MQA is Vaporware

[IT Freak]

Hello, I've been reading this and other forums for some time now and I have done some research myself about MQA that I'd like to share. I tried not to be affected by any positive or negative thoughts posted here or elsewhere.
But after some months of experiments I  do have some serious questions about MQA.

I compared some of the Warner 16b/44.1kHz MQAs with the original non-MQA PCM flacs - that they removed at the very same time those MQAs came online. Luckily - I had some of those PCMs stored locally so I could compare (most people didn't have the chance ... )
In my opinion in most cases the 16b 44k PCM sounded better than the fully 'unfolded' 16b 44k MQA 
This could be the reason the original HiFi files were immediately removed at the same time the MQA's were released : So we couldn't compare and notice. Well I could and I noticed.
(Only in some cases I could say the MQA sounded better; have to mention this as well)

So now I have a question :

Who would like the original Hi-Fi 16b/44.1kHz PCM flacs back on Tidal ? 

(Undo the Warner conversions? I DO !) 

(I am not talking about the higher quality 24b MQA's that were already there before Warner flooded Tidal with 16bs... those sound pretty good in my opinion)

[IT Freak]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

I agree with your sentiments, but being totally balanced on the matter:   Even though the MQA is a distortion process with mild data compression -- it really *IS* sometimes difficult to do a fair comparison, because mastering differences EXTREMELY overshadow any distortion caused by MQA.

 

If you look at supposedly super-high-quality SACDs or whatever, much of the time you can tell by a spectrogram that the actual music material is still cut-off at 21+kHz and most of the stuff above 23kHz is noise, glitches, super HF tones, or whatever.   However, the important fact is that a lot of material is band limited anyway -- high res sources mostly have the benefit of more noise, not necessarily significantly higher quality.

 

----------------

 

Here is where I am going with this -- in reality, with MQA:

 

20-23kHz BW limited source ->  MQA distortion -> distribution -> MQA unfolding (with lingering artifacts) -> listener.

 

The 'natural' digital world is this:

 

20-22kHz BW limited source -> distribution -> listener

 

----------------

Even if MQA starts with >25kHz material without lots of additional noise, even high res sources are often not as good as the sample rate might suggest.   Why bother with MQA from a technical standpoint?   I can see ZERO real technical advantage over FLAC (or other lossless schemes) because any BW savings for MQA are silly/nothing to write home about  -- bandwidth is now VERY cheap.    Even in the post apocalyptic future, FLAC will be better -- at least the technology is open and full quality is reproduceable by publically known  methods.   If someone really does need serious data-bandwidth reduction, then why not use near-maximum quality opus or mp3?   Sure, mpeg-like schemes aren't perfect, but is good enough for casual listening where bandwidth might be more costly or more difficult to achieve. (e.g. portable.)

----------------

This is NOT about MQA hate, but there is simply no true engineering/technical benefit to MQA.   The technology appears to be really cute, but there is no real benefit.

 

Where do you or I benefit from MQA?   Not really anywhere (unless catalogs are restricted, and we cannot get non-MQA anymore.)

John

 

Well...
The PCM tracks (flacs) that are stored locally on my computer AND the MQA tracks (flacs) that are now on Tidal
- DO have the EXACT same number of samples (so tracklength in milliseconds is the same).
- Also the volume level etc is the same. 
- AND the ID from tidal is also the same (where the non MQA's were and where the MQA's are now)

So I am 99% certain I have been comparing files from the same master.

I have been comparing lots of files from different artists from the Warner label and

the original 16b 44k PCMs sound MUCH better than the MQAs that replaced them.

If you listen to the MQA versions only then it's harder to notice sound quality has dropped,
but when you CAN compare with the original PCM flacs, then you'd notice the difference is not subtle at all.
The PCM wins in most cases of the fully unfolded MQA. Sometimes the difference is hard to notice, but the MQA is almost never better than the original PCM.

Of course they knew that people would complain, when comparing. So what did they do ?
=> They released the MQA's and in the mean time immediately removed the PCM's they were created from.
=> That is how they made it impossible for most of us to compare and complain and how they got away with it.

So basically what do we have now with those 16b 44k MQAs ?

a) a sound format that without decoder is much worse than CD
b) a sound format that with decoder is still worse than CD

I don't see the "better than CD" in both cases.

I have also NEVER seen the Studio Dot light up for a 16b / 44k MQA *
Does that mean that no artist/studio/producer likes it ? (I fully agree, the original PCMs deserve the dot)

* You could force a studio dot light up on a 16b 44k MQA when you start from

a 24b / 44k studio MQA and strip the lower byte off; this is discussed in this thread already.
That is actually how they make an MQA-CD from 24bit MQAs :
they simply ditch the byte that contains the +24kHz frequency data as if it was never important after all.

That the quality is then even more reduced doesn't seem to matter. 
All that matters is the studio dot remains on the whole time !

 

[IT Freak]

1 minute ago, R1200CL said:

From a business point of view, I guess it would be in Tidal’s interest to keep both. 

From a business point of view, I guess it would rather be in B.S. interest not to make both non-MQA and MQA versions available for streaming at the same time. ;-)

[IT Freak]

9 hours ago, R1200CL said:

Do you consider this as a “prove” to what you saying? (Yes I agree with you)

 

“Origami is always used when the input sample rate is higher than the ‘transmission rate’.

MQA can be sourced from analogue, or PCM, from A/D modulators or from DSD, but the final output is a PCM stream. Currently, all MQA on streaming services has a transmission rate of 1x (either 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz depending on the ‘family’ of the original).

When the input is PCM, the output stream will have the same bit-depth as the input unless either a) Origami is used or b) the input is DSD or floating-point; in these cases, the MQA stream output will always be 24 bit. So an original at 44.1 kHz/24b will create a 24b file and 44.1kHz/16b will create a 16b file. However an original of 96kHz/16b) will generate a 48kHz/24b MQA file because Origami was used. [1]”

Taken from here. http://bobtalks.co.uk/blog/provenance/provenance-and-containers/
 

What is a bit confusing, is this is about encoding and not decoding. He avoids to speak about that.

But you will hardly find the word upsample on that site. Or anything Bob says.

 

How to understand the term ‘transmission rate’. Hopefully what is shown in pic below.
 

 

 

That 'transmission rate' is just how the flac file looks like that you are streaming before any unfolding is done

All MQA's are
- 16/24 bit 44.1/48k MQAs wrapped in 16/24 bit 44.1/48k flacs 
- xx bit 88.2/176.4/352.8kHZ MQAs folded and wrapped into 24 bit 44.1kHz flacs
- xx bit 48/96/192k/384kHz MQAs folded and wrapped into 24 bit 48kHz flacs

So you'll always end up with a 16/24 bit 44.1/48 kHz flac. That is what they call 'transmission rate'.

Unfortunately there have been issues where 16bit 44.1k MQAs were mistakenly wrapped in 24b 44.1k flacs.
That happened at the time they converted those millions of Warner tracks to MQA. They forgot to reset the flag of the flac encoder to 16bit ... and a 24bit flac came out with every lower byte of the 24 bit PCM data equal to 0.
(I checked this for some tracks and that was indeed the case). They did correct this for most albums by now.

And then you also have the MQA-CD ... A format that we should avoid. I did some testing there and chopping of the lower byte of a 24bit MQA makes it sound worse.

[IT Freak]

This is how MQA is now promoting MQA-CD : 

https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/news/eudora-records
 

I extracted this from that page :
 

MQA-CD

The performances were recorded in September 2019 at the Auditorio San Francisco in Ávila, Spain and captured in DSD256. The original master was then encoded in MQA and converted directly into CD format (44.1kHz/16bit). MQA-CD brings these benefits:

- MQA preserves delicate time resolution in the sound, capturing the spatial acoustics of the venue. MQA avoids ‘smearing’ distortions which are inevitable when making a normal CD;
- MQA-CD is fully compatible, no special equipment is needed to play it and many of the sound benefits are available to everyone;
- If the CD is played back using an MQA-enabled device, the file can ‘unfold’ to as high as 352.8 kHz, delivering the best possible sound approved by the label.

Purchase the MQA-CD of Gaëlle Solal's 'Tuhu' from the Eudora Records website.

However when you buy those digital tracks (flacs) those are 24bit flacs.
It is however still possible they packed 16bit MQAs inside 24bit flacs (they did that before)
so I decompressed the flacs to 24bit WAVs to have a look at the 24 bit PCM stream.
 

If that 24bit PCM stream represents a 16bit MQA then every third byte would be ZERO.
And this is NOT THE CASE. So we are listening to 24bit MQA and not to 16bit MQA-CD here !

The tracks are available on Tidal as well ... same thing here : 24bit MQAs not 16bit MQA-CD 

So one is promoting 16bit MQA-CD by letting us listen to 24bit MQA tracks ??? 🤥

 

P.S. I did the test and chopped of the lower byte of the 24bit MQA to make it a REAL 16bit MQA-CD
The official MQA Tag Renamer app confirmed the 16bit MQA-CD I produced was genuine and
the MQA-DAC also accepted it : showing the MQA symbol, sample rate AND studio dot as well.
... but it sounded worse than the original 24bit MQA.
This seems logical because the byte holding the folded data is not there any more.
so what does the DAC do with MQA-CDs ? They call it 'unfold' between apostrophes (see extracted text above).

[IT Freak]

1 hour ago, bogi said:

The lowest bit of the MQA CD contains MQA control stream so the PCM part is at most 15 bits.

Yes you confirm what I was talking about : MQA-CD is 16 bit. 
That Eudora album is promoted as MQA-CD but the tracks available for download / streaming are genuine 24 bit MQA ones. NOT 16 bit MQA-CD ones !

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

Extracted from there :

Quote

In 2) above, an MQA 16-bit file was made by first optimally encoding to 24 bits and then removing the lower 8 bits. But if we know the file is only for MQA-CD, then the encoder uses different optimisations to squeeze even more from the CD.

Now those files are not only for MQA-CD since they released 24bit MQA's on Tidal and for purchase.
So... the 16bit MQA-CD is created by removing the lower bits of the 24bit MQA.

They don't let us hear how the real MQA-CD would sound like ... why is that ?

Because the stripped byte holds the folding data and without it it sounds bad.

My point is they talk about MQA-CD (16b) but the example they give is NOT MQA-CD as it is 24b.

[IT Freak]

  

56 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

MQA encoder downsamples 352.8k to 88.2k

When starting from a 352.8k file
MQA's starts encoding not from 88.2k but from at least 176.4k 
as that sample rate is needed for the frequencies up to 88.2k 

1. The MQA encoder compresses the frequencies between 44.1k - 88.2k lossy (sample rate = 176.4k here)
and 'buries' those 'under the noise floor' of the 0 to 22.05k region
The sample rate has now become 88.2k
(called 2nd unfold when decoding)

2. Then it compresses the frequencies between that 22.05k and 44.1k region losless (sample rate = 88.2k here) and buries those also under the noise floor of the 0-22.05k region
The sample rate has now become 44.1k
(called 1st unfold when decoding)

At least that is what they are telling us.

[IT Freak]

12 hours ago, GUTB said:

So, I guess a lot of non-audiophiles like to comment on this topic.

 

According to Stuart, there is no musical information above 50 kHz or thereabouts. Above this range according to his theory it's just noise, but also some timing cues which are important to our ear-brain system. Supposedly the MQA encoding process retains the 50 kHz range and besides that some elements above that which is determined to be important. So when the full unfold happens the 50 kHz range is brought back, represented by the 88 kHz sample rate, plus whatever timing information was picked up by the encoder in higher-res files. This is probably the basis for calling high-res files above 88 kHz their original sample rate -- according to the theory all the important information is retained and the noise is discarded.

 

MQA began as a way to identify and archive what makes hi-res music sound better. Based on research which showed that humans are much more sensitive to the time domain than our frequency domain acuity would otherwise suggest, Stuart theorized that it wasn't all the noise in hi-res sound, nor the high frequency information we can't discern, but rather the time-domain resolution is what we're actually picking up on.

 

This is theory of course. No one has the tools or ability to verify it without the participation of MQA, and for obvious reason they're not going to give that away being a trade secret. However, what we CAN verify is that MQA has the capacity to sound significantly better than standard resolution audio if you use a a decent MQA-compatible DAC. Not all albums mind you, I've heard plenty which seem to sound no better, but there are those which are clearly, significantly, obviously better. Frankly they can be much better than any 88 kHz track I've ever heard.

Can you explain then why MQA is still showing the studio dot from studio MQAs when the lower byte of a 24bit MQA is chopped of ? That is how they make MQA-CDs. They sound WORSE. And apparently they know that because they are promoting MQA-CD here :

https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/news/eudora-records

Remember MQA-CD is 16bit. Now I dare you to buy the flacs of this album and throw them in a 24bit flac to WAV lossless decompression software and then look at the 24bit PCM stream... For a real MQA-CD (16bit) every 3rd byte would be zero... here IT IS NOT ! The album is available on Tidal as wel and is also 24bit MQA... NOT 16bit MQA-CD !

So they promote MQA-CD (16bit) but they let us listen to 24-bit MQA's !
That is BS !

WHY DO THEY DO THAT FOR ?

I removed every 3rd byte to make it a REAL 16bit MQA-CD and it sounds like sh*. They just try to convince us all that 16bit MQA's (99% of all those Warner convertions are 16bit) sound good... well they DON'T.

Ask yourself this question :

WHY did they NOT give us a chance to compare the original Warner redbook tracks with the MQA tracks ? They smartly removed all the redbooks at the same time ! Why is that ? If they knew the MQAs would sound better it would be an opportunity for us to compare and leave the redbooks on the servers for some time. They didn't ! Why ?   

Because they know the MQA's are not an improvement at all.

And I know because I CAN compare as I still have a lot of those original flacs stored on my HD. In 90% of the cases I prefer the redbook version !

(and YES I am talking about same masters, the Tidal ID is exactly the same, and I am playing them throught the same software, same hardware, a full MQA decoder etc)

[IT Freak]

26 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

The way Warner, MQA, and Tidal implemented this is leaving questions in many peoples minds.

But then, look at MQA's actions since it's inception. Nothing is forthright and in the open. It has all been smoke and mirrors.

Exactly. The Warner MQA pile is a good example. One converted redbook flacs into MQA flacs but we had NO WAY to compare as they removed the redbooks while doing so.

And I know exactly why :

I still have some redbook flacs on my PC and they sound MUCH better than the 16b 44.1k MQAs that are online now. If you want to make a 16b 44.1k sound exactly the same as the 16b 44.1k master, you just copy it. You don't sacrifice bytes to make an MQA emblem and sample rate appear on your DAC and then apply some upsampling and filters any decent DAC could do.

(I am not talking about 24b MQAs I can live with those).

[IT Freak]

39 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Only the 0-22.05/24 kHz frequency range encoded in the first 13-15 most significant bits is authenticated. The 8 least significant bits (of a 24 bit file), which also include the encoding for the 22.05/24 - 44.1/48 kHz frequency range, do not affect authentication and thus can be altered and the "blue light" will remain on.  Bob has already admitted this.

 

 

No.  MQA-CD (i.e. 16 bit MQA) files are not encoded in the way you think.

 

No 16bit MQA IS encoded like I said.

I decompressed several 16bit MQA's that were packed in 24bit FLACS to 24bit WAVs and every single one decoded like this :
xx xx 00 xx xx 00 xx xx 00 (*)

Every 24bit MQA in 24bit FLACS decoded to 24bit WAVs like thise  
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx

These "MQA-CDs" from Eudora should be 16 bit as they call them MQA-CDs and they should also decode like that (*). Well they DON'T. They decode as
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx which proves those are not MQA-CDs but 24bit ones. 

P.S. The 24bit WAV plays fully decoded to my MQA-DAC (MQA symbol etc)
The 16bit WAV (where every 3rd byte is chopped off) as well (same)
(but it sounds worse according to me; if it had no effect at all then why all the origami stuff in the first place ? Then one could make ALL MQA's 16bit and make them half the size)

I threw both MQA's 24bit and 16bit one into the MQATagRenamer app and both were marked "completed" and put in a folder named "MQA" just below it with the extension changed from flac to mqa.flac.
So my job was bitperfect !

Your turn.

[IT Freak]

1 minute ago, bogi said:

 

Any CD must contain 16bit PCM samples, including MQA CD. It cannot contain 24bit samples because the Redbook standard does not support it so it would be an unknown format for CD players.

If you would rip a CD and convert its 16bit PCM content to 24bit PCM content then you would get 24bit samples with lowest 8 bits zeroed. But you cannot burn 24bit content to CD medium.

 

That's what I'm saying. The MQA files from Eudora are NOT 16bit, they are 24bit. So they are cheating and let us listen to 24bit ones that CAN NEVER be put on a CD unless they chop off the lower byte. MQA is constructed like that : it still plays if you throw away every 3rd (lower) byte 
So ABC ABC ABC becomes AB AB AB

 

[IT Freak]

1 minute ago, bogi said:

That's 16bit content in 24bit FLAC, therefore the zeros. Any CD can contain only 16bit samples.

Yes, MQA-CD IS 16bit by definition... they deliver the Eudora tracks in 24bit FLACs. So every 3rd byte should be zero in the decompressed PCM stream... and IT IS NOT ! So they lie !

[IT Freak]

5 minutes ago, bogi said:

Important part is "that were packed in 24bit FLACS" - that packing is the reason of zeros. Please understand that CD medium does not contain packed FLAC, it has nothing to do with FLAC. Furthermore, the 16bit samples are not compressed on CD medium.

Omg... there are NO zeroes in the so called MQA-CD tracks when decompressing the 24bit FLAC to a 24bit PCM stream. So those are NOT MQA-CD tracks but 24bit MQAs. Why do they release MQA-CD in a 24bit FLAC in the first place ? That is what made me doing further investigation...
and the reason is they didnt put MQA-CD in it but 24bit MQA (which sounds much better).

They want to fool us. It doesn't work for me ;-)

[IT Freak]

14 minutes ago, bogi said:

I didn't say they don't lie. :)

I know a CD only holds the PCM stream and no flacs. I look at the stream AFTER decompressing the 24b flac to 24b WAV which holds the 24b PCM stream. A redbook CD can only hold 16b PCM streams... so every 3rd byte should be zero in the 24b PCM stream and it is not. MQA is advertising 16bit MQA-CD by using (higher quality) 24bit MQA.

Wish Mansr was here... he understands.

[IT Freak]

Gaëlle Solal : Tuhu : "MQA-CD" so it should be 16bit :

Buy the flacs and decompress them to WAV.

Play it bitperfectly to the mqa dac showing "MQA", sample rate 352.8kHz AND studio dot.
So you know it's a bitperfect copy. When playing notice this :

(this is the WAV so 44.1kHz is shown; this 'unfolds' to 352.8kHz)
 

Look at Bits per Sample : 24
Bitrate is 2117kbps (a cd is only 1,411 Kbps)...

Half-way the WAV file : (PCM stream) just to be 100% certain this IS a 24bit PCM



NO zeroes so this is a GENUINE 24bit PCM so this IS a 24bit MQA and NOT a 16bit MQA-CD
(well maybe one zero here and there lol)

In short :

1. They promote MQA-CD which is by definition a 16bit format.
2. They promote it by using an album from Eudora records that is 24bit.

So they lie !

[IT Freak]

13 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

I understand that you seem to be correct in your findings, but I am struggling a bit with a senseful interpretation of these results.
You have MQA-CD files that you've decoded with the shown result!
Did you rip & decode them personally from an physical existing MQA-CD or did you dl MQA CD files from a source that sells them as MQA-CD online? Which source (they?)?
Just asking to avoid misinterpretation and exclude external factors responsible for your findings ...

 

Here is the source ... from MQA themselves... all bla bla bla about MQA-CD but you cannot find a single 16bit MQA of that album. All MQA's you find online (purchase/streaming) are 24bit so not MQA-CD at all. Just plain 24bit MQA. They want to make us believe the 16bit ones would sound the same. I made a REAL 16bit MQA-CD from the 24bit MQAs by stripping of the lower byte and it sounds WORSE (yet all lights remained on on the MQA-DAC). 
So I would suggest no one to buy it on a CD medium. It's just upsampling from 44.1k to 352.8k and not unfolding from 44.1k to 88.2k etc...

https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/news/eudora-records

[IT Freak]

1 minute ago, lucretius said:

 

I downloaded the MQA album from hiresaudio.com.  The files are 24 bit / 44.1k and unpack to "24 / 352.8".  They are NOT "MQA-CD" files, despite what it may say elsewhere.

Exactly. If MQA wants to promote MQA-CD like they do here :
https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/news/eudora-records
They should at least provide links to 16bit MQAs to hear how the actual MQA-CD sounds like and not those 24bit MQAs

[IT Freak]

12 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

I downloaded the MQA album from hiresaudio.com.  The files are 24 bit / 44.1k and unpack to "24 / 352.8".  They are NOT "MQA-CD" files, despite what it may say elsewhere.

https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/news/eudora-records 
is telling nothing else but mqa-cd mqa-cd mqa-cd 
and when you search for it you'll only find the 24bit version that sounds much better.

[IT Freak]

2 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

So far, it seems one can only obtain MQA-CD on an actual CD or on Tidal (by streaming).

No by streaming on Tidal you also get the 24bit version !
(I checked !)

[IT Freak]

1 minute ago, lucretius said:

 

For this particular album.  But are there not other albums that are 16 bit MQA on Tidal?  I thought there were but I cannot check it without an account. 

Yes most of the Warner conversions are 16bit.
Mind that those 16b MQAs are ALL 44.1k so no folding is needed there.
All MQAs on Tidal with sample rates higher than 48kHz are 24bit ones because the extra byte is needed for folding, 
even if the original PCM was 16bit - the MQA PCM will be 24bit.
B.S. describes this in one of his latest BobTalks. 

The Eudora album is 352.8kHz so if you want to fold it and keep the HF data you need the extra byte of the 24bit PCM.
A CD unfortunately can hold only 16bit PCMs so you'll loose that byte holding the HF data.
The DAC will still 'unfold' the stripped PCM , but this time not by decompressing the folded data - that's gone - but by other means (= upsampling)

MQA-CD should be avoided when sample rates are > 48k.
That's why they are no 16b MQAs with sample rates > 48k on Tidal.
And why we don't get to hear the MQA-CD version of that promoted album but the 24b version.

[IT Freak]

2 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

 

Thanks.  So, there is at least one 16 bit MQA album on Tidal.

yes, but none has a samplerate >48kHz (ALL 16b MQAs on Tidal are 44.1kHz in fact)

The Gaelle Solal album they promote is 352.8kHz and supposed to be 16b.

[IT Freak]

5 minutes ago, bogi said:

Yes, how they promote MQA CDs is much worse case than those 44.1k 16bit Warner MQAs.
https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/news/eudora-records
They downconverted SACD to max 15bit PCM and added a control stream, resulting to 16bit PCM. That means strong lost of resolution. And they added the following text to it:

That's the issue, what for words they are using to promote selling max. 15bit 44.1k PCM content.

Not exactly they made a 24bit MQA from the SACD.
And they put that online and promoted it as MQA-CD without chopping of the lower byte first. lol

[IT Freak]

On

https://www.mqa.co.uk/newsroom/news/eudora-records

Read the last sentence  :

Quote

 

MQA-CD

The performances were recorded in September 2019 at the Auditorio San Francisco in Ávila, Spain and captured in DSD256. The original master was then encoded in MQA and converted directly into CD format (44.1kHz/16bit). MQA-CD brings these benefits:

- MQA preserves delicate time resolution in the sound, capturing the spatial acoustics of the venue. MQA avoids ‘smearing’ distortions which are inevitable when making a normal CD;
- MQA-CD is fully compatible, no special equipment is needed to play it and many of the sound benefits are available to everyone;
- If the CD is played back using an MQA-enabled device, the file can ‘unfold’ to as high as 352.8 kHz, delivering the best possible sound approved by the label.
 

Purchase the MQA-CD of Gaëlle Solal's 'Tuhu' from the Eudora Records website.

 

The sentence should actually read :

Purchase the 24bit MQAs (of which we cut off the folding byte to make it a worse sounding MQA-CD) of Gaëlle Solal's 'Tuhu' from the Eudora Records website.

That's the truth.

[IT Freak]

15 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

Still wondering about the buzz ... and where the source file you've encoded is arriving from if you haven't got the MQA-CD of that album? Download from Tidal, Eudora, HDtracks, other ???
It appears that you have neither the original MQA-CD nor the files from a rip of an original MQA-CD and you assume that from your methodology you can prove they are scam? Did I summarize your intention correctly ?

I understand that you may have proved something to be incorrect and you are unhappy with MQA's woeful & untrue marketing efforts: If I am not mistaken, this doesn't look like the hottest news from the MQA kitchen, ymmv.

Would you please explain to me why you think that this is utterly important because I didn't get that point from your postings??

And no,  I am not an MQA troll, I am just trying to emphasize what people starting reading this threat may understand and what not.
Cheers, Tom

The link on MQA's website says "you can purchase the MQA-CD on the Eudora website" and when you click the link and you buy them, you don't get the "MQA-CD" but you get 24bit MQAs. That's the "buzz".
The stream from Tidal is 24bit as well, easy to check with Audirvana, Roon, ... when playing you see 24bit

[IT Freak]

12 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

 

Did you buy these 24bit MQA's from there then and where they confirmed from Eudora as MQA-CD DL files or did they announce them as 24bit files on the invoice ???
Did they send you the wrong DL link ?
Did you talk with the label about that offer & your experience before publishing your analysis here?
And how did they respond ?
Perhaps, the MQA-CD you intent to analyze and encode isn't yet available from them?
If you find my suggestion strange please tell me ...

The MQA website gives a link that clearly states "purchase the MQA-CD on the Eudora website".
Tell me where I can find the MQA-CD using that link ???
If it's not available YET, then they shouldn't write it down and make such big announcements in the first place,  
don't you think? The only things I see are an SACD which is NOT MQA-CD and purchase options for download versions which are marked "MQA" (and not 24bit MQA) so we can keep on believing we are actually getting the MQA-CD quality and OMG it sounds great.

People will actually believe that MQA-CD sounds that good, because they don't know they are listening to 24bit MQAs. What will be the next step? Replace all CDs in stores with MQA-CDs - not because they sound better but because they convinced us they sound just like 24bit MQAs with such tricks? lol