

So far there has been zero evidence, only prohibition of real independent or ABX testing. Goldenone had to jump through hoops in order to test at all, a test that obviously failed to prove losslessness, and then his files were removed. Why would they remove those files if they had nothing to hide? I ask you, are those the actions of a company that stands by the extraordinary claims of their product?

There are clearly no benefits to the consumer, only negatives and potential negatives.

MQA is an inferior quality cancer on true lossless files, a step down from the 1980's technology of CDs, a bad joke.

I won't buy MQA, and I will cancel/refund any product that tricks me into buying it.

I suggest that anyone else who cares about reality over audiophile bullshit like "temporal blur" does the same, and we can send this insidious attack on logic and reason straight to the garbage where it belongs.
 
Last edited:

gatucho

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2020
Messages
46
Likes
149
Sorry, I can't answer each and every comment here, it's about a 1 to 100 proportion (too passionate many of them, many even go against the very Amir because he doesn't plainly condemn MQA, go figure!). I did write about how I listen MQA, comparing it to my non-MQA setup. I do believe it sound fantastic, and I'm restraining myself a lot, a lot with that description. If you have listened MQA in the proper conditions, have a different opinion, and believe it sounds as awful as these test may lead you to think, fine! Then we may progress in this discussion.

But the fact is... 99% of the comments here, some of them insulting I must say, are based in the results of an absolutely biased test that, I believe, was purposely made for the system to fail to a set of benchmarks that is obviously not intended to accomplish. I have made my points of why is that, and after over 1800 comments, not a single one has addressed these observations, but instead, derive in commercial subjects, the absurd discussion of the 13bits, etc, without ever acknowledging the criticism of some of us about the procedures employed. But, most dramatically, not a single one has made a comment about his audition of MQA. Not one! Because, I'm pretty sure, very few if any has ever tried a MQA DAC.

We are in pandemic, and in my country we are in a very prolonged lockdown. Rest assured that whenever I'm able to make blind A/B tests with the people I trust, I'll do it. But.... in my opinion, you don't need blind tests to asses how much better MQA sounds. When decoded by hardware, it is one of the most evident things I have ever tried in my system. I know you won't believe me.. because your test says the opposite... I would suggest you make a test and check it for yourself.

Sorry, I do have MQA DACs and have obviously auditioned it. But rather than argue "I hear this you hear that" I would argue with hard cold data.

And the data is clear. You can argue that the test are biased, BUT all hypothesis are biased (as they are proposed by subjective human beings). However, once in a while one of these hypothesis alingns with the factual data and experiments. That's how scientific knowledge is created.

Alas... I would easily yield my point of view if shown evidence on the contrary.

But, I'm sorry statement such as: "With MQA 44khz16bit your are getting more than CD quality for free" and that's it is just not gonna cut it.

Specially if the supposed "more" is ultrasonic garbage and "for free" implies using additional software (roon for instance) thus paying more and rendering existing SW and HW obsolete.

Even if these arguments come from @amirm whom I highly respect otherwise
 

JEntwistle

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
127
Likes
133
Sorry, I can't answer each and every comment here, it's about a 1 to 100 proportion (too passionate many of them, many even go against the very Amir because he doesn't plainly condemn MQA, go figure!). I did write about how I listen MQA, comparing it to my non-MQA setup. I do believe it sound fantastic, and I'm restraining myself a lot, a lot with that description. If you have listened MQA in the proper conditions, have a different opinion, and believe it sounds as awful as these test may lead you to think, fine! Then we may progress in this discussion.

But the fact is... 99% of the comments here, some of them insulting I must say, are based in the results of an absolutely biased test that, I believe, was purposely made for the system to fail to a set of benchmarks that is obviously not intended to accomplish. I have made my points of why is that, and after over 1800 comments, not a single one has addressed these observations, but instead, derive in commercial subjects, the absurd discussion of the 13bits, etc, without ever acknowledging the criticism of some of us about the procedures employed. But, most dramatically, not a single one has made a comment about his audition of MQA. Not one! Because, I'm pretty sure, very few if any has ever tried a MQA DAC.

We are in pandemic, and in my country we are in a very prolonged lockdown. Rest assured that whenever I'm able to make blind A/B tests with the people I trust, I'll do it. But.... in my opinion, you don't need blind tests to asses how much better MQA sounds. When decoded by hardware, it is one of the most evident things I have ever tried in my system. I know you won't believe me.. because your test says the opposite... I would suggest you make a test and check it for yourself.

Here is my question (and I mean this respectfully): what is an appropriate test for MQA? Is there any music / signals that GoldenOne could have used that would appropriately test MQA? Or are you saying that this type of testing can't be performed at all?

I'm not as technically knowledgeable on this as many here are, so apologize for the dumb question.
 

muslhead

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,560
Likes
1,718
I am blown away that amir does not seem concerned by MQA's blatant lies and deception.

A DAC that claimed to improve quality by turning 16 bits into 13 and "correcting temporal blur" would be rightfully ridiculed into irrelevance with the headless panther of shame.

Then to add a blue led that doesn't even correlate with the claims of verifying anything is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

Although I love his reviews and videos and do believe that he is a shining light in the sea of audiophile bullshit, Amir's inconsistency on this issue brings the entire premise of this site into question.

To claim a provably lossy compression is lossless is clearly false and obviously untrue.

And then to further add insult to injury, this particular lossy compression doesn't even result in smaller files!!

To quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

So far there has been zero evidence, only prohibition of real independent or ABX testing. Goldenone had to jump through hoops in order to test at all, a test that obviously failed to prove losslessness, and then his files were removed. Why would they remove those files if they had nothing to hide? I ask you, are those the actions of a company that stands by the extraordinary claims of their product?

There are clearly no benefits to the consumer, only negatives and potential negatives.

I won't buy MQA, and I will cancel/refund any product that tricks me into buying it. MQA is an inferior quality cancer on true lossless files, a step down from the 1980's technology of CDs. It's a bad joke.

I suggest that anyone else who cares about reality over audiophile bullshit like "temporal blur" does the same, and we can send this attack on logic and reason straight to the garbage where it belongs.
thanks for all you did wrt MQA, i, for one very much appreciate it
 

gatucho

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2020
Messages
46
Likes
149
Isn't a bit of a contradiction to ask what temporal deblurring achieves, but at the same time, be so upset with MQA because a bit-perfect match was not found in these test? What would happen if somebody demonstrates there are audible effects in that deblurring? Still the tests would be prominent in your judgment?

In turn you, but ideally GoldenEar may answer:
  • Is it right to ask for a bit-perfect match to a system that by design replaces floor noise with information? If not, wouldn't that be enough to invalidate the whole test that pretends to qualify the system by this criteria? And please don't argue that this is hidden information, because this is explained in every single article about MQA, the issue is so well known that even without reading any article of them you would know it in advance. If there is one thing for sure about MQA, is that. Or do you believe the folding process just makes bit space for the folds to appear out of nowhere?

  • If the MQA patent refers to previous art, patents of their team specifically dealing with noise shaping, a research done by this team literally for decades, why do you think those references are for, when those patents and research deal exactly with the way to make use of that otherwise useless and inaudible noise space? Then, even knowing that, why do you still will keep measuring as if that useless original noise is to be kept intact? And to add insult to the subject, then make a scandal because the bitmap doesn't look the same, which is this way by definition?

  • If it is accepted, as it is implicit in the question of RichB, that MQA tries to correct time domain issues (leaving aside for now your doubt about how useful or not it is; if someone doesn't bother to read the articles explaining that, he is in his right to keep in doubt and ask, but not condemn until acquiring that knowledge); therefore with the implicit consequence that the source file will be modified... Is it right to ask again for a bit-perfect match which is precisely what the system is trying NOT to achieve?

  • If the system is looking for a noise floor to process it, as every recording has by definition as analyzed in unbelievable extents by MQA, and you provide a signal without it because you didn't add a dithered noise to the file... are you expecting that system to behave the same way, as you seems to be so alarmed that the ground noise is showing anomalies, aliasing, and the flaws that are precisely the things this design is tying to fix?

  • If documents of MQA go in great extents about the dynamic envelope of music, pages and pages about it, dozens of graphs with luxury of details, and btw a fact backed up by the very physics of music, why do you think they go into those extents? If you conclude in fact that they are trying to make use of that analysis instead of just wasting ink, what else instead of discarding those higher amplitudes without music could this discussion be aimed for?
    If the unavoidable conclusion is that, in fact, those upper band and ultrasonic high amplitudes will be discarded in MQA, why are you measuring content that you know in advance that the system is not designed to deal with? Are in you opinion those ultrasonic high amplitudes of square waves or white noise useful for the music the system is trying to faithfully with?; if the documentation informs you advance this analysis of music content is because their intention is to recover that space for other uses (filters are specifically mentioned)?, Then, is it appropriate to conclude the system if behaving badly to those tests you were previously informed that they wouldn't considered in the system? I know... because they used the forbidden word: they say they are "lossless", and that is egregious to you if they can't fully reconstruct a square wave.... But the point here is they say they are lossless to the music content in the master they are using as input, not against middle steps in the process or any possible content regardless if it is music or not, which is what you are measuring here.

  • In sum, did you read any paper or article about MQA design principles before doing those tests? This is a tough question: If you say yes, then why you prepared a test that purposely contradicts those documents? Is you say no, well...no further comments other than the mention of amateurism is precisely because of this.
We all may disagree with those MQA axioms, we may even find it is all vaporware, and those axioms would be a useful thing to discuss here. But what's wrong is to justify this credo with a test that is deeply, fundamentally bad designed.

I was eager to read GoldenEar answer to these issues, sadly he didn't.
To be fair, I think he has a point about how closed the details of MQA are and unhelpful MQA could be about testing its system. I do agree with him in that. But that doesn't justify to make a faulty test (in fact, exactly the opposite: if you don't exactly understand what the system is doing, the responsible thing to do is to inform yourself first; and please don't argue that they are hiding this: I am much less knowledgeable that you and yet, I am aware of the things I'm saying, just reading the information that is available in the internet).

Either way, a wrong test, driven by naive enthusiasm could be a mistake. What is not a mistake is to drive the kind of conclusions GoldenEar did about those tests, because he knew in advance the kind of results he would get feeding the test with out-of-context data. It is at least irresponsible. And it is more serious, as the kind of accusations in the conclusions of the video are just insulting. You may not agree with the business model of MQA, but using a purposely wrong test to demonstrate ... what? and then tell the world that MQA people are a bunch of con-artists is completely disgusting, in my opinion.

That's why GoldenEar there are some here upset with this. You are purposely leaving a stain in what I believe, and my ears tell me, is a system that performs admirably playing music (If the criteria is how it sounds, installing a MQA DAC is among the best upgrades I have ever made to my equipment, for a fraction of other costs) Which in the end, I thought it was the purpose of this, after all. The reason why we all read this site.

Now I get it, it is his fault for not creating a test which MQA would pass with flying colors. Instead he made some very basic standard tests (as those used by everyone in the world to test audio components).

You better become an expert in MQA if you want to prove it is lacking then, otherwise it will be your fault for not getting "what the artist (con) intended".

One would think that assertions such as "Is MQA lossless? Answer: YES" as MQA propaganda clearly shows would be easier to prove right or wrong.

How fools we were, trying old tricks in new codecs...
 

mieswall

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
63
Likes
106
And the data is clear. You can argue that the test are biased, BUT all hypothesis are biased (as they are proposed by subjective human beings). However, once in a while one of these hypothesis alingns with the factual data and experiments. That's how scientific knowledge is created.
If you have a set of data: "A B C 1 2 3 4 5", with just the numbers being relevant. Then a guy comes and say, "it would be nice to gain the space of those letters for something that means something for our process, those letters are useless for our math and everything else; my process will discard those letters. The numbers will be lossless in the process"
Then the machine outputs: "* / - 1 2 3 4 5". My machine replaced useless letters with useful command to operate over the significant data of the numbers. But then you come and say..."Hey! you said your process would be lossless and it is not, the resulting word differs with the input!". Your algorithm is lossy! You lied, you are dishonest!.
That's exactly what this test is saying about the issue of noise: the letters in this example. Really, really, I can't figure out how this incredibly obvious thing cannot be understand, other than people here just don't WANT to understand it.
 
Last edited:

gatucho

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2020
Messages
46
Likes
149
If you have a set of data: A B C 1 2 3 4 5, with just the numbers being relevant. Then a guy comes and say, "it would be nice to gain tthe space of those letters for something that means something for our process, those letters are useless for our math and everybody else; my process will discard those letter. The numbers will be lossless in the process"
Then the machine outputs: "* / - 1 2 3 4 5". My machine replaced useless letters by useful command to operate over the significant data of the numbers. But then you come and say..."Hey! you said your process would be lossless and it is not, the resulting word differs with the input!". Your algorithm is lying to me! You lied, you are dishonest!.
That's exactly what this test is saying about the issue of noise: the letters in this example. Really, really, I can't figure out how this incredibly obvious thing cannot be understand, other than people here just don't WANT to understand it.

Your argument is full or wrong assumptions. Believe I'm trained to detect them:
1) you assume number/letter relevance. If you assume the result (or the implication of an hypothesis) you are assuming the result before testing.
2) you assume that the meaning of the concept "lossless" is liquid. It is not, it has been formally defined. If you don't like it, you define a new construct, do not try to accommodate (i.e. juggle) for it to comply with whatever you want.

I could go on and on. But I DO understand your point. However, MQA is messing pre-existing knowledge, and doing it wrong.
 

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,946
Likes
2,611
Location
Massachusetts
I never got what was wrong with the @goldenears tests.
The criticism did not make sense. Stereophile tests amps with square waves.
Normal, FLAC files can store them.

Anyway, the Stereophile test I quoted was music that added 10 to 20 dB of noise.
Yes, the author contorts to praise MQA for finding a better use for noise or some such.
High end audio reviews approach is one of deference and the educated are expected to read between the lines.

Much of the defense seems to be motivated by professional courtesy, it certainly has nothing to do with fidelity.

- Rich
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom