Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, mansr said:

Maybe it had something to do with the dreadful sound of the first Sony CD player.

 

No, it was the natural tendency of companies not to want to disrupt a successful business model in order to accommodate new technology. Google Bucyrus, JCB, and the impact the introduction of small backhoes had on established manufacturers of earth-moving equipment. 

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to comment

I have absolutely no scientific knowledge whatsoever, so my ears are my only basis for forming an opinion about anything in my audio setup, be that hardware, software or media formats. I am an accidental MQA user (just the first unfold), being a Roon/Tidal subscriber, so have recently got the MQA enabled Roon 1.5 upgrade. I don't have an MQA DAC. I can't say they all sound better but have tried comparing quite a few, and to me the majority of Tidal Masters (i.e. MQA files) sound better than their standard counterparts, some quite noticeably so. I realise this is subjective, but I have made the MQA versions the default in my library wherever that choice is available.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, NickC4555 said:

I have absolutely no scientific knowledge whatsoever, so my ears are my only basis for forming an opinion about anything in my audio setup, be that hardware, software or media formats. I am an accidental MQA user (just the first unfold), being a Roon/Tidal subscriber, so have recently got the MQA enabled Roon 1.5 upgrade. I don't have an MQA DAC. I can't say they all sound better but have tried comparing quite a few, and to me the majority of Tidal Masters (i.e. MQA files) sound better than their standard counterparts, some quite noticeably so. I realise this is subjective, but I have made the MQA versions the default in my library wherever that choice is available.

 

What your often hearing is a different master, often mixed with a bit of slow roll-off filter IM and a 2-3 db increase in sound level. 

 

In other words, your not an "accidental MQA user", your an "accidental sham/fraud/voodoo user".  You can get all the things you like without MQA, excepting perhaps some of the (re) mastering, but even here it is usually available in a release (often high res) somewhere.

 

Thanks for the report.

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, mevdinc said:

That was my exact initial impression when I first heard and compared the MQA albums with the standard ones.
Then I realised that the MQA version was always louder (around 2-3db), and highs appeared to be more detailed too (again creating that impression because of the higher volume).

I enjoy listening to music at high volumes and my system can play very loud with lots of dynamic headroom without any fatigue.
To compensate I increased the volume of the standard albums by 3db, and then compared to the MQA versions.
When level matched, I almost always preferred the standard versions over MQA apart from just a few, probably because those were better masters.
 

I have replaced all my initial MQA selections with the standard versions.


Maybe you can try the same (i.e level match when comparing), it would be interesting to hear your findings.

Best.
Mev

Thanks for your reply. I haven't had chance to try this on my main system, but using my PC with a RME Babyface audio interface and a pair of Sennheiser HD600s, to me the MQA still sounds better. The track I compared was Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy, comparing the MQA 96kHz 24bit version with the FLAC 44.1kHz 16 bit versions on both the standard and deluxe edition albums. After getting the levels the same (I think the difference on this track was about 2db), the MQA sounds more detailed, punchy and fatter. Purely subjective, of course, many people might prefer the FLAC; It would probably also be possible to achieve a similar sound on the FLAC version with filter settings on the DAC.

Link to comment
On 6/8/2018 at 2:21 AM, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

For example , the statement "impossible for MQA or any other current or future digital format to achieve performance levels even remotely close to their claims"  is theory, unless you know it to be fact. I don't want to argue the point tho, by all means make up whatever facts you like.

 

 

So it really is theory unless I know it to be fact?  And now that you’ve rebuked me for confusing the two, you’re probably thinking if I had any integrity this is where I should apologize by saying, if only I could have discerned the difference?

 

Like you, I too have no doubt you and I possess the exact same listening skills, experiences, and understandings about digital formats and our playback systems’ potentials and limitations.

 

But just to be sure we’re coming at this from the exact same perspective let me ask you this.  Why do you suppose it is that the general consensus of comparing the sonic performance of a well-engineered Redbook recording verses say a well-engineered 24/192 hi-rez recording, the audible differences are usually only marginal, if not debatable?

 

That is, usually marginal after we discount the easily excitable types who perform metaphoric cartwheels every time they hear a difference as well as discount those unable to hear much of any difference about anything.

 

Until you can sufficiently answer this question, read my lips.  Not only is it factually impossible for the inferior MQA format but also for any future superior and true hi-rez format to achieve sonic performance levels even remotely close to the early outlandish MQA endorsements.

 

The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait.  It's all just variations of managing electrical energy.  -Me

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, shtf said:

impossible for the inferior MQA format but also for any future superior and true hi-rez format to achieve sonic performance levels even remotely close to the early outlandish MQA endorsements.

 

So I can safely rule out the birthing of any new worlds sonically speaking?

 

Thats good, no need to run out and audition any MQA compliant DACs then.

no-mqa-sm.jpg

Boycott HDtracks

Boycott Lenbrook

Boycott Warner Music Group

Link to comment

any new world that is birthed would have to be nice enough to run the risk of DRM effects

 

if you suffered thru the attempts by software co.s to lock up their products in a similar fashion, then you are likely eschew MQA or anything related to it

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, shtf said:

 

So it really is theory unless I know it to be fact? 

 

Glad we got that settled !

 

Quote

Like you, I too have no doubt you and I possess the exact same listening skills, experiences, and understandings about digital formats and our playback systems’ potentials and limitations.

 

I'm not really fond of your theories.

 

 

Quote

 read my lips.  Not only is it factually impossible for the inferior MQA format but also for any future superior and true hi-rez format to achieve sonic performance levels even remotely close to the early outlandish MQA endorsements.

 

 

I think you're struggling with the whole theory vs fact thing again.

 

I propose we agree that we don't like MQA.??

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, NickC4555 said:

I have absolutely no scientific knowledge whatsoever, so my ears are my only basis for forming an opinion about anything in my audio setup, be that hardware, software or media formats. I am an accidental MQA user (just the first unfold), being a Roon/Tidal subscriber, so have recently got the MQA enabled Roon 1.5 upgrade. I don't have an MQA DAC. I can't say they all sound better but have tried comparing quite a few, and to me the majority of Tidal Masters (i.e. MQA files) sound better than their standard counterparts, some quite noticeably so. I realise this is subjective, but I have made the MQA versions the default in my library wherever that choice is available.

 

That's completely fine. You may end up preferring MQA but as others have pointed out the comparisons would need to be made on a 'level playing field'.

 

5 hours ago, crenca said:

  You can get all the things you like without MQA, excepting perhaps some of the (re) mastering, but even here it is usually available in a release (often high res) somewhere. 
 

 

I would just add that IMO some re-masterings sound decidedly worse not better, especially if compressed, and then we get back to the loudness thing....

I remember many years ago getting a flurry of excitement about old fav recordings being "remastered", now I don't.

So, in that sense, I see MQA holding no real trump cards at all except lesser bandwidth which for me is an irrelevance.

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment

I found an interesting PDF paper from Meridian, where they describe the challenges of their lossless MLP codec. I was thinking: why did Meridian not create an MLP file format, and put that on tidal. MLP has a solution for certain non-periodic sound events, which MQA can't seem to get right:

https://web.archive.org/web/20010810061610/http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/mlp_jap_new.PDF

The main challenge is to encode high-entropy events, such as sibilants, synthesised noise or percussive events, while not exceeding the available bandwidth of a limited channel such as DVD:
 

Quote

4.6 Buffering
We have explained that while normal audio signals can
be well predicted, there will be occasional fragments
like sibilants, synthesised noise or percussive events that
have high entropy.

MLP uses a particular form of stream buffering that can
reduce the variations in transmitted data rate, absorbing
transients that are hard to compress.


So MLP uses a buffer of ~75ms to compensate for these events, to absorb spikes in bitrate.

MQA however has to be backwards compatible with non-MQA gear and at the same time is a lossy codec. It has to play immediately.

Why is this important?

Sibilants and percussion are the area's where MQA sounds different from the lossless versions. Sibilants sound more dull with MQA, while the redbook version is less dull and more crisp. While MLP could compensate for such events by playing with buffering to flatten the entropy spikes, I believe the lossy MQA codec can't correctly reproduce these events.

As MQA is a lossy codec, these high-entropy events most likely cause the available entropy to be depleted during such events - or these events were already band limited at the encoding step, so we get a stored approximation.

The way sibilance sounds are changed by MQA reminds me of

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/what-data-compression-does-your-music
 

Quote

Audio Example O: An MP3 encoding in which the hi-hat and cymbals exhibit moderate grainy swirling during the first half of the example, and more severe, gurgling swirlies during the second half. There is a general 'chattering' instability throughout. Additionally, the vocal sibilance that was smooth in the uncompressed example is now harsh and detached from what is now a less clear, more woolly, darker vocal timbre.

 

Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist

Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Glad we got that settled !

 

 

I'm not really fond of your theories.

 

 

 

I think you're struggling with the whole theory vs fact thing again.

 

I propose we agree that we don't like MQA.??

 

Yeah, you sure got me there.  Boy, do I feel dumb. 

 

BTW, I also already knew it was factually impossible for you to sufficiently answer my one simple question. But I theorized that you’d at least offer up some token or half-assed effort but I was wrong.  :)

 

The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait.  It's all just variations of managing electrical energy.  -Me

Link to comment

 

14 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

Yeah, you sure got me there.  Boy, do I feel dumb. 

 

Don't beat yourself up.

 

Quote

BTW, I also already knew it was factually impossible for you to sufficiently answer my one simple question. But I theorized that you’d at least offer up some token or half-assed effort but I was wrong.  :)

 

 

This question?

3 hours ago, shtf said:

 

 let me ask you this.  Why do you suppose it is that the general consensus of comparing the sonic performance of a well-engineered Redbook recording verses say a well-engineered 24/192 hi-rez recording, the audible differences are usually only marginal, if not debatable?

 

That's a different debate, a rabbit hole, and not specifically related to MQA. I am (sorta, sigh) happy to discuss it with you if you want to start a new thread.

 

Quote

but I was wrong.  :)

 

:)

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

That's a different debate, a rabbit hole, and not specifically related to MQA. I am (sorta, sigh) happy to discuss it with you if you want to start a new thread.

 

:)

 

Don’t be silly.  This is a thread about MQA being vaporware.  And though it seems already pretty well established here why MQA is a technically-inferior format that cannot live up to MQA’s technical claims, your thoughtful and sufficient response to my question will help establish why MQA cannot live up to (think impossible) its performance claims.

 

So I’m pretty sure you’re good to go.

 

The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait.  It's all just variations of managing electrical energy.  -Me

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

Don’t be silly.  This is a thread about MQA being vaporware.  And though it seems already pretty well established here why MQA is a technically-inferior format that cannot live up to MQA’s technical claims, your thoughtful and sufficient response to my question will help establish why MQA cannot live up to (think impossible) its performance claims.

 

So I’m pretty sure you’re good to go.

 

 

Well, no offense, your "pretty sure" doesn't convince me. if @The Computer Audiophile considers it on topic to debate your question (quoted below) here then fine, otherwise start a new topic.

 

<quote>" Why do you suppose it is that the general consensus of comparing the sonic performance of a well-engineered Redbook recording verses say a well-engineered 24/192 hi-rez recording, the audible differences are usually only marginal, if not debatable? </quote>

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Well, no offense, your "pretty sure" doesn't convince me. if @The Computer Audiophile considers it on topic to debate your question (quoted below) here then fine, otherwise start a new topic.

 

<quote>" Why do you suppose it is that the general consensus of comparing the sonic performance of a well-engineered Redbook recording verses say a well-engineered 24/192 hi-rez recording, the audible differences are usually only marginal, if not debatable? </quote>

‘nother thread please. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
4 hours ago, shtf said:

 

So it really is theory unless I know it to be fact?  And now that you’ve rebuked me for confusing the two, you’re probably thinking if I had any integrity this is where I should apologize by saying, if only I could have discerned the difference?

 

Like you, I too have no doubt you and I possess the exact same listening skills, experiences, and understandings about digital formats and our playback systems’ potentials and limitations.

 

But just to be sure we’re coming at this from the exact same perspective let me ask you this.  Why do you suppose it is that the general consensus of comparing the sonic performance of a well-engineered Redbook recording verses say a well-engineered 24/192 hi-rez recording, the audible differences are usually only marginal, if not debatable?

  

That is, usually marginal after we discount the easily excitable types who perform metaphoric cartwheels every time they hear a difference as well as discount those unable to hear much of any difference about anything.

 

Until you can sufficiently answer this question, read my lips.  Not only is it factually impossible for the inferior MQA format but also for any future superior and true hi-rez format to achieve sonic performance levels even remotely close to the early outlandish MQA endorsements.

 

 

"But just to be sure we’re coming at this from the exact same perspective let me ask you this.  Why do you suppose it is that the general consensus of comparing the sonic performance of a well-engineered Redbook recording verses say a well-engineered 24/192 hi-rez recording, the audible differences are usually only marginal, if not debatable?"

 

In fact, hate to bring up the bad boy of analog, Mikey Fraymor, but he originally reported the Dylan album Shadows In The Night was cut from 24/192 files because it sounded "superb". Then Bruce Botnick, (famed Doors engineer) Dylan chose as the source for every version was live to CD-R mix that was eventually padded with 8 bits during mastering. Yep a CD-R.   He had to an issue a correction, and this was not the first time his ears got it wrong.

 

https://www.analogplanet.com/content/shadows-night  another-side-bob-dylan?page=1

 

 

 

 

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...