[pinnahertz]

That goes both ways, you have no way of proving that
our appreciating the better SQ of Tidal Masters & MQA files ISN'T real.

....my ears says that it is.

My issue isn't so much one of IF there's a difference, though there are enough doubts there to build a real case, it's what you attribute that difference to. About that, there is no question, you have no idea.

Science cannot explain everything,

Agreed in principle, though "everything" is too broad a term to apply here.

and the ear is much more time domain sensitive
than was previously believed and than modern measuring instruments

Quite wrong. Instrumentation today, and for the last several decades, has been able to measure in the time domain with precision well beyond hearing ability. Your assumption that hearing has some supernatural ability to discern something in the time domain that cannot be measured is based in your belief system, not reality.

- hence the main reason why Chord DACs such as
the Mojo sound so good - much more accurate in the time domain than the competition -
as well as great engineering, low distortion and noise, better coherence, ease, musicality.
 

If any of that is true, do you think the design got where it is without measurement and science?  Or, somehow, in spite of science?  What did they do, put on sacred ground and dance in a circle chanting?  Come on, now.  Engineering is applied science..  

As was said a few posts back.... these improved masters wouldn't exist without MQA -

And I answered that a few posts back: there's been a notable market for remasters for decades dating back to the pre-digital days. MQA had nothing whatever to do with that. There's no reason MQA would have prompted remastering other than to deliberately make MQA sound different and obscure the fact that it's not really doing anything. And, if they are in fact doing that, that's not bad, but they aren't saying so! There's the problem, it's one of integrity.  The guys at highresaudio.com, at least, have enough integrity of their own to recognize Blue Smoke when then see it.

reason is that hires has been here formany years but no easily streamable format
has come ou "till MQA did it.

Again, nonsense. You over-credit MQA completely.

This isn't a science thread. Sure, not everyone needs or wants MQA, no argument there....

As I've said there are different paths to musical playback satisfaction - none of them have a monopoly.

I've actually said nothing here about the applied science at all. My points have been entirely about credibility, authenticity, and the complete lack of any form of proof that your MQA is actually improving anything at all.  I'm just calling out the Emperor's New Clothes.  And, evidently, I'm not alone. 
 
I recognize some are in love with delusion, myth, and make-believe. That's just fine, right up until they try to infuse their delusions and mythology on others who swallow it whole.  
 
Supporting a product without even knowing what it does or if it's doing anything at all is irresponsible.  But then extolling the virtues of the fully unsubstantiated results is the propagation of untruth, rumor, myth, marketing lies as if they were fact.  Attributing a fully biased opinion to an undefined and unsubstantiated and unverified process, presenting that opinion publically, that's worse than irresponsible.  
 
Then you object to an opposing view in "your" thread because it's asking for verification, credibility, and oddly given the MQA name, authenticity.  If the opposing view you object to is asking for all of that, what does that say about your view?  
 
And oddest of all, if the MQA process is so wonderfully and obviously an improvement, it should be easy and simple to provide that data, demonstration, etc.  and dispel all doubt once and for all.  But we don't have that.   Where is it?  Why don't we have it?  So, all we have is marketing Blue Smoke?  
 
That's just not good enough.  

 

[pinnahertz]

  Future of industry lies in monitizing streaming.  There is zero incentive to remaster in this scenario.  Labels won't be able to charge more/stream for a remaster that is encoded at Redbook or below.  They can only charge more for something different.  MQA is something different.
 
Perfectly fine to argue MQA's other qualities, but I have no doubt more remasters will be done if MQA is successful in the market.

It's too late.  The future is now the past.  The bulk of streaming, and I mean the BIG BULK of it cares not a wit for quality, they want it free.  And they have it.  YouTube is already the biggest music streaming source.  
 
Remastering has always had a market, strong, but tiny.  MQA didn't start that, isn't going to expand that, and it can go one quite nicely without MQA.
 
Labels won't be able to charge more for a remaster for very long.  Labels charging for streaming, and music in general, is coming to an end, and fairly soon.  The music industry has already changed, and labels are just a little slow on the uptake.  Music distribution is moving to a free model.  HiRes is a miniscule splinter and won't drive the music industry at all.  
 
The music industry missed it's chance to market the entire catalog in a way that was unmistakably different: 5.1 surround.  But it was too hard to do, too much market confusion, too many speakers, etc. etc.,  But 5.1 music is a major definite difference over two-channel, anyone could hear it, and there were millions of installed systems.  They blew that. A vague, possibly non-existant quality change has no market to speak of apart from the audiophile who won't support the music industry.  
 
Remasters will remain a tiny market, with or without MQA.  If MQA could be proven to be a major definite improvement, they might have something.  But that's very, very unlikely. 

 

[TokenGesture]

I don't think any one in the music industry is looking to let streaming go free any time soon. Far far from it. Youtube is the elephant in the room anomaly, which the marketeers have pumped up into a serious threat. But aside from that, streaming ain't free. It's cheap though, and sure the industry is looking to pursuade a market to go up the value chain into hi res, and MQA is a big bet on that direction. For that alone, it is to me a worthwhile endeavour.  The HiResAudi guys complaints matter not a jot to me as I am not buying files in MQA. I'm streaming them (or will do if and when I come across ones I actually want to listen to).  You can stream 24bit via Qobuz but it is a bandwidth killer, and wifi is often not up to the job.  Thats the main sell for MQA - smaller file sizes which are easily, painlessly streamable.  And then we come back to the original question - does it sound as good as the alternatives, or maybe better? Subjectively.
 
I think we have done the debunking arguments to death now. We get it. Now lets let our ears do the talking, so to speak. In this thread, at least.

 

[gregorio]

  [1] Thank goodness the moral crusaders have arrived ...
 
[2] Please, respectfully, get over yourself.  [3] Again, this isn't the science forum.

 
1. Yes, thanks for arriving kind sir. It was you who led with the "show the same respect" post wasn't it?
 
2. Really, you think that's being "respectfully"? After your starting post about showing respect, don't you think this comment is at least a tad hypocritical?
 
3. Not sure I understand, are you saying that: talking about appreciating something different to what's been stated, discussing basic modern marketing methods and the economic impact of a pernicious product, are all science? Maybe it would be easier if you just listed all those subject areas you personally consider to be science and therefore what we're not allowed to discuss here?
 

  the clean, natural sounding smoothness is something I heard right away - along with the blacker background and seeming removal of "haze" or "grain"

 
That's one of the best rationales I've seen yet for avoiding MQA! The very last thing I want is for a digital audio format to change the smoothness, black background or remove the haze or grain the artists and audio pros have put there in the first place! Imagine changing the smoothness or background of say the Mona Lisa!
 

[1] Science cannot explain everything ....

[2] This isn't a science thread.

 
1. As far as digital audio is concerned, yes it can! This fundamental fact was theorised about 90 years ago and proven mathematically nearly 70 years ago. You think you can disprove that proof? If so, make sure you publish your name and address somewhere, so you can be showered with riches and accolades as the greatest mathematician of the age or, are you just making up complete nonsense because you don't actually have any idea what science can explain?
 
2. Does that mean that no one is allowed to mention science here, or that it can only be mentioned if it's lied about or misrepresented (as above)?
 
G

 

[pinnahertz]

  I don't think any one in the music industry is looking to let streaming go free any time soon. Far far from it. Youtube is the elephant in the room anomaly, which the marketeers have pumped up into a serious threat. But aside from that, streaming ain't free. It's cheap though, and sure the industry is looking to pursuade a market to go up the value chain into hi res, and MQA is a big bet on that direction. For that alone, it is to me a worthwhile endeavour.  The HiResAudi guys complaints matter not a jot to me as I am not buying files in MQA. I'm streaming them (or will do if and when I come across ones I actually want to listen to).  You can stream 24bit via Qobuz but it is a bandwidth killer, and wifi is often not up to the job.  Thats the main sell for MQA - smaller file sizes which are easily, painlessly streamable.  
 

Missing the point entirely. MQA is not pivotal to hi-res streaming. It's a proprietary process that is licensed. There are plenty of other ways to stream a high quality lossy file, and without license. You can't really say YouTube is the "elephant in the room" because it pretty much IS the room. It's free, it wins, it's done. Yes we can pay for streaming, and some of us may want to to get the higher quality stream. But the "industry" has nuked itself for paid streaming, it just hasn't figured it out yet, and there's no going back.

And then we come back to the original question - does it sound as good as the alternatives, or maybe better? Subjectively.

There's no way to know, we have no reference or knowledge of what's been done, or what process is having any effect.

I think we have done the debunking arguments to death now. We get it. Now lets let our ears do the talking, so to speak. In this thread, at least.

And with that last statement you've just crystalized the problem here. "Let our ears to the talking". You mean, you're going to listen and decide if you like MQA?
 
Have you not read/understood anything in this thread yet? Listening and deciding, when it comes to MQA on Tidal (or anything else) an impossibility. You don't know what you're listening to.  There is no authentication.  It's missing the very aspect they're touting.  Anybody that hears an MQA stream/file and says, "Hey, that's better!" has no knowledge of what made it better.  You can listen, love, hate, all you want.  At this point, it's all pointless because you don't know what you're listening to.
 
And did I mention you don't know what you're listening to?  Nobody does. 

 

[TokenGesture]

Bye

 

[Steven Stone1]

  Missing the point entirely. MQA is not pivotal to hi-res streaming. It's a proprietary process that is licensed. There are plenty of other ways to stream a high quality lossy file, and without license. You can't really say YouTube is the "elephant in the room" because it pretty much IS the room. It's free, it wins, it's done. Yes we can pay for streaming, and some of us may want to to get the higher quality stream. But the "industry" has nuked itself for paid streaming, it just hasn't figured it out yet, and there's no going back.
There's no way to know, we have no reference or knowledge of what's been done, or what process is having any effect.
And with that last statement you've just crystalized the problem here. "Let our ears to the talking". You mean, you're going to listen and decide if you like MQA?
 
Have you not read/understood anything in this thread yet? Listening and deciding, when it comes to MQA on Tidal (or anything else) an impossibility. You don't know what you're listening to.  There is no authentication.  It's missing the very aspect they're touting.  Anybody that hears an MQA stream/file and says, "Hey, that's better!" has no knowledge of what made it better.  You can listen, love, hate, all you want.  At this point, it's all pointless because you don't know what you're listening to.
 
And did I mention you don't know what you're listening to?  Nobody does. 

Actually those of us who have had files they recorded converted to MQA and compared them to the original files via matched-level A/B have...but I don't want to upset your arguments

 

[pinnahertz]

  Actually those of us who have had files they recorded converted to MQA and compared them to the original files via matched-level A/B have...but I don't want to upset your arguments

Care to share the details, or just trolling?

 

[Steven Stone1]

  Care to share the details, or just trolling?

I've already written about it in TAS. Check their site.

 

[pinnahertz]

 
I've already written about it in TAS. Check their site.

I found an article dated 9/6/2016, regarding the Mytek Brooklyn.  It's all I could find with MQA and your name.
 
If that was the article you refer to, then I'll just repeat my question:
 
Care to share the details, or just trolling?

 

[Steven Stone1]

  I found an article dated 9/6/2016, regarding the Mytek Brooklyn.  It's all I could find with MQA and your name.
 
If that was the article you refer to, then I'll just repeat my question:
 
Care to share the details, or just trolling?

You found the article. It has what I found using my own recordings.

 

[pinnahertz]

 
You found the article. It has what I found using my own recordings.

There isn't enough detail in the article to verify anything. 

 

[headfry]

  There isn't enough detail in the article to verify anything. 

hello again pinnahertz - - how long have you been auditioning MQA? 
 
I've found your position on MQA in earlier posts and basically you seem to feel it is a cash grab
and not the revolution it purports to be......do you agree and if so do you still feel that way?
 
If you do hear a meaningful improvement and if the type of improvement hasn't been found in the streaming
format before then why the skepticism?
If you don't fine a meaningful improvement with MQA inline with what Steven and
other professional audio reviewers have found and after listening for a few weeks
please just let us know - your feedback will be appreciated.
 
If there is a significant, meaningful improvement but you don't think it's due to the MQA process, then 
let competitors move in and copy what they've done in some other format.
 
=============================================
 
Thank You Steven for your participation in this thread - I've been enjoying your articles for years!
 
 
I've already posted the link to your MQA/Brooklyn impressions, which for me corroborates other trusted reviewer's 
as well as my own impressions:
 
 
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/mytek-brooklyn-mqa-compatible-dac/?page=2
 
​For myself......it verifies that you hear improvement in the MQA playback as well as the kinds of improvements
and this means a lot to myself and to many audiophile readers.
 
Always looking for new impressions! Any Tidal Masters or MQA songs or albums any of you have enjoyed and can recommend?

 

[smartin]

  Missing the point entirely. MQA is not pivotal to hi-res streaming. It's a proprietary process that is licensed. There are plenty of other ways to stream a high quality lossy file, and without license. You can't really say YouTube is the "elephant in the room" because it pretty much IS the room. It's free, it wins, it's done. Yes we can pay for streaming, and some of us may want to to get the higher quality stream. But the "industry" has nuked itself for paid streaming, it just hasn't figured it out yet, and there's no going back.
There's no way to know, we have no reference or knowledge of what's been done, or what process is having any effect.
And with that last statement you've just crystalized the problem here. "Let our ears to the talking". You mean, you're going to listen and decide if you like MQA?
 
Have you not read/understood anything in this thread yet? Listening and deciding, when it comes to MQA on Tidal (or anything else) an impossibility. You don't know what you're listening to.  There is no authentication.  It's missing the very aspect they're touting.  Anybody that hears an MQA stream/file and says, "Hey, that's better!" has no knowledge of what made it better.  You can listen, love, hate, all you want.  At this point, it's all pointless because you don't know what you're listening to.
 
And did I mention you don't know what you're listening to?  Nobody does. 

 
Industry revenue has been essentially flat for 10 years.  The source has changed, to where streaming is not the largest source.  Streaming services have continued to add subscribers, despite YouTube.  Pandora/Spotify/Spotify/Apple serve a different market segment than people that only consume YouTube music.  Subscription retention is very high.  While there are other ways of streaming HiRes besides MQA, it's a lot harder to market and monitize a process (say streaming 18/96 FLAC, similar size, less 'lossy') than a thing (MQA), for example, 24 is better than 18 right?  Future revenue for the industry lies in streaming, to cash in on that they need to find a way to entice a percentage of the people that pay $4 (Pandora) or $10 (Spotify) a month to pay $5-$10 more.
 
In regards to direct testing, you can compare the 2L test tracks.  They provide all sorts of different encodings from the same master(just please don't do ABX testing like I see touted in science forum, worthless protocol.)

 

[old tech]

   
Again, I'm not an MQA fan. But this comment is also unfair. And also doesn't belong in this thread.
 
If say a recording was recorded at 768 and Mixed and 384 and released at 44, 192, and 384 (all FLAC)
 
Is the 44 Considered "Lossy"?
Is the 192 Considered "Lossy"?
Is the 384 Considered "Lossy"?
 
Let's just say the 384 is considered Lossless because that's what the Master Mix was released at and everything else was downsampled from.
If a later version is released at 768 does that now make the 384 one lossy?
 
MQA lingo has certainly made the term "lossless" more fuzzy. But it was already getting fuzzy.
 
I think what lossless really means in practice is, is it below Redbook or At-or-Above, that is about the only consistent definition left.

You are right of course, a lot of people seem to confuse "lossless" with "resolution".  Uncompressed PCM, like CDs, is lossless by definition.  It is a factual statement not a point of debate.
 
24 bits is higher resolution than 16 bits and 16bits is higher resolution than 8 bits.  However, as has been proved over and over again, no human can hear the difference between a 16bit file and a 24bit file, providing it is the same master source, competent DAC, level matched and importantly, double blind to take expectation bias and placebo effects out of the equation.
 
The more important point is what exactly is a high resolution music or file?  The industry cannot agree on a common definition and it is not possible to say that the music on a 24/96 or higher file is true high res as it depends on the recording and production chain.  This is the point made by Waldrep in the video below (he is the owner of the AIX true hi res music label).  If the source is analog tape (which is nearly all recordings before 1990) then it is impossible to be high resolution, regardless of the delivery file or playback chain.  Even the best analog master tapes recorded on the best Neeve machines are equivalent to around 13 to 14 bits.  Converting this to 24 digital is not going to suddenly make these recordings hi res - except perhaps more nuanced tape hiss.  This is another reason why 24bits cannot sound better than 16bits because even if there was a human freak out there that can hear the difference between a 96db noise floor and a 144db noise floor, there is nothing there but noise.
 
The music in the AIX label are true certified hi res music as they are all DDD recordings of at least 24/96 all the way through production, so a freak perhaps could hear a difference with that music comparing 16bits to 24.  But at the end of the day, nearly all recorded music, even full symphonic orchestras, would not use more than 13bits or 13bits equivalent in analog tape.  What does make a difference, and where many audiophiles are led astray, is how well the music was recorded in the first place and the mastering effort/choices put in by the engineer.  So there is nothing MQA can possibly do to improve the sound of any source, even compared to a CD.  Whether it does sound different is only due to either or a combination of different masterings, flaws in the playback chain or expectation bias.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5S_DI99wd8