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

[tmtomh]

Impossibler

 

[Music1969]

MQA got their royalty from the label.

Actually it has been shown that labels were not involved in creating MQA files found on Tidal.

https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=7218

In this case it was either Tidal or MQA Ltd.

And I can't find it right now but I recall reading it was MQA Ltd themselves were doing a lot of the Warner batch conversions. Not Warner. I'll try to find this.

All suggesting MQA Ltd's main income is from hardware license and software decode license (Roon, Audirvana), not from labels.

Edit:

http://highfidelity.pl/@main-870&lang=en

"I asked MQA guys why they sell license for using the format and they told me they had to because they were buying licenses from record labels they were working with."

MQA pay the labels? Not the other way around?

And then recoup license costs through hardware license and software decode (Roon, Audirvana)?

More evidence labels are not the ones really creating all MQA files?

 

[goldenears]

Thanks for that article - Neil Young certainly doesn't believe that MQA better expresses his artistic intentions.

Up is down, left is right, lossless is folded ultrasonics with less temporal blur.

 

[mkawa]

where is mqa getting all this money to lose? i see no entry for them on techcrunch so it's not venture. 100mio, and with only data up to 2017 is a HUGE chunk of change. there's no evidence that they have deep pocketed founders or private (eg hedge) backers. so where's the beef?

 

[goldenears]

where is mqa getting all this money to lose? i see no entry for them on techcrunch so it's not venture. 100mio, and with only data up to 2017 is a HUGE chunk of change. there's no evidence that they have deep pocketed founders or private (eg hedge) backers. so where's the beef?

That's exactly what I was wondering reading the article as well. There's definitely something fishy.

 

[Music1969]

Actually it has been shown that labels were not involved in creating MQA files found on Tidal.

https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=7218

In this case it was either Tidal or MQA Ltd.

And I can't find it right now but I recall reading it was MQA Ltd themselves were doing a lot of the Warner batch conversions. Not Warner. I'll try to find this.

All suggesting MQA Ltd's main income is from hardware license and software decode license (Roon, Audirvana), not from labels.

Update @RichB :

http://highfidelity.pl/@main-870&lang=en

"I asked MQA guys why they sell license for using the format and they told me they had to because they were buying licenses from record labels they were working with."

MQA pay the labels? Not the other way around?

And then recoup license costs through hardware license and software decode (Roon, Audirvana)?

More evidence labels are not the ones really creating all MQA files?

 

[mkawa]

why would the labels pay a codec company? their business model is to charge for their content. they pay out a little to the content creators, but they are primarily IP aggregators.

mqa needs to create coded content that they can then charge the decoders for access to. hence they need access to the content. hence they need to pay the labels.

d&b has their employee count at 20 and yearly revenue at 600k gbp. if they've managed to turn a profit for a year or two, they don't hire anyone, and their content costs sit at equilibrium, they may just have enough to limp along for another year or two before they give up.

it also sounds like they're trying to go deeper into the apac region. the newest article about them is some dog and pony show with the now-bottoms-up xiami/alibaba streaming service at a presser.

i think it would be extremely hard to argue that they're not on their last legs though. they definitely are. maybe they can extract a few more dollars out of tidal's app license, but it only carries the minimum support, and the new owner will want to be cutting off as many of these stupid costs he can find to get the service to stop losing mios a month.

 

[voodooless]

This whole discussion reminds me very much of this video:

There is also a part II

 

[guenthi_r]

Yes, a random album here and there will come out in MQA. And some mistakes will happen in distributing the MQA version as regular. YES album came out as uncompressed MP3 in HDtracks catalog a few years ago. That is incompetence on behalf of the labels, not intent.

Absolutely right, this is sometimes the case, sadly enough.
Example: Amazon Music HD -> Rebecca Pidgeon - The Raven (Chesky), this is definitly compressed, looks like ATRAC or some other Codec.

 

[guenthi_r]

Let them have Austria Tidal. How bad could it be?

Hm?

 

[Jimbob54]

It provides no obvious consumer benefit and has a whiff about it. Proper double blind testing on all listener types should be undertaken before fully decrying it.

Who knows, it may be preferred to the equivalent hi res or redbook offer. But my money is it basically being a coin toss and if it is, I'm against mqa as someone is extracting value from the industry for nothing back to the consumer.

 

[mkawa]

from everything i'm finding online, if this is the best they can do at extracting value from the industry, they're doing an even poorer job at it than they are at compressing things

 

[jensgk]

I bought this album on Bandcamp: Kronos Quartet - Terry Riley- Sun Rings
I wanted the Flac version and downloaded it, it turns out it was 48/24 MQA files.
Since I would rather have pure 48/24 Flac files, I then downloaded the Wav files instead, thinking I could convert them to pure Flac.
So that is what I did. It then turns out that the converted Wav-files were also MQA, so the MQA was embedded in the Wav-files.
In this case I was not warned about getting MQA, and could not avoid it beforehand.
Sure, I expected 44.1/16 files, but got 48/24 MQA instead, but I really do not want MQA...

Curious, did you let Bandcamp and the artist know of your preferences?

I ended up sending The Kronos Quartet a note about my disappointment of receiving MQA files, when expecting pure Flac files yesterday.

This morning I got an answer saying, that they did not have anything to do with that, and that they did not know anything about MQA. I was directed to their record company instead, - will be sending them a note

 

[Mnyb]

The MQA CD schema is a sure money grab it can not remotely serve any purpose .
Likewise for the files where there are no ultrasonic content to fold (44.1k or 48k original masters ) but gets the treatment anyways.

An interesting DBT would be.

Original >24/96 master
MQA version
24/48 FLAC

Also all Bob's and Meridian rather weakly supported claims about apodizing filters ? Would need a good investigation , has any real third party research shoved any benefits of these class of filters . I blame Meridian to be instrumental in starting the last decades filter craze among audiophiles.
But is there really anything at all ? Why would leaky filters with aliasing be somehow more pleasing to the human ear and represent a better reconstruction subjectively (do not bring the pre ringing argument its severely misunderstood music don't do this only the used test signal )

Reading between the lines there are even claims that upsampling improves the sound a true audiophile trope ? I hoped not see in outside the usual flat earth society.

 

[bambadoo]

MQA goes green
Imagine the idea of all created music stored one place. Just one file each tune to save the earth. Everything MQA processed. (or on the fly MQA tagged that depends on what you are willing to pay or have of certified and licenced equipment). End to end encryption. Other metadata done by Roon.
"Just as the artist intended."

https://vilvit.io/

Have to admit, the idea is not bad at all.

The cost of ingesting a full catalogue requires cash and capability. What if this was already handled, and all you needed was tokens to prove you had a license to stream a specific subset of the world's recorded music? This lowers risk of failed effort both with labels and new streaming services. New initiatives can be propelled out alongside transparent reporting.

But what if the global catalogue of recorded music was hosted in one place with a low energy footprint? All you had to do was to provide tokens to prove that you had the licenses and vilvit.io took it from there?

But what if the global catalogue of recorded music was hosted in one place with a low energy footprint? All you had to do was to provide tokens to prove that you had the licenses and vilvit.io took it from there?

 

[Tokyo_John]

Another massive MQA thread. And another post (this one included) that will be lost as a drop in the ocean.

Just now I did some subjective listening tests to try and find a difference between 2 versions of the same tracks: (1) AIFF ripped from the original CD upsampled in Audirvana from 24/16 to 705.6/32 and (2) MQA “master” tracks streamed from Tidal. The DAC is a Topping D90 MQA. I focused on some high frequency roughness/artifacts that I could hear from the snare drum on one track, as well as the “sheen” on cymbals on another, then some HF texture on another, etc.. I went back and forth several times...and I simply couldn’t find any identifiable difference. I was really trying to find something, but if it exists then it is VERY subtle. Or else I don’t know where to search for it.

Still, I would like to know more, objectively. I have a decent stereo recorder that goes up to 192 kHz and it should capture information coming through the chain that is inaudible. It will certainly be able to resolve differences. I just have to find a day where the dozen construction crews working in the neighborhood are quiet, and the kids aren’t around (unfortunately there is not much overlap in these Venn circles).

 

[guenthi_r]

I went back and forth several times...and I simply couldn’t find any identifiable difference. I was really trying to find something, but if it exists then it is VERY subtle. Or else I don’t know where to search for it.

Same here. My ears are not good enough for such analysis
In the last blindtest we compared Sharp´s latest ATRAC (Minidisc, yes! ) to the original source (16/44 PCM CD) and all my friends (also myself) failed constantly. Poker dice is much more precise

 

[Deleted member 13028]

I will continue to hope that @Amir is right and MQA dies on the vine.

Amir is just guessing. Whether he is right or not about the future of MQA as a company is, not in the slightest, interesting. What is interesting is how I am able to understand everything Amir says, and all of his arguments, his methodology, his philosophy with regards to audio equipment and, in general, his assertions... except for some of the stuff he says in this thread regarding MQA. I have ready every single comment in this thread, because I am hoping some of these smart people, such as Amir, finally puts forth a set of arguments for MQA that I am able to understand. That has not happened yet, I am starting to feel very stupid. As it turns out I am having no problem understanding the arguments against MQA. Perhaps another thread on another forum will be able to enlighten me? (To be 100% honest, I am even finding it hard to understand how most of the arguments made for MQA are even relevant.)

 

[charleski]

Apparently Neil Young gave his version of the story in his book. I haven't read it but summarized here:
https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/revi...ters-mission-to-save-high-quality-audio-r834/

It sounds like at least part of Neil's problem with Bob Stuart is that you couldn't pin him down on any details. Sound familiar?

According to Young's book, the problem really was that, "The terms they proposed to Hamm included monthly payments, royalties for each player sold, more stock, and no exclusivity," along with the fact that Stuart still hadn't delivered any software implementation of his magic codec by the end of 2013. Along with this he was demanding onerous restrictions on downstream licensing, "if Pono was sold or licensed its player to be built or sold by another company, then his technology could not be included."

Basically, Bob Stuart was (and probably still is) so convinced of the magical properties of his snake-oil codec that he wanted both a ton of money and effective control of the future of the company. Charlie Hansen's DAC-with-incompetent-filter provided Pono with a vaguely similar secret sauce to sell to the credulous (indeed, MQA uses comparably leaky filters that spray aliasing over the audio), came at a much lower price, and was actually available to incorporate into the players without waiting.

 

[usersky]

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

That's quite sad but then again, better the devil you know.