MQA, Worse than FLAC?

[Gregadd]

Really? You seem very argumentative (anti MQA) and looking for a fight from anyone who may disagree with your basic premise. Talk about ignoring reality.

I already invited anyone who enjoys mqa to please continue to do so. It may be that mqa has qualities that people enjoy.

 

[AMR / iFi audio]

I believe that audiophiles do not perceive MQA the way it was intended by the owners. The hard-core audiophiles are not the primary target of Tidal's MQA, yet they are the ones who complain about it the most. It's designed mostly for the people who are upgrading from MP3s, not for those who already listen to the high-res files from their own library.

 

[bryans]

I believe that audiophiles do not perceive MQA the way it was intended by the owners. The hard-core audiophiles are not the primary target of Tidal's MQA, yet they are the ones who complain about it the most. It's designed mostly for the people who are upgrading from MP3s, not for those who already listen to the high-res files from their own library.

I believe you mean "audiophiles" complain about everything! I just find it funny that people try to tell others what sounds good and what doesn't. The MQA argument is no different than the Tidal vs Qobuz or flac vs. wav format or whatever.

 

[Gregadd]

I just think that's putting the cart before the horse. A superior format to mp3 already existed.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I believe that audiophiles do not perceive MQA the way it was intended by the owners. The hard-core audiophiles are not the primary target of Tidal's MQA, yet they are the ones who complain about it the most. It's designed mostly for the people who are upgrading from MP3s, not for those who already listen to the high-res files from their own library.

I completely agree. However, audiophiles have good reason to complain because it impacts them in ways that are more and more difficult to avoid.

 

[rando]

I just think that's putting the cart before the horse. A superior format to mp3 already existed.

.m4p?

.ra?

 

[bryans]

I completely agree. However, audiophiles have good reason to complain because it impacts them in ways that are more and more difficult to avoid.

See I'm a simple man. When I grab a song on Tidal that is MQA if I don't want to listen to it I just grab the non MQA version. Also if one is a Roon user you can disable MQA. Or better yet for non Tidal people just stick with Qobuz. Now if your Dac isn't MQA enabled the whole point is moot.

Problem solved for non MQA people.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

See I'm a simple man. When I grab a song on Tidal that is MQA if I don't want to listen to it I just grab the non MQA version. Also if one is a Roon user you can disable MQA. Or better yet for non Tidal people just stick with Qobuz. Now if your Dac isn't MQA enabled the whole point is moot.

Problem solved for non MQA people.

Not. There are an increasing number of MQA releases for which there is no non-MQA alternative.

 

[bryans]

Not. There are an increasing number of MQA releases for which there is no non-MQA alternative.

Sorry I haven't found any of those. Must be the music genres I listen to I guess.

 

[Gregadd]

.m4p?

.ra?

Lossless.

 

[RikkiPoo]

I believe that audiophiles do not perceive MQA the way it was intended by the owners. The hard-core audiophiles are not the primary target of Tidal's MQA, yet they are the ones who complain about it the most. It's designed mostly for the people who are upgrading from MP3s, not for those who already listen to the high-res files from their own library.

I admit my memory is faulty but I thought when MQA was first released it was targeted to audiophiles. I thought the point or hype of MQA was to correct the file to take it back to a replica of the original Master by undoing changes made by the ADC process. I think only an audiophile or a nut job would care about that.

The video just used Tidal to demonstrate the point that MQA is making its own changes to the file during the process of trying to correct for the ADC errors. I'm not saying that is good or bad as I don't have a MQA DAC.

Here is a link I found interesting from the DAC manufacturer Denafrips basically saying DAC's will never reproduce music like an analog system. And, errors in the ADC and DAC for music processing are very much more unforgiving to the human ear relative to errors that analog systems introduce.

The Denafrips Design Philosophy Part 1

Editor's Note: This series came about after I approached Denafrips distributor Alvin Chee about obtaining information detailing how Denafrips products work, how the digital processing is designed, and more about the company's thought process behind its highly regarded products. What follows is pa...

audiophilestyle.com

here is an excerpt,

"In reality, the digital world doesn’t exist. The digital signal is not analog, it is a representation. It is a convenient way for us to digitize, record, and store data; present it close to the original. In nature, what we see, hear, eat, almost everything, none of this information is digital. None of it can be expressed completely losslessly in digital form.

In the context of audio, to express and present the stored digital data in an analog signal, all we can do is use the techniques we know to convert the digital signal closest to the original analog signal, as much as possible. However, even if we believe this is arguably the closest approach, it must be built on the basis of Digital Signal Processing (DSP). Without DSP, the digital signal cannot be processed and converted into the analog signal at all.

Even with the advanced, sophisticated processing techniques, we can only achieve an approximate, closest to the original Digital To Analog conversion. It is impossible to achieve absolute losslessness. There are always various distortions, and unwanted signals introduced that do not exist in the original signal – as the conversion (AD/DA) take place."

My DAC does not support MQA so I have never experienced it in my system. A few years ago I was at the LA audio show and at the end of the day some MQA bigshots demonstrated MQA on a very very expensive system. It was presented as nirvana for audiophiles. I think its just the next shiny thing but what makes it different how MQA has been able to penetrate the DAC manufacturing market and music streaming market before a groundswell of consumer demand.

 

[Lee]

My DAC does not support MQA so I have never experienced it in my system. A few years ago I was at the LA audio show and at the end of the day some MQA bigshots demonstrated MQA on a very very expensive system. It was presented as nirvana for audiophiles. I think its just the next shiny thing but what makes it different how MQA has been able to penetrate the DAC manufacturing market and music streaming market before a groundswell of consumer demand.

I was at that LA Demo with Alex speakers. You could easily hear the improvements in the MQA file over the stock recording. I have been a big fan of MQA since. There is a ton of misinformation out there on MQA but its' quite a brilliant advancement by Bob Stuart and team.

 

[Atmasphere]

I admit my memory is faulty but I thought when MQA was first released it was targeted to audiophiles.

Yeah- it was. But then it got controversial. From what I've seen they 'went with the flow' and are pushing mainstream now instead.

 

[audiobomber]

I was at that LA Demo with Alex speakers. You could easily hear the improvements in the MQA file over the stock recording. I have been a big fan of MQA since. There is a ton of misinformation out there on MQA but its' quite a brilliant advancement by Bob Stuart and team.

How do you know the MQA and stock were the same master? I believe that is one of the hurdles to hearing exactly what MQA is actually doing. I heard that they remaster the cut, before applying the MQA filters.

 

[bryans]

I was at that LA Demo with Alex speakers. You could easily hear the improvements in the MQA file over the stock recording. I have been a big fan of MQA since. There is a ton of misinformation out there on MQA but its' quite a brilliant advancement by Bob Stuart and team.

I have also heard some great MQA vs. non MQA recordings. I'm personally a fan of any and all formats I can get music in. For me whatever format sounds best on my system is what I listen to. I have playlists that have MQA, non MQA, DSD, Tidal and Qobuz files in the same list. If I find a song I want to put in a playlist, whatever format sounds best is what goes in.

 

[bryans]

How do you know the MQA and stock were the same master? I believe that is one of the hurdles to hearing exactly what MQA is actually doing. I heard that they remaster the cut, before applying the MQA filters.

I'm of the belief why does it matter? Just pick the one that sounds best. If the MQA file was recorded/mastered better go with it.

 

[thedudeabides]

I completely agree. However, audiophiles have good reason to complain because it impacts them in ways that are more and more difficult to avoid.

With all due respect, life poses some extremely difficult challenges (witness current events around the world) but I would hope this is one that should be easy to live with, all things considered.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

With all due respect, life poses some extremely difficult challenges (witness current events around the world) but I would hope this is one that should be easy to live with, all things considered.

Of course. But, in that wider context, one can say that about all activities related to high quality audio. OTOH, within our rarified context, this is annoying.

 

[audiobomber]

I'm of the belief why does it matter? Just pick the one that sounds best. If the MQA file was recorded/mastered better go with it.

It matters because it doesn't allow you to hear what MQA has done to the music. This seems to be a significant reason for the furor over MQA. The consortium continues to fog and hide this straightforward "apples to apples" comparison.

If you haven't read about GoldenOne's investigation, or watched his video, I highly recommend doing so.

"Plus, even the 44.1khz file I submitted both sounds different and is objectively different to the master I published.
And again this is the same for any other track where a high sample rate version and MQA version are available, they are not the same."

"It might sound more 'natural' to some people, but sounding natural and being lossless to the original master are not the same thing.
If you wish to market an 'AI upsampling' or responsive/adaptive process then that's totally fine. But sounding subjectively better to some people does NOT make it lossless and is no excuse to make false marketing claims."

I published music on Tidal to test MQA - MQA Deep Dive

A video version of this post is available here: Introduction MQA is a proprietary music compression solution that uses the FLAC container. It requires a license fee for manufacturers to implement it, and due to the lack of transparency from MQA, there has been relatively little conclusive informa...

audiophilestyle.com

 

[bryans]

It matters because it doesn't allow you to hear what MQA has done to the music. This seems to be a significant reason for the furor over MQA. The consortium continues to fog and hide this straightforward "apples to apples" comparison.

If you haven't read about GoldenOne's investigation, or watched his video, I highly recommend doing so.

"Plus, even the 44.1khz file I submitted both sounds different and is objectively different to the master I published.
And again this is the same for any other track where a high sample rate version and MQA version are available, they are not the same."

"It might sound more 'natural' to some people, but sounding natural and being lossless to the original master are not the same thing.
If you wish to market an 'AI upsampling' or responsive/adaptive process then that's totally fine. But sounding subjectively better to some people does NOT make it lossless and is no excuse to make false marketing claims."

I published music on Tidal to test MQA - MQA Deep Dive

A video version of this post is available here: Introduction MQA is a proprietary music compression solution that uses the FLAC container. It requires a license fee for manufacturers to implement it, and due to the lack of transparency from MQA, there has been relatively little conclusive informa...

audiophilestyle.com

Sorry but when I'm in my listening room, thinking about what MQA has done to the music is not a concern of mine. All I care about is how it sounds. If I like a MQA recording over a non MQA recording, the MQA is better for me. If I don't, the non MQA recording is better for me. It is really that simple.