Article: MQA (for civilians)

[Melvin]

Provenance yes, but not in the sense that many see it. MQA guarantees provenance from the label. Once the file is distributed, there is a guarantee it will reach the consumer without alteration. I never thought this was an issue until I talked to more people involved in the distribution and sale of music.

 

Labels are always free to deliver what they want (44.1 native or 44.1 upsampled to 352.8, etc...). MQA just guarantees we receive what the label sold.

 

I see what you're saying more clearly now. Still, I think the whole end-to-end aspect of MQA is a positive step in that direction, especially if the artist is signing off. Maybe I'm just being naive or foolish.

[miguelito]

When I think about lossy, I ask myself what is lost. With MP3 and AAC real music is lost. With MQA I don't believe real music is lost. MQA changes digital, making existing terminology require more discussion than in the past.

Lossy means you lost information...

 

Does it sound better than the original file? In many cases it does seem to be the case - could be MQA itself or a careful remastering (I bet you it is the latter). Regadless, I enjoy some albums more in their MeQA version than otherwise. And this is with software decoding alone.

[The Computer Audiophile]

True. The same is true with upsampling: most of the time we are listening to an upsampled version of the original file and we like it. My point is MQA per-se is not a better solution than delivering the high res file itself. Whether the difference can be heard, or whether the result of hardware decoding compensates for shortcoming in cheaper DAC chips are different questions.

 

 

Many MQA titles I've listened to sound better than other versions I have, including the ones billed as "high resolution" (eg Joni Mitchell's 'Blue' or 'Both Sides Now'). I frankly don't care what shenanigans MQA is coming up, I like the result, and as such I will be a customer.

 

I look at it similarly. I'm a customer. If a product is offered that I like, I'll buy it. If it's something I must have but I can't have exactly what I want, I'll select the best option and get on with my life.

[Melvin]

snip ... I frankly don't care what shenanigans MQA is coming up, I like the result, and as such I will be a customer.

 

+1

[The Computer Audiophile]

Lossy means you lost information...

 

Does it sound better than the original file? In many cases it does seem to be the case - could be MQA itself or a careful remastering (I bet you it is the latter). Regadless, I enjoy some albums more in their MeQA version than otherwise. And this is with software decoding alone.

 

I can't argue with your definition :~)

 

It may be helpful for me to start a different discussion about "old" lossy versus MQA lossy.

[Melvin]

When I think about lossy, I ask myself what is lost. With MP3 and AAC real music is lost. With MQA I don't believe real music is lost. MQA changes digital, making existing terminology require more discussion than in the past.

 

This seems to be a real stumbling block for many (i.e., lossy=bad therefore ...). As you say, it's not the same as lossy MP3's etc.

[miguelito]

I can't argue with your definition :~)

 

It may be helpful for me to start a different discussion about "old" lossy versus MQA lossy.

That's like walking into a Louisiana town with a Bernie Sanders banner. You're on your own, man!

[mansr]

This seems to be a real stumbling block for many (i.e., lossy=bad therefore ...). As you say, it's not the same as lossy MP3's etc.

 

Lossy is by definition not as good as lossless. Sometimes the loss is audible, sometimes it isn't. Even mp3 can be very hard to distinguish from lossless in many cases. The trouble is with those cases where there is an audible difference. No matter how many tracks you listen to without noticing the loss, the next one you play may be the one that sounds terrible. Is that a risk you're willing to take?

[kissov]

Further mudding of the MQA waters not a very good explanation I'm afraid

[Melvin]

Lossy is by definition not as good as lossless. Sometimes the loss is audible, sometimes it isn't. Even mp3 can be very hard to distinguish from lossless in many cases. The trouble is with those cases where there is an audible difference. No matter how many tracks you listen to without noticing the loss, the next one you play may be the one that sounds terrible. Is that a risk you're willing to take?

 

Well, I'm willing to actually listen to it for myself, hopefully without prejudice, just as I did with other lossy compression schemes. IMO there is still enough regular old PCM out there to last me a lifetime if MQA is indeed BS.

[Account Closed]

MQA on Tidal.

 

Before you try MQA on Tidal on a Windows computer, read this thread. I don't know if Tidal has fixed this bug yet.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/tidal-windows-bug-prevents-mqa-31298/

[labjr]

I don't stream and probably won't. I also don't think audiophiles are gonna drive the market. Pono has failed. DSD isn't popular. All the publications and web sites rave about the latest technology and then it seems to go nowhere. We'll see with Tidal but the company seems to need cash infusions all the time.

 

I'll spend more money on discs this year then streaming and Roon etc. I'm not paying for a subscription for liner notes that should come with those expensive downloads. I got the Yes remix albums on BluRay for cheap money and they have tons of material 5.1 mixes etc.

[yrrah]

This was the most suspicious piece of the whole writeup in my opinion. In my testing, defeating the software unfolding in the Tidal desktop app and playing the "direct pass through" on my Musical Fidelity M6si's USB input (which has never heard of MQA) sounded noticeably worse than the Red Book versions of the same tracks. Duller, flatter, less dynamic and with a narrower stereo image. Software unfolding is a must to make these files sound passable.

 

It would also be great to get some clarity around Auralic's plans concerning software unfolding on its Aries line - their Facebook page made some mention of a forthcoming "proprietary upsampling" algorithm, but it sounds like MQA unfolding is more than a simple up sample.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

[The Computer Audiophile]

Lossy is by definition not as good as lossless.

 

Absolutely incorrect. You're taking an objective standard, lossy, and applying subjective commentary and suggesting it's the definition.

 

Lossy can be equally as good. I'm not saying please give me the lossy versions of music, but I'm saying you shouldn't promote your view as fact and "by definition."

 

When you say not as good, do you mean subjective sound quality? Do you mean not as good because the goal is to make the largest file sizes? Please help.

[miguelito]

Absolutely incorrect. You're taking an objective standard, lossy, and applying subjective commentary and suggesting it's the definition.

I think we would all agree that lossy compression "loses" something and as such something is missing. I think we would all agree that if MQA was lossless, we would not be arguing about this. Does MQA's lossy nature make for better sound? No, and there's a chance that we will find cases where the lossy feature can be heard.

 

Now to the practical side of reality: MQA is here. Strictly lossless MQA is not. Would I like MQA to be lossless? Yes. Would I like MQA decoding to be open source? Yes. Would I like to have a different president? Yes. But that's not what we have so we will have to move forward.

 

Do I like the sound of MQA? Yes.

[labjr]

In my opinion, MQA is marketed as a package of de-blurring and compression because it appears to be a greater value than just the de-blurring alone would be. I think every DAC and audio sofware could probably come up with a de-blurring correction thingy. But the compression part of it seems too complex. However it's not really needed all the time. I'm guessing they won't sell the deblurring a-la-carte for those reasons.

[labjr]

I think we would all agree that lossy compression "loses" something and as such something is missing. I think we would all agree that if MQA was lossless, we would not be arguing about this. Does MQA's lossy nature make for better sound? No, and there's a chance that we will find cases where the lossy feature can be heard.

 

Now to the practical side of reality: MQA is here. Strictly lossless MQA is not. Would I like MQA to be lossless? Yes. Would I like MQA decoding to be open source? Yes. Would I like to have a different president? Yes. But that's not what we have so we will have to move forward.

 

Do I like the sound of MQA? Yes.

 

The thing is, it's new! If we could compare lossy-lossless to de-blurred without the lossy-lossless compression, there probably are differences but they'll never allow that. The demos have been carefully crafted thus far.

[miguelito]

The thing is, it's new! If we could compare lossy-lossless to de-blurred without the lossy-lossless compression, there probably are differences but they'll never allow that. The demos have been carefully crafted thus far.

I listened to MQA at Meridian in NYC in March 2015. The MQA files in the demo sounded way better than the "standard" files. The people giving the demos were either completely ignorant or deceptive as they would not answer any of my questions. And I do not believe the MQA versions came from the same master. So really very deceitful if you ask me, frankly.

 

But... Do I like the sound of many of the MQA albums on TIDAL? Yes. Are they better than even my so-called hi res versions of these albums? Almost across the board the answer is: Yes. Is it because of MQA, deblurring, origami, or some of Bob Stuart's hair interspersed in the file? I don't know and I frankly don't quite care. Call me a cynical pragmatist.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I think we would all agree that lossy compression "loses" something and as such something is missing. I think we would all agree that if MQA was lossless, we would not be arguing about this. Does MQA's lossy nature make for better sound? No, and there's a chance that we will find cases where the lossy feature can be heard.

 

Now to the practical side of reality: MQA is here. Strictly lossless MQA is not. Would I like MQA to be lossless? Yes. Would I like MQA decoding to be open source? Yes. Would I like to have a different president? Yes. But that's not what we have so we will have to move forward.

 

Do I like the sound of MQA? Yes.

 

Your comment made me think of an additional unrelated item. Many people with objective points of view only, have frequently pointed to Monty's claim that high resolution is actually detrimental to audio. Then some of these same people are angry that the ultra high resolution content of MQA files has been removed. Ahhhh. The madness.

 

Let's just listen. As you say, MQA is here.

[Account Closed]

Like it or not, MQA is as close as most people are ever going to get to mainstream musician music released by the big studios and it will likely be thru streaming.

[Axiom05]

It would be interesting to know how many Tidal users are actually choosing the MQA tracks. How many Tidal users even know what MQA is?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[james45974]

There are a couple of points that still seem unclear to me.

 

1. With the music that has been released so far with MQA being described as "remastered" I wonder if people are reacting to the remaster itself or to the MQA process? I guess we will probably never know, I doubt if the record companies will release the remasters in any other format without MQA.

 

2. As far as I can tell you never know what you are getting. If you had the software and hardware to do a full MQA decode of a file from Tidal how do you know what should be playing? Will it be 32/384, 24/96, etc.? It seems like this is being kept secret for some reason. If you buy a download from anyone like Apple, HD Tracks, Acoustic Sounds, you can order what you want and you know exactly what you are getting.

 

I still am on the skeptic side of the fence on MQA and the more I read about it the more I think of P.T. Barnum.

[Jud]

True. The same is true with upsampling: most of the time we are listening to an upsampled version of the original file and we like it. My point is MQA per-se is not a better solution than delivering the high res file itself. Whether the difference can be heard, or whether the result of hardware decoding compensates for shortcoming in cheaper DAC chips are different questions.

 

 

Many MQA titles I've listened to sound better than other versions I have, including the ones billed as "high resolution" (eg Joni Mitchell's 'Blue' or 'Both Sides Now'). I frankly don't care what shenanigans MQA is coming up, I like the result, and as such I will be a customer.

 

Hi Miguel -

 

Blue sounded better to me in the 24/192 HDTracks hi res version than in the MQA version "unfolded" to 24/192 by software, both upsampled to DSD256.

 

How were you listening to it?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[miguelito]

Blue sounded better to me in the 24/192 HDTracks hi res version than in the MQA version "unfolded" to 24/192 by software, both upsampled to DSD256.

 

 

How were you listening to it?

I have the HDTracks 24/192. That was playing through Roon+HQP (possibly some 1:1 filtering in HQP). For comparison purposes only, I captured the TIDAL software decoded MQA version (to a 24/96 file) and played it in Roon+HQP (HQP now upsampling to 24/192).

 

Mitchell's voice had a presence and naturalness that was better than the 24/192 HDTracks file. My system is particularly adept at voice reproduction, I would say.

[Jud]

I have the HDTracks 24/192. That was playing through Roon+HQP (possibly some 1:1 filtering in HQP). For comparison purposes only, I captured the TIDAL software decoded MQA version (to a 24/96 file) and played it in Roon+HQP (HQP now upsampling to 24/192).

 

Mitchell's voice had a presence and naturalness that was better than the 24/192 HDTracks file. My system is particularly adept at voice reproduction, I would say.

 

So definitely HQP filtering with the MQA version plus whatever filtering accompanied the downsampling to 24/96, versus possible 1:1 filtering with the non-MQA file.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile