Testing MQA: Is it worse than FLAC?

[botrytis]

Tidal has been sold! 

 

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

 

 

[One and a half]

4 hours ago, botrytis said:

Tidal has been sold! 

 

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

 

 

Sooooooo, who's the boss now?

[GoldenOne]

On 4/2/2021 at 10:27 PM, 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.

I ran some comparisons on these in the same way as the original post.

A and B are nearly identical. Differences maybe due to dithering?
Then in file C suddenly we get a lot of variation and high frequency noise again as seen in the original post. C is definitely MQA


A vs B:

 

A vs C:




B vs C:

[The Computer Audiophile]

On 4/2/2021 at 10:03 AM, saturdayboy said:

What about people who are of the opinion that the MQA versions streaming on Tidal are better than the non MQA?

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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 4/2/2021 at 10:03 AM, saturdayboy said:

I’m pretty sure that more often than not those are the same masters.

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. 

 

 

 

On 4/2/2021 at 10:03 AM, saturdayboy said:

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

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?”

 

 

 

 

On 4/2/2021 at 10:03 AM, saturdayboy said:

Is personal taste irrelevant in listening?

 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[charlesphoto]

Listening to this this morning on headphones. Started with the MQA 96khz version. Then switched over to the 44khz version. In some ways the MQA version sounded bigger, separated, more 'hifi', but I could also tell it was activating my tinnitus, the saxophone especially. The Redbook version sounds bit less detailed and closed in but also more 'natural' to me, tinnitus not activated. All I need to know. 

[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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, saturdayboy said:

Are you trying to save them from themselves?

I would never want to do that. I’m trying to save pure PCM for myself. Some people here only have access to Tidal. Tidal recently removed tons of pure PCM albums in favor of MQA versions. This leaves consumers without a choice. Pay the MQA tax or hear one’s music sound even worse. 
 

Not cool in my book. 
 

 

If a Tube amp company made a deal with all the record labels that listeners need tube amps, I’d be against that tube amp company. Not because of how they sound but because it removes choice for everyone. 

 

Similarly, if labels mandated 32/384 WAV PCM and removed all other formats for people I’d be against it. MP3 serves a purpose and I support it’s existence. 
 

Perhaps Bob Stuart shouldn’t have said the quiet part out loud, when he told everyone that MQA’s goal was to enable record labels to replace all other versions of music and keep the real masters locked away. Now, it’s up to the record labels to decide what we get. The streaming services have no choice but to accept what’s delivered to them. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I should also note that comparing formats is preposterous. A white glove converted MQA file can sound better than a sloppily created pure PCM version. Same goes for high resolution versus MP3. The sound of MQA files can easily be duplicated without the MQA process. There’s no need for a proprietary format to accomplish anything it does. Saying MQA sounds good is like saying hamburgers taste good. There are plenty terrible examples of both. 

[kumakuma]

58 minutes ago, saturdayboy said:

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.

 

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?

[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

[Miska]

On 4/2/2021 at 5:30 AM, GoldenOne said:

MQA does not allow any device with 'full unfolding' capabilities to output a digital stream.

 

AFAIK, there is really nothing to unfold beyond "first unfold" that you get from Roon, Tidal's application, etc. Rest of the "unfold" is just upsampling using one of the 16 MQA's digital filters (which you can find from the 'net).

 

On 4/1/2021 at 6:31 PM, GoldenOne said:

This is normally quite tricky to test because MQA ensures that there are no native HiRes releases for tracks that are released in MQA on tidal. So you cannot directly compare them.

 

You can buy both original hires and MQA versions of the same albums from highresaudio.com. I have obtained quite a bunch of such content in both formats for my own comparison/analysis purposes. So yeah, I have invested fair amount of money on this.

 

On purpose, I have selected albums that I know would technically pose challenge to something like MQA. Not some "hires" piano music which certainly won't pose any challenge.

 

[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.

[kumakuma]

9 minutes ago, saturdayboy said:

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.

 

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.

 

[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/

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, saturdayboy said:

Look who’s part of the big lie!!!

 

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

 

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

[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.?

[GoldenOne]

1 minute ago, saturdayboy said:

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.?

Because they're a business. 

Because if customers are demanding something, then a manufacturer will do what drives more sales. 

 

See ps audio for example. They support mqa but also have a video where Paul explains he does not like mqa. 

 

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

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

16 minutes ago, saturdayboy said:

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.?

 

13 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:

Because they're a business. 

Because if customers are demanding something, then a manufacturer will do what drives more sales. 

 

See ps audio for example. They support mqa but also have a video where Paul explains he does not like mqa. 

 

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

 

 

Yes.

[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

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, saturdayboy said:

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

Square is far from a turd.

[mevdinc]

4 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

Listening to this this morning on headphones. Started with the MQA 96khz version. Then switched over to the 44khz version. In some ways the MQA version sounded bigger, separated, more 'hifi', but I could also tell it was activating my tinnitus, the saxophone especially. The Redbook version sounds bit less detailed and closed in but also more 'natural' to me, tinnitus not activated. All I need to know. 

This is exactly the effect of the MQA treatment; adding 3-4 db to the loudness, which makes the music sound bigger and more detailed. And this is the reason why some people prefer it initially, but some people like me find it fatiguing after a short while.

[botrytis]

5 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

Listening to this this morning on headphones. Started with the MQA 96khz version. Then switched over to the 44khz version. In some ways the MQA version sounded bigger, separated, more 'hifi', but I could also tell it was activating my tinnitus, the saxophone especially. The Redbook version sounds bit less detailed and closed in but also more 'natural' to me, tinnitus not activated. All I need to know. 

 

Sorry, a higher res file compared to a 44.1. I can tell you are a MQA maven. That is a bullshit comparison. Tey a 96/24 REGULAR FLAC version then tell us what you think. 

 

Tinnitus is nothing to sneeze at - my wife has it and sometimes she gets doppler affects (going from ear to ear).

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Sorry, a higher res file compared to a 44.1. I can tell you are a MQA maven. That is a bullshit comparison. Tey a 96/24 REGULAR FLAC version then tell us what you think. This comparison is crap.

Perhaps you misunderstood Charles?

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Perhaps you misunderstood Charles?

 

Maybe - fixed.👍