Testing MQA: Is it worse than FLAC?

[Currawong]

13 hours ago, saturdayboy said:

My underlying position is that MQA, and people preferring it, is an entirely insignificant and harmless phenomenon.

 

The reality is, most people don't control their preferences, but are lead along by the mainstream press. When a person or group wants to invade the current list of popular narratives, they have to make a big enough splash to attract significant attention, and make themselves and their ideas the "new normal" or "new right (correct)" thing. With significant enough momentum, they will capture enough people that others will be too afraid to be against the tide of opinion, and will either capitulate or will be drowned out by the captured masses. 

 

Thankfully, music file formats and the technicalities behind them are too boring for most people to get worked up about, and with many manufacturers rejecting MQA, not to mention all the major music streaming services, they are facing an uphill battle to even get serious traction.

 

What it shows is a great degree of dishonesty from the major music labels, who would rather ruin music quality if they can make more money. That is very much not harmless.

[charlesphoto]

19 hours 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. 

 

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

But by MQA standards shouldn't I have found their MQA  96 file to sound so much better than a lowly PCM 44? 

 

If I'm in the office, computer and printer fans whirring and music playing via speaker it really makes little to no difference so I can live with whatever's served to me, but beyond that not a fan of the MQA business model...

[botrytis]

16 minutes ago, charlesphoto said:

But by MQA standards shouldn't I have found their MQA  96 file to sound so much better than a lowly PCM 44? 

 

If I'm in the office, computer and printer fans whirring and music playing via speaker it really makes little to no difference so I can live with whatever's served to me, but beyond that not a fan of the MQA business model...

 

The point being, I have been in many MQA comparisons and all they ever did was compare 92K MQA files to CD quality files. That is comparing apples and oranges. Compare the same resolution MQA to FLAC. That is the more obvious equal footing comparison.

 

One MQA comparison, I was at at a dealer, Wilson Speakers was doing the comparison and found many CD-quality tracks WERE better than 96K MQA of the same track. That does not bode well.

[lucretius]

On 4/5/2021 at 11:52 AM, botrytis said:

One MQA comparison, I was at at a dealer, Wilson Speakers was doing the comparison and found many CD-quality tracks WERE better than 96K MQA of the same track. That does not bode well.

Sometimes CD quality tracks sound better than the 24bit/96KHz (or 24/192) track from HDtracks -- different masters. And sometimes they sound the same.  Many times, the hi-res files contain only noise in the upper frequencies -- perhaps it's inaudible or perhaps it has an adverse effect on the electronics, resulting in audible distortion.

 

When it comes to MQA, clearly there is added noise (inaudible or not) and peaks are always near 0 dbfs.

 

[lucretius]

On 4/2/2021 at 8:59 AM, firedog said:

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. 

 

I never found the MQA files to sound better than any of the other formats in the 2L benchmark files.  I think at best, one can argue that the MQA track sounds the same as some of the other formats.  And where the MQA version sounds the same as a hi-res format, it is likely that the Redbook version also sounds the same as that hi-res format.  Where that is the case, then why choose the MQA version over the Redbook version?  Avoid the MQA tax and keep PCM alive.

[_dbw_]

5 hours ago, lucretius said:

Sometimes CD quality tracks sound better than the 24bit/96KHz (or 24/192) track from HDtracks -- different masters. <snip>

 

I've always found the dynamic range database enlightening in this regard. Amazing how many times you note the 'HDtracks et al' variants seems to be massively compressed. Yet another stab in the guts for music lovers.

[MikeyFresh]

On 4/2/2021 at 11:03 AM, saturdayboy said:

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

Why are you pretty sure of that, what do you base that on?

[MikeyFresh]

On 4/2/2021 at 8:20 PM, saturdayboy said:

Tidal HiFi is now available for $9.99 per month via BestBuy

So what, thats Best Buy subsidizing the cost in hopes of selling hardware.

 

On 4/2/2021 at 8:20 PM, saturdayboy said:

you can get hi res Qobuz (which now has a catalog that rivals Tidal) for $150 a year.

Disingenuous to then mention the TIDAL competitor service at a much higher dollar amount that is the annual cost, while trumping up TIDAL at a monthly rate. Apples-to-oranges, and a blatant attempt to confuse some who might only take a cursory look at what you are saying.

 

[MikeyFresh]

On 4/2/2021 at 7:04 PM, saturdayboy said:

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

Define "average listener". No, on 2nd thought don't bother, there isn't any way to do that nor would it be relevant in any way. High quality enthusiast audio has never been about the "average listener".

 

If the average listener were a TIDAL subscriber in the U.S. then they have been paying $5 extra per month for lossy pseudo hi-res, as compared to actual hi-res available to the Qobuz subscriber.

 

Or, if the buyer of a Topping D90 DAC were to opt for the MQA version, they would pay $100 extra as compared to the cost of the standard D90.

 

Or maybe those who were initially interested in the iFi Pro iDSD, which was originally teased at a "target price" of $1,500 but then underwent 2 years of development delays in implementing MQA, and is now retailing for $2,749, a far cry from that originally stated $1,500 price target.

 

How about the superb UAPP player app for Android, a $9 purchase. Oops, TIDAL users please add $4 for stupid rip-off MQA compatibility.

[Anonamemouse]

On 4/2/2021 at 7:58 PM, botrytis said:

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.

I apologize for the late reply/quote, but Pasteur was a fraud. He admitted this on his deathbed, and in 1995 (if I am not mistaken) his entire research was debunked. To this day there is no proof whatsoever of any virus being contagious, but certain very large corporations don't want you to know this, because it would instantly render their gazillion dollar industry obsolete.

[saturdayboy]

On 4/16/2021 at 10:41 PM, MikeyFresh said:

So what, thats Best Buy subsidizing the cost in hopes of selling hardware.

 

Disingenuous to then mention the TIDAL competitor service at a much higher dollar amount that is the annual cost, while trumping up TIDAL at a monthly rate. Apples-to-oranges, and a blatant attempt to confuse some who might only take a cursory look at what you are saying.

 

what are you talking about? I switched from TIDAL to Qobuz a long time ago, its a better product for a few extra bucks a month. Just pointing out that prices for hi res streaming are dropping, and MQA has done little to effect that. btw - TIDAL dropped their prices again today.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, saturdayboy said:

Just pointing out that prices for hi res streaming are dropping, and MQA has done little to effect that. btw - TIDAL dropped their prices again today.

 

Yes, Tidal lowered prices for CD quality, but kept the mQa tax on its HiFi Plus tier. CD quality is $10 per month and mQa is $20. 

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yes, Tidal lowered prices for CD quality, but kept the mQa tax on its HiFi Plus tier. CD quality is $10 per month and mQa is $20. 

 

Hard to understand since it's mQa that is "half-fast". 🙂

[matthias]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yes, Tidal lowered prices for CD quality, but kept the mQa tax on its HiFi Plus tier. CD quality is $10 per month and mQa is $20. 

 

In Germany you pay 5 Euro less per month for Qobuz in comparison to Tidal. So one can argue 5 Euros per month are the mQa tax.

 

Matt

[Brentz]

""""

  On 4/4/2021 at 6:39 PM, saturdayboy said:

My underlying position is that MQA, and people preferring it, is an entirely insignificant and harmless phenomenon.""

 

IMHO - this sums it up! Perfectly!   I may add, that I consider it also unnecessary (propery encoded FLAC is good enough) and a undesirable distraction: the time and money spend on this topic + on the relative hardware could be better used elsewhere.

 

Nevertheless, MQA was an interesting and ingenious attempt to find a HQ compression solution to a problem that has largely disappeared =  limited bandwith in times of ADSL.

 

A bit more dubious is the 'profiling' approach: it pretends to copy the basic image profiling approach into the audio domain [to reproduce a picture you need the picture+input profile of the camera and compensate for the expected limitations of the printer/paper = the output device profile]  However, we do not how the input profiles (mastering) are obtained and it has output profiles only for one small part of the output chain:    MQA only takes DACs into account with their output profile (second unfolding) and does not worry about the devices that 'make the music' (amps/headphones/loudspeakers).

 

Because of these omissions, I consider the MQA approach pseudo scientific  and ultimately a marketing ploy.

[cityradio]

Thanks for this articule.

Its true to my ears

Normal flac its better than mqa.

Switching to Qobuz.