Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA CD a true scam as 16bits are now also made from 24bits masters.


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

image.png.172e368a3171d0ea5bcb6739d685c986.png

 

MQA vs RedBook vs Hires (24/96).

 

 

The MQA is like this:

 

image.thumb.png.57dc2e9d6208eceae10385bcc0348ce2.png

 

In this case those who claim that MQA is about twice as large, are correct. 😏

 

Next up: I don't think that Foobar can decode MQA. Can it ?

So Foobar should be playing MQA as 16/48 Redbook (not 16/44,1) and this is how your FLAC's get slightly larger (like size / 44.1 x 48).

The last thing what's required is that you set the Operating System to upsample to 24/96.

 

Done.

 

PS: The only thing where I could theoretically be wrong is on Foobar's capability to decode MQA. But I have read so much non-sense about that, that ...

 

... your turn ...

 

This is not correct.  If foobar is set to bit perfect playback, then the file will be unmangled and be appropriately recognized as MQA or not by the DAC's hardware decoder.  The only time you need a player with a built-in software decoder is when you do not have an MQA enabled DAC.

 

 

MQA is dead!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

b. the sheer fact that the 24 bit files are too small.

 

Ad b. Only when FLAC can very easily compress them this could theoretically be so, but I never saw that for MQA.

Btw, MQA is not twice the size. Just 16/2 x 3 (=24).

 

I'm not sure what you are talking about here.  An MQA stream (16/44.1 or 24/44.1 or 24/48) is similar to a PCM stream of the same bit depth and sample rate; both streams are encapsulated and compressed in a FLAC container.   

 

 

MQA is dead!

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, lucretius said:

The only time you need a player with a built-in software decoder is when you do not have an MQA enabled DAC.

I believe it is a bit more complicated. Are MQA Renderers MQA-enabled DACs? They still need software decoder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, danadam said:

I believe it is a bit more complicated. Are MQA Renderers MQA-enabled DACs? They still need software decoder.

 

I don't usually refer to an "MQA Renderer" DAC  as an "MQA enabled" DAC.  (You remind me that I have not used my Dragonfly DAC in a while.)

MQA is dead!

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, lucretius said:
13 hours ago, PeterSt said:

image.png.172e368a3171d0ea5bcb6739d685c986.png

 

MQA vs RedBook vs Hires (24/96).

 

 

The MQA is like this:

 

image.thumb.png.57dc2e9d6208eceae10385bcc0348ce2.png

 

In this case those who claim that MQA is about twice as large, are correct. 😏

 

Next up: I don't think that Foobar can decode MQA. Can it ?

So Foobar should be playing MQA as 16/48 Redbook (not 16/44,1) and this is how your FLAC's get slightly larger (like size / 44.1 x 48).

The last thing what's required is that you set the Operating System to upsample to 24/96.

 

Done.

 

PS: The only thing where I could theoretically be wrong is on Foobar's capability to decode MQA. But I have read so much non-sense about that, that ...

 

... your turn ...

 

11 hours ago, lucretius said:

This is not correct.  If foobar is set to bit perfect playback, then the file will be unmangled and be appropriately recognized as MQA or not by the DAC's hardware decoder.  The only time you need a player with a built-in software decoder is when you do not have an MQA enabled DAC.

 

Hmm ... there is something else I had not correct, which causes the above to be not understandable;

 

Somehow I read in it all that the HiRes was 96 (see the remarks about Pulse never existed in HiRes as such, and that it could only come from an audio stream on a (movie) DVD. Next I depended strongly on this:

 

image.png.373f7fae9da1121625b0297ea8e6c23a.png

 

which, mind you, is from the Operating System and not from a DAC. However, where I "saw" 96000 yesterday in the place where today clearly 44100 shows, could it not have been Foobar doing that (undecoded MQA will never show a sampling rate higher than 48000).

But

When the OS is set to upsample to 96KHz, it will do that and it would show after all.

 

Concluded (on this part), I was incorrect at something else, which made my (quoted) post nonsensical.

 

 

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2      Ethernet^2     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2020 at 9:46 AM, PeterSt said:

 

Hmm ... there is something else I had not correct, which causes the above to be not understandable;

 

Somehow I read in it all that the HiRes was 96 (see the remarks about Pulse never existed in HiRes as such, and that it could only come from an audio stream on a (movie) DVD. Next I depended strongly on this:

 

image.png.373f7fae9da1121625b0297ea8e6c23a.png

 

which, mind you, is from the Operating System and not from a DAC. However, where I "saw" 96000 yesterday in the place where today clearly 44100 shows, could it not have been Foobar doing that (undecoded MQA will never show a sampling rate higher than 48000).

But

When the OS is set to upsample to 96KHz, it will do that and it would show after all.

 

Concluded (on this part), I was incorrect at something else, which made my (quoted) post nonsensical.

 

 

 


Hi PeterSt.

As foobar is not MQA aware at all, it will always show the original (folded) 44100 Hz (or 48000 Hz) - so never the higher sample rates.
I had to look at my DAC to see the actual sample rate the MQA was made from. And for both it shows 44.1 (kHz) next to the MQA symbol.

Now it seems that both flacs contained the same MQA streams... one in a 16bit flac and the other in a 24bit flac where every third byte would have been be zero (before compressing to flac of course). 

Apparently that extra added third byte - 8 bits that are always zero - leads to 25MB of extra compressed! data on that album - something I still cannot comprehend as compressing even a billion zeroes could be done in a few bytes i.s.o 25MBs, but maybe the flac compression mechanism isn't looking if every third byte is zero and just processes the complete stream without looking at bitdepth etc... 

That is also the reason I made some wrong assumptions in the posts above about the compression rate. 
Sorry for that to everyone ! No need to attack me by stating lies that I don't know foobar is not MQA capable.
I know it's not capable of that, but it will play a flac (MQA or not) bitperfectly to a dac and if the DAC is a 
decoder (not a renderer !) it WILL decoder MQAs.


Now that is off my chest, I'll come back to the original post...

Today I checked another album : ID 249652 - The Road to Hell - Chris Rea
(you can check the ID with "...>share>copy album link" and then paste it in notepad)

As some still won't believe the foobar story, I redid the check with Audirvana !

It plays as a 16bit now... but on november 14th !

Playing the locally stored file (of November 14th!) it show 24bit in Audirvana
image.png.6b26ad2e914c048e2f7b118801b1a8df.png

Now play that album from Tidal Audirvana... it's 16bit !
(and yes THAT locally stored file is now as well 16 bit)
image.png.fb4284e094d3d055bb490f3b42236b1f.png

This is another (24bit) container that apparently HAD a 16bit MQA in it when it was released in
as the file size of the whole album is only 6MB bigger in size (not 25MB here!)

Something clearly went wrong (more than) two weeks ago - which I by accident found out purely by comparing sound quality of 16bit MQA's vs CDs - and which resulted in me starting this thread.

And no - I cannot make 24bit (or 16bit) MQAs myself.
Nor did I put those in flac containers. Those were released like that.
So something clearly went wrong !

Sir Bob Stuart is investigating this I noticed and I can only support that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Appelflapje said:

Sir Bob Stuart is investigating this I noticed and I can only support that.

 

Can you please give us a link to that ?

 

If it further helps you: It is totally clear that the same AlbumID's of normal Redbook CD now contain MQA's in 16/44.1 without unfold.

But this is a different issue than what you are talking about.

 

It is all quite messy, and I am traying to amend my software so it can make something of it. Otoh, if something went wrong, as you say, then I better stop doing that. Anyway this is why I like to see a link to Bob Stuart investigating it. Thanks !

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2      Ethernet^2     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Can you please give us a link to that ?

 

If it further helps you: It is totally clear that the same AlbumID's of normal Redbook CD now contain MQA's in 16/44.1 without unfold.

But this is a different issue than what you are talking about.

 

It is all quite messy, and I am traying to amend my software so it can make something of it. Otoh, if something went wrong, as you say, then I better stop doing that. Anyway this is why I like to see a link to Bob Stuart investigating it. Thanks !

Here you go ! ;-).
I don't know if it happened when those millions of Warner 16bit 44.1kHz tracks were published.
(are those Warner publications ? I don't know as I didn't check) 
It is possible it happened then... or maybe it happened even before that.
I can only see what was there on the times specified by the file dates (and sizes!) of the flacs.

 

On 11/26/2020 at 8:47 PM, UkPhil said:

Bob has responded

 

 

F5B67061-3E90-407B-AC10-C7A7E60235B6.jpeg


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Appelflapje said:

Here you go ! ;-).

 

Thank you !

 

... To me that seems an explanation of the other way around. That is why I asked for a link. Not a screenshot.

But for your information too: this seems an out of context explanation, given to someone on a different subject / question.

If you have no link, it is fine. But then you also have no case. 🤪

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2      Ethernet^2     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Thank you !

 

... To me that seems an explanation of the other way around. That is why I asked for a link. Not a screenshot.

But for your information too: this seems an out of context explanation, given to someone on a different subject / question.

If you have no link, it is fine. But then you also have no case. 🤪

Seriously ?

1. I didn't post that screenshot. Someone else did. (look the name is there !)

2. Look at the specific '848kbps' that Sir Bob Stuart mentions in this screenshot...
now look at one of my first posts (foobar screenshot of the 24bit flac ... now what bitrate can you see there?)

That doesn't seem like he's responding to something else to me. ("But for your information too: ..."

3. "Something went wrong >importing<".  That's a process before distribuating it over the servers of Tidal. That's what I make from that.
Not "something went wrong streaming/downloading" which could point at me then. 

And it should be easy to investigate it going through logfiles of servers as the filesizes were bigger than they are now.

I'll stop discussing here. Believe what you want... it's okay for me. As long as you're happy. 
Do keep replying if it makes you feel better, but I won't look at those replies any longer.

This was my last post.
Bye and do try to enjoy the end of the year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Appelflapje said:

Seriously ?

 

Yes, Seriously.

Of course YOU posted that screenshot. ... With me saying that you grabbed it from someone else.

And so things again don't fit ?

 

Are you from Belgium or from South Africa ? To me that makes a difference in approaching and interpreting people.

(you changed your country after a few posts)

 

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2      Ethernet^2     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 11/26/2020 at 9:23 PM, Appelflapje said:
Tidal is distribuating 16bit MQA's now made from 24bit masters ! THIS IS WHAT I CALL CHEATING !

Pink Floyd - Pulse was 24bit the 15th of november and the master has apparently later degraded to 16bit !
 

 

The version I get does not look like MQA.

 

Please recheck.

 

My Track 2 "Astronomy Domine (Live)" FLAC filesize is 27515519

Peter Lie

LUMIN Firmware Lead

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, wklie said:

 

The version I get does not look like MQA.

 

Please recheck.

 

My Track 2 "Astronomy Domine (Live)" FLAC filesize is 27515519

It seems that the world has caught on to all the ills of MQA so they have to hide them under the moniker "Master"

 

Skærmbillede 2020-12-15 kl. 23.01.45.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many albums on Tidal are now flac 44.1 MQA, file size is nearly identical to files ripped from the same CD.  If MQA uses the lower bits to encode some extra information in a 'magic' way, then we can conclude that everybody who plays a Tidal 44.1/16 "hi-res" file on standard streaming equipment (e.g. a receiver  with Tidal support) will not get the advertised CD quality.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, vulcan said:

Many albums on Tidal are now flac 44.1 MQA, file size is nearly identical to files ripped from the same CD.  If MQA uses the lower bits to encode some extra information in a 'magic' way, then we can conclude that everybody who plays a Tidal 44.1/16 "hi-res" file on standard streaming equipment (e.g. a receiver  with Tidal support) will not get the advertised CD quality.  

And as time goes also Universal and Sony will do the same batch conversions of their CD catalogue, the future could be that these files could  find themselves on other lossless sites eg Qobuz / Deezer / Amazon too 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, UkPhil said:

And as time goes also Universal and Sony will do the same batch conversions of their CD catalogue, the future could be that these files could  find themselves on other lossless sites eg Qobuz / Deezer / Amazon too 

Well now Tidal is being flooded with 44.1/16 masters, which are worse than CD, I will cancel my subscription after more than 5 years. If other streaming services also move to MQA, then so be it: no other subscription either. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...