Wouldn’t that depend on the relative obesity of the two camps? I mean, what if those who prefer the sound of MQA are all nervous anorexic skeletal types, and the MQA deniers are all torpid couch-bound fatsos? Even a 3:2 preponderance of preferrers might in that case not outweigh the deniers.
Spectrum analysis from files from the 2L Benchmark site
(Track = “Come Away Death”)
[The measurements shown in the post were redacted by their original author due technical error. We have removed the charts to reduce the potential for confusion. See this comment for more info and a link to the original post containing the charts.]
Why there is a noise band (big band of fog) still present AFTER decoding?
I understand it can be there before decoding (mqa signalling) but why is it still there
if the “unfolding” job is supposed to be done?
Also the original had lots of peaks up to 40k.
In mqa there is much less high-frequency content than in the original file.
There’s a smattering of artefacts at the top of the frequency range.
This fog is NOT there in the original DSD
=> This looks very LOSSY
Mqa was good in this era:
It’s become obsolete already. We don’t need lossy formats any more.
Listening to 24/192 Qobuz now… a track streams in less than 5 seconds.
And it sounds more open, more natural, more details, deblurred, etc.
And I’m not comparing with 16/44, no I’m comparing with mqa !
And Warner knows it as they continue releasing all those beautiful 24/96 and 24/192s on Qobuz !
What A joy !
I believe as superior streaming options become available, (like Spotify lossless or Qobuz in Australia) consumers will naturally transition away from Tidal and MQA.
In Australia our alternatives are unfortunately limited atm, but the time will come.
I wrote to Qobuz a couple of weeks ago about launching in Oz. Here is their response:
Same reply I received about a year ago about for Canadian presence.
Not sure whether you saw this thread?
Yes, @Axel, I did after I’d posted on this thread earlier.I’ve had a nose around the new Qobuz en-AU pages too. Tried to sign-up, but got the same message about needing to be on the list to test it.
It’s a very positive development.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention in any case. Appreciated.
Hope you get Qobuz over there soon.
Those spectrum analysis comparisons are pretty damning. It’s a tough position to argue otherwise.
Very good point. Once Spotify offers a streaming quality equal to Tidal - Flac (no MQA) - the pressure will build up for Tidal.
However: Tidal still pays about twice as much to artists than Spotify does AND Spotify does not integrate with Roon (probably they simply can’t care less about those few thousand Roon users - compared to the number of their subscribers).
Anyway: I am always flabbergasted by the ‘intensity’ of these MQA discussions.
Hello @Wim_Hulpia ,
What is the source for these graphs? They do not line up with measurements I’ve taken with my own setup.
We don’t mind discussion about MQA, but presenting false/incorrect data is another matter.
In the example below I captured the raw S/PDIF output from a USB S/PDIF interface using the 2L track “Come Away Death” with the MQA Core Decoder enabled and the MQA Capabilities in Roon set to either “No MQA Decoder” or “MQA Renderer”. I then started a new project @ 352.8 kHz and compared the left channel of the DXD recording vs the two MQA recordings:
Neither of the MQA recordings have the noise in the 18-24 kHz area like in the screenshot you’ve posted.
If there’s an explanation for the difference in the results then please let me know. If not I request that you edit your posts to remove these screenshots as they are either mis-interpreted or incorrectly measured.
Over to @Wim_Hulpia now - if he is wrong, he needs to apologize.
Huh? This smacks of unnecessary MQA protectionism. I sincerely hope not.
Each of you is using different spectrum analysis software. Why would you expect the displayed results not to be different?
Furthermore, Wim’s spectrum analysis displays -dBFS level, while yours does not. Prima facie, Wim’s analysis appears to be more competent/complete than yours.
Wim obviously is using SoX. I suggest that you do the same. Then, if you cannot replicate the results, you have a legitimate concern.
Here was me thinking it was a counter argument. Protectionism eh? Careful that may be seen as sensationalism.
It would also be helpful if the two axes could be aligned as they are significantly different between the two charts.
Here’s the sox chart:
Keep in mind, this file was upsampled to 352.8 kHz for side-by-side analysis with the DXD version. The original 88.2 kHz recording to the eye looks identical sans the imaging at the original FS * 2 (~88.2kHz).
As @WiWavelength says, it is your graphs/measurements that are the exception and need explanation, not @Wim_Hulpia’s. I call upon @moderators to explain the Roon employee @john erroneous measurements and heavy handedness towards @Wim_Hulpia
edit: @john , measurements are hard. You should avail yourself of the many independent sources on the internet of MQA measurments. Your obviously bunking them up in some way.
I explained how my measurements were taken, what more explanation are you looking for? If you can explain where I may have made a mistake I’d be interested to know.
My interest here is to ensure that the Roon community remains a vibrant place to discuss topics relating to Roon, all-things-audio, and otherwise. Tolerating misinformation is damaging to the discourse and makes the forums a less trustworthy and interesting place to spend time.
I have no idea how you bunked them up, or if you did, or how @Wim_Hulpia bunked his up, or if he did. Measurements are hard and can go wrong a thousand different ways. I do know that yours look to be the exception, not his. If your that concerned about “misinformation”, remove your own analysis. If you want trust, look around for independent measurements and post/link them. Trust but verify as someone once said…