Please supply evidence to your claim that what goes into an MQA e2e system is the same as what comes out, as I have not seen anything to support that claim, but have seen evidence to the contrary. I’m not saying you are wrong, but, I’m not sure you are right. Up to this point, the ONLY thing I trust is my ears. Neither side has in any way come close to swaying me with their arguments.
1 Like
I am surprised people are still so negative about the only streaming friendly solution that mitigates me from playing my SACD s / DVD-A. Streaming music is the future just as we consume video - in my setup as long as the original masters are of good recordings the MQA (really a container no different to video container) - call it lossy, call it what you will - when unfolded sounds as good as my non-MQA recordings. (Yes it’s subjective, I have a few audiophile systems inclusive of various brands of speakers and headphones) - I hope this means that the record companies put more emphasis on quality recordings and perhaps we shall see more investment in better streaming friendly options - at least with Tidal adopting MQA - this has moved the industry forward to Hi Res - for a while this space was dead as both SACDs and DVD-A did not capture the imagination of the consumer - I think Tidal’s adoption of MQA has reignited the space and I am actually very excited about the future of Hi Res and hope to see other streaming options which may make the MQA form redundant - to me all this means we are heading in the right direction in terms of hi Res streaming just like Netflix with 4k streaming
2 Likes
Even “lossless” codecs, in truth, are lossy. Otherwise they would sound identical to the source, which has never happened. Very very close, but there is still some detectable difference. But we can still wish, can’t we??
It’s the whole point of an end to end system, so you get the sound that was signed off on release of the MQA file. Unless you have heard both ends of the chain, you cannot say it isn’t
1 Like
And, without corroborative evidence, such as reliable tests, you can’t say it is. Claims of any type are meaningless without corroborative, repeatable evidence, of which I have seen nothing. I have heard quite a few MQA vs Non MQA files, and MQA vs Standard Redbook, where the files were from the same master. In what I heard, MQA was noticeably inferior 100% of the time. Every instrument was worse on MQA, as was ambience, attack and decay. MQA was not equal in even one single aspect, per my ears doing extensive listening. If your ears make you enjoy MQA best, good and fine. Just don’t state opinion as fact, or “facts” without corroborative evidence. It deteriorates your credibility. That is why I have put everything I have said here clearly as my opinion. Although everything I have read, evidence wise, seems to support non-MQA, or is inconclusive. Until I see one side, or the other, actually present clear evidence of superiority, the only thing I will ever state is MY opinion.
1 Like
And round and round it goes. I for one am enjoying MQA files. The clarity and realness of the music I hear is astonishing and I am far from alone in this view.
Is it perfect? Who knows, but it’s the best available to me so far
What is this? Are we just chucking around random statements that are in our heads now, because they support our world view?
People need to stop with this BS.
3 Likes
I bet “signing off” those batch MQA conversions was a momentous event of true artistic endeavour. The philanthropic work that Bob is doing for music brings a tear to my eye.
4 Likes
Yes, we just so happen to have photographic evidence of the extensive signing off process on an MQA mastering.
“Rumours,” you are authenticated.
AJ
3 Likes
So pleased your happy and moved with emotion… 
I am amazed how this back and forth of absolute statements keeps going on.
“I hear a difference”, “no you don’t, you are fooling yourself”.
Proving either statement as objectively true or false would require a statistically significant scientifically sound experiment, which we all not is not possible.
Both views are subjective, not scientifically proven facts. Hence no way a subjective view “I hear a difference” can be disproven with any authority in the context of this forum. Nor the other way around “I don’t hear a difference”. It seems to me it’s argument for argument’s sake.
Over time I have taken a pragmatic approach to the whole thing. The variability of the mastering is factors larger than the difference between PCM, DSD, MQA what have you. I will take a great sounding master in the format it is offered. If it is MQA, so be it. It won’t impact my enjoyment negatively.
That is the main reason I value a DAC that offers all possibilities. Not because one sounds vastly better than the other. Given the same master and a correctly functioning system, the differences are small anyway.
Is it a fair analogy to compare High Res and MQA to a standard CD and FLaC? From what I understand is when you rip a CD to FLaC the file is also somehow packed/compressed (and thus Data/Information reduced?) and only somehow when decoded put back to a full information… is this not what MQA does with High Res?
Just being curious… from plain listening I find it hard to make an absolute statement - I have Cd rips the sound better than MQA and vice versa… most of the time Vinyl sounds best to me…
My happy what?
You understand wrong.
Once again:
A .wav file and a .flac are lossless. Lossless, in this context, means that there is no loss of information. What this signifies is that the exact same stream of 1’s and 0’s can be reproduced: 001100110011 goes in, 001100110011 comes out. Simple.
You are correct that .flac is compressed, but it is compressed much in the same way that a .zip file is compressed: take a book as a text file, it’ll be a certain size. Zip it, it’ll be much smaller, but if you unzip it, the words’ll be the same. That’s what’s going on: there is no removal of characters.
Lossy algrthms r dffrnt:
With a lossy algorithm (so .mp3, mqa, or aac), 001100110011 can become something like 001100110001, or it can become something like 00110011. This might be inaudible (and that’s the argument MQA.inc and the drinkers of its koolaid have been making), or it might provide an alteration to the sound of the file that some might like. No matter how you swing it, this is not lossless, this is lossy.
Whether or not you like that, or you can hear the difference, has no bearing on the discussion, simply because words have a meaning and you can’t decide to rewrite the dictionary because it’s convenient for your marketing team or the argument you’re trying to make on an internet forum.
there’s one last case that came up the other day, which is wavpack, which can be both lossy and lossless: first you’ll transmit 00110011, which is lossy, then you can add 0011, which makes things lossless.
Some companies (a certain British hi-fi company is an offender here) have stated that .wav sounds different than .flac. This is highly unlikely, and, should it be the case, an explanation of the mechanism that would lead to this would certainly provide for a solid Nobel contender.
That’s probably because of what @jacobacci brought up:
6 Likes
Ah - thanx again 
1 Like
No.
FLAC is a lossless binary compression. MQA is a lossy audio compression. 2 very very different approaches.
4 Likes
Yes, MQA is lossy in the digital domain. But isn’t it possible that it could sound better and be more accurate in the analog domain? Let me give an example of what I mean. Suppose we start with a 96 KHz/24 bit master of a performance. The artist feels that the master of the recording is a bit too bright. So, as part of the MQA process, an instruction is added to the bitstream (below the noise) to apply X filter to the output to roll off the high end a bit. The MQA playback results in a less bright sound than the 24 bit master. One audiophile might report that the MQA version is “dull”. Yes, it’s not bit for bit identical in the digital domain. But it might more accurately represent what the artist intended in the analog domain.
Now, I don’t know or suggest that MQA works this way. I’m just making the point that “lossy” in the digital domain might result in more accurate sound reproduction when accuracy refers to what the artist intended (or even what the microphone picked up).
1 Like
What you’re describing is remastering. This could be achieved with any subsequent encoding process.
What’s happening is labels are using other masters, they’re being packaged alongside other masters encoded into Redbook and people are often attributing significant differences with sound to MQA when it’s far more likely to be the master, not the MQA encoding process creating the difference.
I’m glad you enjoy the music and I will not argue whether it sounds good or not. I’m sure it sounds great. But this statement is one step short of claiming MQA holographs a guitar and an AI robot plucks the strings. Hyperbole aside, it ignores that the original vision of the producer and the recording engineer (and artist?) included whatever “damage” the ADC did to the sound in the first place.
Well, there is a point to be made here. I think, technically, a FLAC made from a 22khz .wav file would be considered lossless, but doesn’t contain all of the information that a 44khz .wav file would have. Given that all digital samples at some rate, it is “lossy” relative to the original analog sound. I understand that is technically different from a codec that is designated as lossless because the full data from a .wav file can be reconstituted.
But consider that “lossless” starts with a bit of an arbitrary standard (albeit I understand the scientific logic that 44khz is just enough to reproduce the human audible sound spectrum) and you can have a lossless file that, based on the sampling rate, doesn’t get very close to reproducing the analog signal. I think that is all anon55914447 was saying.
I don’t see that as a major defense of MQA. Just a point that lossless doesn’t guaranty any better sound than lossy. It is just a factor.
As one who is very “conservative” relative to preserving my precious music library (for example, I record my vinyl at 24/192 despite that I’m probably not getting any more usable info than I would at a lower sampling rate), for archiving purposes, I would much rather have a lossless over a lossy format at the same sampling rate. Even if somehow MQA sounds “better” I feel I’d rather have something closer to the original data set, and presumably, if, in a decade, my opinion was that MQA was a desirable sound, I could just buy the MQA software and run it to process my library in real time as I listen to it as another DSP.
Just trying to be fair minded here.
I think it’s implied that when we talk about lossless codecs, we do so in the context of a bandwidth limited original.