MQA Core vs. Hi-Res

[patate91]

A nice article about the MQA format, enjoy


https://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/...omment=1506193620874&m=1#c8516142158661473870

 

[JoeESP9]

Very interesting. Thanks for the link.

 

[Audiofreak71]

Good read, thanks for posting that.

Audiofreak71

 

[evsentry3]

Just keep in mind as you digest it, that it's based on Internet science.

Unknown people with unknown listening skills, listening on unknown quality equipment in unknown conditions to files of unknown origin.

Fact that all in and figure out the proper value to assign to the study.

EV3

 

[patate91]

Just keep in mind as you digest it, that it's based on Internet science.

Unknown people with unknown listening skills, listening on unknown quality equipment in unknown conditions to files of unknown origin.

Fact that all in and figure out the proper value to assign to the study.

EV3

Have you read it???

.

 

[ev13wt]

Did you take part too? His listening test? Results are in dudes:

https://archimago.blogspot.de/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html?m=1

 

[ev13wt]

As expected, no one could tell a difference AT ALL but the flaming is already underway, again.

 

[ev13wt]

Just keep in mind as you digest it, that it's based on Internet science.

Unknown people with unknown listening skills, listening on unknown quality equipment in unknown conditions to files of unknown origin.

Fact that all in and figure out the proper value to assign to the study.

EV3

Yea. You have fun with that.

Even if all you just said would be factored in, any difference would be tiny and would not effect the outcome one bit.

Normal street cars aren't faster because you changed the oil. But people still claim "what they feel for themselves". You can bring in specialists, test equipment and throw a million at it, and any difference would be sub sub seconds.
Like, well yes, there is a difference now. The car reached 75 mph 0.021 seconds faster!

Belief systems. Humanities nightmare. It will take a while to catch up, even though we have the internet.

 

[E-Stat]

As expected, no one could tell a difference AT ALL but the flaming is already underway, again.

For me the whole premise of MQA is faulty - presumably to reduce bandwidth in an era of rapidly decreasing costs. And the 96/24 ends up being 96/17 after all the "unfolding".

All with added licensing fees, DRM, need for proprietary DAC, etc.

A solution in search of a problem (other than revenue for Bob Stuart!). I like how Charles Hansen characterizes it: More Questions than Answers!

 

[satkinsn]

Archimago does important work, in a low key, non-confrontational way. If you read the link in the OP's post, you'll see that he is meticulous when it comes to explaining who participated, what was used, how the test was conducted, what the certainties and less than certainties are when it comes to what was found.

I've been following his reporting/testing for several years and learning to pay attention to what's real has only increased my pleasure, when it comes to all-things audio. I think people are afraid that if they start accepting the results of objective testing, it'll take the fun out of the hobby. T'ain't so.

s.

 

[Rex81]

I guess I'm not seeing the point of this test. A common misconception is that MQA is trying to provide better sound quality than hi-res. That's not the point.

It's to provide better sound quality than CDs, reduce hi-res file size to allow streaming, and most importantly, to certify that you're getting an untouched master file, as the artist or studio intended. That's the value. And to those of us streaming MQA off Tidal, that's a hell of a value.

 

[E-Stat]

It's to provide better sound quality than CDs

Such has been available for over fifteen years.

...and most importantly, to certify that you're getting an untouched master file, as the artist or studio intended.

Do you understand that you are getting a lossy result - that is anything but an *untouched* master?

BTW, I use Tidal too.

 

[ev13wt]

I guess I'm not seeing the point of this test. A common misconception is that MQA is trying to provide better sound quality than hi-res. That's not the point.

It's to provide better sound quality than CDs, reduce hi-res file size to allow streaming, and most importantly, to certify that you're getting an untouched master file, as the artist or studio intended. That's the value. And to those of us streaming MQA off Tidal, that's a hell of a value.

Since nobody needs "better than CD" quality, because no one can hear it, I think the value is in the DRM - for the copyright holders - the end.

Untouched master file - what even is that supposed to mean lol...

 

[Rex81]

Such has been available for over fifteen years.

Yes, but until MQA, has not been available to stream. Many of us don't want the cost, playback, and storage headaches of downloading our music.

Do you understand that you are getting a lossy result - that is anything but an *untouched* master?

Of course anything digital is "lossy". The content you're "losing" is negligible. Of far more importance is the source material itself. I've done a LOT of comparison between MQA and CD. Sometimes there's not a lot of difference. Most of the time, the master material is better.

 

[Rex81]

Untouched master file - what even is that supposed to mean lol...

It means that the artist or studio that recorded the music signs off on it, saying that what you're listening to is the music exactly as it left the studio. It means that no unauthorized remaster, down sample, or manipulation of any kind was done to it. It means no record executive was able to say "Hey, let's fade in here, and add a little sparkle to the end of that guitar studio." Like I said, sometimes it doesn't matter, but sometimes it really, really does.

 

[Condorsat]

I guess I'm not seeing the point of this test. A common misconception is that MQA is trying to provide better sound quality than hi-res. That's not the point.

It's to provide better sound quality than CDs, reduce hi-res file size to allow streaming, and most importantly, to certify that you're getting an untouched master file, as the artist or studio intended. That's the value. And to those of us streaming MQA off Tidal, that's a hell of a value.

That's a very good point. IMHO ... Hi Res is never going to move beyond the niche audio market.

MP3 or AAC (High Bit Rate) can sound better than most people think with the proper audio gear and good sounding master file to start with. There is real possibility that it could
become the de-facto audio standard for the masses for years to come ... sort of like the QWERTY principle.

 

[E-Stat]

Yes, but until MQA, has not been available to stream.

Actually, Qobuz has been doing that in Europe at 192/24 for a while.

Of course anything digital is "lossy".

That statement is not supported by fact.

The content you're "losing" is negligible.

Perhaps to some, but not all.

Sometimes there's not a lot of difference. Most of the time, the master material is better.

Some content is 2 db louder and possesses a kind of reverb not present with the original. You may find that more enjoyable.

Lossy artifacts

Do follow Charlie's link as well for details. Note in particular that tracks from some albums are different with the MQA version.

 

[Rex81]

I totally get the skepticism around DRM and a new audio format (although the beauty of MQA is that it's in a FLAC container, so anyone can play the file, even if they don't have full MQA capability). What I think a lot of audiophiles are missing, or not fully appreciating is the certified master source file. This simply ensures that we're getting the content the artist intended. That's really important to me. I'm surprised this isn't more important to others, but that's ok. Just surprising.

To me, this is a big step forward in consumer advocacy. The industry needed this advancement in my opinion.

 

[DaveVoorhis]

Of course anything digital is "lossy".

Not inherently. Indeed, pure digital systems are far less lossy than any possible analog system.

 

[DaveVoorhis]

This simply ensures that we're getting the content the artist intended. That's really important to me. I'm surprised this isn't more important to others, but that's ok. Just surprising.

To me, this is a big step forward in consumer advocacy. The industry needed this advancement in my opinion.

Interesting. That never occurred to me before, and in retrospect it's obvious that the source content could be altered, but I still don't care whether I'm getting the content the artist intended or not. I only care whether I like it or not. I wonder how many others do or do not feel the same way.