News: Millions Of MQA Tracks Coming To TIDAL Masters From Warner Music
- Thread starter wklie
- Start date
TheOctopus
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2013
- Messages
- 1,622
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.”
"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.”
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,095
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.”
MQA is a solution in search of a problem that never existed IMO. I'll take 16/44.1 recordings that were made from the original master tapes and weren't scrubbed through a digital filter that removes the analog noise floor from the tapes over MQA files every day of the week.
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,095
Technology has rendered that point moot. Storage space is dirt cheap.
UltraFast69
New member
I wonder what the subscriber makeup is in regards to MQA, meaning a comparison between audiophile and non-audiophile.
Most non-audiophiles I know never even heard of Tidal or Qobuz, but familiar with Spotify and iTunes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Most non-audiophiles I know never even heard of Tidal or Qobuz, but familiar with Spotify and iTunes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
TheOctopus
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2013
- Messages
- 1,622
"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.
"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.
TheOctopus
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2013
- Messages
- 1,622
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."
still-one
Active member
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,095
How about storage at the source? That's what I was referring to. I assume the majority of people who listen to MQA are streaming it from Tidal.
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,095
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.
TheOctopus
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2013
- Messages
- 1,622
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. :scholar: 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 $$$$ in Stuart's pocket instead.
Agree about Qobuz, but not Tidal?
Spotify and iTunes... well... you must be hanging around old folks! [emoji3]
Young folks are in the know when it comes to Tidal (Jay Z, Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, Kanye West, etc.)
Artist-Owned – TIDAL
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,095
To be fair and objective, I do not have an MQA unfolding DAC so my listening is limited quality then, by design of MQA. (MQA-encoded content can be carried via any lossless file format such as FLAC or ALAC; hence, it can be played back on systems either with or without an MQA decoder. In the latter case, the resulting audio has easily identifiable high-frequency noise occupying 3 LSB bits, thus limiting playback on non-MQA devices effectively to 13 bit. MQA claims that nevertheless the quality is higher than "normal" 48/16, because of the novel sampling and convolution processes.)
I fortunately do have a choice and I choose not to listen to MQA but Qobuz instead.
If my findings are strictly due to a non MQA DAC, then so be it but I still have a choice and I choose none of this gimmick that does nothing for my enjoyment of music and puts $$$$ in Stuart's pocket instead.
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.
Puma Cat
Well-known member
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.
PMCH
Member
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.
KeithR
Active member
MQA wasn't made for audiophiles. we are an insignificant factor in the music world. there is a reason the top 2 streaming services still don't have even cd-quality sound. i can't say MQA Tidal Masters sound worse than the originals when I've done compares. most sound better.
and streaming 24/192 on the go around the world isn't easy to do for most. nor are the big studios ever going to give it up en masse.
there is more MQA music than SACD ever dreamed of- where of course Koch and his buddies charged a licensing fee, too. if anything, its safe to say DSD is dead. and fair to say the 10 remaining SACD enthusiasts don't complain about fees.
and streaming 24/192 on the go around the world isn't easy to do for most. nor are the big studios ever going to give it up en masse.
there is more MQA music than SACD ever dreamed of- where of course Koch and his buddies charged a licensing fee, too. if anything, its safe to say DSD is dead. and fair to say the 10 remaining SACD enthusiasts don't complain about fees.
still-one
Active member
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
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.
And I will take the thousands of MQA recording I have access to and for which I have paid not one single penny extra for. The MQA titles in Tidal are provided at the same rate as CD quality. My DAC manufacturer provided MQA for no additional charge.
As far as ripping off creators give me a break. Copyrights for music are now absurd. Why someone should generate earnings for something they created for 70 to 120 years is crazy. Nowhere else does on generate earnings for something they did that far in the past.
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!