MQA is Vaporware

[lucretius]

12 minutes ago, OldHardwareTech said:

Lastly I renamed easy.mqa.flac to easy.flac and Audirvana Studio displayed and played it as HD but not MQA. So it can't determine a misnamed MQA file is MQA but it can determine a flac file misnamed as MQA isn't actually MQA. Odd, but certainly not the worst behavior it could have had.

 

What seems to be happening is that (1) Studio first checks the filename for mqa and, only then (2) Studio attempts to read the control stream in the MQA file to determine that it is MQA 192 (or whatever). Other software, skips the first step.  I am curious why Damien thought this first step was necessary.

[OldHardwareTech]

4 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

What seems to be happening is that (1) Studio first checks the filename for mqa and, only then (2) Studio attempts to read the control stream in the MQA file to determine that it is MQA 192 (or whatever). Other software, skips the first step.  I am curious why Damien thought this first step was necessary.

You're right, the first step is redundant and leaving it out would mean more accuracy by detecting MQA files that aren't properly named.

[Cebolla]

13 hours ago, lucretius said:

I found what the problem is with Audirvana 3.5.

 

I renamed the music file from "01 Take It Easy.flac" to "01 Take It Easy.mqa.flac" (this is the name format used when purchasing MQA downloads).  Now, Audirvana recognizes this as MQA.  Quirky,  Yet my less than $10 Android app recognizes either as MQA.

 

15 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

What seems to be happening is that (1) Studio first checks the filename for mqa and, only then (2) Studio attempts to read the control stream in the MQA file to determine that it is MQA 192 (or whatever). Other software, skips the first step.  I am curious why Damien thought this first step was necessary.

 

Audivana is also supposed to look for presence of at least one of the MQA related (non-standard) FLAC file tags, eg, MQAENCODER & ORIGINALSAMPLERATE.

 

See this post by Damien which also explains his reasoning for Audirvana not automatically engaging the MQA decoder:

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/55491-qobuz-streaming-mqa-cds/?do=findComment&comment=923276

Quote

Audirvana Plus is not processing all files through the MQA decoder (contrary to some other player?), but only the ones hinted to be MQA from their metadata. For 1. optimising the audio signal path 2. Speeding the file loading by not trying to find a MQA marker when knowing there is none

 

These metadata hints that tell the file is likely MQA can be:

1. File name, with .mqa, or .mql just before the file extension

2. a MQA tag in the metadata (e.g. the original sample rate)

3. track information from the streaming service (TIDAL)

 

 

Presumably that FLAC file you tested Audirvana with also doesn't have any of those tags.

[lucretius]

1 minute ago, OldHardwareTech said:

You're right, the first step is redundant and leaving it out would mean more accuracy by detecting MQA files that aren't properly named.

 

Whithout the first step, one simply would not need to append "mqa" to the filename.

[lucretius]

7 minutes ago, Cebolla said:

 

 

Audivana is also supposed to look for presence of at least one of the MQA related (non-standard) FLAC file tags, eg, MQAENCODER & ORIGINALSAMPLERATE. See this post by Damien which also explains his reasoning for Audirvana not automatically engaging MQA decoder:

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/55491-qobuz-streaming-mqa-cds/?do=findComment&comment=923276

 

 

Thanks for the explanation.

 

The software only need check a few bits at the front of the file.  The software doesn't have to begin decoding.  I do not see much savings doing it the Audirvana way.  Also, you could check the file just once and have the MQA marker saved in Audirvana's database.

 

[OldHardwareTech]

7 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Whithout the first step, one simply would not need to append "mqa" to the filename.

The only real reason for doing it that way would be to save some processing power and speed things up.  I don't know how much more processing it would take to leave the first step out but there didn't seem to be any delay when I played the flac I had misnamed as MQA.  I am using a fairly fast system though so it's possible there was a delay that I couldn't preceive.

 

Edit: changed tense of played

[lucretius]

2 minutes ago, OldHardwareTech said:

... there didn't seem to be any delay when I tried to play the flac I had misnamed as MQA.

 

Indeed.  USB Audio Player Pro (a cheap Android app) doesn't have any delays by skipping the first step.

[lucretius]

31 minutes ago, Cebolla said:

Presumably that FLAC file you tested Audirvana with also doesn't have any of those tags.

 

That is correct.

[OldHardwareTech]

4 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

That is correct.

Thanks for replying to that, I would have had to assume. 

[lucretius]

36 minutes ago, OldHardwareTech said:

Thanks for replying to that, I would have had to assume. 

 

I captured the bits from a Tidal stream (when I had Tidal).  I added metadata and artwork myself.  It never occurred to me to add MQAENCODER and ORIGINALSAMPLERATE file tags.

 

I should also note that Roon doesn't require the above file tags or "mqa" appended to the file name in order to correctly identify the file as MQA 192.

[KeenObserver]

None of this crap would be necessary if not for MQA.

We would simply be playing high res music without having to worry that MQA enabled players were corrupting the music.

We would not be looking at the prospect of an added layer of cost being added to enjoying music.

We would not be looking at the prospect of having no choice in music quality except what MQA tells us is music quality.

[UkPhil]

On 7/30/2021 at 8:06 PM, Cebolla said:

 

As of 30/07/2021 13:30:15, 3931 MQA albums with their copyright notices containing "sony" are on TIDAL, the vast majority, 3885, having been added this month alone - so certainly looks like it's happening. Source:

The most complete list of MQA albums so far found on Tidal - The Hitchhikers Guide To Meridian (meridianunplugged.com)  

I must take a look to see if they are doing the same and converting 16/44.1 versions through the sausage machine like Warner did 

[KeenObserver]

@lucretius

 

Why the big banner saying MQA is dead?  MQA ltd is still listed as an active company at Companies House. They lose millions every year but they are still being underwritten by their financiers, one assumes because they are expecting something big.

 

Do you know something we don't know? If so, is that why you are actively promoting Roon?

[lucretius]

7 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

@lucretius

 

Why the big banner saying MQA is dead?  MQA ltd is still listed as an active company at Companies House. They lose millions every year but they are still being underwritten by their financiers, one assumes because they are expecting something big.

 

It's the belief that whatever I think about, hope for, dare to dream for … will come true. And hopefully others will believe it too.

 

 

14 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Do you know something we don't know? If so, is that why you are actively promoting Roon?

 

I have no insider information.  As far as Roon goes, I get brownie points, I think, for referrals and the new sign-ups get a free month.  If you think the Roon referral is inapropriate, I will remove it.  OTH, I'd like to keep the "MQA is dead!" banner. 

 

 

 

[OldHardwareTech]

2 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

It's the belief that whatever I think about, hope for, dare to dream for … will come true. And hopefully others will believe it too.

 

 

 

I have no insider information.  As far as Roon goes, I get brownie points, I think, for referrals and the new sign-ups get a free month.  If you think the Roon referral is inapropriate, I will remove it.  OTH, I'd like to keep the "MQA is dead!" banner. 

 

 

 

Neither one bothers me, but I'll happily hope and wish MQA is dead right along with you. I see the Roon link as being helpful even if I don't choose to use it. If my input makes any difference I say keep both.

[KeenObserver]

1 minute ago, lucretius said:

 

It's the belief that whatever I think about, hope for, dare to dream for … will come true. And hopefully others will believe it too.

 

 

 

I have no insider information.  As far as Roon goes, I get brownie points, I think, for referrals and the new sign-ups get a free month.  If you think the Roon referral is inapropriate, I will remove it.  OTH, I'd like to keep the "MQA is dead!" banner. 

 

 

 

 

No, absolutely not. Please, do as you wish.

My feelings are that without Tidal, MQA would have virtually no base. Without Roon, Tidal would probably not exist.

That is my belief. We should all be free to make our own choices.

I choose to wish to continue having a free choice in my music.

[KeenObserver]

What color light should we have on equipment that tells us that we are not listening to MQA corrupted music?

[granosalis]

On 7/30/2021 at 4:40 AM, lucretius said:

That is an example of MQA-CD

Do you mean you get it on a phisical format (MQA-CD), or it is in Tidal in 16bit format?

[lucretius]

28 minutes ago, granosalis said:

Do you mean you get it on a phisical format (MQA-CD), or it is in Tidal in 16bit format?

 

It's on Tidal (and some on Qobuz too) in 16 bit format.  This format is also used for physical distribution via CD.

https://www.mqa.co.uk/mqa-cd

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

What color light should we have on equipment that tells us that we are not listening to MQA corrupted music?

 

Yellow light, of course, since only yellow light could cancel out the blue light.  😃

 

[KeenObserver]

MQA claims to "improve" the recording.  It does in fact alter the music. Some people claim they like MQA. Perhaps they do, in fact, prefer MQA. That, perhaps, could be attributed to expectational bias.

The music consumer is already free to manipulate their music to their choice, without MQA.

The music consumer can choose whatever filter they wish to use, to suit their taste, without MQA dictating the use of their controversial filter.

The music consumer is free to apply DSP to their music to suit their taste, their equipment, and their room.

And, the music consumer is free to turn up their volume, to match MQA volume.

The music consumer is already free to do this without paying royalties to a useless scheme.

 

Can you apply DSP to MQA?

[OldHardwareTech]

You can apply dsp to MQA, it just has to be done post unfolding.  A MQA dac that outputs analog to an integrated receiver with dsp is one way.  Don't mistake that for an endorsement of MQA in any way, shape, or form. Count me as one who'd be happier if it was never even conceived. 

[lucretius]

15 hours ago, OldHardwareTech said:

You can apply dsp to MQA, it just has to be done post unfolding.

 

Yes. If you are satisfied with only the first "unfold" from the MQA core decoder in Roon (or other software), then you can apply DSP (without outputting to analog).  Also, if you wanted further "unfolds", I believe it could be done; you need an MQA renderer that supports rendering operation from Roon's MQA core decoder. (Some MQA DACS do not support this.)  Also, Meridian has DSP loud speakers that can accept the output from an MQA core decoder and can apply DSP, as well as, MQA rendering.  There are likely other options -- they just need to get between the MQA core decoder and the later MQA rendering.

[Cebolla]

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

Also, if you wanted further "unfolds", I believe it could be done; you need an MQA renderer that supports rendering operation from Roon's MQA core decoder. (Some MQA DACS do not support this.)  Also, Meridian has DSP loud speakers that can accept the output from an MQA core decoder and can apply DSP, as well as, MQA rendering.

 

You'd expect applying DSP to the MQA Core signal would corrupt the MQA Core signal's encoded MQA rendering data - Roon must be using some special MQA functions which somehow preserve and/or restore the MQA rendering data when DSP is applied.

[Kal Rubinson]

19 minutes ago, Cebolla said:

 

You'd expect applying DSP to the MQA Core signal would corrupt the MQA Core signal's encoded MQA rendering data - Roon must be using some special MQA functions which somehow preserve and/or restore the MQA rendering data when DSP is applied.

I was told a couple of years back that DSP could be accomplished exactly that way: first unfold with storage of rendering data, DSP, restoration of data, rendering.