Eye-opening analysis on Tidal MQA

[Grayson Dere]

I just came across this video review on YouTube regarding Tidal and their MQA scheme. I learned a lot of things I didn't realize before about how they handle music files.
Even if more evidence is required this is enough for me to stop my Tidal subscription.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRjsu9-Vznc

 

[ddude003]

Tidal now belongs to Square Inc... That is Jack Dorsey's (of Twitter) public Finance Co... Another reason to run away as fast as you can...

 

[Sonnie Parker]

If all of this is true, and at this point I am assuming it is, it is indeed an eye-opener.

 

[mechman]

You music streaming folks are geeks.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

No worse than you hockey and movie geeks.

 

[ddude003]

You music streaming folks are geeks.

I will take that as a high complement... Thank you...

And how would you feel if you bought a movie that was labeled as THX EX when it is actually contains 5.1 Dolby Digital audio? Then you find out its not a one off mistake, its their mode of operation... Maybe not the best example and hopefully you get the idea...

 

[Todd Anderson]

I don't know what to believe. I can say this: I can't hear an obvious difference between MQA and CD-quality. It all sounds really good to me. MQA has its haters, a lot of which can't stand the licensing side of things.

Who is the guy that made this video and what is his relationship to the industry?

My mind is completely open... but if MQA is lackluster, what does that say about all of these companies that licensed the technology and market the benefits of MQA. Are the blindly ignorant or simply playing along for a gain in sales?

 

[Sonnie Parker]

It is ALL about sales (or should I say money)... and it only takes a few folks to start causing people to believe in it, whether it's true or not.

I'm like you, I can't hear a difference, but I also don't need both, so I'm just gonna keep qobuz, since it's cheaper... ditch Tidal since there's so much controversy over it.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

the benefits of MQA. Are the blindly ignorant or simply playing along for a gain in sales?

https://www.avnirvana.com/threads/is-mqa-bad-for-music.453/#post-4521

 

[Todd Anderson]

Does the guy in the video reveal how he's unpacking the MQA files?

 

[Todd Anderson]

https://www.avnirvana.com/threads/is-mqa-bad-for-music.453/#post-4521

Ok... but is it actually harming output? That video insinuates that audible issues are being introduced by MQA.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Ok... but is it actually harming output? That video insinuates that audible issues are being introduced by MQA.

Harming? It's introducing completely unauthentic aliasing artifacts and EQ. The result is subjectively possible worse, better or no difference (see my original link).
The entire premise is based on believer nonsense. Its a problem in search of solution...that earns Bob S $$.
Nothing unexpected in the video at all.

 

[ddude003]

If I may be so bold... It is like going to a restaurant and ordering a Kobe Steak, being served "back alley dog" and your thinking it tastes pretty good... Whats the harm??? I think it called fraud...

Do I smell a class action in the offing...

 

[Sonnie Parker]

lol... you guys are so funny sometimes.

I have to agree though... after reading more info about it (and if you just search Google, there's a lot out there - amazed that it's even surviving with all the bad press).

If it looks like a dog, barks like a dog, and lives in the back alley, I suppose it's going to be a back alley dog huh?

Who's Bob? I though it was Jack now?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Who's Bob?

In my 2017 link http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/origami/ThereAndBack.html

 

[Todd Anderson]

I've read plenty about the controversy over the years... I guess I've never had the same passionate push back on it. Why? No idea.

I've always tried to cover its presence neutrally and will continue to do so. But I certainly don't mind dissecting it in threads.

I went back and listened to some comparison tracks. Man, I can't hear any difference - better or worse. Both Hi-Res FLAC and MQA sound really really good to my ears. That said, I've taken a few blind resolution tests and I couldn't reliably discern between CD quality, slightly less than CD quality, and better than CD quality. And I highly doubt that 99% of people can.

Now, XM Radio? I can pick that out blindfolded and hanging upside down!

The list of name brands that support MQA on devices - and advertise as such - is lengthy. Lots of brands that are highly respected. I'm not sure what to make of all of this.

 

[ddude003]

Who's Bob? I though it was Jack now?

Bob is Bob Stuart, a creator of the MQA encode/decode process, now a Director of MQA Ltd.
Jack is Jack Dorsey the creator and CEO of Twitter and now also CEO and major owner of Tidal, the streaming service that utilizes MQA in its streaming service...

Note that Jay-Z was the previous major share holder of Tidal sold to Jack Dorsey’s mobile payment company Square Inc.

Also note that this is the same Jack that removed President Trump and many others from Twitter for speaking openly about the corruption in Politics and Government...

 

[Sonnie Parker]

I've read plenty about the controversy over the years... I guess I've never had the same passionate push back on it. Why? No idea.

I've always tried to cover its presence neutrally and will continue to do so. But I certainly don't mind dissecting it in threads.

I went back and listened to some comparison tracks. Man, I can't hear any difference - better or worse. Both Hi-Res FLAC and MQA sound really really good to my ears. That said, I've taken a few blind resolution tests and I couldn't reliably discern between CD quality, slightly less than CD quality, and better than CD quality. And I highly doubt that 99% of people can.

Now, XM Radio? I can pick that out blindfolded and hanging upside down!

The list of name brands that support MQA on devices - and advertise as such - is lengthy. Lots of brands that are highly respected. I'm not sure what to make of all of this.

Here's my beef with it... they market it as "better" and as an "improvement", yet as you suggest, at best no one can differentiate a difference blind. There has been no evidence to support it being any "better" or being an "improvement" over the non MQA versions. The only apparent evidence has been showing it not as good as the non MQA. So at the very least their claims are no viable.

 

[Todd Anderson]

Well, I don’t know who this guy is, but he’s posting his findings and video all over the net.

i do note that he made it a point, several times, that artifacts he found were in the audible range. Which seems to indicate that the file should sound notably different?

I don’t know... it all sounds good to me.
Like I’ve said, I can’t hear a difference between most resolutions. But, when I listen to music, I generally want to stream Hi-Res. Kind of doesn’t make sense, looking at it objectively.

People who really want to dig into the measurement side are undoubtedly not going to derive pleasure from MQA if that believe it’s a farce or damaged goods...And likewise for the other camp (that leans heavily on the subjective).

Best news: MQA capable gear can also be used for non-MQA applications. Win win?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

People who really want to dig into the measurement side are undoubtedly not going to derive pleasure from MQA if that believe it’s a farce or damaged goods...And likewise for the other camp (that leans heavily on the subjective).

Best news: MQA capable gear can also be used for non-MQA applications. Win win?

It doesn't bother you that all of MQAs numerous claims are demonstrably false, this video just being one more nail? That people paying more for Tidal "Lossless" are fraudulently actually getting lossy and a blue Pavlov light? Would you pay more for premium 93 octane fuel that is actually 87 octane, because your car runs just the same on both?
If in fact you and most others can't hear any difference (overwhelmingly the evidence so far). exactly what do we need MQA for? What purpose does it serve?

 

[Todd Anderson]

If it’s intentional fraud, that would obviously be bothersome.

I need to do some more research on the topic. I found the YT video’s testing instructions. He used a virtual cable to feed audio from tidal to audacity. So, it’s something we can try and replicate.



To your point tho, I doubt most can hear a difference between Spotify and Qobuz.

I will say: I reached out to a very trusted industry insider at a well known company. They didn’t want to touch this topic with a ten foot pole.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

I don't like one bit what's going on with Tidal and MQA... that is very clear. I have canceled my Tidal subscription sooner rather than later, as it was my plan before really thinking much more about these findings.

HOWEVER... Tidal/MQA ain't the only one in the industry ripping folks off. Considering all the claims made by expensive amp companies, cable makers... (how long could this list be?), etc, etc. I've paid more many times over for items I can't hear a difference in... and it was a lot more than the difference between qobuz and Tidal (which is maybe $60 annually?). Granted that doesn't make it okay what MQA is doing, but my point is, why are more enthusiasts not going to extremes to disprove these other companies too? The differences are all subjective in the same way, and there are a LOT of outrageous claims all over the place. People buy based on claims, and they psycho-subjectively believe they hear an improvement, or like me, they buy because mentally they believe it's better whether they can hear a difference or not. As I say, because it makes me believe that nothing is being held back (I'm hearing the best, whether I realize it or not). Maybe I have a whacky thought process about it, but Tidal/MQA ain't the only guilty folks in the industry, that is for sure.

 

[Todd Anderson]

We just have to make sure that the person doing the analysis knows what they're talking about and their method isn't introducing issues. It does look legit, tho.

 

[ddude003]

We just have to make sure that the person doing the analysis knows what they're talking about and their method isn't introducing issues.

I am pretty sure you will find a few folks that know what they are talking about in the links from the description section of the video on YouTube... Just hit SHOW MORE to reveal lots of reference material...

And if you look around the net enough you will even find Studio Mastering Engineers that have had their work MQAed that were never contacted/consulted about MQA "mastering/re-mastering" or "authenticating"... So, provenance is suspect...

 

[DanDan]

I took a quick listen to some Mary Black recordings I made, on Tidal vs CD versions I have here in iTunes. Same playback chain. The MQA sounds a little thinner, definitely not the same.