Testing MQA: Is it worse than FLAC?

[firedog]

11 minutes ago, saturdayboy said:

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

???? Posts? I'm starting to see posts that the world is flat and that Covid doesn't exist. 

There are also posts that claim "hi-res"  MQA sounds worse than CD. 

You might like the alterations MQA introduces. It happens. Possible that it's euphonic distortion for some. That means nothing other than that you like it - or that you are subject to expectation bias. 

[firedog]

7 hours ago, saturdayboy said:

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/

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.

[firedog]

7 hours ago, saturdayboy said:

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.

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.

[firedog]

2 hours ago, fiske said:

I assume the closest testbench is the one from 2L.
http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html?

 

I'm not into MQA and have no intention of checking it out.

Not necessarily. Those 2L files were appparently made using an MQA "white glove" treatment - that's nothing like the batch MQA processing that is used for 99.9% of the cases. 

[firedog]

2 minutes ago, saturdayboy said:

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

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. 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, saturdayboy said:

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?

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. 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, saturdayboy said:

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]”

 

 

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. 

[firedog]

26 minutes ago, saturdayboy said:

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.

And you got an article about observer-expectancy bias, which isn't really what we are talking about in this setting. I didn't claim to be an expert. Just more expert than you. Quoting not particularly relevant passages from Wikipedia doesn't do a lot for your argument. I suggest you talk about something audio related instead. 

[firedog]

15 minutes ago, saturdayboy said:

The McGill study compared 16/44.1 MQA files to their uncompressed 24/96 counterparts

 

 

Nope.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, saturdayboy said:

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

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.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, saturdayboy said:

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.

No, not what I claimed. You wrote they compared them to MQA 16/44. That apparently is wrong. 

 

As far as the rest of your post:  where do you get that from? MQA claims it's versions of high res files not only sound as good as the original, they claim they sound better and improve the original by eliminating so called "blur". The audio press and others using sighted biased listening often confirm those claims.

 

An objective  test showing no listener preference for MQA would counter that claim and reinforce the idea that MQA is a "solution" looking for a problem. It is an indication that the positive listening reports for MQA you seem to find meaningful are driven by expectation bias. 

[firedog]

3 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

Depends ON MASTER. They did not say what the masters were or if they were the same. That is the issue. So, that paper means diddly. What it does say, is master is where the importance comes in (not in the paper but basically unwritten).

 

Master is still the key here. I have some SACD's that a friend ripped from some Japanese SACD's I have and they actually sound worse than the simple 44.1/24 files I compared them to - different masters and sound way different.

 

 

My understanding of the McGill study is that they did use the same master. According to this link  https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/ebriefs/?ID=685 and the response to comments on the page, they did use the same master for the two versions. 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, saturdayboy said:

do give weight to the opinions of those who have (by actually listening) albeit under less than controlled circumstances. 

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. 

[firedog]

50 minutes ago, saturdayboy said:

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

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.

[firedog]

6 hours ago, saturdayboy said:

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.

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.

[firedog]

4 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Why can't you accept the fact that the other person thinks differently than you do? For reasons that are irrelevant? Be at peace and be free.

I accept it fully. I don't like false info about MQA being bandied about. I don't argue with people who say "I like". When they go from that to a general conclusion about what is better, without any evidence or testing, I tend to object.

 

And why can't you accept that the discussion isn't for you and just stay away if you don't like it? Be at peace and be free....

 

And I've put the topic on "ignore".