MQA is Vaporware

[Temporal_Dissident]

21 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

THX "is now owned by the prolific gaming peripherals company, Razer."

 

🤑

🤮

🤑

🤮

[Temporal_Dissident]

21 hours ago, bambadoo said:

New MQA kid on the block. THX this time

https://www.thx.com/onyx

 

 

OK, but MQA aside, does anyone know how this mobile headphone amp performs vs. something like AudioQuest Dragonfly? 

 

 

 

 

[GoldenOne]

On 3/24/2019 at 7:37 PM, PeterSt said:

 

Hey Dirk - I think John announced not to know that.

 

From a Command Prompt:

 

mqascan inputfile

(inputfile can be a flac file)

 

Use your imagination at looking at the output. It's not difficult.

@John Dyson @Miska

So i've been trying to get this to work.

I have a video and article upcoming on MQA, and have actually had a few tracks of mine published in MQA, including with some test files including an impulse response, RMAA test sequence, white noise and a bunch of other stuff hidden inside that have allowed me to get a closer look at what's going on early in the process and with the true 44.1khz and hires masters available for direct comparison.

I'm currently trying to get this script to work to make a pseudo-MQA file and trick the DAC into thinking it's MQA, but have had no luck. I was able to get the MQAscan file to run using the file John Dyson posted, but the mqbgen I get nothing regardless of input. No error or anything, just nothing happens.

I'm not able to get it working by making on a linux system either. Same thing, command executes with no error and nothing happens.
Has anyone been able to get this working to create a file that the DAC recognises as MQA?

 

[FredericV]

The MQA-CD sausage machine for internet radio?

So they have 24/96 flac broadcast files crafted from various PCM sources (including 16/44.1 source files upsampled back to 24/96), which they MQA sausage into 16/44.1 distribution files- which can never unfold back to 24/96 ....

So in case the source file was 16/44.1

1. resample to 24/96 as their MQA encoder starts with 24/96 files
2. downsample / folding to 16/44.1 by the MQA encoder - but without the hi-res part (e.g. the source files was 24/96 or 24/192) as MQA CD does not have an actual hi-res part
3. upsample to whatever the MQA metadata says ?

-> how can 16/44.1 MQA CD become 24/96 ? MQA x2 rate = distribution file sample rate x2, so 88.2 kHz and not 96 kHz

[JoeWhip]

This is total bollocks. Truly bizarre. I don’t stream but if I did, RP would not be my choice.

[GoldenOne]

I am currently working on a video, and I got some tracks published on tidal, in MQA. These tracks contained various test signals such as impulse response, square wave, white noise, multitone, and even the entire RMAA test sequence.

After collecting all evidence and documenting all the discovered issues (some of which have not yet been discussed elsewhere), I contacted MQA to give them a chance to comment prior to this video (and post here) going live.

They have not responded to me, BUT, they have had my tracks pulled from Tidal, and have spoken to the publisher I used to have them block me.

The tracks are still up on some sites such as Deezer, and I have the MQA encoded files saved as well as analog recordings of a full-decode. And I will share these in the final post and video.

But for now, I'm just posting this quickly in order to inform people that MQA's response to me reaching out was to attempt to censor me, and I want to ask that a few people confirm the track's presence before it is fully gone.
If you go in roon and search for "The Callout" by GoldenSound, you will still see that it shows as being on Tidal, in MQA in their DB. Though I'm sure this will not be for long.

The video and post, as well as the tracks themselves, should hopefully prove quite useful for anyone wanting to look further into what MQA is doing.

[Racerxnet]

8 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:

I am currently working on a video, and I got some tracks published on tidal, in MQA. These tracks contained various test signals such as impulse response, square wave, white noise, multitone, and even the entire RMAA test sequence.

After collecting all evidence and documenting all the discovered issues (some of which have not yet been discussed elsewhere), I contacted MQA to give them a chance to comment prior to this video (and post here) going live.

They have not responded to me, BUT, they have had my tracks pulled from Tidal, and have spoken to the publisher I used to have them block me.

The tracks are still up on some sites such as Deezer, and I have the MQA encoded files saved as well as analog recordings of a full-decode. And I will share these in the final post and video.

But for now, I'm just posting this quickly in order to inform people that MQA's response to me reaching out was to attempt to censor me, and I want to ask that a few people confirm the track's presence before it is fully gone.
If you go in roon and search for "The Callout" by GoldenSound, you will still see that it shows as being on Tidal, in MQA in their DB. Though I'm sure this will not be for long.

The video and post, as well as the tracks themselves, should hopefully prove quite useful for anyone wanting to look further into what MQA is doing.

And you did record/save the tracks for further investigation?

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:

I am currently working on a video, and I got some tracks published on tidal, in MQA. These tracks contained various test signals such as impulse response, square wave, white noise, multitone, and even the entire RMAA test sequence.

After collecting all evidence and documenting all the discovered issues (some of which have not yet been discussed elsewhere), I contacted MQA to give them a chance to comment prior to this video (and post here) going live.

They have not responded to me, BUT, they have had my tracks pulled from Tidal, and have spoken to the publisher I used to have them block me.

The tracks are still up on some sites such as Deezer, and I have the MQA encoded files saved as well as analog recordings of a full-decode. And I will share these in the final post and video.

But for now, I'm just posting this quickly in order to inform people that MQA's response to me reaching out was to attempt to censor me, and I want to ask that a few people confirm the track's presence before it is fully gone.
If you go in roon and search for "The Callout" by GoldenSound, you will still see that it shows as being on Tidal, in MQA in their DB. Though I'm sure this will not be for long.

The video and post, as well as the tracks themselves, should hopefully prove quite useful for anyone wanting to look further into what MQA is doing.

I can’t believe nobody did this previously. Brilliant. 
 

This is classic MQA Ltd. Try to censor or in my case talk more often and louder. 
 

I’ll ask the rhetorical question I always ask, does a company with nothing to hide act this way?

 

It’s crazy (at least to me) what Bob Stuart, Mike Jbara, Ken Forsythe, and others will do for a dollar. The MQA stink ain’t coming off those guys. 

[GoldenOne]

8 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

And you did record/save the tracks for further investigation?

I did yes. 

I have the original masters that were submitted, one of which was 44.1khz, one of which was 88.2khz.

 

And I have the MQA encoded versions of both. As well as the versions streamed from tidal on the "hifi tier" (which as it turns out are the same file but without mqa flagging) 

 

These will all be shared in the post. The censorship won't change anything :) 

[GoldenOne]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

I can’t believe nobody did this previously. Brilliant. 
 

This is classic MQA Ltd. Try to censor or in my case talk more often and louder. 
 

I’ll ask the rhetorical question I always ask, does a company with nothing to hide act this way?

 

It’s crazy (at least to me) what Bob Stuart, Mike Jbara, Ken Forsythe, and others will do for a dollar. The MQA stink ain’t coming off those guys. 

Given how they dodged questions and attempted to desperately divert the conversation in your 2018 rmaf talk (which I discuss a little in the video, hope you don't mind), I didn't really expect anything different. Hence why I made backups :) 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:

Given how they dodged questions and attempted to desperately divert the conversation in your 2018 rmaf talk (which I discuss a little in the video, hope you don't mind), I didn't really expect anything different. Hence why I made backups :) 

No worries from me. As long as everything is factual, it’s all welcome. 
 

Smart move on the backups. 
 

Right after someone uploaded my RMAF talk to YouTube, I asked someone to immediately download it for me while I was at dinner. I don’t put anything past these guys.

[Josh Mound]

3 hours ago, GoldenOne said:

Given how they dodged questions and attempted to desperately divert the conversation in your 2018 rmaf talk (which I discuss a little in the video, hope you don't mind), I didn't really expect anything different. Hence why I made backups :) 

Congrats on this brilliant maneuver. I see you’ve already shared on Head-Fi, and your posts are making the rounds on other sites, too. I can’t wait to watch your video.

[firedog]

5 hours ago, GoldenOne said:

I am currently working on a video, and I got some tracks published on tidal, in MQA. These tracks contained various test signals such as impulse response, square wave, white noise, multitone, and even the entire RMAA test sequence.

After collecting all evidence and documenting all the discovered issues (some of which have not yet been discussed elsewhere), I contacted MQA to give them a chance to comment prior to this video (and post here) going live.

They have not responded to me, BUT, they have had my tracks pulled from Tidal, and have spoken to the publisher I used to have them block me.

The tracks are still up on some sites such as Deezer, and I have the MQA encoded files saved as well as analog recordings of a full-decode. And I will share these in the final post and video.

But for now, I'm just posting this quickly in order to inform people that MQA's response to me reaching out was to attempt to censor me, and I want to ask that a few people confirm the track's presence before it is fully gone.
If you go in roon and search for "The Callout" by GoldenSound, you will still see that it shows as being on Tidal, in MQA in their DB. Though I'm sure this will not be for long.

The video and post, as well as the tracks themselves, should hopefully prove quite useful for anyone wanting to look further into what MQA is doing.

So I'm not understanding: your distributor blocked the files, or Tidal blocked them from your distributor at the request of MQA? And did they block your non-MQA files, too? If so, you should have a lawyer threaten Tidal if they don't put them back.

[Cebolla]

9 hours ago, GoldenOne said:

As well as the versions streamed from tidal on the "hifi tier" (which as it turns out are the same file but without mqa flagging) 

 

MQA-CD file tracks should be provided unscathed on the TIDAL HiFi quality (16bit/44.1kHz only) connection as they are already distributed at 16bit/44.1kHz,, but the hi-res MQA ones (which in your 88.2kHz case are distributed at 24bit/44.1kHz) should be corrupted as they're provided mangled to 16bit/44.1kHz.

[Cebolla]

13 hours ago, FredericV said:

The MQA-CD sausage machine for internet radio?

So they have 24/96 flac broadcast files crafted from various PCM sources (including 16/44.1 source files upsampled back to 24/96), which they MQA sausage into 16/44.1 distribution files- which can never unfold back to 24/96 ....

So in case the source file was 16/44.1

1. resample to 24/96 as their MQA encoder starts with 24/96 files
2. downsample / folding to 16/44.1 by the MQA encoder - but without the hi-res part (e.g. the source files was 24/96 or 24/192) as MQA CD does not have an actual hi-res part
3. upsample to whatever the MQA metadata says ?

-> how can 16/44.1 MQA CD become 24/96 ? MQA x2 rate = distribution file sample rate x2, so 88.2 kHz and not 96 kHz

 

Ah - been there, done that!

 

Unfortunately you've picked up a bit of misinformation.

 

The 16-bit/44.1kHz resolution mentioned for proposed hi-res MQA Radio Paradise streams derived from the 24-bit/96kHz source files was an error. It was actually corrected to the expected 24-bit/48kHz in a later post on the same RP thread, after I questioned it:

https://radioparadise.com/community/forum/post/3901729

[GoldenOne]

1 hour ago, Cebolla said:

 

MQA-CD file tracks should be provided unscathed on the TIDAL HiFi quality (16bit/44.1kHz only) connection as they are already distributed at 16bit/44.1kHz,, but the hi-res MQA ones (which in your 88.2kHz case are distributed at 24bit/44.1kHz) should be corrupted as they're provided mangled to 16bit/44.1kHz.

That's what I thought too. And it certainly used to be the case. 

 

Unfortunately now though it seems that the 16/44 file is just the MQA file but without the client unfolding it. 

 

Its bitperfect to the 'masters' version and this was the case for any other track I've tried. 

Ive actually stopped my subscription because of this 

 

I pay tidal for lossless. If they no longer offer that for any track marked master, I don't want tidal. 

 

 

Ill double check with some other files that I know were definitely from 48/96khz masters as I can't imagine those would be the same

[The Computer Audiophile]

Tidal has really lost the plot. They followed MQA's dogma right off the cliff. 

[Currawong]

GoldenOne has kindly shown me the files and their output after MQA processing. It's not so much of a surprise after Stereophile's JA verified the low-level signal distortion some time back, but it does prove unequivocally that they are neither "de-blurring" music, nor impulse responses (which are not music), either on the input side or the output side.

 

But also, for the MQA group to force the publisher to block him -- I don't think any more needs to be said about that, other than it's proof that they are desperate to hide the truth.

 

Oh, and http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/highresaudio-to-stop-offering-mqa/.

[The Computer Audiophile]

37 minutes ago, Currawong said:

GoldenOne has kindly shown me the files and their output after MQA processing. It's not so much of a surprise after Stereophile's JA verified the low-level signal distortion some time back, but it does prove unequivocally that they are neither "de-blurring" music, nor impulse responses (which are not music), either on the input side or the output side.

 

But also, for the MQA group to force the publisher to block him -- I don't think any more needs to be said about that, other than it's proof that they are desperate to hide the truth.

 

Oh, and http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/highresaudio-to-stop-offering-mqa/.

That press release is golden. how many bridges can Bob Stuart, Ken Forsythe, and Mike Jbara burn. That’s rhetorical. Please don’t list the many hundreds. 
 

 

From the release:

 

HIGHRESAUDIO has stopped offering MQA. MQA is NOT lossless, the original signal is never recovered, estimate to recover at most 17bits (reduces the sampling rate), reduces the frequency range, SNR reduced by 3bit, aliasing with artifacts at 18kHz. MQA encoding filters manipulates drastically the original source. No analysis tools are available to verify the encoded MQA content. Therefore no quality control is possible. highresaudio.com stands for offering purity, original mastering source, none manipulated, tweaked or up-sampled content and codecs that are widely supported and offer use of freedom. 

"We hope that MQA will adjust all the above issues. We are truly disappointed, the way MQA has progressed in the past year. We have been mislead and blinded by trust and promises."

MQA Claims:

- Compressing High Resolution Audio for Streaming Applications by keeping the audio quality.

- Applying adaptive filters to do "time domain optimization"

MQA Summary:

- MQA is NOT lossless!!! The original Signal is never recovered!

- We estimate that MQA is only able to recover at most 17Bits at 96kHz

- The primary MQA benefit is the reduction of the bit rate. We will prove that an alternative method can reach a similar reduction but keeps the "Sample Rate" and therefore the "Timing" of the audio signal.

- MQA is not usable for "Legacy Devices" because of heavy Aliasing causing increasing distortions beyond 18kHz.

- Applying adaptive filters that permanently change the original signal will most likely do more harm than good. Well, we want the original signal and not something that tries to resemble it as good as possible. It may sound different, but how can it be better than the original record?

I have asked MQA weeks ago to correct the marketing communication towards the end user and media. As long as MQA is not prepared to straighten the facts, we will not offer MQA any more. The customer needs to know what he pays for, and we have to be able to check technically what we offer and sell to our customers. We are in a very sensible and delicate niche music market. Over the past seven years we have established a very good market position, created a new business for the music industry and artists and customers that cherish the best audible sound reproduction. We moved the music and HiFi-industry into a new business domain, with very little support from anyone. Our USP is that we guarantee (and this is not just said and done) your customers, nothing but the true, native and original source. We can analysis and verify any other audio codec (with MusicScope even DSD and DXD). For MQA is nothing available to assure that the customer is getting our "promise“. We are in the first and front rule, selling music and technology to a new and established customer, that truly expects nothing but the real thing! 

Selling HighRes Audio files requires so much dedicated and detailed work prior in selling (download / streaming) the music. This time needs to be invested by qualified audio engineers and a team that understands the total reproduction path. An extensive quality control is therefore a „must-have“ and needs to be in place to fulfill the "promise“. 

If these parameters are right, than we can provide our customers with honest facts to purchase MQA, and then we will continue to only offer "Authenticated MQA" again. Since beginning 2016 we offer native Studio Masters for MQA encoded, where we can trace and verify the origin of the source. Meaning from Mastering Studios that use MQA in their production workflow and process and are personally signed off. 

No matter whether downloading or streaming. The perception and expectations of the customer is different. We can not sell and promote HighRes unless HighRes is supplied! For our customers, quality, trust and reliability are the top priorities.

Am I now the bad guy? No, I would like that we continue to offer in the niche, customer native and original high-resolution music. There are plenty of new and established customers that are looking for high-resolution albums every day. The HighResAudio market would have grown rapidly and successfully, if the awareness among the responsible people in the music industry were familiar with our target group. Since 2010, we have been a single player on a broad front. Our mission: to offer music lovers, artists, hi-fi enthusiasts and manufacturers of audio devices to offer a new perspective in the digital age for the perfect music reproduction for a unique listening experience.

Lothar Kerestedjian,

Managing Director, HighResAudio

[botrytis]

A post from the Mod on that thread....

 

We have received the following statement from an 'MQA spokesperson':

"The technical claims presented by HIGHRESAUDIO are fundamentally incorrect and ill-informed. These assertions are consistent with the few we have seen from others who are uncomfortable with the concept of studio quality audio that is convenient for all."

[botrytis]

Of course MQA would say that. That is all they can do.

[opus101]

29 minutes ago, botrytis said:

...seen from others who are uncomfortable with the concept of studio quality audio that is convenient for all."

 

Would be interesting to know who these people are that MQA claim to have seen. My guess is its weapons grade BS - there are no such people.

[John Dyson]

35 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Of course MQA would say that. That is all they can do.

What to expect, there have been untruths or 'mistruths' coming from MQA all along.  Yet another one.

 

[botrytis]

12 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

What to expect, there have been untruths or 'mistruths' coming from MQA all along.  Yet another one.

 

 

John,

 

I want to tell you I appreciate your expertise and applaud what you are doing for us audio nuts.

 

Back to MQA, where marketing is used as science.

 

[firedog]

I'm not even understanding the claim that MQA is "convenient for all": how is a format that demands specialized HW and software convenient?

: