MQA puzzlement.

Right now Tidal is the only working lossless streaming platform with a decent catalog. I tried Qobuz, but thier apps are so buggy I could never get them to work. Some folks have gotten it to work by going through a paid third party piece of software such as Roon. I refuse to pay for that ($100 per year or $500 lifetime) just so I can try out a new streaming service. If Qobuz got their act together I would certainly cancel Tidal.

 

No offense, but probably the last person anyone should be "learning" about MQA from. He's going to shill up the product which is exactly what's been done. None of the downsides will ever be discussed. The other thing is: who cares if he did something good years ago? He's selling snake oil garbage now. That's what matters.

 

MQA CDs do exist. Keep in mind, that they will max out at 15 bits of resolution versus 16 bits on a regular CD. And that would be for zero increase in sample rate. They could be only 13 bits with unfolded approximate high frequencies. You don't know what you will get with an MQA CD but you can be guaranteed that it is lower resolution than a regular CD.

 

That is the trick. MQA makes it difficult to make comparisons because you do not know the source of the master. My limited comparisons were so different sounding that it was clear they were of different masters. Which sent me to read about it because I couldn't do listening comparisons. Once I learned what MQA is, it was clear that it is something unnecessary for an audio format.
In the end, it is a digital degradation of the original data. By that I mean, it will take a 24/192 file, transform it to 24/96. Divide that into two files, 18/(1-48) and 5-ish/(48-96khz). Then combines them back into one flac container looking like it holds a 24/48khz file.

That 24/48 file is then streamed (usually) where the computer unfolds it back to 24/96 where 18/48 is real music information and the 48-96khz samples are a lossy approximation. Then upsampled to 192khz for the DAC to use MQA approved reconstruction filters.

Note, the 18/48 real information is higher resolution than a CD. I would expect it to sound better than a CD given the same mastering. The rub is, how does it sound to the 24/96 or 24/192 original, with or without the MQA approved filters? This is where I'm not convinced.

I'm not convinced because, why can't we stream the 24/192 unmolested? Why do we have to use the MQA approved filters and a mish mashed file? I'd rather have the full file and use the filters of the DAC I chose, not be forced into using Meridian's filters for all.

 

Thanks for the concise explanation. Why couldn't Tidal just stream the hi-res file?

 

MQA is PCM. There is no conversion of MQA to PCM. They are the same format.

MQA's final rendering uses certain PCM reconstruction filters. They were chosen because Bob Stuart likes their sound and what they do to an impulse response graph. Reconstruction filters are necessary to convert PCM back into analog. Bob Stuart prefers a certain type of filter. That is fine. To each their own.

Why would a manufacturer attach PCM filters to a DSD conversion? It is illogical and unnecessary. They aren't compatible. PS Audio is converting the DSD signal without using a conversion chip. It uses a low pass filter. If there is no chip, there is no reconstruction filter to apply. Therefore it isn't missing anything.

 

That's the million dollar question. They used to stream the full resolution files but they have been replaced with MQA.

 

Maybe they got an influx on money from MQA.

 

Via the major labels maybe. Meridian, who started MQA, has been hemorrhaging money for a decade or longer. I doubt they have extra money to support Tidal.

 

Yes, Bob Stuart and Peter Craven did a good job with producing Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP) 20 years ago which was the basis of DVD-A lossless compression and later licensed to Dolby for TrueHD and then later Atmos was stacked on top of that. Nobody denies that MLP is a good thing. For most these days, we use FLAC or maybe ALAC that do a similar job for free.

But MQA is a different beast than MLP. As discussed a million times, it's no longer lossless and no doubt Mr. Stuart is a smart man, but I believe the intellect is being used in a different way this time to play to the Industry rather than for the good of the consumer. Furthermore, he's inaccurately portraying the relevance of digital filters and supposed "time domain" effects like "deblurring" for marketing purposes. Clearly, the press like Stereophile and TAS have not been diligent with evaluating the codec before they "signed on" with lip service presumed based on previous reputation rather than careful evaluation of actually what the scheme does.

PS Audio (and others) have every right to be negative against MQA. The system forces hardware manufacturers to implement MQA's form of digital filtering (which can be seen here). Actually, I suspect there is no problem for a PS Audio DAC to implement this if they just want to stick the decoding algorithm (including the "final MQA render" to 192kHz or even 384kHz) before their PCM-to-DSD resampling, but why would they? I'm sure they recognized that this is already just nonsense and they'd be wasting time and adding cost (including licensing) to their design unnecessarily. This is an example of how implementing MQA is restrictive and limits the freedom of a manufacturer to be more innovative with their filtering designs and overall architecture.

 

I have three issues with MQA and their claims. The first one is that we can't know which masters were used as a source for their process and therefore it's practically impossible to do a proper back to back evaluation with a redbook CD. I think the whole "M stands for Master" part is suspect, unless these Masters can be made known.

The second issue I have is about the last and final stage of the origami unfolding, the one that, just like cats, is supposed to make everything better. Well if these filters are truly miraculous why are they not used during the mastering stage? Wouldn't it be better to treat the music with this special sauce at the mixing and mastering stage in order to ensure that this Q is for Quality will be preserved? Is it a licensing problem or simply that it doesn't really improve anything and is only used to mask artifacts caused by their compression?

The third and last issue I have is with their lossy compression scheme and we know that information lost or thrown away can never be restored exactly. Claiming the opposite is one thing but being able to prove it would win MQA several Nobel prizes and will most likely force us to reconsider the basic foundation of our understanding of the universe. So basically the whole A for authenticated is pure BS.

 

While we're discussing PS Audio's view of MQA, here's Schiit's:

Schiit Audio, Headphone amps and DACs made in USA.

The top 2 reasons from them I feel very strongly for. If it were non-proprietary, that would change my analysis significantly. However, it's not, and the below applies:

1. We believe that supporting MQA means handing over the entire recording industry to an external standards organization. MQA wants:

• Licensing fees from the recording studios
• Licensing fees from the digital audio product manufacturers
• Hardware or software access/insight into the DAC or player
• Subscription fees from every listener via Tidal, and/or royalties from purchases of re-releases by the recording industry

2. Our experience with standards-driven industries is sub-par. Consider the surround market. Companies making surround processors now have to support a dizzying array of different standards, none of which is a market differentiator, and the exclusion of any single standard can mean commercial failure. The result is a market in which competition is stifled and consumers are confused.

 

For those interested to compare DXD, DSD, FLAC and MQA from the same master, check these music files here:

2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH

One of the best articles which describe what MQA is about and how it works, read
this:

MQA Time-domain Accuracy & Digital Audio Quality

The lossy aspect of MQA seems to be confusing, since it relates only to the frequencies above 48 kHz which are lossy encoded. All musical information will be 100% lossless encoded and decoded. MQA corrects for the sum of all anti aliasing errors which occur during the recording, mixing, mastering and playback of the recording.

But just listen to an MQA file and compare with the same master CD or HD formaton an MQA DAC and judge for yourself.

 

I just downloaded "Beggar's Banquet" from HD Tracks. I put it on a USB and stuck that into my Bluesound Node 2i. Tonight, I will compare that to the MQA version on Tidal. It is as close to apples vs apples as I can get. It is also a record that I'm very familiar with.

 

Looking forward to the results.

 

+1,000,000

 

Awesome, this should be interesting.

 

Did a quick compare of the 50th Anniversary "Beggar's Banquet" MQA vs the same album I downloaded from HD Tracks and there is no comparison. Hi res sounded much clearer, more "live", crisper, with a broader, more open and airy presentation, and a better defined soundstage. By comparison, the MQA sounded like there was a cotton sheet between me and my speakers.

That being said, the MQA isn't bad by itself, but it is noticeably inferior to the hi res files.

On a side note, I like the Abco CD digital remastered mix better than the 50th anniversary hi res. That's not necessarily from a SQ standpoint. I just like the mix better.

Later this evening, I will listen more.

 

I'd call that dishonest as hell on MQA.

 

I still contend. One you have to buy; one you rent along with thousand of other titles. If I want to own it, I’ll just buy it.

 

I am with you 100%. I would never substitute MQA for other formats, especially vinyl, where my favorite albums are concerned. However, for the other 99%, I'm completely ok with both it and the regular Tidal "CD" format.

 

People hide things because they have something to hide.

Who woulda thunk it?

 

Thank you! So many haters here think MQA is going to be branded with everything. That is just not going to happen.

 

A contract requirement with the purveyor of MQA, perhaps?