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

[LoyK]

I agree the optics look bad but I think Tidal's actions are defensible to take down garbage content some blogger uploaded to their for-fee premium service.

I have to add: "Some blogger that made MQA remove lies from their website and fights for measurable truth in formats/codecs audio."
Is this a bad thing?

 

[voodooless]

Really guys? When you give me the DVD or Blu-ray, can you still play it? You can't, right? With MQA you can give me a copy and keep one for yourself against the wishes of the content owners. Ergo, there is no content protection of any sort. Period.

If you think MQA and Blu-ray are the same when it comes to content protection, then the plot is completely lost.

You got me there, fair point. Still, this comes back to a definition question as I pointed out earlier.

 

[amirm]

Again, you ignore the actual problem. Streaming services serve MQA to users not ordering them. All other format you compare to need a dedicated codec which I as end user then have to adapt to. If MQA where like this I would be out of here. MQA are fed to me as it is lossless FLAC.

What services? There is only Tidal and only a few instances of MQA files being served as MQA. I consume massive amount of Tidal content and rarely run into an MQA file to being with. There is no evidence that the MQA files being served as lossless are not bugs. Only Tidal can explain what is going on there. Having dealt with music labels, I can tell you that it is extremely common for them to send you (distributor) the wrong files.

 

[amirm]

I have to add: "Some blogger that made MQA remove lies from their website and fights for measurable truth in formats/codecs audio."
Is this a bad thing?

Not at all. It is simply the case that we want to stick to facts and if that is the bloggers schtick, then needs to practice it himself. In this forum at least where our goal is to get to the truth, not sensationalism.

 

[badboygolf16v]

Too many "ifs" in there. The facts here are very clear. Tidal took down your content and MQA has no ability whatsoever to do that. All you could complain about is MQA telling Tidal about it.

I responded to this because a poster incorrectly ran with your OP statement just today. You have created confusion on this front that is not backed by any facts. You want facts about MQA. Practice the same with your own statement. An apology that is based on more innuendo is not an apology.

We don't know whether this happened or not. But it is naive to say that it could not happen at MQA's request. It most certainly could.

 

[amirm]

We don't know whether this happened or not. But it is naive to say that it could not happen at MQA's request. It most certainly could.

It is also naïve to assume that Tidal would have been perfectly fine with that garbage file to be on their service without pressure from MQA.

When you don't know something, you don't know something. Don't turn that into fact.

 

[dorirod]

Sadly DRM was used as pejorative word by general press to say everything that has it is bad. This is why people are trying to stick DRM to MQA to then say it must be bad too even though there is no trace of DRM in MQA.
...
I could update that tiny file and instantly change your rights without having you download an all new file. This is NOT the case with copy protection like the example you gave. If I wanted to change something in that CD, I would have had to send you a new CD.

Hands up, who has had to call Microsoft to "update the file" to get "rights" to use the computer and OS you purchased because DRM thought you were stealing the OS when you upgraded a couple of components? Sorry Amirm, but I will keep calling DRM crap, don't care how ignorant it makes me look. Oh and implementation got it wrong is not an excuse or we'd all be communists

 

[PO3c]

What services? There is only Tidal and only a few instances of MQA files being served as MQA. I consume massive amount of Tidal content and rarely run into an MQA file to being with. There is no evidence that the MQA files being served as lossless are not bugs. Only Tidal can explain what is going on there. Having dealt with music labels, I can tell you that it is extremely common for them to send you (distributor) the wrong files.

User error? Sure it can happen! And tests are probably also performed in silence checking if services and end users process or accept the files.
10000 stream from 9999 ignorant users with one complaint we know where we are heading

Qobuz there are confrimed MQA content served as 24b FLAC from the 2L label. Here there are confirmed no user error on the label part.
To ensure the quality of service streaming services seem to have three choices. Eiter block the label/release. Silently comply and serve the FLAC as lossless as today. Or filter MQA content in a way end users can block it from showing up in search.

I prefer blocking the label as this has some weight to the statement we don't want MQA and we do not need the overhead feeding 24b content to users only utelizing 16b.

 

[amirm]

Hands up, who has had to call Microsoft to "update the file" to get "rights" to use the computer and OS you purchased because DRM thought you were stealing the OS when you upgraded a couple of components?

Put your hand down. That is not DRM. That is activation just like your phone has.

And that problem comes becomes of a bunch of idiots/reporters revolting against Intel putting serial numbers in each CPU that uniquely identified your computer so Intel pulled that out (made it optional?). So the OS has to synthesis its own unique ID from your system configuration which goes wrong as you and many people experience. As I said, this hatred of "DRM" is damaging in itself. Stay rational and good things come.

FYI Microsoft has relaxed activation for Windows for a while now. It will just put a gray notice on your desktop but otherwise the OS is fully functional.

 

[amirm]

Qobuz there are confrimed MQA content served as 24b FLAC from the 2L label. Here there are confirmed no user error on the label part.

Let the riots start! Come back when large bunch of your favorite content is that way, not when one tiny service has served up files this way.

 

[Raindog123]

I see why you are saying this but it is incorrect. MQA doesn't own Tidal and it was Tidal that took down your files. You misrepresented what you had uploaded to Tidal as being "music" when in reality it had test signals in it that could damage user equipment or at any rate, potentially make them go deaf listening to them. MQA likely notified Tidal of such and Tidal took down your content. Your beef therefore is with Tidal, not MQA.

In other words, you used deception to get your test clips into Tidal and once they figured this out, they took out your content. This is no different than Apple and Android store taking down apps that say they are one thing, but turns out they are something else.

You need to find another way to "get your own" data than than messing with Tidal as a service. They are not in the business of being your partner in this.

Amir, I hope you realize that all you do is just add counts to >my counters<.

Unfortunately, there were way too many excuses of not providing MQA measurements [of performance, compared to 'standard' PCMs], and attacks on the likes of GoldenOne's analyses... What has not been offered are those measurements, objective or subjective. Fool me once...

 

[amirm]

User error?

If by user you mean whoever the grunt is in the labels that distributes the content, yes. I know the local mastering person that digitized a ton of tapes into high-res content. He checked and the files he had generated were being modified (resampled, etc.) before being distributed to services! He was outraged but nothing he could do about it.

 

[amirm]

What has not been offered are those measurements, objective or subjective.

Have you read bob's latest response in his blog? I highly suggest you do as there is good bit of explanation in there that is simply stated. Don't go by what GoldenOne has said of their response. Read it for yourself. It most definitely has objective information in there.

 

[Eskamobob1]

Let the riots start! Come back when large bunch of your favorite content is that way, not when one tiny service has served up files this way.

This is a poor argument. Should I also only take my car to the mechanic when there if 4L of oil on the floor and not when the engine starts ticking in the first place?

As someone with hood experience in business you should be well aware that its better to be proactive rather than reactive. Getting ahead of an issue saves time, resources, money, and headaches.

 

[tw99]

If what GoldenOne has done has as little value as Amir seems to be claiming, I wonder why MQA have gone to the trouble of changing some of their public statements to reduce the claims of losslessness.

 

[Raindog123]

Have you read bob's latest response in his blog? I highly suggest you do as there is good bit of explanation in there that is simply stated. Don't go by what GoldenOne has said of their response. Read it for yourself. It most definitely has objective information in there.

I have read Bob's article "not everything is gold[en]" (or something like that). Are you saying, somewhere within it I missed performance results? If so, can you please point me/us at them?

EDIT: ...and in case you can't, I stand by my >original proclamation<.

 

[voodooless]

@GoldenOne you tracks seem to have gone from Spotify as well. Was that by your request, or did someone else do this?

 

[LittleJoe83]

Have you read bob's latest response in his blog? I highly suggest you do as there is good bit of explanation in there that is simply stated. Don't go by what GoldenOne has said of their response. Read it for yourself. It most definitely has objective information in there.

This is why I don't go by what you say in your reviews, I go straight to the person who would make money if I purchased said product from them and believe everything they tell me.

 

[Nomad]

I have read Bob's article "not everything is gold[en]" (or something like that). Are you saying, somewhere within it I missed performance results? If so, can you please point me/us at them?

EDIT: ...and in case you can't, I stand by my >original proclamation<.

Not sarcastically: have you checked the appendices of his post? Those provide some sort of performance results if I'm not mistaken.

 

[PO3c]

Let the riots start! Come back when large bunch of your favorite content is that way, not when one tiny service has served up files this way.

Then it will be to late and we lost easy access to lossless for at least a decade before a new turn will come around.

Have you read bob's latest response in his blog? I highly suggest you do as there is good bit of explanation in there that is simply stated. Don't go by what GoldenOne has said of their response. Read it for yourself. It most definitely has objective information in there.

I've read it several times. And I concluded closer to GoldenSound. BS put a lot of blaime on GS as if MQA offered other or better ways to disclose some of his findings. But there isn't any as we know of is it? If one have to hammer the door with an axe that is what you do. When it gives we learn something and work our way to the next door.

Of course Amir already knowing MQA was a lossy codec and that the key where under the doormat the whole time can watch from the side line and comment from his own experiance how to test MQA. But stopping at a sine wave doesn't really fit hi-end audio does it?
I still have that -55dB artefact printed on my retina and would love to see at what levels in the ultrasonic this artefact stop occurring in the normal passband. This kind of information BS could have answered as a professional rather than putting down GS as he where a common forum poster.