MQA is Vaporware

[manisandher]

3 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Does anyone know if the two digital files - MQA and High Resolution, were compared with the MQA signal BEFORE the MQA filters were applied ?

 

Could you help me better understand what you mean here?

 

What I'm calling the 'MQA capture' is a 24/48 MQA file which has been decoded to 24/96, using Roon's MQA decoder. No MQA rendering has taken place. I've never quite understood whether any so-called 'MQA deblurring' is taking place in the decoder, the renderer, or both.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

Here's a report.

 

That's great. Thanks Paul.

 

So, it seems I didn't do too bad a job at aligning the files manually:

 

The Delta Phase plot looks interesting:

 

Anyone have any thoughts about this?

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

If it is possible to tap into the signal before the MQA filters - then we could see the difference between the MQA deblurred file and a normal high resolution file of the same song.

 

I think my files are about as close as we can get at this point.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

7 hours ago, Miska said:

Been through some kind of minimum phase filter?

 

OK, if so, nothing that we couldn't do ourselves during playback.

 

Whatever's causing what's seen on the delta-phase plot, its affect seems to be audible - to my ears, the MQA sounds different to the hires. Actually, everyone who took the blind test reported hearing differences, and the descriptions were pretty consistent.

 

I think those who consider MQA a simple compression scheme are mistaken. It seems to be doing more...

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

5 hours ago, Sonicularity said:

 

Ok, listening test completed.  I created a playlist in Roon using the Qobuz 24/96 version, Tidal MQA decoded with Roon's core decoder to 24/96, and Tidal 16/44.1 lossless file.

 

I decided to run 12 trials, hitting the shuffle button for the playlist queue and then attempting to identify the version.  I made a quick table and placed an X for my selection and then checked to see what file was actually being played.

 

With regards to the 16/44.1 and either 24/96 version, I was correct 12/12.  I was not able to statistically identify which 24/96 version was playing, though I was beginning to think it was possible with a bit more concentration.  I did this test quickly in under 5 minutes.  The differences I believe I was hearing between 16/44.1 and 24/96 were not blatantly obvious, but even with inexpensive speakers, I was able to identify this difference consistently.  Due to the types of differences I was hearing, I would assume that this would be even easier to identify using headphones or better equipment.

 

 

 

So you identified decoded-MQA vs. hires correctly 5/9 times, right?

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

4 hours ago, Em2016 said:

 

While I would prefer MQA go away, if we are talking about the 1st unfold only, some have forgotten about Archimago's comments/analysis...

 

"Objectively with the songs I examined, the software decoder works well to reconstruct what looks like the equivalent 24/96 download."

 

and

 

"Bottom line: TIDAL/MQA streaming does sound like the equivalent 24/96 downloads based on what I have heard and the test results"

 

https://archimago.blogspot.hk/2017/01/comparison-tidal-mqa-music-high.html

 

This applies to the 1st unfold only (up to 96kHz)… he’s done plenty of analysis on the stuff after the 1st unfold, which doesn’t need repeating of course.

 

My experience differs somewhat.

 

Decoded MQA (the 1st unfold) is objectively different from the original hires:

 

 

The differences are at a low level, but are audible. In all the cases where I have the original hires and MQA from the same master, decoded MQA (the 1st unfold) sounds different from the hires. This was also reflected in the three 'apples-to-apples' threads.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

15 hours ago, mansr said:

As an actual example of such changes being applied, look at the 2L-125 demo track. The MQA version is 1.3 dB louder across the spectrum:

 

This hasn't been what I've found in my 'apples-to-apples' comparisons of hires vs. MQA from the same master. The differences are typically very, very small:

 

 

Subjectively, they sound as loud as each other. And yet, they do sound different, as evidenced in the three 'apples-to-apples' threads. Aggregating the results of the three threads, people seemed to prefer the sound of MQA over hires (from the same master) in about 50% of cases. Draw whatever conclusion you wish...

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

3 minutes ago, ddetaey said:

Although I am saying exactly the same as you, it still ‘reads’ different.

 

However it's stated, the results suggest that MQA is neither massively better or worse than the equivalent hires, contrary to what some claim in this thread. (Or perhaps I should say "neither massively worse or better" .) 

[manisandher]

43 minutes ago, botrytis said:

One should only pay if there is a definite improvement which there is not.

 

Difficult to argue against.

[manisandher]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

If they wanted, that PCM data could be distributed as standard FLAC and played on any existing system.

 

Yep, I agree.

[manisandher]

36 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

... into a country that is slipping into third world status.

 

We [in the UK] have our issues for sure, but what you suggest is total bollocks. (Feel free to open a new thread and I'll happily expound on the reasons why.)

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, andifor said:

What conclusion should I draw based on your information?

 

Perhaps that MQA doesn't sound as good as its proponents suggest, nor as bad as its opponents suggest?

 

I tried to keep an open mind when Tidal first introduced MQA streaming, but wanted to explore things further. This led to the three 'apples-to-apples' threads, where I managed to find MQA and hires tracks from the same master. My own subjective preference was MQA 1, hires 2. Listening to a whole bunch of MQA vs. redbook tracks on Tidal (not necessarily from the same master), my interest in MQA has waned over time - redbook (done well) really does sound fine to my ears.

 

(Edit: apologies if my opinions offend anyone.)

[manisandher]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

If you can't figure that out, why should we listen to a single word you say?

 

Why not just answer his question, and then perhaps outline how the answer could have been arrived at from the scope shot itself?

[manisandher]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

We can create test signals for input to an MQA "renderer" which is what this is.

 

You can fool the MQA renderer into thinking that this is an MQA-encoded signal that has been decoded?

[manisandher]

9 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

However, a file sampled at 96kHz can't have content at 80kHz.

 

No, the renderer seems to be adding the 80kHz content.

[manisandher]

The 86kHz 'noise' is just the imaging (48+38 kHz) due to the 'leaky' MQA filter. I'm sure MQA would argue that no regular music content would have any signal lying at -10dB at 10kHz.

 

I'm sure something like the 'polynomial' filters in HQPlayer would produce a similar result with a -10dB 10kHz signal. Probably why @Miska recommends against using them.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

35 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

The latter has a much cleaner spectrum, though the aliased product at 86kHz lies close to the same level.

 

I know @mansr has already pointed this out, but you really should refer to this as 'imaging' and not 'aliasing'.

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

The spikes at 66 kHz, 76 kHz, and 96 kHz are the result of intermodulation between the 10 kHz and 86 kHz frequencies.

 

Surely the spikes at 66 kHz and 76kHz are simply the images of the 30 kHz and 20 kHz harmonics, respectively?

 

1 hour ago, mansr said:

No idea what's going on at 94 kHz. Anyone care to speculate?

 

Nothing of interest, as far as I can see. Did you mean ~70 kHz and ~90 kHz?

 

Edit: I was looking at @vortecjr's FFT.

[manisandher]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

No. Non-linear distortion can only happen after the interpolation filter where the imaging occurs.

 

It looks obvious to me that the spikes at 56 kHz, 66 kHz and 76 kHz are images of the harmonics at 40 kHz, 30 kHz and 20 kHz, respectively. (Much easier to see on @vortecjr's plot.)

[manisandher]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

Although images of those frequencies would land there, that isn't what is happening. At the time of the digital interpolation, the harmonic distortion hasn't happened yet, so there's nothing at 20/30/40 kHz to create such images. The non-linear distortion (harmonic and intermodulation) only occurs in the analogue circuitry.

 

Yep, I see what you mean. Still, it seems strange that the intermodulation distortion in the analogue circuitry sits exactly at 56 kHz, 66 kHz and 76 kHz.

[manisandher]

I choose lossless flac on TIDAL whenever I can. It simply sounds better. Up until recently, I haven't really been bothered by MQA because TIDAL pretty much offered both MQA and lossless flac. But the choice is getting less and less, with the vast majority of the music I stream from TIDAL now only available in MQA.

 

So, I just wrote this to TIDAL:

 

Hi,

I've noticed that you're increasing the number of MQA albums/tracks and reducing the number of lossless flac albums/tracks available for streaming. After a number of years listening to MQA now, it's clear that it is DETRIMENTAL to the sound.

I do not want to listen to MQA. I want lossless flac. If you continue with your MQA push, I will cancel my TIDAL subscription. I am active on a few well-known hifi forums. I will advise that others also cancel their TIDAL subscription.

Stop this MQA nonsense. Lossless flac is plenty good enough for us audiophiles.

Cheers, Mani.

 

 

[manisandher]

On 4/15/2021 at 5:13 PM, manisandher said:

So, I just wrote this to TIDAL:

 

Hi,

I've noticed that you're increasing the number of MQA albums/tracks and reducing the number of lossless flac albums/tracks available for streaming. After a number of years listening to MQA now, it's clear that it is DETRIMENTAL to the sound.

I do not want to listen to MQA. I want lossless flac. If you continue with your MQA push, I will cancel my TIDAL subscription. I am active on a few well-known hifi forums. I will advise that others also cancel their TIDAL subscription.

Stop this MQA nonsense. Lossless flac is plenty good enough for us audiophiles.

Cheers, Mani.

 

I just received this pretty lame response from TIDAL:

 

Hello Mani,

Thank you for contacting TIDAL Support.  My name is ********* and I am happy to assist you with your request.

We are sorry to hear that you are not happy with MQA. We strive to provide the best possible service to all our users. 

We value your opinion and are constantly working on improving our product. 

If you have any additional feedback or require additional assistance please don't hesitate to email us back.

Thank you for being an active and engaged TIDAL customer.

Have a wonderful day!

Should I have expected anything other?

 

It looks like I have 13 days of TIDAL left. Cue Qobuz...

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

I was initially intriqued by MQA's claim of 'deblurring', and gave it the benefit of the doubt. But listening to it extensively (and sharing my thoughts here and elsewhere), it never lived up to its hype.

 

How anyone could continue to support MQA in any way, shape or form, now that we know it to be the con that it is, is beyond incomprehensible.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

15 minutes ago, danadam said:

Well, the original flac is no longer available, I wonder why 😉

 

What a total CF on @Fx Studio's part.

[manisandher]

4 minutes ago, Fx Studio said:

 

But it is interesting that you spotted that the MQA is the better sounding of the two.

 

 

A joker! But don't give up your day job.