Testing MQA: Is it worse than FLAC?

[botrytis]

1 hour 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.

 

For my part, that is part of what is taught in Graduate School in science, here in the USA. I mean in microbiology, Pasteur really is the father of modern microbiology and immunology as he showed how to prove something causes a disease. This is used every day by doctors, scientists, etc. That is not observational that is proof.

 

It is psycho-visual integration of a bias.

Audio–visual integration in temporal perception - ScienceDirect

 

Newly acquired audio-visual associations bias perception in binocular rivalry - ScienceDirect  <---THIS ONE READ....

 

Highlights of the above paper.

• A concurrent tone biases binocular rivalry towards the associated visual stimulus.

• The required audio-visual associations can be arbitrary and are rapidly formed.

• Using a no-report paradigm for assessing dominance rules out response-bias effects.

[botrytis]

6 minutes ago, saturdayboy said:

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

 

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.

[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.

[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. 

[botrytis]

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.

 

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.

 

 

[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.

[manisandher]

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.

[Calvin & Hobbes]

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.

[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

[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. 

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Calvin & Hobbes]

For all of the talk about Qobuz having a smaller catalog than Spotify and Tidal, I have to say that there is very little that I can't find on Qobuz. For that, I can always go to Spotify for which I have a Family plan.

[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.

[AnotherSpin]

6 minutes 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.

 

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.

[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".

[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.

[botrytis]

10 minutes ago, saturdayboy said:

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.

 

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.

[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.

[botrytis]

6 hours ago, saturdayboy said:

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.

 

The problem being, I don't want to pay those costs. I mean, if there is NO CLEAR BENEFIT, WHY PAY MORE? I mean the artists are getting pennies from streaming (Tidal pays $0.009 to the artist per play - Qobuz pays $0.04 - info from here - Tidal HiFi review: The good, the bad, and the costly - SoundGuys ), compared to Bandcamp and with MQA getting money that is even less for the artists.

 

Norwegian Court Approves Data-Fraud Investigation of Tidal - Variety

 

So, the numbers Tidal is showing may be fake.

[Rexp]

6 hours ago, saturdayboy said:

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.

As you say the MQA takeover plot has failed, Spotify's lossless tier will be the final nail in the coffin. I doubt Tidal will survive.