Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

However, critically, unlike the current broadcasting/streaming choice of CD resolution lossy compressed but high bitrate/quality AAC, MP3, Ogg Vorbis, etc vs CD resolution lossless uncompressed PCM, we are not talking about an order of magnitude saving in streaming bandwith here.

 

At best MQA files are just over half the size of lossless FLAC files with equivalent resolution of decoded MQA (ie, disregarding the redundant upsampling provided by MQA 'unfolding').

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment
  • 3 months later...
  • 10 months later...
36 minutes ago, Norton said:

 A better comparison would be MQA vs 16/44 within Tidal, or indeed to put your experience in context by also comparing your local CD Rip  with the 16/44 Tidal version.

 

Indeed, although you have to be very careful that you have explicitly selected TIDAL's actual standard CD resolution tracks for the playlist in the comparison and not just re-used a playlist built from MQA tracks - in the hope that the CD res versions will automatically be used instead because you've adjusted the output quality from Masters to HiFi.

 

TIDAL's online server will not swap the MQA version for the CD res one for you. It will instead provide you with a doctored version of the undecoded MQA file track, resampled from its original resolution (either 24/44.1kHz or 24/48kHz) to 16/44.1kHz!

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment
  • 1 year later...
4 hours ago, Rexp said:

I much prefer the MQA provided the album release date is 2018 onwards. Not sure if that indicates it's been remastered, anyone know?

Example:

Listen to "Coltrane '58: The Prestige Recordings" on TIDAL
Check out this album on TIDAL: "Coltrane '58: The Prestige Recordings" by John Coltrane https://tidal.com/album/106434653

 

4 hours ago, Rexp said:

This is the HiFi (mqa 16/44) version which I prefer as I don' t have an MQA dac. 

 

Unless you are on the odd occasion streaming an actual MQA-CD track, your streaming device is actually receiving a doctored version of the MQA tracks from TIDAL's online server, at 16/44.1kHz, rather than the original undecoded/distribution MQA tracks themselves, which should be at either 24/44.1kHz or 24/48kHz. This is due to your streaming device deliberately requesting non-MQA access to TIDAL's online server via your TIDAL HiFi account and has nothing to do with having an MQA DAC or not.

 

May be even the TIDAL server's 'doctoring' has contributed to your positive experience -  who knows?

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment
8 hours ago, daverich4 said:
20 hours ago, Cebolla said:

Unless you are on the odd occasion streaming an actual MQA-CD track, your streaming device is actually receiving a doctored version of the MQA tracks from TIDAL's online server, at 16/44.1kHz...

Roon and my DAC think Tidal’s MQA files are 24/whatever. Are you saying they’re not?

 

Oh dear - yes to @Rexp, no to you!

 

I was responding specifically to @Rexp's streaming device's method of connecting to TIDAL on a TIDAL HiFi account, which isn't licensed to access TIDAL's MQA file tracks and can only request non-MQA (ie, CD resolution at 16/44.1kHz) access. TIDAL's online server supplies a (downsampled) CD res version of the original undecoded/distribution MQA file tracks in that case.

 

Roon is officially licensed by TIDAL to access MQA file tracks, so is able to request MQA access (as opposed to restricted to non-MQA/CD res access in @Rexp's case), if you are using a TIDAL HiFi account. Hence Roon will be able to stream the original undecoded/distribution MQA tracks from TIDAL's online server (at either 24/44.1kHz or 24/48kHz) and decode them to the MQA Core signal (aka 'first unfold') as required. 

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment
6 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

MQA CDs are 16/44.1. However, the only MQA files that I ever streamed from Tidal were either 24/44.1 or 24/48 (usually the latter) before the "unfold".

 

That's because, unlike @Rexp, your TIDAL client is licensed to be able to request MQA file tracks from TIDAL's online server.

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
  • 5 weeks later...
14 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Maybe they're following Tidal. Don't file until you have no option.

 

Not bothered about the automatic late filing penalties, or even risking the company being striken off, then!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/late-filing-penalties/late-filing-penalties

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

@Cebolla, it's the opposite I believe.  The "Source" is indicating meta data/catalogue data/database data, and the "Signal Path" is Roon's actual software analysis displaying what the encoding of the file really is.  It is in the "Signal Path" that consumers discovered 2L was sending "MQA CD" files to Qobuz.  

 

It was the "Source" line in the Roon Signal Path pics posted in the "Qobuz streaming MQA CD's?" thread that indicated they were taken from suspected MQA CD FLAC file tracks, ie, displaying "FLAC 44.1kHz 16 bit 2ch, MQA". For example:

 

 

In other words, exactly the same as the pic you've posted - so similarly it too looks like an MQA CD track!

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
14 minutes ago, Daccord said:

 

The updates stopped doing this a while ago. It was frustrating while it happened. As Qobuz is not available in Canada, and I don't use the Tidal app (I use BubbleUPnP to send to JRiver) and my DAC doesn't do MQA, I stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb.

 

That's arguably worse for anyone wanting to avoid the MQA tracks,because BubbleUPnP (and other third party applications that don't support connecting to TIDAL via the MQA Masters quality setting) cannot distinguish which tracks have been sourced from the MQA version of an album or the true CD version. It's why BubbleUPnP presents you with what appears to be two of the same album on the TIDAL album views.

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
3 hours ago, mansr said:

Reverse engineering the decoder, I have found that the bits in an MQA file are used like this (with LSB as bit 0):

  • 9­­–15: Uncompressed audio data, 0-24 kHz with shaped pseudo-random dither.

This is a typo, presumably, so the range should be the high15 bits, ie, bits 9-23, rather than ending at bit 15.

 

Mind you, may be the high 7 bits 9-15 are actually the uncompressed 0-22kHz audio data in the MQA-CD file - yuck!

 

 

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...
15 hours ago, FredericV said:

I don't understand why the believers still believe there is a third unfold

 

 

Bob Stuart's multifold showing diagrams explain the belief. The first one slyly indicates that MQA has 'lossless' content in at least one of the 'unfolds', BTW:

http://bobtalks.co.uk/blog/science-mqa/mqa-playback/

image.thumb.png.e1eefe49a61b7a650908e0a434dbe070.png

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, FredericV said:

He calls this science? 24 bit files stop at the red line, there is no space to encode C when you have a range of 0 -> -144db ....
To have C, you would need a 32 bit distribution file. Not going to happen anytime soon, furthermore files which claim to be 32 bit per sample, are usually floating point and used as internal format in the studio. MQA is not a floating point file

 

Who needs the 'extra' 8 bits, when C is actually upsampling, with a questionable minimum phase filter, as close as possible to the so called 'original' sample rate within the capabiliies of the DAC? 🙂

 

Also, the 'lossless' claim is not lost on elements of the hi-fi press that blindly repeat marketing statements:

https://www.whathifi.com/advice/mp3-aac-wav-flac-all-the-audio-file-formats-explained

 

image.png.bad98a9cbea56819694548fd90059bad.png

 

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment
  • 4 months later...
On 11/18/2020 at 9:28 PM, FredericV said:

MQA bit depth oddity ....

First let's set a baseline:

To confirm that LMS 8 latest nightly build + squeezelite is passing bitperfect over USB towards the Mytek from my server, I play this 2L.no file:

2L-050_01_stereo_DXD_WAV.mqa.flac
.

.

.

So in Logitech Media Server 8 + Tidal via the mysqueezebox.com, it seems we are not getting MQA for this particular album, but we get MQA for other albums including the BT IMA example/


I would need to intercept the physical file which LMS pulls over HTTPS from Tidal to confirm what is in the file, but I have reasons to believe that I am not getting the MQA file from LMS - or the Mytek is broken for some 16 bit MQA files.

This is very odd

 

LMS/mysqueezebox.com isn't an official MQA partner, so hasn't been given the facility to connect to TIDAL with a TIDAL Masters quality setting in order to be able to access TIDAL's original 24bit/44.1kHz and 24bit/48kHz hi-res MQA distribution tracks. It is restricted to connecting to TIDAL at best with a TIDAL HiFi quality setting, which gives access to 16bit/44.1kHz CD-res versions of those hi-res MQA distribution tracks.

 

 

 

On 11/18/2020 at 10:03 PM, FredericV said:

Update:

I did add the first Space Oddity track to my LMS favorites, which is marked Hi Res in the search results of the LMS Tidal plugin, and has the following wimp url:
 

URL:wimp://68735594.flac

.

.

.

So for LMS, we have the opposite situation: search results do indicate Hi Res (aka MQA), but depending on the album you are either getting MQA or no MQA.

Which now proves the files have not disappeared from Tidal, but the search results are fuzzy?

 

I suspect these are mangled bit depth reduced (and as necessary downsampled) versions of the actual hi-res MQA distribution tracks themselves, so not the CD/non-MQA sourced versions that they appear to be.

Quite often there isn't an equivalent non-MQA version of the track listed anywhere in TIDAL. Also, where a non-MQA equivalent track is listed and also happens to have a different track run time, the 16bit/44.1kHz replacement never takes it on & always retains the run time of the hi-res MQA distribution track.

I'd suggest it would be easier for TIDAL to simply run a mangling transcoder on the hi-res MQA tracks as they are being streamed, rather than maintain a whole set of 'hidden' unlisted genuine CD sourced tracks just for this purpose.

 

I also suspect that it would be simpler for the TIDAL HiFi quality setting connection to allow access 16bit/44.1kHz CD-res MQA distribution (ie, MQA-CD) tracks - so no mangling in this special case. 

 

Case in point:

- the URL:wimp://68735594.flac track is supposed to have an MQA distribution resolution of 24bit/48kHz, so could have been mangled by the TIDAL HiFi quality connection to 16bit/44.1kHz CD-res and is therefore no longer recognised as an MQA track;

- the BT IMA album (https://listen.tidal.com/album/4617026) is an MQA-CD, ie, has 16bit/44.kHz CD-res MQA distribution tracks, so seems to be allowed through untouched on a TIDAL HiFi quality connection & therefore still recognised as MQA.

 

Oddity.png.1f6b4e75e68a2ae7cc58e2cef77320e5.png

 

Had the ordering of the albums in LMS placed the MQA-CD version at the top, you may have well reported the opposite for the Space Oddity track!

 

 

Not having a TIDAL Master quality connection to compare with the TIDAL HiFi quality connection in the investigations only gives you half the picture, unfortunately. However, there is a way of providing such a comparison. MQA official partner, ConversDigital, have kindly provided a free Chromecast and UPnP/DLNA controller app with TIDAL hi-res MQA track access - mconnect Player Lite.

Enabling the UPnP/DLNA Media Interface LMS plugin allows an LMS connected Squeezebox type streamer to appear as a controllable UPnP renderer in the mconnect Player app. Setting the UPnP/DLNA Media Interface plugin in debug mode should allow you to log the tokenised URLs of TIDAL tracks being streamed under control of mconnect Player, similar to how you did with the TIDAL plugin.

 

Now, not only should you be able to compare TIDAL Master quality connection tracks with TIDAL HiFi quality connection ones, you'll also be able to verify that mconnect Player's TIDAL HiFi quality connection provides the same tracks as the TIDAL LMS plugin's - comparing the tracks' MD5 signatures would be the first port of call I'd suggest.

 

It would be great if you could compare TIDAL streaming all the MQA tracks you mentioned in your posts above, so including the two 2L test bench downloads to see if those show signs of MQA via the TIDAL HiFi quality connection, as they are distributed as 24bit/44.1kHz and would complete the set, as it were:

https://listen.tidal.com/playlist/fba5448d-3d74-4b0b-8478-35297f21e623 (the Space Oddity tracks are ordered MQA-CD version first, followed by 96kHz & 192kHz MQA original resolution versions) 

Unfortunately, I don't have an MQA DAC or the means of building  @mansr's mqascan to check for signs of MQA, so I can't do this myself.

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Not that I want MQA files, but think about this. Tidal won't send MQA files to people who haven't paid the MQA tax for their digital only device. They could all have MQA DACs, but if the digital interface or app developer hasn't paid the MQA tax, then no dice.

 

It only seems to apply to the hi-res MQA file tracks - TIDAL seems to be quite happy to 'give away' their MQA-CD tracks.

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment
8 hours ago, lucretius said:

At the HiFi setting, it's unclear whether one is streaming pure PCM, MQA-CD, or MQA (but if IIRC, the stream was only 16 bit).  

 

On the TIDAL HiFi quality setting, the streaming application's MQA flag not marking the listed album can actually be trusted. So the application does make it clear whether one is streaming CD-res pure PCM as it won't have MQA flag.

 

On the TIDAL HiFi quality setting, it is actually unclear as to whether the application's MQA flag indicates MQA-CD or TIDAL manipulated (reduced to 16-bit from 24-bit hi-res) MQA. In this case, only the player/streamer (if it supports MQA) and/or its MQA DAC flagging MQA during playback indicates that it's MQA-CD; TIDAL mangled (hi-res) MQA otherwise.

Ironically, @FredericV Logitech Media Server's use of 'Hi Res' to flag an MQA album (MQA-CD or hi-res MQA) is actually more disingenuous than other software (including TIDAL's own) vague use of 'Masters', 'MQA', 'M', etc - especially as LMS only uses the HiFi setting.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, lucretius said:

if it were MQA, then the bits have been manipulated on Tidal's side so that the decoder/DAC does not recognize it as an MQA stream.  Thus, a hardware or software decoder is unnecessary and pointless.

 

Agreed.

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment
1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

So it depends on the particular album?

 

Only the test procedure was the same, not the album types tested - first album was MQA-CD & the second was hi-res MQA (original sample rate 192kHz), So @UkPhil was just confirming what was mentioned before:

- 16bit/44.1kHz MQA aka MQA-CD on Master quality setting -> unchanged, on HiFi quality setting;

- 24bit hi-res MQA on Master quality setting -> changed by TIDAL to MQA not detectable 16bit/44.1kHz, on HiFi quality setting.

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment
6 hours ago, UkPhil said:

The Carpenters is an album from the universal company stable this is a master but if I select Hifi, IE no interest in MQA I get the PCM 44.1 file not the 24/48 base MQA file I will check a Warner’s tonight for you 

 

I think you need to be a bit more careful here. Stating that selecting the HiFi quality TIDAL connection means 'no interest in MQA', just because it provides a file track at a CD resolution of 16bit/44.1kHz with no indication of MQA instead of the 24bit/48kHz distribution undecoded (base) hi-res MQA file track that has been selected, is a bit of a leap.

 

You don't appear to have considered the very real possibility of the 16/44.1kHz file track not lighting up the MQA lamp because it's a corrupted MQA file track produced by TIDAL bit depth reducing & downsampling the original 24/48kHz distribution MQA file track.

 

BTW, your chosen hi-res MQA (192kHz original sample rate) version of that Carpenters album also (thankfully) still has a true non-MQA sourced 16bit/44.1kHz CD-res version available on TIDAL, as well as another hi-res MQA version (this time with an MQA original sample rate of 96kHz):

carpenterswith.thumb.png.4d23ca60ac1e4bf1d1ea7f0a2b407011.png

 

The Carpenters With The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra album you 'stumbled on' is therefore ideal for more in depth investigation, especially on exploring the possibility of TIDAL supplying corrupted MQA tracks on the HiFi quality connection. Stay tuned!
     

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Cebolla, I can't be sure what you exactly mean by this, but

 

image.png.7df61fed608f9dd0a47c96cd8bcbfd32.png

 

the way I work this out will definitely tell that the left one is not MQA but 16/44.1.

Also notice the 96 vs 192 detection (the 192 is just what MQA (header) tells and (as we know) unfolds to 96 just like the 96.

 

 

 

Peter, I believe in focusing on that intriguing final paragraph of my last post, perhaps you missed seeing the pic & associated comment just above it?  It's exactly the same as what you are saying here (well the order is different in my pic, the non-MQA one is right one of the three in TIDAL's own website search result and my words are a bit different but at least it has the same meaning!), ie:

42 minutes ago, Cebolla said:

BTW, your chosen hi-res MQA (192kHz original sample rate) version of that Carpenters album also (thankfully) still has a true non-MQA sourced 16bit/44.1kHz CD-res version available on TIDAL, as well as another hi-res MQA version (this time with an MQA original sample rate of 96kHz):

carpenterswith.thumb.png.4d23ca60ac1e4bf1d1ea7f0a2b407011.png

 

 

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment

Yep, normally I'm similarly pedantic when it comes to this stuff! Perhaps adding a strategic 'MQA' would suffice (& save me from more embarrassing accusations of being a 'further unfolds' believer; watch out another almost invisible ':' coming up 😀):

 

Quote

BTW, your chosen hi-res MQA (MQA 192kHz original sample rate) version of that Carpenter album

 

Had to add the bit you missed in italics - you were making the quote look really out of context (and even more of a lover of MQA 'further unfolds').

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment
3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

image_2020-11-26_193025.png.a0425fa89c6e4fc1c518273e83d35655.png

 

So I suddenly thought of doing something I never thought of before: compare the 96 with the 192.

And then something came forward I would have put money on and I would have lost that money.

 

The two are quite different.

Now what.

 

Who has ideas about an explanation ?

 

 

 

 

Deja vu, though the cynic in me wasn't surprised, would have bet the opposite & won - it only takes the MQA 'bit' that holds the (bogus parameter warning🙂) original sample rate to actually have a different original sample rate value to make make all of the MQA audio 'different'!

 

Please define (any 'secrecy agreement' permitting) 'quite different' if it's something you know/suspect to be audible. I'm blind here, not even an MQA DAC and can only see different FLAC audio MD5 signature.

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...