Testing MQA: Is it worse than FLAC?

[saturdayboy]

I think your ignoring the question that might be most important to some:

 

Does an MQA file played through a dac with full MQA capabilities sound better than the 16/44.1, 24/96, 24/192, etc.. alternatives?

 

Who cares if it isn’t truly lossless if it actually sounds a little better?

 

I’m starting to see posts that claim MQA cd’s sound better than SACD’s. It certainly is interesting.

 

[saturdayboy]

I wonder, does expectation work both ways? i.e. those who think MQA is fake news will think it sounds bad?

 

Don’t have any MQA gear, cd’s, or a Tidal subscription personally, but I have a hard time dismissing everyone who says they like how it sounds as flat earthers just because someone analyzed some wave forms and made some observations about them.

[saturdayboy]

This actually involved some listening, which I know is discouraged when MQA bashing is involved.

 

https://audiophilereview.com/cd-dac-digital/a-comparison-of-sacd-vs-mqa-in-physical-format/

[saturdayboy]

Really thoughtful post, although I don’t agree that it’s unfortunate that people will always debate what is subjectively best. We do that with almost everything, why should it be any different with digital file formats/conversion?

[saturdayboy]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

Expectation works both ways. Caveat: it a subconscious process. By definition, you don't know what your expectation bias is. Saying "I expected it to sound better/worse" (take your pick) means nothing.  That's why we have blind testing.

The expectation can be conscious or subconscious. Blind testing eliminates the conscious elements. 

[saturdayboy]

16 minutes ago, firedog said:

Nope.  Look it up. Conscious expectations and subconscious expectations are different. They can also be shown by testing to be opposite; that is you think your bias is one way, but it's shown to be another. Blind testing, done properly, eliminates bias of both types. That's the point. 

From the wiki

 

“It may include conscious or unconscious influences on subject behavior including creation of demand characteristics that influence subjects, and altered or selective recording of experimental results themselves.^[2]”

 

 

[saturdayboy]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

It's a  bunch of blah blah which has zero meaning. He didn't even mention if he knows the MQA and SACD were derived from the same master. Good chance they aren't. If so, you are comparing masters at least as much as formats. 

You aren't a veteran here Lots of us have listened to MQA and even blind tested it. Not sure your attitude is appropriate.

Ok. What about people who are of the opinion that the MQA versions streaming on Tidal are better than the non MQA? I’m pretty sure that more often than not those are the same masters.

The point is are all those people who think it sounds better wrong, and you’re right?

Is personal taste irrelevant in listening?
 

How many times have you challenged someone to perform double blind testing when they tell that one pizza joint is better than another, or they prefer the smell of one rose over another?

[saturdayboy]

20 minutes ago, firedog said:

Again wrong. You looked up only one kind of bias. There are multiple types. I suggest you give up this part of the argument as you are only repeatedly showing you don't understand the basics. 

What I looked up was “expectation bias”, which I thought was what was being discussed. If you search “expectation bias” on Wikipedia you’ll find my quote was taken from that page.

 

Are you an observational psychologist? You seem to claim expert level knowledge in all things relating to perception and bias.

[saturdayboy]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

You have no idea which master is which on Tidal. So same problem.

It's not a question of being wrong or right. It's saying "I hear this in sighted conditions, therefore MQA is shown to be 'better'". 

 

Your final question is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the issue. I haven't said people can't like what they like. Personal taste exists.

 

But that's not the situation with MQA. Saying it as a format sounds better than: CD, SACD, hi-res, etc is a different kind of statement. If you are going to make that kind of statement you need to do a proper comparison. Otherwise it's a comparison and conclusion based on false premises. 

 

BTW, MQA has gone to great lengths to make sure that proper comparisons don't happen. Such as refusing Mark Waldrep's request that they use his own masters to make an MQA'd version so he could directly compare and analyze them. His is just one example.

 

The only properly blinded test of MQA we know of (McGill) didn't show any listener preference for MQA. It also wasn't a full blown test comparison, but it's the best we've got so far. 

The McGill study compared 16/44.1 MQA files to their uncompressed 24/96 counterparts, who really expected MQA to win that battle?

 

Isn’t 16/44.1 MQA vs regular 16/44.1 the actual fair fight? 

[saturdayboy]

7 minutes ago, firedog said:

Nope.

https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19396

[saturdayboy]

2 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Did you read this meeting note? I did.

 

Basically they said people couldn't tell the difference. So, my question to you is, if people can't hear the difference, why pay more for something that has NO DIFFERENCE? With the advent of high speed internet and cheap storage, MQA is a non-starter.

 

Ball is in your court.

That post was a response to firedog’s comment asserting that I was wrong in claiming that McGill study compared MQA encoded files to the original 24/96. I wouldn’t expect them to sound better, so I am not surprised by the result. Frankly, I’m surprised the uncompressed 24/96 didn’t trounce MQA, that’s the real headline IMO.

[saturdayboy]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Your link says nothing relating to my post. I didn't pay for the paper.

You claimed they compared 24/96 to 16/44. Other sources summarizing the results say the test was 24/96 files vs those same files encoded as MQA 24/48. That would be pretty standard MQA encoding.

so a 24/48 MQA file is indistinguishable from a 24/96 file twice its size, should any significance be attached to that? 

 

or we can't know because it may have used a better mastering (which may or may not exist) but we can't be sure because MQA won't let us know?

 

not interested in MQA, nor in exalting it or bashing it, but I think anyone who is  interested should check it out for themselves. I do give weight to the opinions of those who have (by actually listening) albeit under less than controlled circumstances. 

 

I do know this, the evil DRM plot that the MQA creators have has had about the same effect as the DRM plan of SACD had: indistinguishable from nothing.

[saturdayboy]

30 minutes ago, manisandher said:

I've posted files from the same master in the past:

 

 

The downloads are still available for anyone who wants to take a listen...

 

Mani.

super interesting thread, thanks for the link.

wish I had an MQA set up to check it out for myself.

why don't you provide a brief summary for those on this thread who don't have the time or inclination to read the whole thread like I did.

[saturdayboy]

2 minutes ago, Calvin & Hobbes said:

FWIW, Tidal with or without MQA just sounds plain bad to me. Overboosted bass and treble. Very flat in sound. Qobuz definitely sounds better. Even Spotify sounds better as well.

 

So beyond all of the technical discussion of how good/bad MQA might be, MQA is a no-go for me because it sounds terrible.

 

Note: I'm not looking to argue this & acknowledge that your perception of MQA and Tidal might differ from mine.

totally agree, and the Qobuz catalogue has pretty much caught with Tidal

[saturdayboy]

11 minutes ago, firedog said:

You seem to only give weight to those who prefer it. Yes, some do - almost always  in sighted listening.

If it truly was as great as MQA Inc. and it's proponents claim, those improvements would be obvious to virtually everyone. Including those who blind test. But they aren't. That would seem to show that MQA doesn't really do what it claims. The McGill test also backs that up. 

 

And just for your info: I was an early adopter of an MQA capable DAC and did extensive blind testing. My conclusion: some tracks sounded different some didn't really. Of those that sounded different, some were better, some were worse. Differences weren't huge, and certainly NOT some dramatic revolution in sound as many describe when doing sighted listening.

If that's the case, who needs MQA? It essentially adds nothing for listeners, but does add cost, complexity, added corporate interferece in artists decisions. and limiting of choice to the market. 

What costs and limitations do you think it added for the average listener?

[saturdayboy]

22 minutes ago, firedog said:

Manufacturers and software makers pay big licensing fees to MQA. Those costs get passed on to consumers.

Tidal Masters Tier is more expensive than at competitors that offer true hi-res.  

MQA often alters the sound of masters without the consent of the artist (The "authenticated" A is simply marketing BS with no connection to reality). 

MQA albums are often priced at a premium. 

Tidal has started to remove non-MQA versions of albums from it's site. That limits choice.

Tidal HiFi is now available for $9.99 per month via BestBuy while it used to be $19.99 for the last several years. (and allegedly for 35 cents a month via Turkey on a VPN). If you don’t like Tidal and their MQA bs, you can get hi res Qobuz (which now has a catalog that rivals Tidal) for $150 a year. Spotify is about to offer lossless as well.

It seems pretty obvious to me that options are expanding and prices are dropping in spite of the MQA/Tidal alliance.

[saturdayboy]

13 hours ago, firedog said:

I'm wondering why you feel a knee jerk need to defend MQA. Say you personally like the sound of it and be done.

 

Your paragraph about prices is close to irrelevant nonsense. VPN? Not a relevant or workable solution for many. Also technically illegal and a violation of all sorts of terms you sign up for.

 

Not everyone has access to BestBuy. Tidal is the only legal service with hi-res in some countries. Compare actual prices and legal alternatives.

 

Bottom line: you are paying extra for MQA. Even if you don't use it. If you think costs aren't passed on to consumers, try learning basic economics.

Everyone with access to the internet has access to BestBuy. The pricing information I mention regarding Tidal (besides VPN) and Qobuz is available to everyone in the continental USA.

 

Never even heard MQA, but I don’t think that anyone who might like it is akin to Qanon-like cult follower.

 

I did study basic economics. If there is little to no demand for a product (i.e. MQA), it has no effect on market prices. The “early adopters” like you, who lost interest shortly thereafter, were a microscopic blip in the streaming market  that was over before anyone noticed it.

[saturdayboy]

4 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

UHH no. Some countries it is illegal to go to a store in another country. BB is not everywhere, US, Canada, and I don't know where else.

 

IT DOES HAS AN AFFECT ON THE MARKET. Why? Well, with the Record Labels backing MQA, they basically want to get rid of anything they can't control. MQA has a built-in DRM system that will be able to do exactly that. Also, if you pay MQA, for there encoding, you pay for there decoder, and the DAC and software makers also pay MQA, which is passed onto consumers.

 

Also, since MQA is a closed system (it is Patented, BTW), it is like generic versus branded drugs.

 

Are you sure you actually took basic economics? It doesn't seem like it.

Yes I am sure. There are over 400 million music streaming subscriptions worldwide. Tidal has an estimated 1-5 million subscribers. Having a death grip head lock on about 1% of the market (at best) means you have next to zero effect overall worldwide. Maybe in some markets were there is no lossless alternative currently, but overall pretty much nothing. And if MQA is as worthless as you freedom fighters say it is, than even that 1% will deteriorate away. The MQA DRM takeover plot was a complete failure, just like SACD. The only people who are complaining about the additional costs of MQA are the MQA deniers like you, who by definition aren’t likely paying those costs.

[saturdayboy]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

With all due respect, what about them?

 

How many people are you talking about?

 

If you’re talking about a dozen guys with a Facebook group and the old guard press, that’s hardly enough people on which to base any argument. 

 

If you want to stick with your line of reasoning, what about the people who believe the opposite?

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do you have any idea about this? You’d not only need to talk to who provided the music to the services but also check their work. 

 

 

 

Again, how many people are you talking about?

 

Its not just him, so you could say, “ are all those people wrong and even more people who disagree with them right?”

 

 

 

 

 

Personal taste is great. But, MQA Ltd’s stated goal of providing record labels with the technology to replace all existing music with the MQA version means that everyone is stuck with a plain hamburger made with commodity beef. Many people prefer something better, but MQA has removed our choice. 
 

Removing data, adding noise, and forcing people to pay extra for it, isn’t my idea of desirable. 
 

 

Watch this video and tell me if you think MQA is a honest company. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said MQA was an honest company, or that their (and the record labels’) intention weren’t evil. What they seemingly tried to accomplish has been such a dismal failure that it’s basically something to laugh at, not warn the world against. For now, streaming options are expanding, and prices are dropping for the majority of the world. I challenge you or anyone to prove me wrong on that. A tiny group of people who must have MQA might be paying more for it than they should be. Are you trying to save them from themselves?

 

In spite of the lack of empirical proof that it's actually improving anything, for whatever reason some people claim to like how MQA sounds. Does it distort the actual true signal? There seem to be some pretty objective evidence that you and others have presented that that is exactly what is going on. And yet, some people say they prefer it. Here is one of the many discussions that I’ve read where opinions about how MQA SOUNDS differ (not the psuedo science or evil intentions behind it).

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/what-sounds-better-tidal-mqa-or-qobuz-hires/60190/287

 

I like the sound of tube amps. People say it’s because how the distort and which harmonics they produce. Alright, I still prefer them. What’s so wrong about that?

 

The great irony of this thread is that all the anti-MQA fervor & scholarship is exactly what the MQA skeptics claim MQA to be: a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

[saturdayboy]

42 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Some people here only have access to Tidal.

 

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Again, how many people are you talking about?

You like to use “some people” when it suits your argument, but demand specifics if somebody uses it or a similar phrase

[saturdayboy]

9 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Your underlying position appears to be that folks should be free to do what they want.

 

By this logic, shouldn't folks be free to actively oppose MQA even if this crusade is, in your belief, misguided?

My underlying position is that MQA, and people preferring it, is an entirely insignificant and harmless phenomenon. Everyone is free to oppose MQA, what it stands for and how it sounds, but they aren’t actually accomplishing anything or preventing an negative trend in streaming. MQA is a failure by itself.

[saturdayboy]

53 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I disagree.

 

MQA is failing in part because folks here and and in other places took the time to look under the hood and expose the lies.

 

Look who’s part of the big lie!!!

 

https://www.dcsltd.co.uk/dcs-launches-mqa-support-across-product-ranges/

[saturdayboy]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Is there a point to that statement? Honestly, help me parse out what you mean.

Pretty respected, including here. Why would they do that, and why aren’t you calling them out for perpetuating the lie like you are MQA inc.?

[saturdayboy]

18 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:

Just because a manufacturer makes their products compatible with something it is not a statement of agreement with mqa's marketing claims.

Except for the fact that what I linked to is exactly that, dcs agreeing with MQA’s marketing claims

 

20 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:

Because they're a business.

So is MQA

[saturdayboy]

15 hours ago, botrytis said:

Tidal has been sold! 

 

Square Acquires Tidal in $297 Million Deal - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

 

 

This looks like it was predominantly a stock swap to put some luster on two turds