MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

23 minutes ago, Cebolla said:

 

Looks like the new Australian TIDAL HiFi tier has been tested and it is indeed poisoned:

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/tidal-hifi-plus-introduced/157461/15

With MQA Ltd involved, it just couldn’t have gone any other way. 

[KeenObserver]

1 hour ago, StephenJK said:

That's a standard CD Redbook file.  The 16 bit/44.1 kHz sample rate gives you a 1,411 Kbps file - kilobits per second.  That, as compared to MP3, which at its highest rate is 320 Kbps

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=cd+kbps+rate&rlz=1C1OKWM_enCA906CA906&oq=cd+kbps+rate&aqs=chrome..69i57.6106j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Ya, right!

Is that grape flavored?

[KeenObserver]

I guess calling it 1411 FLAC had the desired effect.

 

How anyone can have any further dealings with Tidal is beyond me.

 

When you sign up for Tidal, does the contract specify which party supplies the lubricant?

[WAM]

From the Auralic forum. Lively discussion going on there.

 

[Daren F]

10 hours ago, firedog said:

 

And when they get fined, let me know....

They claimed MQA was lossless (still do, sometimes). Did anything happen?

 

Where are the audiophile lawyers when you need them?

 

The developers of FLAC should have a cease and desist letter issued to Tidal/MQA instructing them to stop marketing their garbage as FLAC.

 

FLAC's intent was to provide a free compression algorithm for PCM. It wasn't developed so that Tidal/MQA could mislead and lie to their customers, disguising MQA as FLAC and then (supposedly) profiting from it.

 

[Dr Tone]

1 hour ago, Daren F said:

FLAC's intent was to provide a free compression algorithm for PCM. It wasn't developed so that Tidal/MQA could mislead and lie to their customers, disguising MQA as FLAC and then (supposedly) profiting from it.

MQA is encoded into PCM, which is then put into binary compressed FLAC container.

[GregWormald]

13 hours ago, Dr Tone said:

MQA is encoded into PCM, which is then put into binary compressed FLAC container.

YES!

 

Please be clear that just because the source file is compressed using a lossless algorithm—in this case FLAC, (Wikipedia lists 17 common audio lossless algorithms!)—it DOES NOT MEAN that the source file is identical to the originally issued music file, or a downsampling to a 16/44.1 music file.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

This is crazy funny. Rolling Stone just did Home Audio product recommendation feature, which they usually do a couple of times a year....and they screwed MyTek royally...lol...See below...for "Roon's Brooklyn Bridge".....😆

 

 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

If you had any doubt about what an absolute toole Darko is.,behold this laughably hypocritical rubbish---

 

"Despite some slippery marketing language that makes suggestions to the contrary, both Qualcomm’s aptX HD and Sony’s LDAC are lossy codecs: they discard data because their bandwidth is insufficient for CD-quality audio’s 1411kbps. These codecs’ claim to hi-res ‘support’ is a fingers-crossed-behind-your-back-because-you-hope-noone-will-notice type of fib."

 

https://darko.audio/2021/05/apple-rumours-cd-quality-streaming-bluetooth/

 

Let's correct it for him...substitute "MQA" for "aptX"...and he is spot on.

 

The sheer chutzpah.

 

 

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

29 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

If you had any doubt about what an absolute toole Darko is.,behold this laughably hypocritical rubbish---

 

"Despite some slippery marketing language that makes suggestions to the contrary, both Qualcomm’s aptX HD and Sony’s LDAC are lossy codecs: they discard data because their bandwidth is insufficient for CD-quality audio’s 1411kbps. These codecs’ claim to hi-res ‘support’ is a fingers-crossed-behind-your-back-because-you-hope-noone-will-notice type of fib."

 

https://darko.audio/2021/05/apple-rumours-cd-quality-streaming-bluetooth/

 

Let's correct it for him...substitute "MQA" for "aptX"...and he is spot on.

 

The sheer chutzpah.

 

 

 

 

 

Actually if I'm not mistaken there is no slippery marketing language at all with aptX HD and LDAC, both admitted from the get go that they employ perceptual coding and so thats not deceptive at all, each one fully owned up to being lossy at certain high frequencies.

 

On the contrary, Darko's beloved MQA took something like 3 or more years to even grudgingly admit that when they said lossless they meant perceptually lossless, and their own slippery marketing speak as well as that of various of their manufacturing licensees still to this day claims lossless with no further definition or description whatsoever.

 

Neither Sony nor Qualcomm is claiming anything further, certainly nothing like "master quality" or "better than lossless", or any other such nonsense, and both had stated all along the goal was to improve on the dismal performance of the very lossy SBC codec while maintaining some reasonable battery stamina for portable devices, which seems like an honest and worthy tradeoff and design intent. Both LDAC and aptX HD are intended for use on portables such as mobile phones, tablets, or laptops.

 

Contrast that with the total BS being bandied about using MQA marketing speak, and Darko's claim is more fake news, and really seems disingenuous at best. He's taking a shot at something that actually provides a real solution to a real problem, that being the challenge of battery life on portable devices running wirelessly, while conveniently ignoring the false claims and non-solutions to non-problems as offered by Master Quality Adulterated.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

12 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Actually if I'm not mistaken there is no slippery marketing language at all with aptX HD and LDAC, both admitted from the get go that they employ perceptual coding and so thats not deceptive at all, each one fully owned up to being lossy at certain high frequencies.

 

On the contrary, Darko's beloved MQA took something like 3 or more years to even grudgingly admit that when they said lossless they meant perceptually lossless, and their own slippery marketing speak as well as that of various of their manufacturing licensees still to this day claims lossless with no further definition or description whatsoever.

 

Neither Sony nor Qualcomm is claiming anything further, certainly nothing like "master quality" or "better than lossless", or any other such nonsense, and both had stated all along the goal was to improve on the dismal performance of the very lossy SBC codec while maintaining some reasonable battery stamina for portable devices, which seems like an honest and worthy tradeoff and design intent. Both LDAC and aptX HD are intended for use on portables such as mobile phones, tablets, or laptops.

 

Contrast that with the total BS being bandied about using MQA marketing speak, and Darko's claim is more fake news, and really seems disingenuous at best. He's taking a shot at something that actually provides a real solution to a real problem, that being the challenge of battery life on portable devices running wirelessly, while conveniently ignoring the false claims and non-solutions to non-problems as offered by Master Quality Adulterated.

Spot on. And shows just how shoddy Darko's "journalism" is...

 

No doubt he is projecting the sins of Master Quack Audio on to the the as advertised lossy Sony and Qualcomm codecs.

 

 

[Archimago]

13 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

If you had any doubt about what an absolute toole Darko is.,behold this laughably hypocritical rubbish---

 

"Despite some slippery marketing language that makes suggestions to the contrary, both Qualcomm’s aptX HD and Sony’s LDAC are lossy codecs: they discard data because their bandwidth is insufficient for CD-quality audio’s 1411kbps. These codecs’ claim to hi-res ‘support’ is a fingers-crossed-behind-your-back-because-you-hope-noone-will-notice type of fib."

 

https://darko.audio/2021/05/apple-rumours-cd-quality-streaming-bluetooth/

 

Let's correct it for him...substitute "MQA" for "aptX"...and he is spot on.

 

The sheer chutzpah.

 

 

 

 

 

It is strange how inconsistent some folks are. It's like he wants to act as some ambassador for audiophile sound in demonstrating his righteous indignation at Sony, Qualcomm, and Bluetooth in general. These are easy targets for him and the audience raised to be in awe of the "high end". After all, he has already locked himself into the MQA camp with previous articles like this:

https://darko.audio/2016/06/an-inconvenient-truth-mqa-sounds-better/

 

With nonsense like: "Imagine a world in which Tidal streams MQA content invisibly to its HiFi subscribers. A world in which Beyoncé albums are treated the same as Diana Krall but with the potential to improve the listening experience beyond the realm of audiophile nerds like you and me."

 

Not even sure what that means.

 

For a product like MQA, bred and targeted for "high end" consumption whether in Meridian gear or dCS, which I don't think Darko dares give a negative review on, logic and the same level of skepticism are given a pass. I have not tested LDAC myself although I have listened to it here at home and think it sounds very good. Since it's meant for wireless headphone use, the real practical limiting factor is the quality of the little headphones themselves, not necessarily the CODEC. A huge difference when we consider MQA as putting themselves in the category of being a universal CODEC that serves all uses from streaming mobile to the highest end digital sources!

 

Who knows, from a perceptual basis, it is possible that LDAC can perform as Sony advertises in terms of better effective bit-depth and frequency response than 16/44.1 (depending on the music content as all lossy CODECs are). They've always told people that the maximum bitrate is 990kbps as far as I can tell, aiming to pass a 24/96-like signal. No different than say AAC 256kbps and 16/44.1 for say Apple Music...

 

Measurements BTW for LDAC don't look bad <15kHz:

https://www.soundguys.com/ldac-ultimate-bluetooth-guide-20026/

 

 

[Archimago]

BTW:

if we're going by numbers, MQA should just be identified as having 2304kbps maximum (2.3Mbps / 24/48 equivalent bitrate), pretending that it can be the "lossless" equivalent of 18,432kbps (18.4Mbps / 24/384) when "unfolded". And calling that the "Master" quality - a word that Sony and Qualcomm would never dare claim for their lossy wireless device CODECs!

[Rt66indierock]

Just another bit of evidence John Darko is trying convince people he has an objective viewpoint when the weight of evidence shows he writes ad copy.

[Racerxnet]

MQA logic: A lossless container containing a lossy codec making it lossless. 

[KeenObserver]

If you put poison inside a can of chicken soup, would that be chicken soup?

If you put MQA inside a FLAC container, is that lossless?

Is there no end to the MQA BS?

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Is there no end to the MQA BS?

There is not. 

[KeenObserver]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

There is not. 

The truly sad part of this is that there are people buying into this.

I suspect that some of them will follow MQA right over the cliff.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, KeenObserver said:

The truly sad part of this is that there are people buying into this.

I suspect that some of them will follow MQA right over the cliff.

Absolutely. 
 

When this much money is at stake, get your boots on to wade through all the BS, and watch people clamor to get on the bandwagon as it goes right over the cliff. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

When MQA first launched, who’d have thought they’d be so desperate to fraudulently claim the solution is better for the environment. What’s left for them to claim? Please don’t answer that. I’m sure it will come soon enough. 

[KeenObserver]

It is incredible. Since 2014 MQA has been hiding behind smoke and mirrors. They have time after time put out "suggestions" that have been analyzed and been found wanting. Their whole scheme has been shown to be deceptive and to be pure BS. And yet, there are people who follow.

I have to wonder how many of the posts of people supporting MQA are actual users.

The whole scheme is just so full of Bob Stuart.

[KeenObserver]

In this world there are leaders and there are followers.

There are people that listen to unadulterated Hi-Rez PCM and there are people who listen to MQA.

There are people who rise up and there are people who accept the "Tot".

[Stereo]

At least some users are waking up:  TidaL’s Reddit:  

 

 

Deezer’s Reddit: 

 

[LarryMagoo]

With all this nonsense/fraud about MQA, how can anyone feel good about buying ANY PS Audio gear?

 

Qobuz is only $120/year...seems reasonable for what you get and can sample anything you can find before deciding to actually purchase a copy...

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, LarryMagoo said:

With all this nonsense/fraud about MQA, how can anyone feel good about buying ANY PS Audio gear?