MQA Deep Dive - I published tracks on Tidal to test MQA

[Audiophiliac]

Alternatively why don’t you stop pretending you know anything about my motivations and stop be such a condescending prick ?

I wonder if I can use the word wanker here ? Seems so …. and perhaps stop being such a complete wanker !

Agreed, he said you're a virtue signaling audiophile, lol!
Anyhow, until people establish that ONLY uncompressed files are reference playback, and everything else just tries to hide any changes, they are playing back the $20 BJ versions of their tracks, while saying it still sounds the same as if it's her in the first place.
The wankers of head-fi have been telling everyone all along that 128kbps mp3's are perfect, and that any newer higher bitrate than cd releases only add stuff beyond the important part that's noise, and they'll send a link of someone proving it for 2 pages. They always tell me they don't understand what I'm talking about, and they must be wondering why THEY should have to be wankers, because of it.
Watch out for the porn wankers, they'll want it to be someone else, so that everyone can finally be doing it. :<

 

[gregorio]

Anyhow, until people establish that ONLY uncompressed files are reference playback …

People are never going to establish that, because it is not true. Wav and other lossless formats can still be altered, while losslessly compressed files can be identical to the files created by the original mastering engineer and even high bit rate lossy formats can be audibly the same.

The wankers of head-fi have been telling everyone all along that 128kbps mp3's are perfect …

I’m not sure what “wankers” you’re talking about, I don’t recall anyone “telling everyone all along that 128kbps MP3’s are perfect”. They can quite often be audibly the same but that depends on the genre/track, they’re certainly not always audibly the same, unlike high bit rate modern codecs.

and that any newer higher bitrate than cd releases only add stuff beyond the important part that's noise

If you’re talking about high-res formats (more than 16bit and/or 48kHz) then they “only add stuff” which is inaudible ultrasonic content and a lower digital noise floor (in some freq bands) that’s also inaudible at reasonable listening levels.

G

 

[Audiophiliac]

People are never going to establish that, because it is not true. Wav and other lossless formats can still be altered, while losslessly compressed files can be identical to the files created by the original mastering engineer and even high bit rate lossy formats can be audibly the same.

I’m not sure what “wankers” you’re talking about, I don’t recall anyone “telling everyone all along that 128kbps MP3’s are perfect”. They can quite often be audibly the same but that depends on the genre/track, they’re certainly not always audibly the same, unlike high bit rate modern codecs.

If you’re talking about high-res formats (more than 16bit and/or 48kHz) then they “only add stuff” which is inaudible ultrasonic content and a lower digital noise floor (in some freq bands) that’s also inaudible at reasonable listening levels.

G

I rest my case.

 

[Jose in Jersey]

@BS5711, I apologize again. I’ll move on.

@Audiophiliac, I have no idea what you are talking about anymore, but whatever your goals are, keep reaching for those stars.

No, neither vinyl nor cassettes employ any type of lossy or lossless compression, they are both analogue formats and therefore obviously cannot be used to compare different digital data compression codecs. And incidentally, all analogue formats loose a significant amount of information, which of course is why digital audio was invented.

Cassettes and records were produced from a master at the plant, sealed and purchased by the listener with no alteration. That is perfect lossless. From the source.

and actually charged content creators for the privilege of employing that inferior format?

RE: cost of doing business: Phillip’s/Sony main patents for CDs expired in 2001, and they were estimated (NY Times article) to have lost 60 million in royalties from CDs, you get an idea of how much they were earning over twenty years on just royalties. In fact, you’re still paying for that trademark forty year later. Plus, they have still been protecting their IP and suing people, see 08 Civ. 515 (RGS) over in SDNY, which finally ended in 2013 in the Circuit. Not sure if you consider that a privilege because they were not doing it for free.

So MQA’s alleged inferiority stems from what? Can’t be alleged DRM because MQA doesn’t have it while red book and Apple files 100% were proven or admitted to have had it at some point. (lossy Atmos too?) Or is said allegedly inferiority stems from it being lossy? Curious, I don’t recall seeing anyone L E G I T I M A T E L Y show that MQA was “lossy.” Maybe point me in the right direction of where someone that tried?

 

[Elegiac]

You don't accept the problems with MQA. You won't accept any criticism. Fine.

Get this. MQA doesn't care about you. They didn't create MQA to benefit you, that's purely incidental to the goal: make money. Your defense of MQA signals your intellect/virtue about as much as a defense of Disney as a company would. Or Sony.
It's silly, it's cringey. Let it go.

 

[XTF1]

Curious, I don’t recall seeing anyone L E G I T I M A T E L Y show that MQA was “lossy.” Maybe point me in the right direction of where someone that tried?

So, you didn’t even try Wikipedia? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_Authenticated

It qualifies MQA codec as lossy and references, among several, this application note from the respectable Benchmark company: https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa

Even my standard AI-enabled browser answers the question “Is MQA lossless?” by saying “MQA uses lossy compression…”

 

[Audiophiliac]

Personally, I think people should FLAC, and then ZIP and RAR all of their music tracks 100 times inside of each at the highest compression level, and then store all their files on a drive that uses compression. If anyone thinks that would sound any worse than the original, you must have have bad ears.

 

[BS5711]

@BS5711, I apologize again. I’ll move on.

For what it is worth, I ended up doing what you suggested because I had enough of Tidal's deception.

I was listening to several Tidal compiled playlists and they were littered with songs that my devices flag as MQA despite that Tidal calls them FLAC. I can't say for certain what is going on and I acknowledge that there is no sonic difference that I can make out. However, when Tidal previously offered CD quality on an earlier Hi Fi tier as an alternative to MQA but that was shown to be trickery and just MQA with the flag removed and they now say that they are dropping MQA and apparently are again not being completely honest I am done with them.

I also use Apple Music as an Apple user and I have changed a couple of aspects of my equipment and set up and have dropped Tidal after waiting for several years for them to actually be genuinely transparent with the public. Apple Music works great for me and is plain and simple ALAC files that are all lossless or higher. Apple have their own little oddities here and there but I know what they are and there is no deception involved so that suits me.

@Audiophiliac, I have no idea what you are talking about anymore, but whatever your goals are, keep reaching for those stars.

We agree on one thing at least

 

[Audiophiliac]

Personally, I think hearing the difference between any 2 tracks of any two artists at all are indistinguishable from one another, and proves that everything about audio, especially on my system, is already perfect in the first place. Anyone who thinks anything sounds better than $5 earbuds, I refuse to care about, and they will no longer go with the women because of it.

 

[Luckyleo]

Personally, I think hearing the difference between any 2 tracks of any two artists at all are indistinguishable from one another, and proves that everything about audio, especially on my system, is already perfect in the first place. Anyone who thinks anything sounds better than $5 earbuds, I refuse to care about, and they will no longer go with the women because of it.

Are you trying to sound ridiculous? Just wondering what's up with you.

 

[BS5711]

Are you trying to sound ridiculous? Just wondering what's up with you.

He is trying to sound funny in a sarcastic way following on from earlier comments where others say that certain things are inaudible but he says he has the hearing of a super human and can hear things that technically is not possible, standard audiophile nonsense on HF.

Frankly I think there is something else going on, some of the comments are unhinged or at least those of a person with a fertile imagination and to much time on his hands.

 

[Audiophiliac]

I just prefer the simpler sound of uncompressed. If you like compression better, you're right if you want to kill more people than me, because of it. Except it still depends on whether or not I try other people's music.

 

[Elegiac]

I think the temperature of music is more important. I store my files in a vacuum-sealed bag, under a small waterfall of chilled, filtered water. This I place between two bonsai trees that I have pruned into flat paddle shapes to block light from the north and south, and mitigate the Earth's magnetic field. Sunlight only touches the storage packet at sunrise and sunset, when the ambient air has the least solar saturation.

Conversely, on cold, rainy days, I replace the bonsai's with two heated mirrors and leave the waterfall at room temperature.

I thought Audiophiliac might be OCD HiFi Guy. His channel on Youtube is pure gold. I could fall asleep to the sound of his rambling pronouncements.

 

[BS5711]

I think the temperature of music is more important. I store my files in a vacuum-sealed bag, under a small waterfall of chilled, filtered water. This I place between two bonsai trees that I have pruned into flat paddle shapes to block light from the north and south, and mitigate the Earth's magnetic field. Sunlight only touches the storage packet at sunrise and sunset, when the ambient air has the least solar saturation.

Conversely, on cold, rainy days, I replace the bonsai's with two heated mirrors and leave the waterfall at room temperature.

I thought Audiophiliac might be OCD HiFi Guy. His channel on Youtube is pure gold. I could fall asleep to the sound of his rambling pronouncements.

I prefer my music after a couple of red wines, what is that doing to the music files ?

 

[Elegiac]

I prefer my music after a couple of red wines, what is that doping to the music files ?

It is giving them an unfair advantage. But it is you who is giving it to them, by doping. The files prefer chilled white wine. Red wine only affects you.