Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, firedog said:

It's nonsense. The nativeDSD and eclassical sites together easily have more.  And they aren't even near the total when you bring in the other labels.

 

Are you suggesting Quboz is converting DSD and stream it as hires ?

Why do you bring in DSD ?

 

We are talking about recordings in hires PCM. Not DSD. Right ?

 

And where does he stats he doesn’t count recordings on tape ?

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, firedog said:

If you are going to claim no more than 2000 albums are in hi-res, you need to include albums originating in DSD, as it is hi-res.

 

 Not if we’re talking about the 10.000 claims to be on Qobuz. Which is what he is talking about. The claimed number 10.000 vs actually there only exist around 2000. 

 

If Qobuz was offering DSD, then you would have a very good point, but they doesn’t. 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Jud said:

Dr. Aix's" own private personal definition of hi res.

 

I think he referring to the hi res logo trademark of the Japan Audio Society, and those criteria apply to the use of that logo. (And that logo also appears on The White Album)

 

Not his personal definition.

Maybe those supply Qobuz with music is are the ones (mis)using and promoting the logo. Would be interesting to know. 

 

BTW

I now have Qobuz on my Roon.

And the one thing I have noticed so far is that you can’t browse hi res albums or see what’s hi res. (As you can Tidal maters). But that’s a Roon issue. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Paul R said:

Hi-Res Music is from the RIAA, is put on Music, and as far as I know, is only for North America. 

 

The new Hi-Res MUSIC logo (below), developed by 2B Communications Inc., was designed to identify those high resolution recordings that are available from digital music retailers in the U.S., Canada, and Europe for commercial downloads or streaming. The logo has been specifically designed to complement the Hi-Res AUDIO logo that is currently licensed by the Japan Audio Society for use on compatible consumer electronics devices.

 

https://www.riaa.com/high-resolution-audio-initiative-gets-major-boost-with-new-hi-res-music-logo-and-branding-materials-for-digital-retailers/

Link to comment
11 hours ago, firedog said:

Historically speaking, there's never actually been an agreement on what it means. 

I could just as truthfully claim that historically speaking, 24/48 is the threshold.

Today, 24/44.1 seems to be accepted, and I don't think I actually have an argument with that.

 

For the last 4 years there has been agreements. 

 

Master Quality Recording sources

The descriptors for the Master Quality Recording categories are as follows:

MQ-P
From a PCM master source 48 kHz/20 bit or higher; (typically 96/24 or 192/24 content)

MQ-A
From an analog master source

MQ-C
From a CD master source (44.1 kHz/16 bit content)

MQ-D
From a DSD/DSF master source (typically 2.8 or 5.6 MHz content)

Link to comment
  • 1 year later...

This is my first post in this tread. I haven’t read the tread. 
 

There is one thing I have been thinking of. 
Why couldn’t MQA just release files without the ogami requirement. Then no more discussion about lossy or not. 
 

Does really this saving on space on streaming matter so much to people ?

 

Somehow this ogami seems to be a way of getting paid for the MQA filters. But I suppose DAC’s could still apply MQA without the need of ogami.

 

Would MQA sound better without ogami applied ? (I guess nobody knows). 

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
7 hours ago, firedog said:

MQA is about preventing consumers from accessing master type quality from 16/44.1 lossless and up. 

That is not the idea behind MQA. I think you’re twisting this to much. 
 

Do you claim that a MQA (normally a 24/48 or 24/44.1) has lower quality than red book ?

And since there are SW players that decode this material up to 24/96, are you still saying this is worse than red book ?

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, firedog said:

I did. You either didn't like the answer or don't understand it. All versions of MQA are lossy. 


I’ve noticed the higher resolutions can be questioned. (Compared to real hires). No problem with that. 
 

But has it actually been proved that a MQA 24/48 has lower quality than red book. And also when fist unfold is done ? Does most agree on this ? 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, firedog said:

No consensus on that meaning of quality.

I think most understand the difference of red book vs hires. 16 vs 24 (can be more) and sampling above 44.1. That’s the quality I’m talking about here. I taught that was obvious. 
 

In other words, a MQA track contains less information than same track from same master when it’s a red book. 
 

I find that hard to believe. 
 

Again, no problem with a MQA vs a 24/196 Qobuz or similar. Not discussing that. Only your last statement 4 posts ago. 

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, firedog said:

It max bit depth is 17 and resolution is 96. Anything above either of those is upsampling and bit padding.


That’s Tidal or ?

 

39 minutes ago, firedog said:

And MQA CD is only 13 bit

Or is this Tidal ?

 

Anyway 17 bits is one more bit than red book 😀

 

So your contradict yourself. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, firedog said:

Does an MQA made from a 24/96 master or a 24/192 master have more bits than a Redbook version? Sure.


Good. My point. Hence it’s not lossy when compared against red book. 
So again your first statement was a bit wrong. 

 

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

Whether higer res versions of MQA sound better that an original Redbook version of the same album? Who knows? But there certainly is no consensus that it sounds better. 

 


Well, at least we now know it’s not a worse or less quality. (Technical speaking). But actual better. 
 

Normally one expect better SQ form a higher resolution file (at least if the original master is above red book), vs red book.

 

Maybe some listeners are so anti MQA, that they won’t hear any difference. 
When MQA first came, I could hear some difference on old recordings. One album of Greatful Dad was much better. Now a days I don’t care so much, but sometimes when Roon radio plays a song, I'm noticing this sounds good and it must be above CD, and normally it is when I check. Either Tidal or Qobuz.

 

I haven’t compared any track hires (MQA) Tidal vs Qobuz yet.

In the beginning it was said that all MQA should be 24 bit. Have that changed now, and is Tidal full of 16 bit MQA ? (Again, I was sure 16 bit MQA  was a non existing format). Any examples if exist?
 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

Tidal is replacing the Warner RBCD catalog with MQA ...

I’m afraid you’re correct.
 

Is there any way to get this confirmed officially? I understand Tidal added, but a google search doesn’t say replace. Or remove. Yes, I noticed (some) albums is only MQA. Now actually 2 versions of MQA. 16 and 24 bit. This doesn’t make sense at all. Why this 16 bit version ? Anyone has a good explanation ?
 

I hope we can get some official statements, cause Tidal or Warner doing this without actually telling people isn’t acceptable.

 

 

 

Link to comment

@John Dyson

My Theta Generation VIII S3 is limited to 24/192. I hope it’s qualities is good enough even at today’s standard.
Where is the best place I can get some examples of “hearing more non-processed pure recordings.”

2L maybe ?
I use Roon with Qobuz and Tidal. Doesn’t any of those have some recording with your suggested quality ?

(I usual don’t listen to classical, though I like Bond when they do Vivaldi😀)
 

Maybe I misunderstood your last post. 

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, lucretius said:

16 bit MQA -> Premium level subscribers ($9.99 USD a month)

24 bit MQA -> HiFi level subscribers ($19.99 USD a month)

I’m afraid your right, though Tidal doesn’t state exactly this. 


You forgot to include Dolby Atmos Music and and Sony 360 Reality Audio 😀

Have anyone tested these formats ? Hard to find information about what kind of format this is. Require HMDI ?

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Holy $#!+. That's like a political rally speech! You have to really twist it to find the truth rather than seeing the truth twisted a bit for marketing purposes.


http://www.bobtalks.co.uk/blog/science-mqa/16b-mqa-what-is-it/

 

I’m a bit confused with this 16 bit MQA. If I remember correctly, it was not the intention in the beginning to produce 16/44.1 MQA. (Even not with 16 bit masters).  Now I think he’s even saying use a 24 bit to get 16 bit. But I think he’s saying this is meant for MQA-CD’s (only?). Warner obviously sees it differently.


He use the term “different optimisations”. I guess that’s filters. 
 

I think in any case a 16 bit MQA, can’t qual a 24 bit MQA. This is really confusing. 

 

If it hasn’t been done yet, I’m looking to results from those of you that decode MQA, so we can see the difference between 2 MQA versions from same master. 


Anyway that specific album was recorded in 16 bit. (A Mitsubishi 850 32-track 16-bit digital recorder.)
https://www.facebook.com/notes/tracy-chapman-online/how-fast-car-was-recorded-producer-david-kersehenbaum-recalls/10155004154183902/

 

 

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, firedog said:

TC was recorded in 1987 and labelled DDD, so not in hi-res. AFAIK, recorded digitally for CD and never around in a hi-res remaster: So either your setup is set to upsample without your knowledge, or MQA is using a non "authentic" hi-res master (that can only be an upsample) that they can then unfold to fake 24/88 (b/c there is no true 24.88 MQA).

I was not expecting it to unfold as it’s original 16 bit. 
So explain this:

 

5D88D2C4-C987-4206-93A3-A60CE71FBCC6.jpeg

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...