Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

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.

We will win because our NHS is the beating heart of this country. It is the best of this country. It is unconquerable. It is powered by love.

-- Boris Johnson

 

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

 

 

D912E704-0E2E-49D7-AFB0-1CCEE4383665.jpeg

6655EB98-97BB-4DD1-8CBF-D2BD48A289C1.jpeg

56792998-FBA2-4447-BDE8-0D5C809F5F32.jpeg

273BBC12-DF87-4406-9611-E7B2C6479606.jpeg

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm primarily here for the daily MQA proverb.

We will win because our NHS is the beating heart of this country. It is the best of this country. It is unconquerable. It is powered by love.

-- Boris Johnson

 

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to post
Share on other sites
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):

carpenterswith.thumb.png.4d23ca60ac1e4bf1d1ea7f0a2b407011.png

 

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!
     

We will win because our NHS is the beating heart of this country. It is the best of this country. It is unconquerable. It is powered by love.

-- Boris Johnson

 

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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 post
Share on other sites
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

 

image.png.7df61fed608f9dd0a47c96cd8bcbfd32.png

 

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.

 

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2      Ethernet^2     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

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

 

image.png.7df61fed608f9dd0a47c96cd8bcbfd32.png

 

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):

carpenterswith.thumb.png.4d23ca60ac1e4bf1d1ea7f0a2b407011.png

 

 

We will win because our NHS is the beating heart of this country. It is the best of this country. It is unconquerable. It is powered by love.

-- Boris Johnson

 

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

image.png.984f84c2941f6f14a8fa8b2e04e766f8.png

 

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.

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2      Ethernet^2     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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').

We will win because our NHS is the beating heart of this country. It is the best of this country. It is unconquerable. It is powered by love.

-- Boris Johnson

 

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2      Ethernet^2     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
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. 

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Listening: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Matrix Element i Streamer/DAC (XLR)+Schiit Freya>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: RPi 3B+ running RoPieee to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

image_2020-11-26_193025.png.a0425fa89c6e4fc1c518273e83d35655.png

 

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 ?

 

 

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2      Ethernet^2     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

0F29337C-777F-4879-A7B5-6B150A53043D.jpeg

8FCAE649-072A-4465-A288-CD23E7390A91.jpeg


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

 

A7440498-7937-44A9-8C02-E27BE8C3173D.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

image_2020-11-26_193025.png.a0425fa89c6e4fc1c518273e83d35655.png

 

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.

We will win because our NHS is the beating heart of this country. It is the best of this country. It is unconquerable. It is powered by love.

-- Boris Johnson

 

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to post
Share on other sites
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/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

image_2020-11-26_193025.png.a0425fa89c6e4fc1c518273e83d35655.png

 

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?

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...