• 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, where is decoding done, what is required?

ThatM1key

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 27, 2020
Messages
1,048
Likes
882
Location
USA
I did admitted figuring that it may be impossible to fit a 24/192 into a fraction of size, but I could be wrong, as tech is getting better

I could argue: who needs music over 20khz, when most people cant even hear over 16khz. I use mp3, it uses less data and it sounds better than flacs. Its amazing how they can only pack the needed frequencies into a small size.
 

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
6,948
Likes
22,625
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
recent research in neuroscience and psychoacoustics suggests their presence or absence can alter the way we experience the sound that we do consciously hear".

Can you post it please? I'm hoping it isn't Oohashi again...
 

earlevel

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Messages
545
Likes
776
There is no data rate reduction. That's all a lie.
I didn't want to get into that because it would have made a long post longer, and I figured someone else would chime in anyway. Plus I wanted to include it as a claim, since it's one Bob Stuart made on video—somehow, it's important to some guy in Japan, according to Bob, because we need to support frugal audiophiles I guess.

But while we're at it, could you fill me in on the claims for MQA bandwidth (or link to an explanation)? I've never cared to verify, since it was obvious not enough savings to be worth the baggage, by a long shot. My impression was something similar in data rates to CD audio, for a claim of MQA decoded quality of 24-bit, 96k or maybe 192k. In a real quick search, I see an article that says Tidal claims a 3.5 minute song, 26 megabytes of download space (the actual streamed could be more, but probably safe to say pretty close). That's a little bit smaller than 3.5 min CD stereo song. So if the claim is it's equivalent to 24-bit at a higher rate, seems you could call that compression. To be clear, I don't believe it's equivalent to the hi-res source, and I think it's a ludicrous system if the object is this meager compression that the world doesn't need. I'm just curious if my knowledge is lacking (for sure, I cut the investigation cycles off quickly once I'd looked enough to realize what a farce it was), or whether MQA is fibbing about savings, or Tidal is.
 

danadam

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
957
Likes
1,497
But while we're at it, could you fill me in on the claims for MQA bandwidth (or link to an explanation)? I've never cared to verify
You could compare sizes of files on 2L test bench site: http://www.2l.no/hires/
Assuming I didn't botch anything:
Code:
album   cd size     mqacd size  difference
038     50136795    48768321    -2%
053     20848230    20935558    +0%
106     24368412    24364059    +0%

album   96/19 size  mqa size    difference
038     112591295   99003201    -12%
048     48336552    52740055    +9%
053     43783093    39944045    -8%
106     51243379    50352602    -1%
092     48531705    52707527    +8%

album   96/24 size  mqa size    difference
038     179931671   99003201    -44%
048     85780235    52740055    -38%
053     72247004    39944045    -44%
106     87114427    50352602    -42%
092     90050400    52707527    -41%
The 96/19 version was made from 96/24 version using:
Code:
sox "input.flac" "output.flac" dither -p 19
 

Snarfie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
1,169
Likes
926
Location
Netherlands
Some insights from Roger Nichols who recorded most of Steely Dan records about transients that already disapear from analog mastertapes with in a few houres. So what about the quality of analog masters (guess the majority) that are already loosing transients with in a few hours. I would say enjoy the music despite lose of transients still enjoyable enough i guess but don't expect or claim it is the original sound the engineers heard when it was made. I have the impression that MQA claims or suggest that.

I bet my current Aja Cd from1989 wil contain more transients than a MQA file made of the same master a few months/ years back

Roger Nichols: Yes, and it’s mostly because when I record something on a digital machine..um, you know, and I play it back ten years from now it will sound exatly the same. So if there is some little artifact because it’s digital, it’s a majorable (sic) artifact, and it’s going to be the same artifact ten years from now. If I record something on Analog tape and it doesn’t matter whether I’m do using Dolby SR, Dolby A or DBX or no noise reduction or whatever it is, if you record something on a piece of analog tape and play it back later the same day, the same program is not on the tape. And there’s nothing so far that anybody’d been able to do about that, you know, like those little magnetic particles are made to be able to wander around and they do so by themselves while the tape is just sitting there. I’ve made DAT copies when I’m cutting tracks, and then have an automation snap shot of the mix and then later that evening put the tape back on, play it back, compare it with the Dat, and there’s already starting to be a difference. And by the time a week or two weeks go by and it’s time to mix, a lot of the transients have started to disappear. If you use this as a tool, some people like what this does, and it sort of helps to mix all their music together, that’s fine, but, you know, you can’t say that Analog tape with Dolby SR is as good as Digital. It might be as quiet, and but it’s not going to retain the signal, you know, as long as Digital tape. So that’s my biggest worry about Analog tape.

http://pieralessandri.com/ROGER-NICHOLS-interview
 
Last edited:

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,227
Likes
17,806
Location
Netherlands
1622013278351.png

:facepalm:
 

ThatM1key

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 27, 2020
Messages
1,048
Likes
882
Location
USA
I wish people would realize quickly how MQA is a big sham like I did. I see articles still talking about MQA and admiring it. The ones that defend MQA, are the ones that spend a shit ton of money for MQA hardware like the smsl M500.

Years ago, I thought not unfolding an MQA file does no harm, and I ironically used to believe the uapp mqa lights did mean something. A few months before that video, I did some minor digging around. I always wondered why CD quality files got converted to mqa, it didnt make any sense, 24bit 48khz sure I guess but 16bit 44.1khz?

I learned over the years that a MFSL CD is gonna sound better than a hdtracks 24/192 version. It did sound (at the time) amazing how you could get 24/192 "lossless" out of a CD quality file but nowadays storage is cheap and internet speeds are getting better. Even if MQA wasnt a sham, there would be no point of using it.
 
OP
R

Roland68

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
1,363
Likes
1,127
Location
Cologne, Germany
I now have 2 MQA DACs to test here.
In order to compare MQA with normal flacs and CD's, I picked out MQA titles that I know well, live recordings and / or recorded with acoustic instruments.
What can I say, either there is no difference or it is marginal and not to the benefit of MQA.
 

johnweems

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
7
Likes
1
Decoding MQA? As I know, a DAC device is indispensable to listen to MQA songs. And it is inevitable to lose a bit of quality after decoding. I listen to Tidal MQA and use AudKit Tidizer to convert MQA songs to FLAC files. The converted Tidal FLAC files reach 16bit and 44.1 kHz. It could mean the MQA quality will turn to HIFI quality after decoding.
 

Twx

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2022
Messages
11
Likes
3
Having a FiiO dongle with full MQA on my iPhone vs my mojo2 on my MacBook - the MQA’s sounds warmer and fuller - almost like a tube filter of some sorts have been implemented. Now it’s clearly not an A/B test - but I find MQA to sound a little better than Apple Music, albeit not as clear/clean. Again this is probably similar to cola and Pepsi where I’d like to think I could taste the difference in a blind test, but add ice/reaction to the glass/steel/air and remove my ability to see - I’d probably fail.

To me it’s really a tuning thing - like a high end DAP, as in Tidal has a few people listen to the song, tweak it a smudge - send it back to the artist/lawyers and get the approval. That’s the secret sauce, all hidden away in some secret algorithm.
 
OP
R

Roland68

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
1,363
Likes
1,127
Location
Cologne, Germany
Having a FiiO dongle with full MQA on my iPhone vs my mojo2 on my MacBook - the MQA’s sounds warmer and fuller - almost like a tube filter of some sorts have been implemented. Now it’s clearly not an A/B test - but I find MQA to sound a little better than Apple Music, albeit not as clear/clean. Again this is probably similar to cola and Pepsi where I’d like to think I could taste the difference in a blind test, but add ice/reaction to the glass/steel/air and remove my ability to see - I’d probably fail.

To me it’s really a tuning thing - like a high end DAP, as in Tidal has a few people listen to the song, tweak it a smudge - send it back to the artist/lawyers and get the approval. That’s the secret sauce, all hidden away in some secret algorithm.
You can't compare it like that.
You need a song without MQA and a song with MQA (of course the same song) in good quality and with the same master that you compare on the same device.
I did it very laboriously, with three different MQA DACs, one of which was in the high 4-digit range. The MQA files couldn't convince me even in comparison to a Flac file I created myself from a CD, in the best case they weren't worse.
 

Twx

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2022
Messages
11
Likes
3
You can't compare it like that.
You need a song without MQA and a song with MQA (of course the same song) in good quality and with the same master that you compare on the same device.
I did it very laboriously, with three different MQA DACs, one of which was in the high 4-digit range. The MQA files couldn't convince me even in comparison to a Flac file I created myself from a CD, in the best case they weren't worse.
I know that… you’re not at all noticing a difference in sound, not quality. Sound. Distortion and slight modifications would change the sound, I don’t think I could even remotely find that one is better quality as I can’t hear quality. You’re saying there’s no difference between the MQA sound and non MQA?
 
OP
R

Roland68

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
1,363
Likes
1,127
Location
Cologne, Germany
I know that… you’re not at all noticing a difference in sound, not quality. Sound. Distortion and slight modifications would change the sound, I don’t think I could even remotely find that one is better quality as I can’t hear quality. You’re saying there’s no difference between the MQA sound and non MQA?
No, I'm just saying that I haven't heard any advantage from MQA Files, despite high-quality components.
I did a very complex blind test with 4 other very experienced people, including 2 sound engineers who I have known for a long time. None of us had classified an MQA file as better.
That's all I can say.
 
Top Bottom