A question about MQA

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

skbe

New member
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
177
Location
France
Hey there. Hope you are fine during these crazy times. I have a question about MQA that I did not have a chance to ask before.
Let’s say we have a MQA album FLAC 24b 48k and completely unfolding it will deliver 96k like for example the last Tony Allen album on Tidal “Rejoice” (amazing album by the way, I completely encourage you to listen to it).
I understand that core decoding of MQA will deliver 96k anyway right? So what would bring the 3rd unfold for these albums MQA encoded in 48k or 44k and expected to deliver 88k or 96k?
On the other hand I understand an MQA file encoded in order to deliver 192k for example cannot deliver these 192k without an MQA renderer.
 
Another remark
What’s the purpose of MQAing in 48k FLAC files in 24b and 48k?
Isn’t the purpose of MQA of showing downsampled files and upsampling them with the different degrees of unfolding?
 
I’m still trying to figure out why the digital audio world needs MQA. It’s a lossy format plain and simple with a confusing array of musical laundry that needs to be unfolded. Some people love them some MQA so I guess that’s all that matters.
 
From what I understood, MQA’s goal was to provide the listener with “hi-resolution” tracks without using too much bandwidth.

But consumers soon realized that MQA is not bit-perfect (it is lossy) plus it is possible to stream bit-perfect high resolution files (think Qobuz, Amazon Music HD, etc.).

MQA could be useful when streaming for someone who lives in a place where there is limited bandwidth or internet speed.
 
Hi there. Are u sure MQA is lossy after unfold? When I play MQA with Roon, the Roon signal says it is lossless
 
skbe said:
Another remark
What’s the purpose of MQAing in 48k FLAC files in 24b and 48k?
Isn’t the purpose of MQA of showing downsampled files and upsamjpling them with the different degrees of unfolding?
Click to expand...



Is the badge HiRes on files dispatched by music streaming companies payable? I mean Qobuz has to pay something to the company owner of HiRes certificate?

Maybe Tidal has not HiRes certification so its files even in Flac 24b 48k cannot show the HiRes badge

Instead Tidal has MQA franchise so its files FLAC 24b 48k MQAed in 48k can show the MQA badge. And after all, for a file encoded in 24b 48k, it is better to show a badge (eg MQA here) rather than no badge at all

Pure speculation and deductions from me. Nothing is proven in what I say
 
skbe said:
Hi there. Are u sure MQA is lossy after unfold? When I play MQA with Roon, the Roon signal says it is lossless
Click to expand...

Once lossy, always lossy. It doesn't matter how many times you unfold the laundry.
 
mep said:
Once lossy, always lossy. It doesn't matter how many times you unfold the laundry.
Click to expand...

Why Roon says lossless then?
Roon claims to be totally transparent about audio signal
They didn’t grant airplay to be lossless (maybe because of clocking issues) although it is commonly believed to deliver ALAC 16b 44k audio
 
mep said:
Once lossy, always lossy. It doesn't matter how many times you unfold the laundry.
Click to expand...

Mep, you are incorrect.

Nothing is removed in MQA encoding, some parts of the signal are just taken out from the inaudible band and added to the signal footer to save bandwidth.

Same data, different place. All transported in full.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Kuoppis said:
Mep, you are incorrect.

Nothing is removed in MQA encoding, some parts of the signal are just taken out from the inaudible band and added to the signal footer to save bandwidth.

Same data, different place. All transported in full.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

We can do verbal jujitsu, but MQA is classified as a lossy format. From Wikipedia: "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."[19] 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."

Why in the world do we need a lossy digital format to complicate the playback of formally lossless digital music? I think Andreas Koch summed it up quite nicely when he said MQA does not solve any problem the world currently has.
 
Dear mep, you know better thank trying to convince me with a Wikipedia quote.

Andreas Koch is a great guy, and I have greatly benefited from his work as previous owner a Meitner DAC, but it is not too long ago he was under fire himself for promoting DSD. Just read the Linn and other statements why it could not be any good. That was close to ten years ago. I have now a Linn Klimax for the summer house supporting DSD. Reason is always the same, there is something new, and people can’t get their head around it.

If you ask me, every digitalization is lossy. Therefore, lossless digital in itself is an oxymoron.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Here’s an interesting one to ponder for everyone: if a file is upsampled to a higher bitrate, is it then high res, or is it the same low res in a larger package?

The amount of information does not change through upsampling. It just cannot.

My guess is our naming conventions are still evolving.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Kuoppis said:
Here’s an interesting one to ponder for everyone: if a file is upsampled to a higher bitrate, is it then high res, or is it the same low res in a larger package?

The amount of information does not change through upsampling. It just cannot.

My guess is our naming conventions are still evolving.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Upsampling can't add information. A 16/44.1 file upsampled to 24/192 contains no more information than the orginal 16/44.1 file.
 
So MQA?
Is it lossless or not according to generally accepted definition of lossless?
Roon is wrong claiming it is lossless?
 
Kuoppis said:
Dear mep, you know better thank trying to convince me with a Wikipedia quote.

Andreas Koch is a great guy, and I have greatly benefited from his work as previous owner a Meitner DAC, but it is not too long ago he was under fire himself for promoting DSD. Just read the Linn and other statements why it could not be any good. That was close to ten years ago. I have now a Linn Klimax for the summer house supporting DSD. Reason is always the same, there is something new, and people can’t get their head around it.

If you ask me, every digitalization is lossy. Therefore, lossless digital in itself is an oxymoron.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Now that's a different kettle of fish. If you compare any digital file to the LP counterpoint on a really good analog rig, people with open ears will understand your statement.
 
Kuoppis said:
Dear mep, you know better thank trying to convince me with a Wikipedia quote.

If you ask me, every digitalization is lossy. Therefore, lossless digital in itself is an oxymoron.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Ok. So you advice to stick to analog sources for the best audio hearing ?
 
skbe said:
So MQA?
Is it lossless or not according to generally accepted definition of lossless?
Roon is wrong claiming it is lossless?
Click to expand...

Start doing some reading so you can form your own opinion. Here is one article that is interesting: https://www.hifiplus.com/articles/highresaudio-to-stop-offering-mqa/

"From the HighResAudio Press Release:

HIGHRESAUDIO has stopped offering MQA. MQA is NOT lossless, the original signal is never recovered, estimate to recover at most 17bits (reduces the sampling rate), reduces the frequency range, SNR reduced by 3bit, aliasing with artifacts at 18kHz. MQA encoding filters manipulates drastically the original source. No analysis tools are available to verify the encoded MQA content. Therefore no quality control is possible."
 
Mep is right. MQA is not lossless.

MQA is one big fat marketing lie, and its technical arguments have been exposed as fraud. The problems with it are discussed is this excellent article:

MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions

Even the main argument for MQA, temporal de-blurring, may be flawed:

MUSINGS/MEASUREMENTS: On "blurring" and why MQA probably worsens transient smearing.

Another technical article by Benchmark Audio is useful as well:

Is MQA Dead on Arrival?

There is a whole 780 page thread on Audiophile Style (formerly "Computer Audiophile") where all the technical and marketing lies of MQA are discussed., but above reading, including the link provided by Mep, should suffice.


***

The sooner MQA ends up in the dustbin of history, the better.
 
Naaah i don’t have the time for that much reading. But I tend to believe Roon when they say MQA is lossless
Anyway I make no difference when listening into my headphones which satisfy me very well between MQA, HiRes and CD - just like composers, engineers and other people who have done blindtests which were reported in newspapers
 
Al M. said:
Mep is right. MQA is not lossless.

MQA is one big fat marketing lie, and its technical arguments have been exposed as fraud.
Click to expand...

Why Lumin support MQA decoders and renderers if it is a fraud ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top