Thread: A question about MQA

Basically, as an answer to both Al and skbe, have you never experienced the situation on your home computer, where you try to install a program, and it does not work? Then you delete it and install it again, and et voilà, all fine.

This is indeed very common in SW. The really intriguing thing about SW is, that you sometimes just don’t know why it does not work, even though you did everything correctly. Just happens.

Audio files are SW, as simple as that. Same with images, you transfer them and sometimes you do have artifacts for no good reason.

I think Mike L. summarized it in a nice way, there are a lots of variables in every sharing event.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Just for the benefit of everyone, this is not something I just came up with. The terminus technicus is files do get “corrupted”.

I’m sure there’s plenty to read about that on the interweb.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

As Al said, PCM is better described as a lossless encoding scheme, and not as a compression scheme, because the original data values are represented by individual codes, and there is no reduction of multiple values to a fewer number of codes.

MQA is indeed lossy, because the data output after decode (either with our without MQA decode) is not identical to the original input data.

Digital files transferred or copied using a reliable protocol will not degrade in quality. Comparing [software installation bugs or code incompatibilities that result in a program not working] or [image transfer using an application or service that applies its own compression to save time or money] or [data corruption / bit-rot] to [general purpose reliable data transfer] is fallacious.

In the context of different audio encodings or distributors, provenance is usually taken to mean knowledge of the "chain of custody" and whatever happened along the way.

Originally Posted by NekoAudio

As Al said, PCM is better described as a lossless encoding scheme, and not as a compression scheme, because the original data values are represented by individual codes, and there is no reduction of multiple values to a fewer number of codes.

MQA is indeed lossy, because the data output after decode (either with our without MQA decode) is not identical to the original input data.

Digital files transferred or copied using a reliable protocol will not degrade in quality. Comparing [software installation bugs or code incompatibilities that result in a program not working] or [image transfer using an application or service that applies its own compression to save time or money] or [data corruption / bit-rot] to [general purpose reliable data transfer] is fallacious.

In the context of different audio encodings or distributors, provenance is usually taken to mean knowledge of the "chain of custody" and whatever happened along the way.

What does encoding/ decoding mean technically? It means packing and unpacking, which essentially is compression.

I.e. making the information package smaller and then bigger again.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

What does encoding/ decoding mean technically? It means packing and unpacking, which essentially is compression.

I.e. making the information package smaller and then bigger again.

In the realm of computer science, the term compression is not used if simply talking about making the representation smaller. For example, in the following example of morse code for the letter 'C', the second encoding would not commonly be called compression:

1. dash dot dash dot
2. -.-.

Even though the second line uses 4 bytes of data, compared to the first line using 17 bytes, this would be called encoding and not compression.

Encoding means to convert one representation into another. Decoding the reverse operation.

Originally Posted by NekoAudio

MQA is indeed lossy, because the data output after decode (either with our without MQA decode) is not identical to the original input data.[/URL].

Slightly incorrect, I’m afraid.

a) yes, it is lossy if not rendered and decoded, or only rendered (i.e. unpacked with SW only and w/o the second level MQA decoder). They call that first level unfolding.

b) no, it is not lossy if rendered and decoded with a MQA decoder. However, the information is not identical, as parts from the inaudible band are transported in the message footer to allow for a smaller file size. That does not mean the same information is not there, it’s just in another place.

But this is nothing new, can be read everywhere. There is just this statement from Andreas Koch people are gettin hung up about. Of course he is against MQA, as they are his competitor and eating his lunch.

Andreas Koch just spent a decade arguing why DSD is good, and faced exactly the same kind of pushback as MQA does. Sony was not much better than Meridian/ MQA trying to achieve world domination with SACD. At first Linn was very vocal about DSD being nonsensical, but now they support it. Now they argue MQA does not make sense. See a pattern here?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by NekoAudio

In the realm of computer science, the term compression is not used if simply talking about making the representation smaller. For example, in the following example of morse code for the letter 'C', the second encoding would not commonly be called compression:

1. dash dot dash dot
2. -.-.

Even though the second line uses 4 bytes of data, compared to the first line using 17 bytes, this would be called encoding and not compression.

Encoding means to convert one representation into another. Decoding the reverse operation.

I do agree, your morse example has nothing to do with compression.

If the encoding makes the data package smaller and decoding bigger again, it is a form of compression.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

Just for the benefit of everyone, this is not something I just came up with. The terminus technicus is files do get “corrupted”.

I’m sure there’s plenty to read about that on the interweb.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If you didn’t make this up, you should really point us to where we can read the source of your belief that “The quality of source file deteriorates similarly to an analog master when you make a copy of a copy of a copy etc. Deterioration is just slower.“

You won’t find it though unless you read it on The Onion.

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

b) no, it is not lossy if rendered and decoded with a MQA decoder.

A 24-bit/96kHz data MQA decode is not going to equal the original 24-bit/96kHz data that was input to the MQA encoder. From the patent application.

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

I do agree, your morse example has nothing to do with compression.

If the encoding makes the data package smaller and decoding bigger again, it is a form of compression.

In the morse code example, the data package is indeed smaller after encoding (translation from written words to abbreviated . and - characters). It can be referred to as compression, but typically isn't.

Originally Posted by NekoAudio

A 24-bit/96kHz data MQA decode is not going to equal the original 24-bit/96kHz data that was input to the MQA encoder. From the patent application.

Exactly. As explained earlier, data from the inaudible spectrum is moved to the footer. Of course the file is different, that’s the whole point. Why is that difficult to understand?

Originally Posted by NekoAudio

In the morse code example, the data package is indeed smaller after encoding (translation from written words to abbreviated . and - characters). It can be referred to as compression, but typically isn't.

Compression here is referring to an audio signal, i.e. compression within the same medium. Again, totally different topic.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by mep

If you didn’t make this up, you should really point us to where we can read the source of your belief that “The quality of source file deteriorates similarly to an analog master when you make a copy of a copy of a copy etc. Deterioration is just slower.“

You won’t find it though unless you read it on The Onion.

Start here, it’s in color. There might be an audiobook version in case reading is troublesome.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Once the music is on your NAS, is it safe and secure forever? Maybe not.

From Wikipedia:
Data corruption refers to errors in computer data that occur during writing, reading, storage, transmission, or processing, which introduce unintended changes to the original data. Computer, transmission, and storage systems use a number of measures to provide end-to-end data integrity, or lack of errors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_corruption

From Sage:
Damaged files or corrupt data of some variety on a computer is inevitable. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Computers are by and large, extremely reliable machines, but they are still machines and are subject to wear and tear just like anything else.
https://support.na.sage.com/selfserv...9520&sliceId=1

Practical test case from CERN:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/data-c...than-you-know/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

Exactly. As explained earlier, data from the inaudible spectrum is moved to the footer. Of course the file is different, that’s the whole point. Why is that difficult to understand?

I'm not referring to the file, or to the encoded data being different than the pre-encoded data. I'm referring to whether or not the audio data pre-encode and post-decode is identical or not. If you input a sequence of 24-bit/96kHz audio data into the MQA encode process for encoding into 24-bit/96kHz data, the audio data that comes out of the MQA decode will not be identical to the original input. For starters, input data would be truncated to 17-bits as shown in Figure 7A.

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

Compression here is referring to an audio signal, i.e. compression within the same medium. Again, totally different topic.

I think it is okay if you want to use compression only in the sense of the bits necessary for a single code being fewer than when using a different code. I was just pointing out that within the computer science and engineering community we generally wouldn't do so, and would more likely find that usage confusing. The "medium" is irrelevant ("audio signal" isn't a medium)—data compression is area of science and technology that should only be audio-specific when the compression algorithm is lossy and wants to incorporate psychoacoustic research to minimize perceived quality loss.

Originally Posted by NekoAudio

I'm not referring to the file, or to the encoded data being different than the pre-encoded data. I'm referring to whether or not the audio data pre-encode and post-decode is identical or not. If you input a sequence of 24-bit/96kHz audio data into the MQA encode process for encoding into 24-bit/96kHz data, the audio data that comes out of the MQA decode will not be identical to the original input. For starters, input data would be truncated to 17-bits as shown in Figure 7A.


I think it is okay if you want to use compression only in the sense of the bits necessary for a single code being fewer than when using a different code. I was just pointing out that within the computer science and engineering community we generally wouldn't do so, and would more likely find that usage confusing. The "medium" is irrelevant ("audio signal" isn't a medium)—data compression is area of science and technology that should only be audio-specific when the compression algorithm is lossy and wants to incorporate psychoacoustic research to minimize perceived quality loss.

We’ve been through this, already twenty posts ago.

All data is still there, it’s just in a different place. And it can’t be fully decoded w/o a MQA renderer/ decoder.

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

Start here, it’s in color. There might be an audiobook version in case reading is troublesome.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This all you have? If there was ANYTHING in that book that backed up your ridiculous statement that copying a digital file causes degradation to the file, you would have pulled it out of the book and bolded it. You have nothing.

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

Once the music is on your NAS, is it safe and secure forever? Maybe not.

From Wikipedia:
Data corruption refers to errors in computer data that occur during writing, reading, storage, transmission, or processing, which introduce unintended changes to the original data. Computer, transmission, and storage systems use a number of measures to provide end-to-end data integrity, or lack of errors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_corruption

From Sage:
Damaged files or corrupt data of some variety on a computer is inevitable. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Computers are by and large, extremely reliable machines, but they are still machines and are subject to wear and tear just like anything else.
https://support.na.sage.com/selfserv...9520&sliceId=1

Practical test case from CERN:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/data-c...than-you-know/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

Dear mep, you know better thank trying to convince me with a Wikipedia quote.

So why are you using a Wikipedia quote?

From the patent application, MQA is "essentially" lossless only at half the sampling rate of the original file; i.e., 24/192 can be "essentially lossless" only in a 24/96 MQA container, and a 24/48 container can only contain "essentially lossless" information up to 24/96. At sampling rates more than twice the original, MQA is acknowledged in its own patent application as lossy. In it's "essentially lossless" guise, MQA files are about the same size as corresponding FLAC files, so it doesn't really provide a size advantage either.

Originally Posted by rbbert

From the patent application, MQA is "essentially" lossless only at half the sampling rate of the original file; i.e., 24/192 can be "essentially lossless" only in a 24/96 MQA container, and a 24/48 container can only contain "essentially lossless" information up to 24/96. At sampling rates more than twice the original, MQA is acknowledged in its own patent application as lossy. In it's "essentially lossless" guise, MQA files are about the same size as corresponding FLAC files, so it doesn't really provide a size advantage either.

If the format is sending the information at 1/2 of 1/3 the file size how is it the same size? I'm reading your post, but not interpeting.

Originally Posted by steve59

If the format is sending the information at 1/2 of 1/3 the file size how is it the same size? I'm reading your post, but not interpeting.

The MQA and a corresponding FLAC (level 8) file of the same original PCM file are about the same size (MQA slightly smaller, because it not completely lossless as FLAC is).

As far as Lumin or Roon or any other software/firmware stating "lossless", this probably only means it is a PCM stream, which by definition is "lossless" whatever the bit depth and sampling rate. To test this, upsample a 16/44.1 file to 24/96, change the amplitude of the file in an audio editor by any small amount (e.g., -0.1 dB, which then makes it "true" 24/96 to an editing program), and see what the Lumin or Roon says.

Originally Posted by mep

So why are you using a Wikipedia quote?

This really isn't worth discussing. It has been tested by numerous labs, security agencies and dilettantes; if data-checking is used as part of the copying process, the data will remain unchanged. This is different from rewritable media losing or corrupting data pieces over time; that's why checksums and frequent back-ups are part of any reasonably good data storage.

Originally Posted by rbbert

This really isn't worth discussing. It has been tested by numerous labs and dilettantes; if data-checking is used as part of the copying process, the data will remain unchanged. This is different from rewritable media losing or corrupting data pieces over time; that's why checksums and frequent back-ups are part of any reasonably good data storage.

So you as an ER physician are saying that people at the CERN Hadron Collider do not know what they are doing with their data systems? Probably that the CERN report is fake news, maybe?

This is the difference when you are a physician and read about theoretical stuff you most likely do not even understand, nor have a chance of verifying or falsifying. Or if you actually know what you are talking about.

Everyone really in the business knows that data corrupts in many forms and through various factors. It’s unfortunate, but true.

Here’s another one for the Trumpists to obsess about: Did you know that data on your CDs corrupts over time, even though you are not even using them?

Looking forward to the answers .

How do the CERN "people" backup their data? I would think the same way financial institutions, government security agencies and other scientific bodies do; copy, data check, checksums.

Here's a simple example for you, relevant to digital audio; take a FLAC file, decode to WAV and save. Or, take a saved WAV file and encode to FLAC. Then, either by running a batch file or doing it manually until you get tired or bored (100x, 1000x, or whatever), decode it to wav and re-encode to FLAC. Decode to WAV a final time, and compare the 2 WAV files using Audio DiffMaker or any other data checking software you choose. Let us know your results.

Data on manufactured CD's rarely corrupts; again, many people have compared the data from 2 old CD's and found no difference. It certainly can happen, that has been documented, just rarely. CD-R's are a different story, in general the physical aspects are not as robust as manufactured CD's.

As you have said, the potential problems with serial copying and data loss and corruption are known and have been known for a long time, and there are a number of methods in common use to correct for that.

Originally Posted by rbbert

How do the CERN "people" backup their data? I would think the same way financial institutions, government security agencies and other scientific bodies do; copy, data check, checksums.

Here's a simple example for you, relevant to digital audio; take a FLAC file, decode to WAV and save. Or, take a saved WAV file and encode to FLAC. Then, either by running a batch file or doing it manually until you get tired or bored (100x, 1000x, or whatever), decode it to wav and re-encode to FLAC. Decode to WAV a final time, and compare the 2 WAV files using Audio DiffMaker or any other data checking software you choose. Let us know your results.

Data on manufactured CD's rarely corrupts; again, many people have compared the data from 2 old CD's and found no difference. It certainly can happen, that has been documented, just rarely. CD-R's are a different story, in general the physical aspects are not as robust as manufactured CD's.

As you have said, the potential problems with serial copying and data loss and corruption are known and have been known for a long time, and there are a number of methods in common use to correct for that.

My dear physician, the “CERN people” run one of the most complex IT operations on the planet.

Don’t you guys ever read up on things, before actually answering? Wouldn’t it be nice once in a lifetime to actually know what you are talking about?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I might add that it is apparent that most companies in the recorded music industry apparently do not take appropriate care of their music storage, digital or analog. Judging from some of what has been permanently lost, backup and storage is irregular and haphazard at best. Private music collectors tend to do a much better job, with secure copying, regular backups and scattered physical storage sites.

This thread has gone way past consumer consumer level discussion. Like most format wars, vhs vs beta, hd vs blueray, quality or potential quality have nothing to do with what becomes the standard. We just have to find ways to like what the bean counters decide to feed us.

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

My dear physician, the “CERN people” run one of the most complex IT operations on the planet.

Don’t you guys ever read up on things, before actually answering? Wouldn’t it be nice once in a lifetime to actually know what you are talking about?

So what is your point (not at all clear from the links you have posted)? You actually think that CERN is more concerned with data storage than the NSA, or Bank of America? CERN is merely idealistic; in this world, unfortunately, money is what makes it go around (a key difference being those groups are not going to let the "outside" world know about it).

Relevant to this audio forum, try the FLAC/WAV experiment I outlined, and you may get a better understanding of how to preserve digital audio data.

Originally Posted by steve59

...We just have to find ways to like what the bean counters decide to feed us.

This is really the problem with MQA in a nutshell; the powers that be behind MQA would prefer a world where MQA is the only digital audio format with higher digital resolution ("quality") than CD made available to the public.

Well, you go ahead an do statistical analysis based on a sample size of one or two. That’s what people always do when they are not able to deduct a reasoning: use anecdotal evidence.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by rbbert

This is really the problem with MQA in a nutshell; the powers that be behind MQA would prefer a world where MQA is the only digital audio format with higher digital resolution ("quality") than CD made available to the public.

Again nonsense: how many times has it been stated here, that me as well as many others, are format agnostic. There are people who just want to enjoy the variety. Always these conspiracy theories where the brain is put out of service.

Vinyl, PCM, DSD, tape - anything goes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by kzhtoo

I’m not asking this to be a smart ass and I genuinely do not know the answer to my question. What is MQA so bad for the naysayers apart from MQA guys making a few bucks?

There are several issues with MQA independent of a claim of saving bandwidth. If it had simply been presented as another lossy codec for space savings, like MP3 or Ogg, then we'd be having a very different discussion. But in that case it also would have likely been forgotten by now.

1. The way the technology has been presented and discussed, it leads to misinformation, disinformation, and misunderstandings. As illustrated by this thread.

2. From a purely technical perspective, it is a worse choice than comparable codecs for encoding, storing, and reproducing audio data (not the sound, the data). Similar to vinyl or cassettes being technically inferior to Red Book CDs. You can certainly prefer the sound of X to Y, but that's separate from any technical merits.

3. From a marketing perspective, and as a result of #1, MQA has become a feature requested by consumers that increases the cost and complexity of products. That cost is not free and will be passed on to the consumer when buying hardware, software, and music.

4. The problems MQA advertises itself as solving are problems that it is essentially creating for itself. For example, you ask if MQA helps reduce the bandwidth then isn't that a good thing (independent of any other claims or issues). But the truth is that it doesn't reduce the bandwidth required when compared against alternative codecs, for audio of equal fidelity (e.g. 17-bit/96kHz MQA displayed as 24-bit/96kHz during playback but equal to 17-bit/96kHz LPCM).

5. Unlike multichannel audio, 2-channel consumer audio was the one area unburdened by a proprietary codec. That means anyone could design and build their own product that would be both backwards- and forwards-compatible, and anyone could perfectly transcode audio data constrained only by the technical limits of a codec or medium. That also extends to audio creation. MQA changes that the same way HDMI, HDCP, MPEG-2, Dolby Digital, etc. changed things for multichannel. For video, at least, the industry has made a conscious decision to fight that in the form of the Alliance for Open Media and AV1 codec.

Originally Posted by NekoAudio

There are several issues with MQA independent of a claim of saving bandwidth. If it had simply been presented as another lossy codec for space savings, like MP3 or Ogg, then we'd be having a very different discussion. But in that case it also would have likely been forgotten by now.

1. The way the technology has been presented and discussed, it leads to misinformation, disinformation, and misunderstandings. As illustrated by this thread.

2. From a purely technical perspective, it is a worse choice than comparable codecs for encoding, storing, and reproducing audio data (not the sound, the data). Similar to vinyl or cassettes being technically inferior to Red Book CDs. You can certainly prefer the sound of X to Y, but that's separate from any technical merits.

3. From a marketing perspective, and as a result of #1, MQA has become a feature requested by consumers that increases the cost and complexity of products. That cost is not free and will be passed on to the consumer when buying hardware, software, and music.

4. The problems MQA advertises itself as solving are problems that it is essentially creating for itself. For example, you ask if MQA helps reduce the bandwidth then isn't that a good thing (independent of any other claims or issues). But the truth is that it doesn't reduce the bandwidth required when compared against alternative codecs, for audio of equal fidelity (e.g. 17-bit/96kHz MQA displayed as 24-bit/96kHz during playback but equal to 17-bit/96kHz LPCM).

All good points. I would add that, as far as I read on the thread at Audiophile Style (former "Computer Audiophile"), on Tidal some titles are only available as MQA anymore. That means the customer is robbed of choice, including even access to Red Book.

5. Unlike multichannel audio, 2-channel consumer audio was the one area unburdened by a proprietary codec. That means anyone could design and build their own product that would be both backwards- and forwards-compatible, and anyone could perfectly transcode audio data constrained only by the technical limits of a codec or medium. That also extends to audio creation. MQA changes that the same way HDMI, HDCP, MPEG-2, Dolby Digital, etc. changed things for multichannel. For video, at least, the industry has made a conscious decision to fight that in the form of the Alliance for Open Media and AV1 codec.

Such an external standard is a main reason why Schiit Audio, to their great credit, has refused to embrace MQA:

Why We Won't Be Supporting MQA

It is also a main reason why the late Charles Hansen (Ayre) has written this essay:

If MQA is the "new world" of audio, I want no part of it - I'd rather dig ditches

Originally Posted by NekoAudio

There are several issues with MQA independent of a claim of saving bandwidth. If it had simply been presented as another lossy codec for space savings, like MP3 or Ogg, then we'd be having a very different discussion. But in that case it also would have likely been forgotten by now.

1. The way the technology has been presented and discussed, it leads to misinformation, disinformation, and misunderstandings. As illustrated by this thread.

2. From a purely technical perspective, it is a worse choice than comparable codecs for encoding, storing, and reproducing audio data (not the sound, the data). Similar to vinyl or cassettes being technically inferior to Red Book CDs. You can certainly prefer the sound of X to Y, but that's separate from any technical merits.

3. From a marketing perspective, and as a result of #1, MQA has become a feature requested by consumers that increases the cost and complexity of products. That cost is not free and will be passed on to the consumer when buying hardware, software, and music.

4. The problems MQA advertises itself as solving are problems that it is essentially creating for itself. For example, you ask if MQA helps reduce the bandwidth then isn't that a good thing (independent of any other claims or issues). But the truth is that it doesn't reduce the bandwidth required when compared against alternative codecs, for audio of equal fidelity (e.g. 17-bit/96kHz MQA displayed as 24-bit/96kHz during playback but equal to 17-bit/96kHz LPCM).

5. Unlike multichannel audio, 2-channel consumer audio was the one area unburdened by a proprietary codec. That means anyone could design and build their own product that would be both backwards- and forwards-compatible, and anyone could perfectly transcode audio data constrained only by the technical limits of a codec or medium. That also extends to audio creation. MQA changes that the same way HDMI, HDCP, MPEG-2, Dolby Digital, etc. changed things for multichannel. For video, at least, the industry has made a conscious decision to fight that in the form of the Alliance for Open Media and AV1 codec.

NekoAudio, a couple of inaccuracies and one thing I do not understand why you state it, as you are an audio dealer.

1. Agreed, MQA marketing has been unclear and a mess.

2. There‘s no reason why MQA should be a worse storage format than any other digital format, it’s still a variant of PCM. As to the other mediums, vinyl is actually technically the superior storage format, as it deteriorates the least. I would guess tape is subject to wear and tear, and maybe some degradation. CDs can start to degrade and lose data already after 10-20 years, audio files on a HDD are susceptible to silent corruption.

3. This is what I don’t understand you saying as a dealer: if MQA is an added feature and increases product price, that means you also make more margin. Why is that bad?

4. You need to differentiate between transmission bandwidth, and playback bandwidth. MQA actually does decrease transmission bandwidth, as the unpacking (de-compression) happens in the DAC.

5. Proprietary 2-channel CODECs have been out for ages, e.g. WMA, AVI, XHRD, SACD, DSD, DXD, Audio DVD, BlueRay Audio, HDCD etc. to name a few. MQA just adds one more.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

Again nonsense: how many times has it been stated here, that me as well as many others, are format agnostic. There are people who just want to enjoy the variety. Always these conspiracy theories where the brain is put out of service.

Vinyl, PCM, DSD, tape - anything goes.

I'm not referring to listeners; I'm referring to MQA the company, and its business relationships with the record labels. There has absolutely been an attempt by MQA to monopolize the commercial availability of "hi-res" music, which fortunately appears much less likely now than it did 2-3 years ago.

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

Well, you go ahead an do statistical analysis based on a sample size of one or two. That’s what people always do when they are not able to deduct a reasoning: use anecdotal evidence.

I have no idea what you mean by this. CERN's data storage is qualitatively similar to that of any conscientious music collector; quantitatively it is significantly different. You do realize that the data error rates they discovered would result in an insignificant change (if indeed any change at all) in a digital music file? Do you know how the AccurateRip database functions?

Bottom line, master recordings in the possession of the industry are far more likely to have significant corruption than the recordings in the hands of private dedicated collectors.

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

5. Proprietary 2-channel CODECs have been out for ages, e.g. WMA, AVI, XHRD, SACD, DSD, DXD, Audio DVD, BlueRay Audio, HDCD etc. to name a few. MQA just adds one more.

Most of those you mention have faded from commercial relevance. Notably SACD, DSD, DVD-Audio and Bluray Audio are "lossless" in a digital sense; not so MQA. If you still think MQA is lossless, read the nearly 100 page patent application; never are the words "digitally lossless" used together.

Originally Posted by rbbert

I have no idea what you mean by this. CERN's data storage is qualitatively similar to that of any conscientious music collector; quantitatively it is significantly different. You do realize that the data error rates they discovered would result in an insignificant change (if indeed any change at all) in a digital music file? Do you know how the AccurateRip database functions?

Bottom line, master recordings in the possession of the industry are far more likely to have significant corruption than the recordings in the hands of private dedicated collectors.

Do you know what they do at CERN?

Sorry, but it’s not quite like your home computing .


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by rbbert

Most of those you mention have faded from commercial relevance. Notably SACD, DSD, DVD-Audio and Bluray Audio are "lossless" in a digital sense; not so MQA. If you still think MQA is lossless, read the nearly 100 page patent application; never are the words "digitally lossless" used together.

This was a simple proof to invalidate the claim that there has not been a proprietary 2 channel CODEC before MQA.

Which of course is bollocks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by rbbert

I'm not referring to listeners; I'm referring to MQA the company, and its business relationships with the record labels. There has absolutely been an attempt by MQA to monopolize the commercial availability of "hi-res" music, which fortunately appears much less likely now than it did 2-3 years ago.

Yes, but people on the forum are not MQA company. They are listeners, as you call them (often also referred to as audiophiles).

I would propose all the MQA haters should get a MQA capable DAC to try it out for themselves. Then they at least know what the others are talking about.

As far as I can see, this discussion stems mostly from theoretical argumentations of people who have not experienced MQA in their own system.

That’s why it‘s so boring. Go, explore, find out for yourselves. Be radical, learn something new.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

Yes, but people on the forum are not MQA company. They are listeners, as you call them (often also referred to as audiophiles).

I would propose all the MQA haters should get a MQA capable DAC to try it out for themselves. Then they at least know what the others are talking about.

As far as I can see, this discussion stems mostly from theoretical argumentations of people who have not experienced MQA in their own system.

That’s why it‘s so boring. Go, explore, find out for yourselves. Be radical, learn something new.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think almost everyone here (perhaps everyone) discussing MQA has at the least a passing acquaintance with it in their own systems. Don't be so dismissive of others' experience and knowledge; in many cases it's likely to be more extensive and relevant than your own.

As I noted, my dislike of MQA has mostly to do with its (the company's) monopolistic attitude, which no matter how you look at it is bad for the consumer. If I found the sound to be consistently better (which I don't) I would still feel that way. As long as it stays at Tidal, and the industry continues to release "hi-res" music in other digital formats, I have no problem with it.

Originally Posted by kzhtoo

I’m not asking this to be a smart ass and I genuinely do not know the answer to my question. What is MQA so bad for the naysayers apart from MQA guys making a few bucks?

I do have a DAC that can fully unfold MQA files, although MQA was never part of my purchase decision. And I get my MQA from Tidal, and again, without or without MQA has nothing to do with my Tidal subscription. I never felt MQA files sound terribly bad over CD or Hi-Res files and they aren’t also exceptionally sound better than other formats. It really still depends on the particular recording or album. But if MQA helps reduce the bandwidth both for consumers and the streaming companies, why is it so bad about it?

Nothing will eliminate other formats unless the new technology is vastly superior in every way. But meanwhile a new format here and there to address a few gaps here and there, I’m totally okay with.

Note: I also have Quboz subscription.

We have some things in common. I have a DAC that unfolds all the MQA laundry and I have Tidal and Quobuz subscriptions. That means I have access to all the MQA files on Tidal and I can play any MQA album I want. I made the decision after listening to numerous MQA albums that basically I don’t care for listening to MQA. If other people love them some MQA and think it’s the best sounding digital out there, more power to them.

Originally Posted by rbbert

I think almost everyone here (perhaps everyone) discussing MQA has at the least a passing acquaintance with it in their own systems. Don't be so dismissive of others' experience and knowledge; in many cases it's likely to be more extensive and relevant than your own.

As I noted, my dislike of MQA has mostly to do with its (the company's) monopolistic attitude, which no matter how you look at it is bad for the consumer. If I found the sound to be consistently better (which I don't) I would still feel that way. As long as it stays at Tidal, and the industry continues to release "hi-res" music in other digital formats, I have no problem with it.

So, why don’t you just state your don’t like their business modeL and be done with it?

Instead you venture into these wanna-be technical arguments, where a five-year-old can immediately see you are completely out of your depth. That’s nonsensical.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by mep

We have some things in common. I have a DAC that unfolds all the MQA laundry and I have Tidal and Quobuz subscriptions. That means I have access to all the MQA files on Tidal and I can play any MQA album I want. I made the decision after listening to numerous MQA albums that basically I don’t care for listening to MQA. If other people love them some MQA and think it’s the best sounding digital out there, more power to them.

Well, that would be a wonderful attitude, wouldn’t it?

You should try it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

So, why don’t you just state your don’t like their business modeL and be done with it?

Instead you venture into these wanna-be technical arguments, where a five-year-old can immediately see you are completely out of your depth. That’s nonsensical.

This is going to degenerate into a personal squabble. You are making ad hominem attacks where I have tried to point you to actual facts that dispute your POV.

If you have read the MQA patent application and still feel it is lossless, then I apologize, although to my knowledge no one else who has done so has come to that conclusion (and there have been extensive on-line discussions of this).

If you understand and use AccurateRip but still feel that CD data corruption is common, I would like to see some evidence.

I would request that you either respond on point or don't respond at all.

Originally Posted by skbe

Anyone have seen a serious article about copying a digital file deteriorating the file with the use of say clean windows copy/paste? I heard this sentence here and I’ve been searching the net and I cannot find something convincing. This making me do nightmares!

On the contrary I read things on génération loss in Wikipedia saying there is no harm doing so!

So I am hoping !!!

Heureusement, ils ont cela aussi en français.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by skbe

Anyone have seen a serious article about copying a digital file deteriorating the file with the use of say clean windows copy/paste? I heard this sentence here and I’ve been searching the net and I cannot find something convincing. This making me do nightmares!

On the contrary I read things on génération loss in Wikipedia saying there is no harm doing so!

So I am hoping !!!

If you are concerned that Windows 10 file copy isn't adequate (it's better than older Windows file copy algorithms), then use TeraCopy
https://www.codesector.com/teracopy