MQA is Vaporware

[The Computer Audiophile]

26 minutes ago, Stereo said:

Deezer has been trying to do this for a couple of years now already:  https://en.deezercommunity.com/product-updates/27

Yes, but hasn’t been able to get the rights holders to sign off. 

[Stereo]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yes, but hasn’t been able to get the rights holders to sign off. 

Right but that begs the question; how is Tidal able to do it and in a seemingly shorter timetable?

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Stereo said:

Right but that begs the question; how is Tidal able to do it and in a seemingly shorter timetable?

To hit the time table Tidal has over one year to do it. Who knows if the company will. Being owned by Square likely won’t hurt. 

[Archimago]

Well, these are good changes to Tidal I think, at least in terms of potentially phasing out MQA. Money talks and the extra cost of the "HiFi+" tier I think is going to mean further reduction in mQa demand ahead.

 

Personally, I wish the Atmos/Sony 360 content was part of the lossless HiFi plan. As it stands, Tidal still doesn't really compete with Apple Music which has lossless hi-res (if one cares) and multichannel at $10. But Roon/device compatibility is good and the main benefit for Tidal.

 

Looking forward to analysis of the 16/44.1 stream for mQa corruption ;-).

 

Obviously, I need to say something about this on my blog (and the legacy/role Stereophile, Atkinson, et al. played in all this nonsense).

 

[UkPhil]

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

Well, these are good changes to Tidal I think, at least in terms of potentially phasing out MQA. Money talks and the extra cost of the "HiFi+" tier I think is going to mean further reduction in mQa demand ahead.

 

Personally, I wish the Atmos/Sony 360 content was part of the lossless HiFi plan. As it stands, Tidal still doesn't really compete with Apple Music which has lossless hi-res (if one cares) and multichannel at $10. But Roon/device compatibility is good and the main benefit for Tidal.

 

Looking forward to analysis of the 16/44.1 stream for mQa corruption ;-).

 

Obviously, I need to say something about this on my blog (and the legacy/role Stereophile, Atkinson, et al. played in all this nonsense).

 

Let’s hope they are Red Book copies this needs to be confirmed as far as I was aware original 16/44.1 files were replaced by MQA (15bit versions) covering Warners and Sony releases I’m sure Universal was going to follow 

[rn701]

It appears Tidal Hifi (non-plus) users are getting 16/44.1 MQA for some titles:

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/new-pricing-for-tidal/177479/58

 

(I still don't get the point of 16/44.1 MQA.)

[bambadoo]

From a consumer point of view there is no point

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, rn701 said:

(I still don't get the point of 16/44.1 MQA.)

It's about money and control.

[Cebolla]

1 hour ago, rn701 said:

It appears Tidal Hifi (non-plus) users are getting 16/44.1 MQA for some titles:

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/new-pricing-for-tidal/177479/58

 

I don't see this as surprising, given that Australian TIDAL users reported such when the new TIDAL tier structure was first introduced there about 6 months ago:

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

 

To summarise (again):

If you happen to select an MQA labelled track for streaming, the HiFi quality connection sources that very same MQA track for the stream - it does not magically provide a lossless version in its place:

- If it's an MQA-CD track then it streams unhindered;

- if it's a 24-bit MQA track then its bit depth is truncated to16 bits;

- if the MQA track's (undecoded) sample rate is 48kHz then it's downsampled to 44.1kHz.

 

The track will be lossless only if you have selected a true lossless CD-res track, ie, one that isn't labelled as MQA - not many of those left on TIDAL.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Cebolla said:

 

I don't see this as surprising, given that Australian TIDAL users reported such when the new TIDAL tier structure was first introduced there about 6 months ago:

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

 

To summarise (again):

If you happen to select an MQA labelled track for streaming, the HiFi quality connection sources that very same MQA track for the stream - it does not magically provide a lossless version in its place:

- If it's an MQA-CD track then it streams unhindered;

- if it's a 24-bit MQA track then its bit depth is truncated to16 bits;

- if the MQA track's (undecoded) sample rate is 48kHz then it's downsampled to 44.1kHz.

 

The track will be lossless only if you have selected a true lossless CD-res track, ie, one that isn't labelled as MQA - not many of those left on TIDAL.

That's quite a DSP hamburger grinder in the cloud. 

[Cebolla]

Indeed. Not to mention that the blue light still shines for the bit depth truncated MQA tracks, but only if they haven't been downsampled as well - those are real special as they've been so corrupted that not even the MQA DAC can tell that they are MQA. 

[Cebolla]

It's rather ironic that the only way for normal users to be certain of receiving a true lossless non-MQA sourced CD-res track from TIDAL is to both have the top tier HiFi Plus account (connecting with a Masters quality setting) and an MQA DAC (to not display the blue light)!

[bogi]

3 hours ago, rn701 said:

(I still don't get the point of 16/44.1 MQA.)

That's the way to lower resolution - then it does not even reach 16 bits. The next step will be to ask more money for 16 bits.

[Ryan Berry]

I was really hopeful when I saw the tier news from Tidal and that MQA was "HiFi Plus".  I thought I could just get the lower tier and MQA would stop infiltrating my listening tests (I do everything I can to shut it off), but if we're just getting lower rate MQA files even in the plain "HiFi" tier, it looks like I still need to be really cautious.

 

As a story: just the other day I was doing some pretty serious listening with one of our QX-5's that the customer said just didn't sound very good to him.  He purchased it and was really excited to get into digital audio and we were really scratching our heads at what may have been wrong with the unit.  It measured perfectly, it sounded great, I had multiple people (including visitors) listening to it and never heard a problem.  We just couldn't figure it out.  Finally decided to roll through some other music sources and did some testing with the Ethernet using our Tidal account.  The first song sounded TERRIBLE.  We had the same song on our network, so I switched from the Tidal library to the network library with BubbleUPnP and it was night and day different.  The song stopped sounding like it had distorted bass and that it was being sampled from a MP3 file.

So back I went to Tidal and found another song.  The next song was great!  So now I was really scratching my head.  Maybe it was a bad recording?  I went back to the original song as I knew there was about 10 different hits pop up when I searched for it and that's when I saw the dreaded red "M" next to the song.  I looked back at the other song in Tidal and sure enough, no red M.  I thought I had changed my settings so that it wouldn't play MQA files, but I believe I did that running Tidal through MConnect, not BubbleUPnP, which uses a different app to interface with Tidal.  At least it was a good reminder how bad the technology sounds.  It's a shame it's so difficult to keep Tidal from forcing it into my system.  For the end of the story, found out the customer was using Tidal as well, so he plans on trying it with another service to see what he thinks.  I suspect he'll have good results.

[Axiom05]

Simple solution Ryan, dump Tidal. 😁 Talk about an unreliable source for evaluating equipment.

[Ryan Berry]

55 minutes ago, Axiom05 said:

Simple solution Ryan, dump Tidal. 😁 Talk about an unreliable source for evaluating equipment.

Yeah, unfortunately I need it for testing purposes as a manufacturer.  Not my go-to right now, for certain.  It's a pity, it had potential.

[Nikhil]

 

I got back on Tidal this March to check out a new streamer.

Everything Ryan says is so true and absolutely frustrating. MQA is a complete scam.

 

I dumped Tidal (again) last month and now use Qobuz which sounds very close to local file playback.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

[UkPhil]

I see with the new Tidal marketing push they seem to be shifting the onus on quality streaming to the Hifi tier which is non MQA only a few months ago MQA was touted as the way to “hear your music as the artist intended” now it’s just good “ole” 16/44.1, the only issue here is how many files do they have that are not “red book” standard and are being modified from MQA versions as these are the only ones left on the platform. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, UkPhil said:

I see with the new Tidal marketing push they seem to be shifting the onus on quality streaming to the Hifi tier which is non MQA only a few months ago MQA was touted as the way to “hear your music as the artist intended” now it’s just good “ole” 16/44.1, the only issue here is how many files do they have that are not “red book” standard and are being modified from MQA versions as these are the only ones left on the platform. 

Will have to put that “lossless quality” claim to the test. 16/44 mQa, whether it’s labeled mQa or not, isn’t lossless, as you know. 

[James lee]

No. It said "lossless quality sound".

Like "natural taste" on food products.

 

[Pierre LeMonf]

Good evening gents:

 

This interview with the current Editor of Stereophile is intriguing. 

 

http://highfidelity.pl/@main-1134&lang=en

 

"But I'm pretty convinced at this point that high-resolution digital – let us say 24/192 PCM and certainly DXD – is capable of total transparency, at least for me. Maybe others can detect a sonic signature – but play me an exquisitely made 24/192 needle drop and I can't distinguish it from the original vinyl. To me, high-res digital is a (potentially) transparent container for music, with no sound of its own, while vinyl is a true medium that has a particular sound."

 

If this is SO..and and 24/192 PCM is totally transparent, why does speak out of the other side of his mouth about why MQA is valid?

[Pierre LeMonf]

A question for others much better verse than I am:

 

How much as MQA infiltrated 16/44.1 streams and downloads?

 

Merci in advance.

[The Computer Audiophile]

24 minutes ago, Pierre LeMonf said:

Good evening gents:

 

This interview with the current Editor of Stereophile is intriguing. 

 

http://highfidelity.pl/@main-1134&lang=en

 

"But I'm pretty convinced at this point that high-resolution digital – let us say 24/192 PCM and certainly DXD – is capable of total transparency, at least for me. Maybe others can detect a sonic signature – but play me an exquisitely made 24/192 needle drop and I can't distinguish it from the original vinyl. To me, high-res digital is a (potentially) transparent container for music, with no sound of its own, while vinyl is a true medium that has a particular sound."

 

If this is SO..and and 24/192 PCM is totally transparent, why does speak out of the other side of his mouth about why MQA is valid?

Could ask him @Jim Austin

[Stereo]

3 hours ago, Pierre LeMonf said:

A question for others much better verse than I am:

 

How much as MQA infiltrated 16/44.1 streams and downloads?

 

Merci in advance.

It’s completely polluted Tidal at least for now.

[KeenObserver]

This whole MQA thing just astounds me!

Most get rich schemes just die when they are exposed for what they are.

Look at Bernie Maddoff.

Look at Enron.

Now look at MQA. It just keeps on going and going. Even after every aspect of it has been debunked and it has been shown to be nothing but a scheme to extract money from the music consumer.

 

Promises had to have been made.

 

No start up scheme continues to lose money for seven years!