MQA (Master Quality Authenticated) - Better Sound or DRM?

[dalethorn]

A short documentary of my recent adventures in the world of MQA:

http://www.hifiheadphones.co.uk/community/threads/mqa-master-quality-authenticated-better-sound-or-drm.4520/

 

[dalethorn]

Today I collected my MQA research into a small PDF file at the link below. Summarizing, I didn't find any negative issues in careful comparisons of two albums, in PCM and MQA'd masterings.

Should there be an example of alleged sonic degradation in an MQA mastering, I'd like to download the PCM and MQA'd files from the usual high-res sites and compare them myself. Suggestions are welcome, especially when they point out particularly egregious differences.

http://dalethorn.com/Audio_MQA_Notes.pdf

 

[cheeseboy]

not sure if you've seen this already, but it's a very good post re: mqa

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

 

[dalethorn]

not sure if you've seen this already, but it's a very good post re: mqa

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

It is NOT a good post, for many reasons:

1) The forum owner posts personal messages from users publicly to try to intimidate them.

2) Anyone who writes a major article like that cannot hide behind a nym - it's unethical, as any journalist knows.

 

[cheeseboy]

not sure if you've seen this already, but it's a very good post re: mqa

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

It is NOT a good post, for many reasons:

1) The forum owner posts personal messages from users publicly to try to intimidate them.

2) Anyone who writes a major article like that cannot hide behind a nym - it's unethical, as any journalist knows.

but do you actually have anything to say about what is said in the article itself, or just throwing mud at the computeraudiphile owner and archimego?

 

[dalethorn]

not sure if you've seen this already, but it's a very good post re: mqa

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

It is NOT a good post, for many reasons:

1) The forum owner posts personal messages from users publicly to try to intimidate them.

2) Anyone who writes a major article like that cannot hide behind a nym - it's unethical, as any journalist knows.

but do you actually have anything to say about what is said in the article itself, or just throwing mud at the computeraudiphile owner and archimego?

You're accusing me of throwing mud after what he did? Are you a troll?

 

[dalethorn]

Today I did an experiment with MQA. I purchased the MQA 'Studio' version of "To Bethlehem Carols and Motets" from the HighResAudio site. That went well, so I converted a couple of the FLACs (24/48, which 'unfold' etc. to 24/96 in an MQA player or a full decoding MQA DAC) to MP3. I played the MP3s on the free Vox player (not an MQA player) into the DragonFly Red DAC from my Macbook, making sure that the MIDI setting was 24/48.

The DF Red is just a renderer, not a full decoder, yet the DF light turned blue for high-res MQA. Note that if my MIDI setting was anything but 24/48, the light would not turn blue. Not on the DF nor the Meridian Explorer, which is a full decoding DAC.

So, the ability to enable a form of DRM is present in the music file, even when converted to a foreign format like MP3. Of course I could set the MIDI setting to another value to defeat the blue light, and MP3 playback wouldn't care about that, but I suppose that newer firmware updates on popular DACs might be able to detect an MQA file anyway, no matter the resolution settings on the computer or the converted file type.

At this point I have to conclude that the only safe way to avoid DRM (if it happens, or happens with MQA) is to use a non-MQA music player, preferably an open-source player.

In spite of that precaution, if an MQA firmware update to any of the popular DACs can always detect an MQA file (as it apparently can now), the DAC could refuse full-res or proper playback under some circumstances, even when using an open-source player.

 

[cheeseboy]

Just for the record, I don't give a damn about the charts, graphs, bits, or whatever the test-jockeys have to say at their test-jockey site. My concern is primarily two things - does it sound right, and is it going to be able to play on open-source music players forever?

Ahhh so you don't like facts then. Ok, at least we know now. thank you. The last point was pretty much covered in the link - IE there's no guarantee they won't ditch it as a format, send out odd firmware updates or what if studios suddenly decide to move to MQA DRM only? That way the only way you can listen to the non cripled version is having to fork out for extra hardware. But of course the biggest issue is it's trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and they can't even back up what they say with any form of evidence.

 

[cheeseboy]

I don't care about your facts, and that IS a fact. My concerns are listed in my PDF. HiFi costs money. The poor need not apply.

wow, I can see why you get banned from forums now. I'll leave you alone in your own little world then.

 

[dalethorn]

And now for the thorough test with the Macbook, Meridian Explorer-2 (full decoder and renderer) and the generic non-MQA Vox player. This was a real headbanger since the DAC didn't always reset the lights reliably when changing the MIDI settings, but after a number of restarts I believe I have a replicateable test result.

High-res 24/96 from HDTracks lit the lights as follows (Vox says 24/96):
MIDI == 44.1: One white light.
MIDI == 48.0: One white light.
MIDI == 88.2: Two white lights.
MIDI == 96.0: Two white lights.

High-res MQA ("Studio") lit the lights as follows (Vox says 24/48):
MIDI == 44.1: One white light.
MIDI == 48.0: One blue and one white light.
MIDI == 88.2: Two white lights.
MIDI == 96.0: Two white lights.

MQA from CD lit the lights as follows (Vox says 16/44):
MIDI == 44.1: One green and one white light.
MIDI == 48.0: One white light.
MIDI == 88.2: Two white lights.
MIDI == 96.0: Two white lights.

MP3s (converted from non-MQA high-res files, or MQA files; Vox says MP3):
MIDI == 44.1: One white light.
MIDI == 48.0: One white light.
MIDI == 88.2: Two white lights.
MIDI == 96.0: Two white lights.

So the MQA indications I got were:
Green plus white (two lights == high res) on the "unsigned" MQA from a CD, with MIDI set to 44.1
Blue plus white (two lights == high res) on the "signed" or "Studio" MQA, with MIDI set to 48.0

The DAC seems to treat everything else as low (one light) or high-res (two lights) regardless of file format, but according to the MIDI setting. Which is why I asked in several places whether an MQA music player can force the MIDI to the correct values, in order to get a reliable indication on the lights.

If these tests don't work out for other DACs or music players or operating systems or whatnot, I would not be surprised.

 

[dalethorn]

I wanted to post a thorough test I did today regarding MQA and the Meridian DAC, but for some reason WHF is rejecting it. It's just plain text.

EDIT: Apparently not 'real' plain text, but all is well now.

 

[dalethorn]

BTW, in that final big test, the Meridian DAC performed perfectly, getting a green light for unsigned MQA and a blue light for signed ("Studio") MQA. The only problem is the Mac's MIDI settings have to match the file, and the generic Vox player doesn't make that happen. I've asked around whether MQA music players can force the correct MIDI setting, but nobody has answered.

 

[dalethorn]

I don't care about your facts, and that IS a fact. My concerns are listed in my PDF. HiFi costs money. The poor need not apply.

wow, I can see why you get banned from forums now. I'll leave you alone in your own little world then.

Yes, I've gotten banned from unethical sites (I have the proof) for arguing with people like yourself.

 

[dalethorn]

Just for the record, I don't give a damn about the charts, graphs, bits, or whatever the test-jockeys have to say at their test-jockey site. My concern is primarily two things - does it sound right, and is it going to be able to play on open-source music players forever?

Ahhh so you don't like facts then. Ok, at least we know now. thank you. The last point was pretty much covered in the link - IE there's no guarantee they won't ditch it as a format, send out odd firmware updates or what if studios suddenly decide to move to MQA DRM only? That way the only way you can listen to the non cripled version is having to fork out for extra hardware. But of course the biggest issue is it's trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and they can't even back up what they say with any form of evidence.

I don't care about *your* facts, because your facts seek to deny the music companies the right to do as they please with the property they own.. My concerns are listed in my PDF. HiFi costs money. The poor need not apply.

 

[dalethorn]

Just for the record, I don't care about the charts, graphs, bits, or whatever the test-jockeys have to say at the test-jockey sites. My concern is primarily two things - does it sound right, and is it going to be able to play on open-source music players forever?

 

[SteveR750]

Interesting observations Dale. Shame about the rude interruptions but thanks for posting.
FWIW I've tried listening to some MQA tracks (as Master quality on Tidal) and I honestly cannot distinguish from regular flac files, but the I can't / couldn't with my j River and hegel set up. I'm increasingly of the opinion that hi res audio, outside of a recording studio is a marketing gimmick. Any association with DRM just confirms that more so.

 

[dalethorn]

Interesting observations Dale. Shame about the rude interruptions but thanks for posting. FWIW I've tried listening to some MQA tracks (as Master quality on Tidal) and I honestly cannot distinguish from regular flac files, but the I can't / couldn't with my j River and hegel set up. I'm increasingly of the opinion that hi res audio, outside of a recording studio is a marketing gimmick. Any association with DRM just confirms that more so.

Test post (my previous post "triggered the spam filter").

 

[dalethorn]

Interesting observations Dale. Shame about the rude interruptions but thanks for posting. FWIW I've tried listening to some MQA tracks (as Master quality on Tidal) and I honestly cannot distinguish from regular flac files, but the I can't / couldn't with my j River and hegel set up. I'm increasingly of the opinion that hi res audio, outside of a recording studio is a marketing gimmick. Any association with DRM just confirms that more so.

If a person avoids the heavily compressed stuff many of the studios are issuing now, they should be fine with or without MQA.

 

[ChemMan]

Guys,

Thanks for all the details. I think I am just old. My system is at least reasonable, but I wanted to see if I could hear more of a difference so a friend lent me his B&W PX headphones and I put them through every test, changing just the independent variable, I could think of with Albums like Band on the Run, Dark Side of the Moon and Hourglass (JT). Tidal MQA with and without wire then the same album/song/part of a song without MQA then a CD vs Tidal comparison and then did it all again with or without the Dragonfly black. I did the same with the LS 50s with a decibel meter to level CD player versus Tidal's MQA. About the only thing I can say conclusively is the wired headphones sound better than wireless and I like listening to speakers a bit more than headphones. There were very subtle differences in the varous mediums, but I am not discerinng enough to really qualify let alone quantify those differences. There were times I prefered one set up over another, yet nothing that worked all the time for all recordings. There were even times I prefered Tidal versus a CD. I honestly believe it comes down to the actual recording itself.

Cheers

 

[dalethorn]

Guys, Thanks for all the details. I think I am just old. My system is at least reasonable, but I wanted to see if I could hear more of a difference so a friend lent me his B&W PX headphones and I put them through every test, changing just the independent variable, I could think of with Albums like Band on the Run, Dark Side of the Moon and Hourglass (JT). Tidal MQA with and without wire then the same album/song/part of a song without MQA then a CD vs Tidal comparison and then did it all again with or without the Dragonfly black. I did the same with the LS 50s with a decibel meter to level CD player versus Tidal's MQA. About the only thing I can say conclusively is the wired headphones sound better than wireless and I like listening to speakers a bit more than headphones. There were very subtle differences in the varous mediums, but I am not discerinng enough to really qualify let alone quantify those differences. There were times I prefered one set up over another, yet nothing that worked all the time for all recordings. There were even times I prefered Tidal versus a CD. I honestly believe it comes down to the actual recording itself. Cheers.

Lots of wisdom there -thanks.

 

[dalethorn]

Interesting observations Dale......thanks for posting. FWIW I've tried listening to some MQA tracks (as Master quality on Tidal) and I honestly cannot distinguish from regular flac files, but the I can't / couldn't with my j River and hegel set up. I'm increasingly of the opinion that hi res audio, outside of a recording studio is a marketing gimmick. Any association with DRM just confirms that more so.

Thanks - after some time, I've concluded that when an album is released in MQA and non-MQA versions at the same time, as was the case with Steve Reich's Pulse album, the differences in sound will usually be very subtle at best. But when an older album is remastered for MQA only, there likely will be an improvement, but it could be due to the remastering, and not MQA. I get this from listening to a few examples, and reading about how the remasterings are done. I suppose there's no guarantee that will hold true in the future, since most labor-intensive processes to restore better sound quality from older masters is going to be automated as much as possible.

 

[dalethorn]

Apple is selling the album "Radka Toneff - Fairytales - Original Master Edition (MQA)" in the iTunes store in several countries now, exactly as shown for the original MQA album available from high-res stores and streaming sites. Apple also sells the older edition in the iTunes store. But the MQA album is not actually MQA'd. Here is what I found so far:

1) The iTunes "MQA" files (AAC, file extension '.m4a') have a much higher playback bitrate than any of the other iTunes files I have in my collection - several hundred of them. All previous iTunes files that I know of are 256 kbps variable bit rate, and these "MQA" tracks go as high as 461 kbps variable bit rate.

2) I converted the .m4a "MQA" tracks to FLAC, as I did with the older edition iTunes tracks, and the "MQA" edition FLACs' total size is 165.5 mb, compared to 123 mb for the older FLACs.

3) I played the .m4a "MQA" tracks as well as their FLAC conversions I made with Foobar2000, on my Mac's VOX music player using the Meridian Explorer-2 DAC, making sure to try all of the bitrates provided by the Mac's MIDI settings, and never could get a green or blue light on the DAC as I get with the Steve Reich Pulse album (I have the Pulse album in 16/44 MQA as well as high-res MQA and high-res non-MQA).

4) The iTunes "MQA" tracks are 16/44 as seen by the VOX player, as are the Reich/Pulse MQA tracks I ripped from the CD I purchased. Those Reich tracks do produce the correct light on my DAC, but these iTunes tracks do not.

In summary, Apple is presenting the new "Radka Toneff - Fairytales - Original Master Edition (MQA)" album in the iTunes store exactly the same as reviewed by major audio magazines and exactly as sold at the usual high-res download sites, albeit the iTunes version does not appear to actually be MQA'd. That presentation seems wrong to me, however the iTunes "MQA" files are of higher resolution than any other iTunes files I'm aware of, and they sound very good - audiophile quality or very nearly so.

 

[dalethorn]

Today I updated my MQA observations PDF to include (finally!) a simple example of the current DRM, and probable DRM via proprietary music player software.

http://dalethorn.com/Audio_MQA_Notes.pdf