Thread: News: Millions Of MQA Tracks Coming To TIDAL Masters From Warner Music

I'm a bit perplexed by the following: Is the article saying they will somehow improve on the original recording if it only exists in the digital format of 44.1/16 or do they mean they will MQA from the original recordings such as master tapes from the vault? Because those are two very different things and I am not 100% convinced that MQA is the answer to every question an audiophile ever had.

"In a press release to announce the expansion of TIDAL’s Masters offering, Stuart explained: “By paying great attention to the nature of sound and the way we hear, MQA opens a clear window and delivers all the detail and nuance of the original song. The music industry’s catalogue contains millions of significant performances from the early days of CD where, sometimes, the recording was created in 44.1kHz 16bit and where no alternative existed. We are delighted that Warner Music Group is bringing this content to TIDAL.”

"An article titled Digital Done Wrong on the International Audio/Video Review web site, concluded that MQA is founded on a fundamentally unsound understanding of correct digital audio processing and found that playback of a sample MQA encoding demonstrated gross distortion and reconstruction failure. It did however comment that some listeners may find the technical defects of MQA encoding subjectively pleasing."

"In an interview for online publication Positive Feedback, engineer Andreas Koch is critical of MQA due to its lossy algorithms and compression, along with its licensing requirements; also saying that a format such as this "does not solve any problem that the world currently has." Koch was involved in the creation of the Super Audio CD, the development of the Direct Stream Digital codec, and is co-founder of audio product manufacturer Playback Designs."

Perhaps the main reason? "Commercial MQA-capable playback devices require payment of a royalty to MQA Ltd per unit sold. Based on information from Auralic, a manufacturer of Audiophile Wireless Audio Streamers, Meridian Audio prohibits digital output of unpacked MQA in any digital format, only allowing the unpacked data to be fed to an on-board MQA-compatible DAC and output in analog form. Some claim this to be a kind of DRM process, which allows a proper MQA file to be authenticated and the full quality of the signal decoded only on commercially licensed equipment.

Originally Posted by mep

Technology has rendered that point moot. Storage space is dirt cheap.

Storage IS cheap all things considered in this hobby of ours and MQA is counterintuitive to me and has been since day one. I however kept an open mind but my ears do keep telling me otherwise and that I don't like MQA for the most part. Some unfamiliar recordings easily slip by, the ear can't tell where the problem lies. It is upon a direct comparison however, the KING is revealed to have NO CLOTHES.




From Wikipedia

"MQA encoding is lossy; it hierarchically compresses the relatively little energy in the higher frequency bands into data streams that are embedded in the lower frequency bands using proprietary dithering techniques but after the decoding the result would be the lossless archive.

After a series of such manipulations, the resulting 44.1 kHz data, the layered data streams, and a final "touchup" stream (compressed difference between the lossy signal from unpacking all layers and the original) are provided to the playback device. Given the low amount of energy expected in higher frequencies, and using only one extra frequency band layer (upper 44.1 kHz band of 96/24 packed into dither of 48/16) and one touchup stream (compressed difference between original 96/24 and 48/16) are together distributed as a 48/24 stream, of which 48/16 bit-decimated part can be played by normal 48/16 playback equipment.

One more difference to standard formats is the sampling process. The audio stream is sampled and convolved with a triangle function, and interpolated later during playback. The techniques employed, including the sampling of signals with a finite rate of innovation, were developed by a number of researchers over the preceding decade, including Pier Luigi Dragotti and others.[12][13]

MQA-encoded content can be carried via any lossless file format such as FLAC or ALAC; hence, it can be played back on systems either with or without an MQA decoder. In the latter case, the resulting audio has easily identifiable high-frequency noise occupying 3 LSB bits, thus limiting playback on non-MQA devices effectively to 13 bit. MQA claims that nevertheless the quality is higher than "normal" 48/16, because of the novel sampling and convolution processes.[14]

Other than the sampling and convolution methods, which were not explained by MQA in detail, the encoding process is similar to that used in XRCD and HDCD.

However, unlike other lossy compression formats like MP3 and WMA, the lossy encoding method of MQA is similar to aptX, LDAC and WavPack Hybrid Lossy, which uses time-domain ADPCM and bitrate reduction instead of perceptual encoding based on psychoacoustic models."

Originally Posted by mep

When I first subscribed to Tidal, I was looking forward to hearing what MQA sounded like. It didn't take long to realize that something was wrong.

To be fair and objective, I do not have an MQA unfolding DAC so my listening is limited quality then, by design of MQA. (MQA-encoded content can be carried via any lossless file format such as FLAC or ALAC; hence, it can be played back on systems either with or without an MQA decoder. In the latter case, the resulting audio has easily identifiable high-frequency noise occupying 3 LSB bits, thus limiting playback on non-MQA devices effectively to 13 bit. MQA claims that nevertheless the quality is higher than "normal" 48/16, because of the novel sampling and convolution processes.)

I fortunately do have a choice and I choose not to listen to MQA but Qobuz instead. Qobuz does sound more analog and natural to my ears and I have proven that with long and careful listening sessions out of sheer curiosity and since it is so easy with Roon and having both Qobuz, Tidal and even SACD of the same recording.


If my findings are strictly due to a non MQA DAC, then so be it but I still have a choice and I choose none of this gimmick that does nothing for my enjoyment of music and puts $$$$ in Stuart's pocket instead.

Originally Posted by UltraFast69

...
Most non-audiophiles I know never even heard of Tidal or Qobuz, but familiar with Spotify and iTunes.
....

Agree about Qobuz, but not Tidal?
Spotify and iTunes... well... you must be hanging around old folks!

Young folks are in the know when it comes to Tidal (Jay Z, Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, Kanye West, etc.)

Artist-Owned – TIDAL

Originally Posted by mep

My DAC unfolds all the MQA laundry. The main reason I keep Tidal is in case someone wants to claim that a certain MQA file is superior to all other versions available from either Tidal or Quobuz so I can check it out.

I’m the same. I have a Meridian 808v6 with full MQA ability. I keep Tidal just because. But I typically stream qobuz through my aurender. I also typically choose my McIntosh D1100 dac (non-MQA) over the 808 although the 2 dacs sound remarkably similar. I have yet to hear a true SQ improvement with MQA.

Originally Posted by TheOctopus

"An article titled Digital Done Wrong on the International Audio/Video Review web site, concluded that MQA is founded on a fundamentally unsound understanding of correct digital audio processing and found that playback of a sample MQA encoding demonstrated gross distortion and reconstruction failure. It did however comment that some listeners may find the technical defects of MQA encoding subjectively pleasing."

"In an interview for online publication Positive Feedback, engineer Andreas Koch is critical of MQA due to its lossy algorithms and compression, along with its licensing requirements; also saying that a format such as this "does not solve any problem that the world currently has." Koch was involved in the creation of the Super Audio CD, the development of the Direct Stream Digital codec, and is co-founder of audio product manufacturer Playback Designs."

Perhaps the main reason? "Commercial MQA-capable playback devices require payment of a royalty to MQA Ltd per unit sold. Based on information from Auralic, a manufacturer of Audiophile Wireless Audio Streamers, Meridian Audio prohibits digital output of unpacked MQA in any digital format, only allowing the unpacked data to be fed to an on-board MQA-compatible DAC and output in analog form. Some claim this to be a kind of DRM process, which allows a proper MQA file to be authenticated and the full quality of the signal decoded only on commercially licensed equipment.

MQA is just another licensing scheme and cash grab to rip off content creators, recording studios, mastering servieces and manufacturers, etc., etc. by charging licensing fees at virtually every step of the music creation, recording, mastering, distribution, playback, etc. process.

Linn has it pretty much nailed in this article: MQA is Bad For Music. Here's Why.

MQA is just another ploy to get us to buy a copy of Ride Across the River or Keith, Don't Go for 5th time, after having bought it on LP, Redbook CD, SACD, 24/196, and now...MQA.

No thanks.

Bottom-line: the most important and significant thing that determines the quality of a recording, either analog or digital, by far, is the quality of the mastering.

I'll take a 16/44 recording mastered by Alan Yoshida over MQA any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Originally Posted by KeithR

...
if anything, its safe to say DSD is dead
...

I think that you might be referring to SACD discs not DSD.

New recordings continue to be made in DSD and sold via downloads. I use HQPlayer to convert all PCM to DSD and up convert to 8X DSD. So, in essence, I stream ALL my music in DSD.

DSD is alive and doing better than ever!

Originally Posted by PMCH

For my system and ears, I prefer Tidal MQA over Qobuz HD by a small amount. I wish it wasn't so because Tidal is more expensive. I do have a MQA Dac.

Nothing wrong with preferring Tidal MQA, even if MQA has been proven to be lossy. It is no different to the LP vs CD or tube vs SS preferences.

Originally Posted by mep

What you should try if you haven’t yet is to listen the “Hi-Rez” version of an album and switch over to the 16/44.1 version. You might be in for a major shock.

What I learned from doing that experiment is that often it is next to impossible to tell if you are comparing apples-to-apples. For example, a Hi-Rez version may have been remastered. In which case, it WILL sound different. Or it may have been tweaked in a way that it sounds different but that is not explicitly stated.

Today, the technology exists for anyone to take any 16/44.1 recording (or even lower resolution) and upconvert it to Hi-Rez (I convert my 16/44 music to 512DSD on the fly). You are not doing any remastering but you are able to use sophisticated filters that affect the sound. I would not be surprised if some companies do something similar and sell them as Hi-Rez downloads and charge customers a pretty penny for it.

Originally Posted by nicoff

What I learned from doing that experiment is that often it is next to impossible to tell if you are comparing apples-to-apples. For example, a Hi-Rez version may have been remastered. In which case, it WILL sound different. Or it may have been tweaked in a way that it sounds different but that is not explicitly stated.

Today, the technology exists for anyone to take any 16/44.1 recording (or even lower resolution) and upconvert it to Hi-Rez (I convert my 16/44 music to 512DSD on the fly). You are not doing any remastering but you are able to use sophisticated filters that affect the sound. I would not be surprised if some companies do something similar and sell them as Hi-Rez downloads and charge customers a pretty penny for it.

That is exactly what they do..

The only high resolution I buy anymore is from boutique recording studios like Sound Liaison who "record" their own talent with a high resolution equipment and digital files to begin with. Granted, the music selection is often limited but it is a special "treat" when the new album aligns with one's taste. Sound Liaison Music Shop

Originally Posted by W9TR

One of the things MQA claims to do is remove temporal artifacts caused by the steep anti-aliasing filters used in early Redbook digital recorders.

The low sampling rate of 44.1 kHz requires steep anti-aliasing filters in the A/D converter. These filters smear the time response and create pre-echo, something that never occurs in nature. By knowing the characteristics of the A/D converters in the original PCM encoders, you can create a correction filter and D/A reconstruction filter that significantly reduces the temporal distortion caused by the original A/D converters.

This is one reason that MQA encoded tracks can sound better than the original redbook ones.

Absolutely but the Qobuz files still sound better to my ears. Again, I do not have an MQA dac. Actually I do, the audioquest dragonfly thingy but I am not even going to bother as my headphones are 300 ohms.

Originally Posted by W9TR

One of the things MQA claims to do is remove temporal artifacts caused by the steep anti-aliasing filters used in early Redbook digital recorders.

The low sampling rate of 44.1 kHz requires steep anti-aliasing filters in the A/D converter. These filters smear the time response and create pre-echo, something that never occurs in nature. By knowing the characteristics of the A/D converters in the original PCM encoders, you can create a correction filter and D/A reconstruction filter that significantly reduces the temporal distortion caused by the original A/D converters.

That's correct, and you don't need MQA to do so. dCS, Chord, TotalDAC, Lampizator and Schiit, just as some examples, all have and use excellent filters and filtering algorithms for producing excellent results when decoding PCM.

One of my favorite uses for TIDAL is the My Mix playlists. Great for music discovery. But Qobuz is my preferred streaming service, and the Lumin app makes going back and forth between those services really easy (especially since I’m not a Roon user). Even adding the same track to the play queue for quick comparison (e.g., MQA from TIDAL, High-Res from Qobuz) can be accomplished very quickly with the press-and-hold pop-up search features.

Tip: in the Lumin app, go to a TIDAL My Mix playlist. Press and hold a track and on the pop-up, press the Qobuz icon at the end of the line for the Album title. This opens the Qobuz search interface in the Lumin app with a list of matches, where the album is usually in the top 20 or so results; tap that to find the same song and add it to the queue. Now I can play songs from Qobuz servers but use the curated lists from TIDAL.

(Note: on the pop-up you get a line for Album title, Song title, Artists, etc.; I don’t press the Qobuz icon next to the song title in the pop-up since the search results (1000 hits max) are not sortable and the target song is usually not easy to find. I have much quicker results finding the desired song when searching for the album.)

So if you are like me, have a Lumin streamer, and like TIDAL’s discovery features, but dislike MQA and prefer lossless FLAC from Qobuz, maybe this tip will be of use to you. Oh, and another tip: after I’ve added all those Qobuz-matched songs to a fresh queue in the Lumin app I can save the queue back to Qobuz as playlist (in essence porting over the My Mix playlist from TIDAL to Qobuz).

Cheers

Paul McGowan on MQA and he is friends with Bob Stuart... MQA. What is it and is it any good? - YouTube