Who is he?
(I’m not a fan of MQA btw).
I’m not sure that the video will make a blind bit of difference to the MQA die hard.
Someone will probably be along any second to say ‘…i don’t care about the graphs in that video cos i don’t listen to graphs! All MQA still sounds amazing on my setup’.
2 Likes
Well I signed up to Qobuz in Australia today. It just became available.
Goodbye Tidal and Goodbye MQA.
I voted with my wallet.
Qobuz 96k and CD quality tracks are a big step up over Tidal Masters.
There’s really no contest.
This is one of my favourite albums, it sounds amazing via Qobuz… Tidal cant match its quality.
14 Likes
I can’t hear the difference and Iv always said that I like freedom of choice so that’s the only axe I have to grind but I admire your commitment to your ears, system and MQA. For that alone I doff my cap to you. I’ll keep enjoying the music whichever it is!
I am not surprised by your preference in this case, because of course it’s an unfair comparison!
This particular album is available in 24bit/96kHz in Qobuz, but only 16bit/44.1kHz in Tidal. There is no hi-res MQA ‘Master’ version of this album on Tidal.
Worth including the response to MQA’s response too:
MQA’s Response
Immediately after MQA removed my content from Tidal, I posted here and in a few other places to encourage people to go and find the tracks on Tidal or Roon. They could not be streamed, but could be seen. This was so MQA wouldn’t later be able to claim they never existed, and there would be “witnesses” so to speak.
AFTER that happened, I received a response from MQA. Their full response can be read here: MQA Response - Pastebin.com
I won’t address every point as much of it is marketing speak. But there are a few i’d like to address:
- The first part discusses how MQA is more advanced than conventional approaches and intends to account for the conversion process at each end of the chain.
To which i’d respond with two things:
- In that case why is Warner, who offers MQA for seemingly most of their releases, not using MQA for archival storage? Or anyone else for that matter?
- Why was I never even asked during the publishing/MQA encoding process about what recording methods or hardware i’d used? I also used a fully MQA certified full decoder for output so that cannot be the issue. And digital recordings were made from Tidal or Roon’s MQA core decoder.
More to the point, even if you DID have info about the source and DAC hardware components, how would you account for tracks where multiple ADCs, synths, recording methods and in-production editing methods were used? Hardly any music nowadays is produced in analog and then digitised, or digitally recorded using only one ADC model.
- "We don’t understand your frustration about evaluating MQA."
My frustration is that no end to end analysis tools are available like they are for nearly EVERY other format. Yes we can listen to any MQA song, but we have no information about how its been altered, is it the same master, no way to check for placebo, or any way to objectively test with test files other than jumping through hoops like I had to do for this video/post.
Additionally, when someone like Chris Connaker, Mans Rullard or Archimago provides evidence, the question is dodged, and when I reach out to you, you attempt to censor me by removing all of my content.
THAT is my frustration. It isn’t transparent in the slightest and MQA responds in a hostile manner whenever criticised.
If you truly stand by your claims, myself, and just about anyone else would be more than happy to work with you to conduct testing that both sides agree on to demonstrate your claims. But when all the evidence suggests your claims are false, and you do not allow proper testing or provide your own, there is absolutely no reason to believe you.
- "This [the MQA encoder] is not configured to deal with content where, for example, the statistics change mid‐song, or where the audio does not resemble natural sound."
Does that then imply that electronic music won’t work with MQA? Or that tracks with a combination of ‘natural’ recording and synthesised parts won’t work?
Right now none of the tracks in Tidal’s top 10 are true analog recordings, and 8/10 are in MQA.
Maybe the ‘studio tools’ that are referenced in your response do help to overcome these issues, but again, there is no transparency. We have no idea what these tools are, who has access to them, which releases were made using them, and have no way to evaluate them.
Would you ever consider making a limited version of these available? Perhaps releasing a version that only allows for a max 10 second audio length. This would allow people to test properly.
A little transparency would go a LONG way. And saying that MQA is lossless, but only within certain vague and unspecified criteria, and lossless only using non-conventional evaluation methods, isn’t exactly reassuring.
- In regards to my mention of the blue MQA authentication indicator they said: "The onus is on the submitter to check the content when it arrives in Tidal and confirm the sound."
This was NEVER mentioned during the publishing process. And doesn’t address the fact that you can take an MQA file, throw away a third of it, and still have that light show up.
Plus, even the 44.1khz file I submitted both sounds different and is objectively different to the master I published.
And again this is the same for any other track where a high sample rate version and MQA version are available, they are not the same.
- The next part of their response goes on to explain how MQA adaptively identifies and responds to content in a track.
This again, implies that it cannot be lossless. If it is behaving differently to different types of recording and music then the result will not be consistent.
It might sound more ‘natural’ to some people, but sounding natural and being lossless to the original master are not the same thing.
If you wish to market an ‘AI upsampling’ or responsive/adaptive process then that’s totally fine. But sounding subjectively better to some people does NOT make it lossless and is no excuse to make false marketing claims.
- They also discuss the files I had published.
I should firstly mention that the information and status messages they’re providing here, I only ever received one of these, the one saying that the encoder was unable to encode the file. And that was only for the files where it was literally just a test file, an impulse response or square wave without any other content, which would likely not pass MQA’s checks for this sort of content.
All the other error messages, I never received, I do not know if these are genuine, and given as MQA had the publisher remove all of my content I cannot go back and check.
Given as I cannot verify any of these, and even if they are true it doesn’t address the fact that the encoder was unable to handle my files, I won’t discuss this point further.
- In response to my concerns about added noise, MQA claims that this was my fault, as I didn’t dither the files. Claiming this was a “Naive mistake”.
No MQA, it wasn’t. In fact this was something I had explicitly tested. The first track I submitted, called “Try again”, DID have dither, and showed all of the issues mentioned in this video, in fact some to a worse extent. To give MQA the benefit of the doubt and check that the dithering wasn’t adversely affecting anything, I published the next two tracks without dither.
So this is not my fault at all, and the only Naive mistake made was not looking at all three files I had published.
- In response to others and my description of the MQA upsampling filters as leaky, they claim this term is derogatory and inappropriate. And that the only alternative would be brickwall bandlimiting.
Firstly, I don’t think that the filter itself has feelings, but if I have hurt them then I apologise. Secondly, perhaps the biggest advantage of genuine native hires audio is just this. It allows much more flexibility with filter design. Going from 44.1khz to 96khz source sample rate gives you over 13x more distance between the audible band and nyquist frequency.
So if the argument is that brickwall filters are bad, which to be clear, in many aspects I agree with, the solution isn’t MQA, its to use native hires!
- In regards to aliasing they claim that this is simply because the levels of the signal were too high and it wouldn’t occur in real music.
For this point, I’m quite happy to accept this might be the case. (Though I would say it still is concerning that the encoder wasn’t able to handle even simple sines, and still invalidates the “Lossless” claim.)
In fact as I mentioned earlier in the post, i’d prepared another track with ultrasonic content at much lower levels to test what level this was aliased down at. Unfortunately you had my tracks removed and this never made it to Tidal.
If this claim is true, then send me the MQA encoded version of that file and i’d be happy to post here with updates.
Again, lack of transparency makes it difficult to address concerns…
- They also say that every MQA file will tell you the sample-rate of the original audio.
And this is true, but my complaint wasn’t that it didn’t tell you at all, it was that it isn’t clear in the slightest. Tidal shows no indication at all of original sample rate.
You have to use a program like roon to show this information. This means it is misleading consumers into believing that any MQA release is better than RedBook FLAC.
I conducted a survey, which got over 250 responses, and of those who said they thought MQA was a good thing, TWO THIRDS of them believed that not only was MQA better than redbook, it was the same or BETTER than 24 bit 192khz FLAC…
This is a concerning statistic as it simply isn’t true!
I understand this lack of transparency may be Tidal’s fault not MQA directly, but it is the combination of Tidal’s lack of transparency and MQA’s marketing that is having the harmful effect of misleading consumers.
Lastly i’d also just like to say. Obviously this is not ‘ideal conditions’ testing. But given the evidence shown and MQA’s response, quite frankly until they provide something concrete, there is just no reason to trust them at all.
I, Amir, and many others would be HAPPY to work with MQA to test various claims, but the testing done here is the best we can do with the tools available.
Until MQA becomes more transparent, the objective evidence from various sources suggests it is riddled with problems.
Further Reading:
Bob Stuart wanted to censor AS: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/…porware/page/584/?tab=comments#comment-958011
How to test MQA’s leaky filter: How to demonstrate MQA's leaky filter - General Forum - Audiophile Style
2018 RMAF MQA talk by Chris Connaker:
Archimago’s MQA article: MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions - Reviews - Audiophile Style
PS Audio vid on MQA:
Schiit on MQA: https://www.schiit.com/news/news/why-we-wont-be-supporting-mqa#:~:text=Today, Schiit Audio announced that,so that they may choose
Linn on MQA: MQA is Bad For Music. Here's Why.
Neil Young removes albums from TIDAL: Neil Young Archives
John Atkinson of stereophile confirms low-level distortion: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/…porware/page/680/?tab=comments#comment-980420
GTO filter analysis: iFi foe fum - General Forum - Audiophile Style
Benchmark Audio’s statement about MQA transient shifting: https://www.theabsolutesound.com/ar…lifier-and-dac3-b-digital-to-analog-converter
RealHD stops supporting MQA: MQA: Sonic Degradation and Huge Losses – Real HD-Audio
Archimago on transient smearing Archimago's Musings: MUSINGS/MEASUREMENTS: On "blurring" and why MQA probably worsens transient smearing.
Rob Watts on digital filters: Watts Up...? | Page 134 | Headphone Reviews and Discussion - Head-Fi.org
Benchmark on MQA: Is MQA DOA? - Benchmark Media Systems
Meridian has doctored tests of hi-res in the past: Audio Investigations: The Great Debate: Amir vs Arny
Filter ringing (with a link to Mans/troll audio) https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/…porware/page/699/?tab=comments#comment-983918
Aliasing vs. imaging: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/…porware/page/683/?tab=comments#comment-980885
Music aliasing distortion example: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/…porware/page/683/?tab=comments#comment-980857
Linear phase vs. Minimum phase: Linear and minimum phase – Troll Audio
Sox settings to duplicate an MQA filter: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/…echnology/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-754014
JA’s post showing signal aliasing: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/?do=findComment&comment=980401
mansr’s original Dragonfly DAC analysis: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/…analysis/page/20/?tab=comments#comment-690307
Why MQA’s digital filters blur the music: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/…porware/page/470/?tab=comments#comment-936690
A Survey of Musical Instrument Spectra to 102.4 KHz There's life above 20 kilohertz! A survey of musical instrument spectra to 102.4 kHz
RealHD Audio on MQA: Hi-Res Audio HAS Specifications! – Real HD-Audio
24 Likes
I’m sure there’s some (or even plenty) of that, but your response suggests anyone raising concerns about MQA is some diehard fanboy trying to browbeat everyone else into submission. There’s actually reason for concern here, regardless of your take on MQA. I don’t care about it, nor do I care about hi-res in general. I just want lossless redbook. And that’s what I thought I was getting from Tidal. The Goldensound video illustrates that’s not the case. Both Tidal and MQA work hard at hiding that fact from the average user. So I’ve been played, and likely many others with me. I’ve been paying double the price of a Spotify sub for just another lossy format. That warrants criticism, and for me it was enough to warrant cancelling my sub.
Since then I’ve also watched the RMAF video where the MQA people gang up on Chris Connaker. That rather shameful performance (talk about browbeating someone into submission) has only cemented my decision. They’re bullies. Even if I’d decide to pursue hi-res, I still wouldn’t consider MQA at this point, regardless of how it sounds. The company’s practices (and Tidal’s by extension) are not acceptable to me. I don’t want to have anything to do with either of them.
18 Likes
Not possible because MQA IS secret, secretno, strictly confidential, classified, restricted, only for MQA people eyes and so on, and so on. Its totally unacceptable! [Moderated] They aggressively attack bloggers who want know more about MQA, test it, compere formats, do their typical work…
Transparency - like many of you said - is normal thing on democracy. So, why MQA Ltd is like heavy handed regime?
Bob told us crucial information after big wave of criticism and every time only some pieces, not more, not all. For me MQA is not only needless, also it is cancer of whole audio business (HiFi/Hi-end/distribution/music industry). Good news is - its DOA, so not really big problem for us.
1 Like
I see Archimago is at it again today. He couples a nice measurement-filled review of the Drop + THX AAA 789 headphone amp with some disparaging comments on a review of the THX Onyx dongle, comments which call for the death of MQA as “the right thing to do”:
Please music lovers and audiophiles. MQA was poorly conceived from the start. And within its DNA, it did not truly, honestly, desire to benefit music lovers IMO. Even if there were aspirations to be beneficial at one point, the days of needing lossy compression for hi-fi audio streams are well over. After 6 years of hype, living in the nether regions of respectability as a zombie “format” by anyone who seriously looks at what this thing does, and with Tidal being the sole source of MQA-encoded content of any significance, not only would it be merciful to let MQA die, it would also be the right thing to do.
Along the way, he expresses an opinion about our friend Hans Beekhuyzen (quoted in the Audioholics review):
Honestly, for all the misinformed nonsense that Hans Beekhuyzen has spewed for years, he deserves to be ignored - the dude will promote basically anything including audiophile ethernet switches for goodness sakes!
I wish he’d tell us what he really thinks! 
5 Likes
So at 96k and 192kHz it is lossy MQA?
1 Like
This is how admins on the “mqa developments and reviews” are reacting to the video :
@GoldenSound NEVER claimed that AND the full response of MQA is by the way even included in his video. They are spreading lies and they do so by calling the creator of the video a liar.
And - how convenient - they turned commenting off so the lie can stand on it’s own in other words censoring. And by the number of “likes” their message gets through.
And…
below the heart symbol …
Is the name of the very one that posted a screenshot here 8 hours ago - from that video - showing the response email from mqa - and by saying : “May I drop this here…”
Shortly after the creator replied to that person and even provided a link to the original mail.
And three hours later, that link is used on the mqa fan page, for building up a huge lie, damaging the reputation of GoldenSound.
Welcome to mqa marketing.
13 Likes
I can’t be bothered with this MQA nonsense. It just feels like a way for tidal to save bandwidth, allowing studios to “protect” their hi-res masters while providing consumers a facsimile of the master itself.
I’ve moved from Tidal to Qobuz, copied over all my tracks via Soundiiz, saved a few quid in the process and I’ve stopped worrying about whether I need an MQA DAC.
13 Likes
Have you ever taken a look at the collection of people who run back and forth between this website and Audiophile Style’s anti-MQA thread, posting the same things in both and carrying the highly negative opinions from there to here? It shouldn’t be a problem then if a few people cross-post between here and websites that have a favorable view of MQA.
4 Likes
That’s a disingenuous assessment. On the one hand, you’re saying an individual can go back and forth and post consistent messaging against (true); on the other hand, it is easily inferred that @Wim_Hulpia is highlighting one individual posting the official MQA response on here and simultaneously liking the alternate site’s public post proclaiming the provable falsehood that GoldenSound stated he did not get a response and the page admin turning off commentary to quell any dissent or legitimate rebuttal. I’m not suggesting we get the pitchforks out for the individual, but let’s acknowledge the inherent suppression of questions and comments from people that deserve answers that goes on. It’s a double-standard.
People are binning Tidal (and MQA as a consequence) in droves. I see it on numerous other boards; the groundswell of Oz users alone since Qobuz launched only 5 days ago is startling. The 3 clear messages coming from almost everyone who is voting with their wallet:
- lossless formats sound better to them
- they have no trust in the format and its claimed benefits due to dodging the opportunity to test in an open manner coupled with the continued marketing-speak obfuscation by the owner
- probably the most important of all (and the most common single reason) is the removal of consumer choice both by aiming to tie-up the audio chain into a proprietary, closed system and also the removal of the original lossless files from the platform thereby pulling the user onto the proprietary carousel (you can’t even use the lossless alternative to avoid the first unfold even if you have a non-MQA DAC)
A parting thought: As GoldenSound and others before have pointed out before, why are no record companies using MQA for archival?
10 Likes
Discussing the behaviour of “collection[s] of people” is merely a way of distracting from the behaviour of MQA. Consider a 1kHz sine tone at -60dB. From a 24/88.2 “master”, this is what MQA produces:
How is that even remotely acceptable behaviour?
9 Likes
Hi Wim,
Interesting to notice that you are copying posts from my closed (but not secret) MQA audio - developments and reviews group.
So who is spreading the news here…? Not me or Orn Orrason. Strange that there is so much interest in someone else his Facebook group like this.
The e-mail response from MQA is clear and shows that the maker of the video is not smart enough and made a mess of the ‘tests’ . It is indeed an excellent example of ‘garbage in = garbage out’
O yes, for your information: The list of most available albums on Tidal UK and USA grows with thousands with new MQA encoded albums per week now! The total list is over 100.000 entries.
We are having lots of fun and joy with all these releases, especially the 16/44.1 MQA is surprising many members a LOT
Cheers!
1 Like
For anyone wanting a precis of the above post, here’s the key point regarding MQA summarised neatly. I’m rarely so blunt but this kind of marketing doublespeak riles me. @Peter_Veth why effectively censor a set of tests that are so easy to dismiss?
12 Likes
Perhaps, instead of ad hominems, mqa should just provide the proof of their claims and come up with decent test results of their own. That would be a much stronger response. This only leads me to believe the maker of the video is on to something.
16 Likes
“can we leave it there please?”
You can’t leave it there if MQA charges royalties for every device supporting it, or makes you pay more for music, or even worse, makes you buy it again.
1 Like