MQA is Vaporware

[Cebolla]

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.

[Rexp]

6 hours ago, UkPhil said:

The same test done with a Universal owned album,  the MASTER plays MQA wind it down to HIFI and we get PCM 44.1 at the moment 

 

 

How about Warner (hires) masters streamed at the Hifi setting? Thanks! 

[UkPhil]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

How about Warner (hires) masters streamed at the Hifi setting? Thanks! 

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 

[UkPhil]

Was this an early format name for MQA, it doesn't roll off the tongue as well though.....lol

 

"DOUBLY COMPATIBLE LOSSLESS AUDIO BANDWIDTH EXTENSION"   

 

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2013186561&recNum=132&maxRec=599628&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=nano+OR+filter+OR+ceramic&tab=PCT+Biblio

 

 

[KeenObserver]

On this day I am thankful that I have a large collection of non-MQA music and that non-MQA music is still available.

[Cebolla]

I'm primarily here for the daily MQA proverb.

[Cebolla]

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):

 

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!
     

[FredericV]

4 hours ago, UkPhil said:

Was this an early format name for MQA, it doesn't roll off the tongue as well though.....lol

 

"DOUBLY COMPATIBLE LOSSLESS AUDIO BANDWIDTH EXTENSION"   

 

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2013186561&recNum=132&maxRec=599628&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=nano+OR+filter+OR+ceramic&tab=PCT+Biblio

 

 

 

Quote

the first option allowing full lossless reconstruction of a noise-shaped higher sampling rate signal

keep on dreaming ...

but this is probably why their first logo probably had the misleading "Lossless" term included

[PeterSt]

20 minutes ago, Cebolla said:

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.

 

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

 

 

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.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

48 minutes ago, Cebolla said:

I'm primarily here for the daily MQA proverb.

You made my day :~)

[Cebolla]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

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

 

 

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):

 

 

[PeterSt]

@Cebolla, oops, yes. I now see that I missed that tiny colon:

 

 

And since you started that paragraph with this:

 

53 minutes ago, Cebolla said:

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

 

I indeed had my focus elsewhere.

 

[Cebolla]

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').

[UkPhil]

58 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I am not aware of this ever been released in 24 bit commercially, 

the closest 24bit would the DVD audio layer which no doubt if extracted would be 24/48

[PeterSt]

23 minutes ago, Cebolla said:

you were making the quote look really out of context

 

Not so. You missed to emphasised your. Haha. SO for me the context was that your picture was about what someone else said (but I missed the colon).

 

Can we now proceed with serious business and do some unfolding* or so ?

 

*) of beer.

[R1200CL]

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). 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, R1200CL said:

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). 

The origami is about dropping so called "audibly insignificant" bits in order to produce a smaller file. It doesn't matter to people, but it probably does save streaming companies some money-so it probably matters to them. 

But you could accomplish the same thing with intelligent downsampling (say of 24/96 to 18/96) without origami or MQA and without harming SQ-you'd only be getting rid of bits witout actual content. 

 

In any case, it isn't really about SQ or file size-it's about setting up a content delivery system that lets the labels hide the "crown jewels (true hi-res masters) and yet generate fees across the delivery and playback chain. 

[PeterSt]

 

 

 

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 ?

 

 

 

[UkPhil]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Bob has replied 

[daverich4]

22 hours ago, UkPhil said:

Dug out my Pro-Ject S2 DAC to check the Tidal files since the Warner update and I can confirm If you wind down a 16/44.1 MASTER to HIFI you still get the same MQA file regardless of your settings so standard DAC’s will go into digital limp mode 

 

Warner’s file 

Roon thinks that I can turn it off. This is with Tidal set to HiFi in Roon. 
 

 

[Cebolla]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

 

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.

[lucretius]

6 hours ago, UkPhil said:

I am not aware of this ever been released in 24 bit commercially, 

the closest 24bit would the DVD audio layer which no doubt if extracted would be 24/48

 

Reissued as part of a box set on blu-ray in 5.1 surround 24/96:

 

 https://www.sonymusic.com/legacy/new-box-set-release-date-december-13-2019-pink-floyd-the-later-years/

 

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

The origami is about dropping so called "audibly insignificant" bits in order to produce a smaller file.

 

And these bits are "audibly insignificant" because hi-res is a ruse in the first place.  So Bob decided to replace something you cannot hear with something else you cannot hear + magic light + fake sample rate display.  But when we get down to MQA-CD, then we have another problem - reducing max dynamic range from 96dB to something significantly less.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

 

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.

 

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

The two are quite different.

Now what.

 

Who has ideas about an explanation ?

 

 

 

 

In what way, different, Peter?