No, only the container is lossless. But the result of a lossy file folded into a lossless container will always be a lossy file.
2 Likes
This proves that MQA is lying, as Bob Stewart has, on numerous occasions, stated that MQA is lossy.
I that is your definition of lossless then
a 16/44.1 from a 24/88 (Plain PCM) is not lossless cause certainly it removes data. 
[Moderated]
CD 44.1 is lossless already so going to that from a higher res (without any MQA in) is in fact lossless, by definition.
When a studio delivers say a 24/96 or 24/192 master file, and then also the 16/44.1 file from the same master, that is considered lossless as long it’s not converted to a lossy format like AAC or MP3 (or MQA).
The problem with MQA, is literally across the board, add it in anywhere in the signal path at all, it then becomes lossy.
[Moderated]
1 Like
Just a reminder, don’t talk about other users. Keep the debate about the ideas.
MQA is absolutely positively 100%, from both MQA’s own admission and evidence by the community, a lossy CODEC.*
But that wasn’t my argument. My argument was if Tidal was sending you a lossless bit stream. If the label released the material to Tidal as MQA then I’d argue Tidal is sending you that release as lossless.
*(and I’d love to elaborate on why this is and why this is very different than AAC, MP3, and the other lossy audio CODECs but it’d take another book and a different thread).
1 Like
By this logic, if the label provided Tidal with a crappy 128kbps .mp3, and Tidal streamed it out to users in either the original format, or any other format, it would be considered lossless to you.
Sorry to say, this scenario does not give you lossless. Now substitute an MQA file for the .mp3, same issue.
2 Likes
Yeah, this is a difficult distinction to get one’s head around.
Technically, Tidal are right in this instance. If the master provided is from a lossy codec, but it is delivered in a FLAC container, then technically what is delivered is the same as the master. On technicalities alone, it’s lossless; source data, even if poor = received data.
The whole argument is one I have tied myself in knots over trying to understand too. Garbage in → FLAC → lossless garbage out.
EDIT: I’m probably over-simplifying this and likely to get someone come over-the-top and pull it apart. Recently on this forum, unless you write in legalese contractual long-form, you will get pedants correcting you based on their selective inference of what you have written. Sometimes, in the interests of brevity, we write in a natural way where speech and intonation would carry the meaning in a face-to-face conversation. When these sentiments are written, there is a tendency to be obtuse in the inference if the content does not suit the reader.
3 Likes
Yes. If that was “the master” I’d consider it lossless as long as they didn’t re-encode it. I agree it’d sound terrible and I wouldn’t listen to it.
But using MP3 is the wrong way to think about it. What is being “lost”, or bits thrown away from the PCM, between MP3 and MQA is very different. Additionally, how those bits get reconstructed is very very different. Not all MP3 encoders do the same thing so what is being lost from one mp3 to another can be different. This isn’t (shouldn’t) be the case for MQA since there is only one encoder.
Another way to think about it. If we had two providers both serving MQA (I hope this never happens) then both of those providers should be streaming the same FLAC (ignoring the chance there is a different watermark embedded by the label). Two providers streaming MP3 are usually not streaming the same mp3 as there are too many variables in how the MP3 gets encoded.
But, that’s just my argument. I’m not saying I’m right. I’m just arguing 
The thing is, no labels actually release lossy masters except those (less than a handful small labels) releasing a few of their masters with MQA. So, the mp3 analogy is a good one in terms of thinking about MQA, in that an MQA master is just like the label releasing a master in mp3. Lossy, and you have to wonder how it’s going to be played too.
1 Like
This is one of the few areas where MQA could have taken over the world. With full MQA end-to-end, from the studio booth, right through mastering all the way to MQA streaming/MQA CD and then playback through software and through an MQA DAC, we’d get an inkling of what the full capabilities of MQA are.
Taking an old, non-MQA master and trying to stuff it through the combine-harvester of bulk conversion to output a satisfactory product with worthy provenance is not going to happen.
I have stated the following on another forum with regards to how MQA could have won the battle of hearts-and-minds:
- Use MQA end-to-end on new recordings and releases to showcase the capabilities. This starts the revenue stream.
- Leave all back catalogues where the original analogue masters are unavailable untouched.
- Leave loudness war era remasters untouched.
- Dig-out old analogue masters as a long term project. Slowly work the halfway-house black magic on those in order of likely popularity (play ratings on streaming services will give the approx. order of work). This would give low-hanging fruit (or Incremental Value in Agile Methodology parlance). Clearly you can’t do the same “end-to-end magic” on these but using the earliest verifiable master is probably a good starting point. This set of steps would undoubtedly become a recognised mastering skill that is unlikely being done right now due to the cold batch conversion process that is ongoing.
- Adjust release notes on all 4 above types of material explaining what, how and why.
- Do not have Tidal remove original codec versions once properly treated MQA remasters are available. Leave consumer choice in play.
If the above was followed, and if MQA really is the new messiah, then the product would stand-up on its own leaving a very difficult job for the naysayers.
I think Tidal and MQA have fallen victim to “passion fingers” (they’ve screwed everything they’ve touched) with their approach to-date, culminating with the dog’s breakfast of the new Tidal Hi-Fi tier. (I love a mixed metaphor 
)
Just my 2 cents.
4 Likes
I am not aware of any studios recording directly with MQA in the ADC chain PCM / DSD are still the standards for professional recording.
1 Like
I can be guilty of pedantry but a lifetime of translating what people say into software can do that to you 
Those precise meanings matter and careless talk costs development dollars. While I’d agree that @ipeverywhere’s interpretation(/devil’s advocacy?) of lossless is valid it’d leave me feeling short changed as a consumer. If the above discussions anything to go by a legal case could be interesting.
1 Like
Yeah - I saw you both getting each other’s hackles up. The argument was really two sides of the same coin.
I think your point is absolutely understandable. I also think the strict definition was met too.
The fact that you can both be seen as right is the heart of the matter and why commercial players can “get away with it”.
I’d love to see this get settled by the lawyers and get the truth out.
1 Like
Legal settlements and truth aren’t always synonymous
3 Likes
It’s possible that a truer statement has not been made since OJ Simpson went shopping for new gardening gloves.
3 Likes
This all sounds like a bunch of Manchester United fans…
1 Like
Yes definitions are important and are there are no clear standards here which is part of the problem. Generally a 44.1/16 bit CD has been considered lossless and anything less than that is lossy and anything more is “HiRes”
MQA is lossy in the sense that it does not preserve all the bits in a 94/24bit file. That is obvious if you look at any of the “origami” descriptions of how MQA works. In the same way of course CD is also lossy in that it does not preserve all the bits in a 94/24 bit file either. However MQA can be considered lossy in the same sense that a CD is.
Most digital audio processing these days is done in formats such as DXD which is 352.8/24 bit so anything less than this will also be lossy in the bits is bits definition. Indeed any file that is less than the full original bit resolution will be lossy and this means even 192/24 is lossy in the pure bits is bits sense. DSD/SACD is also lossy in the pure bits is bits sense.
So how do we judge what is truly lossless? Archimago has tried to get to the bottom of a lot of MQA stuff, he is no fan of MQA and their claims overall but in this
Archimago’s Musings: COMPARISON: Hardware-Decoded MQA (using Mytek Brooklyn DAC)
he concludes “I can say that MQA does “work” as claimed to reconstruct material >22/24kHz with reasonable accuracy.”
Basically it seems the main downside of MQA over files greater than 44.1/16 bits or 48/16 bits is a small increase in the noise floor, so small that it will be in-audible.
So MQA is less lossy than a CD in presenting what is there in HiRes files. Compared with other 24 bit formats it is at least reasonably accurate as judged by an independent critic.
This just addresses the compression aspects of MQA, however MQA also adjusts what they consider to be “flaws” in the original analogue to digital process/fliters which they claim will make things sound better. This is the more critical aspect of MQA and what will impact the sound more than the lossless/lossy debate yet this is rarely discussed whereas “lossy MQA” is bandied about all the time.
6 Likes
I don’t know what the current situation is but this is clearly the vision that MQA has and where they want to go. They believe this will give a better sound quality and with a single MQA file allow easier mastering and distribution along with authentication. This is what they are trying to sell to the labels. A complete end to end system that is better for them in several ways.
The SQ debate is obviously ongoing in audiophile circles at least however in the end I think it is the labels/studios that will make or break MQA.
No, just because the FLAC envelope you receive is lossless does not mean that the end result is lossless. If I take 3/4 cup of flour, put it into a 1 cup container and give it to you, you did not get 1 cup of flour, you only got 3/4 of a cup. MQA streaming is exactly the same. If I take a file that has 90% of the original performance, fold it into a FLAC container capable of 100% of the performance, and give it to you, you only get 90% of the performance. The only thing the FLAC container does is it prevents you from losing any more of the performance along the way. It does not add nor subtract from that 90%. What you receive is exactly what the file was initially, 90% (I.e., lossy)
2 Likes