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

[Zensō]

I listen to CD, SACD, and Hi-Res downloads through my Benchmark DAC.

Why would I possibly want to pay extra to listen to adulterated versions of my music?

To contribute to Bob Stuart's retirement account.

 

[levimax]

I listen to CD, SACD, and Hi-Res downloads through my Benchmark DAC.

Why would I possibly want to pay extra to listen to adulterated versions of my music?

Because it may end up being the only version available .....

 

[Jimbob54]

Ultimately, I believe this will be decided by Apple, Spotify, and perhaps Amazon. They will either accept or reject MQA files if/when they are submitted by Warner et al. It’ll be interesting to see what Spotify does when they roll out their high-res tier later this year.

Well, their own site says, pretty clearly :

https://newsroom.spotify.com/2021-02-22/five-things-to-know-about-spotify-hifi/

"Spotify HiFi will deliver music in CD-quality, lossless audio format to your device and Spotify Connect-enabled speakers"

Which when compared with the (amended) tidal stance (now avoiding ref to CD or lossless) is pretty unambiguous. For Spotify to then send the not quite mqa but still mqa 13/44 goes against this. Unless the above quote is the best case, not the whole catalog?

 

[mansr]

Well, their own site says, pretty clearly :

https://newsroom.spotify.com/2021-02-22/five-things-to-know-about-spotify-hifi/

"Spotify HiFi will deliver music in CD-quality, lossless audio format to your device and Spotify Connect-enabled speakers"

That's all good, except that they can't make this promise. We know that some labels are already delivering MQA in place of CD quality.

 

[levimax]

Well, their own site says, pretty clearly :

https://newsroom.spotify.com/2021-02-22/five-things-to-know-about-spotify-hifi/

"Spotify HiFi will deliver music in CD-quality, lossless audio format to your device and Spotify Connect-enabled speakers"

Which when compared with the (amended) tidal stance (now avoiding ref to CD or lossless) is pretty unambiguous. For Spotify to then send the not quite mqa but still mqa 13/44 goes against this. Unless the above quote is the best case, not the whole catalog?

More details later it says..... still some wiggle room especially "CD-quality".... this has meant a lot of different things over the years beside 44.1/16... we will see.

 

[amirm]

Remember where TrueHD came from? It was created by Meridian and Bob Stuart. Your inconsistency apparently knows no bounds.

Of course I do. Funny thing is that it was praised whereas MQA is not by the same person. The irony and inconsistency is you all's, not mine.

 

[Jimbob54]

That all good, except that they can't make this promise. We know that some labels are already delivering MQA in place of CD quality.

Agreed. Clarity about what one can expect from a technical standpoint from any streaming service is sadly lacking. And subject to change im sure.

 

[amirm]

I prefer open formats but will live with closed, proprietary formats if they improve my audio experience.
MQA doesn't improve my audio experience.

So let's dispense with arguments such technology costing a lot, being proprietary, folks trying to take over the world, etc. Those are constants. It is Dolby's mission for example to tax every bit of audio distributed for video. And they have been quite successful at it.

Did you know that Dolby competed with MPEG audio for surround and beat the latter for standardization in DVD? They used their political power with studios to do that. MPEG-2 was picked for video but not for audio.

 

[mansr]

So let's dispense with arguments such technology costing a lot, being proprietary, folks trying to take over the world, etc. Those are constants. It is Dolby's mission for example to tax every bit of audio distributed for video. And they have been quite successful at it.

Did you know that Dolby competed with MPEG audio for surround and beat the latter for standardization in DVD? They used their political power with studios to do that. MPEG-2 was picked for video but not for audio.

How does that excuse MQA?

 

[amirm]

Whats the point of a -144dB DAC when the media add +6dB noise to the original recording?

Where would I find such a thing in my ripped music? I won't. Where would I find that in HDTracks library of music? I won't. Where would I find it in trillions of tracks out in the field? I won't.

The original recordings continue to be available without MQA despite all the predictions you all have made.

With MQA decoder, you are also able to exceed the limits of CD in both spectrum and bit depth. So quality matters even more than if you just stuck with CDs.

 

[KeenObserver]

Because it may end up being the only version available .....

We've been assured that this will NEVER happen!

OK?

 

[amirm]

How does that excuse MQA?

It deals with specious arguments you all make. Stop saying you are outraged by this and that about MQA and in the next breath play a Blu-ray disc or reach for you iphone.

Now, maybe you say your arguments don't need to be consistent or logical in which case, sure, we can just ignore them all....

 

[amirm]

There is no need to replace perfectly functional 16/44.1 files with MQA infested 16/44.1 files of the same size ? it truly is a solution in search for a problem .

Such a replacement is not happening despite such dire predictions now for 2 to 3 years if not more about MQA. I have explained the reasons why. How labels have zero, absolutely zero motivation to make such a replacement. How the distribution channel will refuse to accept it. Yet you want to promote this fear. I predicted how Amazon would NOT adopt MQA when and if they do a high-res service and that is exactly what happened. Despite the force of this massive company in music distribution, you want to keep promoting theories that have no foundation.

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.

As to MQA itself, it has an argument: it creates a single file that can be both "CD quality" and "high-res." And do so in a way that the file itself is in the open, i.e. PCM. This has some appeal as it did for Tidal. If this is not a real solution, then it won't get more adoption. If it is, then they will and that is that. The open source community needs to create its own alternative if it thinks this solution has legs. If it doesn't then go about your business and don't waste energy on arguments like this.

 

[mansr]

Amir's "arguments" for MQA basically amount to this:

 

[gatucho]

So let's dispense with arguments such technology costing a lot, being proprietary, folks trying to take over the world, etc. Those are constants. It is Dolby's mission for example to tax every bit of audio distributed for video. And they have been quite successful at it.

Did you know that Dolby competed with MPEG audio for surround and beat the latter for standardization in DVD? They used their political power with studios to do that. MPEG-2 was picked for video but not for audio.

@amirm That's like... his opinion. I don't believe in paying more and getting less, some may but not me, at least.

 

[amirm]

We've been assured that this will NEVER happen!

OK?

You must have such incredible confidence in abilities of MQA as a company and as technology to say that! On that front, you are millions of miles ahead of me and are going against the grain of all the people that say it sucks.

 

[mieswall]

”Bass notes have a better perceived decay?” Seriously? Since JA liked this post perhaps he can get you squeezed into the subjective reviewers list at Stereophile. It reads a lot like what I’ve read in the past in Stereophile and The Absolute Sound.

BTW, are you using cable elevators like JA used to (or does)?

Do you want proofs of that? I may provide you some examples. Beware you may risk the sanity of your ears listening those awfully lossy MQA files, though.
No, forget it. You probably have already cancelled your Tidal account following the advice of our impartial reviewers, why would you need ears if you have graphs that show exactly what you want to see; and it is clear that under no circumstances you would allowed to be ripped of the fortune of $50-100 more in a MQA-enabled version of a DAC for those tests to be done unfolding by hardware, right?

 

[amirm]

@amirm That's like... his opinion. I don't believe in paying more and getting less, some may but not me, at least.

So give me an example of any music you purchased yourself that came in MQA instead of CD. Not "here is a CD in Japan." But any music you personally purchased. Is there anyone in this thread with such an experience?

It has been years since these dire predictions been made. Where is the exitance proof?

 

[KeenObserver]

The open source community created FLAC. We should adopt that.
All the studios should adopt that.

 

[gatucho]

Such a replacement is not happening despite such dire predictions now for 2 to 3 years if not more about MQA. I have explained the reasons why. How labels have zero, absolutely zero motivation to make such a replacement. How the distribution channel will refuse to accept it. Yet you want to promote this fear. I predicted how Amazon would NOT adopt MQA when and if they do a high-res service and that is exactly what happened. Despite the force of this massive company in music distribution, you want to keep promoting theories that have no foundation.

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.

As to MQA itself, it has an argument: it creates a single file that can be both "CD quality" and "high-res." And do so in a way that the file itself is in the open, i.e. PCM. This has some appeal as it did for Tidal. If this is not a real solution, then it won't get more adoption. If it is, then they will and that is that. The open source community needs to create its own alternative if it thinks this solution has legs. If it doesn't then go about your business and don't waste energy on arguments like this.

1) I'm sure that, at least now, these CD quality flacs being in reality MQAs are not "mistakes"

2) 44khz16bit MQA are NEITHER CD quality not high-res. And for me that's the main point.

3) a solution being the best or "real" is not really historically correlates with it's success