MQA is Vaporware

[FredericV]

Just did the WAF test, original version has more warmth.
She did not know this was about MQA, just version one and version two ;)

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

Just did the WAF test, original version has more warmth.
She did not know this was about MQA, just version one and version two ;)

 

Did she discern a difference between the MQA-CD played back with decoder vs played back without decoder?

[FredericV]

So now we have three files:

 

The undecoded MQA (the middle one) is the worst, and sounds more agressive, and this is most obvious with percussion which sounds more harsh. But TBH I was first impressed by the decoded version, but off axis when I was preparing these  files.

The decoded vs redbook sound more alike and the agressive aspect of the undecoded version is gone, but when listening to these files in the direct sound field of the Amphion Krypton 3's, I recognise the same signature as when I did my MQA listening test long time ago on the Amphion One 18 studio monitor in nearfield, on an actual MQA dac.

In the current setup the PCM goes to a DAC without MQA (I explicitly ordered my Sonnet Morpheus without the MQA module), so the DAC would no try to post-process the middle track in the list.

First impression is that the percussion is a little bit more clear with decoded MQA-CD (and for some that should sound like the better version), but at the cost of shortening the post echo's. The decay of the echo's and reverberation is longer with the redbook version. The redbook version is slightly warmer and more natural. To some ears the decoded MQA may sound too bright.

In this track the main big difference is the percussion.

So now we have it: while MQA CD is slightly different from redbook, it will never be the original redbook and the decay of the post echo's will never be the original. It will improve one aspect of the sound, at the cost of another aspect.

And to have the version which was closest to the redbook, you now need an MQA decoder.

So this is a good example of the MQA TAX.

And since Tidal is no longer serving the original redbook files, which I still prefer, it's time to jump ship to another service which does not batch process their redbook files.

[UkPhil]

5 minutes ago, FredericV said:

So now we have three files:

 

The undecoded MQA (the middle one) is the worst, and sounds more agressive, and this is most obvious with percussion which sounds more harsh. But TBH I was first impressed by the decoded version, but off axis when I was preparing these  files.

The decoded vs redbook sound more alike and the agressive aspect of the undecoded version is gone, but when listening to these files in the direct sound field of the Amphion Krypton 3's, I recognise the same signature as when I did my MQA listening test long time ago on the Amphion One 18 studio monitor in nearfield, on an actual MQA dac.

In the current setup the PCM goes to a DAC without MQA (I explicitly ordered my Sonnet Morpheus without the MQA module), so the DAC would no try to post-process the middle track in the list.

First impression is that the percussion is a little bit more clear with decoded MQA-CD (and for some that should sound like the better version), but at the cost of shortening the post echo's. The decay of the echo's and reverberation is longer with the redbook version. The redbook version is slightly warmer and more natural. To some ears the decoded MQA may sound too bright.

In this track the main big difference is the percussion.

So now we have it: while MQA CD is slightly different from redbook, it will never be the original redbook and the decay of the post echo's will never be the original. It will improve one aspect of the sound, at the cost of another aspect.

And to have the version which was closest to the redbook, you now need an MQA decoder.

So this is a good example of the MQA TAX.

And since Tidal is no longer serving the original redbook files, which I still prefer, it's time to jump ship to another service which does not batch process their redbook files.

To me it proves why introduce a proprietary DSP into the process chain which you cannot control or eradicate, I am sure all these refinements can be applied manually with many personal processes incl bespoke filtering, EQ and room treatments 

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, FredericV said:

And to have the version which was closest to the redbook, you now need an MQA decoder.

So this is a good example of the MQA TAX.

And since Tidal is no longer serving the original redbook files, which I still prefer, it's time to jump ship to another service which does not batch process their redbook files.

This is really the whole story. 
 

To squeeze more money out of consumers and at the same time protect the Crown Jewels, they reduced the quality of music and told you to pay a tax to make it sound closer to what you previously had. 
 

How can @John_Atkinson not at least acknowledge that perhaps helping MQA become the only game in town was a mistake? 
 

Sorry for my friends who only have access to Tidal. 

[FredericV]

Another contradictio in terminis from MQA and their fanboys.

Well we do at least agree with the title of the linked article (the statement marked in red)

[KeenObserver]

Was this guy the male cheerleader in high school?

[KeenObserver]

I can start to understand this fellow when I realize that half the population is below average intelligence.

[Kal Rubinson]

6 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

I can start to understand this fellow when I realize that half the population is below average intelligence.

Actually, half the population is below the median intelligence.  

[MikeyFresh]

15 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Was this guy the male cheerleader in high school?

I wonder if he realizes what a pathetic fanboy he is, or does he actually fancy himself some sort of authority on digital audio, complete with Facebook "followers"?

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

I can start to understand this fellow when I realize that half the population is below average intelligence.

The devotion to MQA goes way beyond intelligence. Much of it mirrors the current political environment. MQA ltd's use of facts is quite Presidential. 

[R1200CL]

What is the opinion of this article?

http://bobtalks.co.uk/blog/provenance/provenance-series-1-madonna/

 

Is the hires version better or worse than the original version ? And then the MQA ?

Or is the whole article considered BS ?

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

What is the opinion of this article?

http://bobtalks.co.uk/blog/provenance/provenance-series-1-madonna/

 

Is the hires version better or worse than the original version ? And then the MQA ?

Or is the whole article considered BS ?

That's a great article. If they only would have stopped at converting the tape to 24/192, the album would be a masterpiece. However, running the lossy MQA process on the pristine pure PCM 192 conversion only makes it worse. Nothing in that article has anything to do with MQA. Nothing in that article is only available because of MQA. 

 

For example, here is the pure PCM 24/192 version for sale at HDtracks and a 24/96 version from Qobuz. MQA had nothing to do with any of this. 

 

https://www.hdtracks.com/#/album/5def4e26b45f07686f0149c4

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

MQA's talk about the importance of provenance is a joke. It's absolutely important but MQA has zero to do with any of it. The MQA black box in the cloud that converts music using lossy algorithms is the antithesis of provenance. It's a technical process that outputs a worse version than what was on the input. A terrible version of album XYZ will be made worse and a great version of album ABC will be made worse. MQA gets what it gets. The company hand picks a few releases to use the white glove process and advertise the hell out of it, but for the millions of other tracks, it's all the latex glove process. 

[KeenObserver]

Other than MQA and the studios (and the fanboys), does anyone think that MQA will be good for the future quality of music?

[KeenObserver]

Chris

Can I change "average" in the post above to "median"?

 

Just kidding

[opus101]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 MQA ltd's use of facts is quite Presidential. 

 

In the sense of 'If you like your current digital filter, you can keep your current digital filter' ?

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

In the sense of 'If you like your current digital filter, you can keep your current digital filter' ?

Absolutely. 

 

I remember them talking about MQA being the single format for everything, then realizing this was a worrisome issue for many, then saying MQA was just an option. People could keep their non-MQA if they wanted. They often said the quiet part loud as the years progressed though. I remember Jbara telling people something like "you don't known the content" when he was acting like a child during my RMAF presentation. Right there was very telling that this solution had nothing to do with consumers. It's all about content owners. 

 

Anyway, MQA Ltd = very Presidential. 

[opus101]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Right there was very telling that this solution had nothing to do with consumers. It's all about content owners. 

 

There is a long history of those kinds of arguments from the industry. The one that comes to mind is 'Digital music piracy is hurting musicians', going even further back 'Home taping is killing music'. 

[UkPhil]

2 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Other than MQA and the studios (and the fanboys), does anyone think that MQA will be good for the future quality of music?

I am sure recording studios will keep their integrity intact at stick with PCM / DXD or even good ole analogue tape, interesting to see if 2L comes back to confirm if they archive in the format, but as far as the consumer is concerned MQA’s goal is to be the next standard playback LP  / CD / MQA. 
Once Universal and Sony have delivered the “Latex Glove treatment” and starts to send those to Amazon Deezer and Qobuz the jobs done 

My question is would the final nail in the coffin be the hidden DRM is it capable or degrading the sound output further  without the decoder akin to the days of Dolby on a cassette you needed it to enhance the playback ? 

[lucretius]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That's a great article. If they only would have stopped at converting the tape to 24/192, the album would be a masterpiece. However, running the lossy MQA process on the pristine pure PCM 192 conversion only makes it worse. Nothing in that article has anything to do with MQA. Nothing in that article is only available because of MQA. 

 

For example, here is the pure PCM 24/192 version for sale at HDtracks and a 24/96 version from Qobuz. MQA had nothing to do with any of this. 

 

https://www.hdtracks.com/#/album/5def4e26b45f07686f0149c4

 

 

 

 

I have the 24/192 version.  It's just noise above 20.5 kHz.  I also have an early CD, which coincidentally cuts out at 20.5 kHz. Also, there is no clipping in the CD version contrary to what the MQA article said.  Both versions (24/192 and CD) have good (and similar) dynamic range.  The CD version offers more headroom.  I don't have access to Tidal, so I cannot check the MQA version but I seriously doubt that it is better in any way than the CD or the 24/192 download:

 

CD:  Like a Virgin_dr.txt

 

24/192:  Like a Virgin (2012 Digital Download)_dr.txt

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

I don't have access to Tidal, so I cannot check the MQA version but I seriously doubt that it is better in any way than the CD or the 24/192 download

It can’t be better. Removing something from an original, possibly adding noise (as evidenced in other MQA conversions), can’t make something better. 

[FredericV]

30 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It can’t be better. Removing something from an original, possibly adding noise (as evidenced in other MQA conversions), can’t make something better. 

The spectrum of the first 6 seconds from the mentioned track clearly show a higher noise floor which starts around 15 Khz with undecoded MQA CD, which is where they hide their control stream, in the hope that it is inaudible.

But in my system, the undecoded version sounds much more aggressive.

The graph shows that with both MQA CD and regular CD, the perceived dynamic range of 16-bit audio can be 120 dB or more with noise shaped dither, but in case of undecoded MQA CD this is not the case for the high frequencies. I did a quick overlay of the plots in gimp, it is not 100% pixel perfect but still the difference is clearly there.

 

[R1200CL]

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That's a great article. If they only would have stopped at converting the tape to 24/192, the album would be a masterpiece.

They is Warner. I wonder why they not just do the same process with all these other albums that is red book. Now it seems albums just been been passed through a highly questionable MQA process. I’m even not sure Bob is happy with it either.  These recent articles on MQA site is very unclear to me. Somehow Bob is admitting errors will occur. Warner is using MQA in a way Bob originally didn’t intended MQA to be used. 
 

I think Warner is more to blame than MQA. They could do a much better job.

 

It will be interesting to see how they handle Bob Dylan catalog. At the moment it’s not MQA.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, R1200CL said:

Warner is using MQA in a way Bob originally didn’t intended MQA to be used. 

BS new exactly how it would be used. That’s the only way to make money. All the titles had to be processed in mass quantities in order to have them all available. Without all the music MQA is dead.