I published music on Tidal to test MQA - MQA Review
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 06. 2024
- A deep dive into MQA, and its problems.
Testing starts at 5:45
Come chat on discord: www.thegoldenone.co.uk
Support me on patreon and join the private telegram chat: / goldensound
(or subscribestar) www.subscribestar.com/goldens...
How to test MQA's leaky filter: audiophilestyle.com/forums/to...
2018 RMAF MQA talk by Chris Connaker: • RMAF 2018 - MQA: The T...
Archimago's MQA article: audiophilestyle.com/ca/review...
PS Audio vid on MQA: • Is MQA a good thing?
Schiit on MQA: www.schiit.com/news/news/why-...
Linn on MQA: web.archive.org/web/202011112...
Neil Young removes albums from TIDAL: neilyoungarchives.com/news/1/...
Further reading on MQA:
GTO filter analysis: audiophilestyle.com/forums/to...
Benchmark Audio's statement about MQA transient shifting: www.theabsolutesound.com/arti...
RealHD stops supporting MQA: www.realhd-audio.com/?p=7218
Archimago on transient smearing archimago.blogspot.com/2018/0...
Rob Watts on digital filters: www.head-fi.org/threads/watts...
Benchmark on MQA: benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/appl...
Meridian has doctored tests of hi-res in the past: audioinvestigations.blogspot....
Filter ringing (with a link to Mans/troll audio) audiophilestyle.com/forums/to...
Aliasing vs. imaging: audiophilestyle.com/forums/to...
Music aliasing distortion example: audiophilestyle.com/forums/to...
Linear phase vs. Minimum phase: troll-audio.com/articles/line...
Sox settings to duplicate an MQA filter: audiophilestyle.com/forums/to...
JA's post showing signal aliasing: audiophilestyle.com/forums/to...
mansr's original Dragonfly DAC analysis: audiophilestyle.com/forums/to...
Why MQA's digital filters blur the music: audiophilestyle.com/forums/to...
A Survey of Musical Instrument Spectra to 102.4 KHz www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spe...
RealHD Audio on MQA: www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6517
Bob Stuart wanted to censor AS: audiophilestyle.com/forums/to...
References in MQA's response:
[1] 'A Hierarchical Approach for Audio Archive and Distribution', JAES Volume 67 Issue 5 pp. 258-277; May 2019. www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?e...
[2] 'The Gentle Art of Dithering', JAES Volume 67 Issue 5 pp. 278-299; May 2019.
www.aes.org/e‐lib/browse.cfm?e...
[3] MQA Q&A Sidebar 1: www.stereophile.com/content/m... example‐nielsen‐2l‐120‐track‐1
[4] MQA Q&A Sidebar 2: www.stereophile.com/content/m... example‐portland‐state‐chamber‐choir
[5] MQA Sidebar 3: www.stereophile.com/content/m... portland‐state‐amazing‐grace‐audibility‐analysis
[6] Bobtalks: MQA CD bobtalks.co.uk/blog/mqaplayba...
0:00 - Intro
1:15 - Summary of topics
1:47 - Pre-video clarifications
3:44 - What is MQA?
5:41 - How I got test files encoded in MQA
6:57 - MQA 44.1khz vs Native 44.1khz
8:14 - MQA HiRes vs Native 88.2khz
11:11 - Reduced Dynamic Range
11:47 - Does unfolding work? (Many MQA releases are just upsampled 44.1khz)
12:41 - No Lossless on tidal if track is MQA
13:47 - MQA "Authentication" means nothing
14:30 - MQA Upsampling filter is leaky
15:33 - Filter attenuation analysis
16:54 - HiRes unfolding analysis
18:53 - Full decode analysis
19:54 - Conclusion
21:19 - My Opinion, and testing cables
25:46 - Why are manufacturers supporting MQA?
27:13 - Best way to play MQA files
27:44 - ifi GTO filter is MQA
28:56 - MQA's response
37:02 - Credits/Thank you
The GoldenSound youtube channel, and all content is created and owned by GoldenSound LTD - Zábava
I am ZeosPantera and I approve this message.
Hai hai senpai
We need to tag Mike aka OCD Guy and Thomas too.
@@navinadv yes! We should!
I would love to see your take on your channel.
@@MrBouncingDeath how do we tag Mike and Thomas. This needs to turn into a movement. They are implicitly forcing companies like Topping to pay licensing because once they got PS and Schitt to sign on everyone else got FOMO.
Them: "Nothing is wrong with MQA"
Also them: "And that's why we removed your content and banned you."
Like having officer Barbrady saying "Nothing to see here, move along".
Huh, Got my content removed and banned; Seems like they were right.
Is what they thought
and how exactly does one upload content to Tidal?
:c
@@TonyFernandezjkdjedi distrokid?
As a mastering engineer, the essential thing to me is that FLAC can represent the data absolutely exactly as I have set it for the master, in a format that is about 65% the file size compared to the uncompressed PCM, and is taggable, streamable, multi-channel ready and capable of being fully hi-res - AND open source and license free. And I have been able to prove to myself numerous times via conversion round trips and null tests that it is truly lossless in its encoding/decoding. With MQA - it's opaque in its process, it is not lossless, and it's encumbered by a license that should in no way be considered acceptable for a "standard".
When i have mastered for a client, i receive a digital file, that comes from the studio DAW. I do my work and send a digital file back. I have 0 analog equipment in my chain. It is NEVER converted to analog in my end. There is nothing to unfold... The only thing would be the input converter in the studio, after that the signal easily goes thru 24 effects, can be AD/DAd in the studio to run one single channel thru some device, re-amping.. and then mastering engineer does his stuff. There is absolutely nothing that one could unfold after all the processing that happens.
@@squidcaps4308 - yeah, I probably do analog processing for about 90% of the orders I receive, and deliver back hi-res masters for about 50% of the orders - but plenty of releases sent out at 16bit 44.1kHz still as well.
One guy thought AIFF sounded better than alac. and the problem according to him is When the computer unpack file during playback. if He unpacked the file before playing it, it sounded as good as AIFF
Unfortunately, I do not agree with you. in my ears, the sound from flac is more boring than an original CD. the musicality is lower in the higher frequencies I perceive the sound as withdrawn and the trumpet never wants to jump out of the speaker as on the original CD. it can of course also depend on whether the person who has ripped a CD used volume normal normalization
@@Andersljungberg Please. Let the grown ups discuss this.
And you were right. MQA bankrupt and Tidal switched to FLAC. Excellent.
MQA: We're lossless
Also MQA: Make sure your audio still sounds correct
😲🙁😐🤨🤔
Yeah it makes NO SENSE 🤔
The only “unfolding” that truly happens is the consumers wallet.
Hear, hear!!!
GoldenSound did the true MQA unfold, and I saw absolutely nothing desirable.
Seriously underrated comment! 🤣
Proper lol'ed at that
It's like Origami. With dollar bills.
Of course MQA is lossless! They're giving you MORE noise, you aren't losing any!
LOL
Does the M in MQA stand for middleout?
So MQA is signalless!
additive compression lol
That's the psychological trick. It doesn't have to be better, it just has to be different to convince most people that it's better. You can hear the difference after all.
Of course they removed you from Tidal and tried to get your publisher to block you as well, even though you had the decency to send them everything ahead of time and acted in good faith, lol. That ALONE proves they are scumbags, regardless of the results (which are also pretty damning as well.)
I didn't get to even listen to anything on Tidal and it tells me to get a subscription, good thing i didnt pay for it
@Dylan except for that time they were inflating artists streams like saying people listened to Kanye's album 200 million times in the first week... Tidal is heavily invested by artists themselves so inventing fake streams helps them.
Yeah, if what they say in the response is true, the right way to do things is to discuss and perhaps guide this youtuber to improve and achieve what they are claiming, despite the manner of this youtuber shows that this is for seeking truth not trouble.
Probably thanks to this video, the MQA company has filed for bankruptcy. Hooray!
Reject MQA, embrace FLAC.
Amen. Interested in some 7.1 FLAC pipe organ recordings? If so, you should double-check the video descriptions of my music uploads here on YT. Enjoy!
What about original format from the studio? Is that PCM? Can u stream that anywhere? :) It would be cool to stream the original not compressed to FLAC :)
Actually noone can stream FLAC so on if u just wanna "hear some music" when outside, just buy any cheapest plan.
@@johanlindhe7378 FLAC is a lossless, open-source, and taggable compression of the PCM format.
It wouldn't make sense to stream uncompressed PCM when FLAC exist.
Dont return to MonQA
MQA stands for Medium Quality Audio...
LOL
underrated comment
This is "The comment" of the year.
Any comment on MQA cds? I could care less about streaming. Too old, and old school.
@@mikeclark7429 Same here, I want to feel like I own my copy of the album. I have collections of FLACs that I store on my SSD, USB drives and other places. Streaming also works only when you have internet.
"Unfold," "Origami," "True sound," etc... Yeah, if anything would sound like snake oil, this is it.
I know right? Who are these ‘audiophiles’ that are falling for unsubstantiated marketing bullshit like “unfold” and “origami”? 😆
*Bottom line:* audiophile standards must be *_independently_* verifiable with no restrictions!
MQA is a step backward, for true audiophiles. This was a fantastic review & teardown of MQA's false marketing claims ("lossless", "authenticated content", "no audible artifacts", etc.). This review showed me that MQA seems to be primarily a marketing company, and its audio files seem to have flaws.
Their behavior of unilaterally removing your content then banning you appears to be bullying, and prevented transparency and verification of their likely false claims.
Everybody should make his oppinion based on this...
I think it's really funny that you made a musical Trojan horse
He even titled one of the songs he submitted “The Callout”.
Nickleback did it first, lol
That's a really clever way to put it
holy crap i didn't expect to see a touhou fan in this comment section
@Kaioshi K Touhou fans are everywhere fam
Gee, their response makes them look an awful lot like snake oil peddlers.
Their marketing screams of snake oil peddling. (Just going by the things shown in the video.)
*All* audiophile gear is snake oil, so I'm not surprised. (I'm only here because YT recommended it after watching a Techmoan video.)
@@RonJohn63 Sweeping much? You just listened to an audiphile pointing out how some audiophile gear *_measurably_* improves audio and how some audiophile gear is just (as you suggest) snake oil crapola. Not *_all_* gear; that's objective fact, you can check with signal analysers the improvements *_some_* gear gives. Whether you feel the improvement is worth the cost is another matter.
...because they are
@@RonJohn63 Dude no. Just stop. If your hearing is that bad just stop listening to anything. Sure, once you get so high end you're splitting hairs at $2,000 just stop.
But you can't in good conscience say there isn't a very clear and noticeable difference in everyday pocket buds and something like Sennheiser HD600 is just laughable.
I'm glad that this is the first thing that appears when I search for Mqa on CZcams.
excellent!
you are my hero…I have been reaching out to Tidal asking them why they’re removing the flac choice’s and they have not responded. I’m so glad to have some proof or explanation of what i am hearing. I also warned Tidal that audiophiles are who is paying the higher price for loss less content and many of us want that choice - that replacing flac with MQA would eventually lead to their demise.
MQA is basically if EA published music on its own platform.
Only if you had to buy specific CPU's to play the game completely too
@@kyoyeou5899 Better with DLSS
@@Dan_Mellinger DLSS has noticeably (positive) difference in games that have solid support. Unlike mqa, it has been proven many times. Comparing that to mqa is a bit odd
@@damienriot just making a joke. Wasn't reading too far into the implications.
@@damienriot Dayumn man, Daddy Chill... wtf is wrong with you, that guy was clearly making a joke. shesssssssssssssh
Any company that takes measures to shut down their critics out of fear over being criticized doesn't deserve my money. I was already skeptical of MQA before seeing this video, and now that I have watched it, I know for sure that I'll never use MQA, ever.
Facebook etc for banning Trump? Or just this?
@@wvincus5522 Facebook didn't shut down Trump because he was criticizing Facebook. They shut him down because he was inciting violence and insurrection and was a clear and present danger to the democratic process. Not, in any way, shape or form the same thing.
@PenileAugmentation agreed
@@jimfarrell4635 You follow independent people in audio, but don't realize the opinion you shared was created and assigned to you. Ok.
@@jimfarrell4635 Dont wanna dwell too much into politics; but US democracy has been undermined for a long time, maybe since forever. You can go back as far as Reagan and find him comitting high treason with the contras. I doubt it was much better before either. Right now you got authoritarian shit like Bush's "patriot act" still living on in spirit, both continued by Obama and Trump. All that talk about how freedom of speech is so important, yet theres a history of constant attacks on the press.
The only difference with Trump is that he also undermined some of the established politics as well. That was obviously unacceptable; and it helped turn a lot of established media into propaganda platforms akin to Fox news.
this is investigative journalism, and deserves a lot more attention
The fact that they banned you and censored your content tells me that what you are saying is the truth.
Pretty much
@@Turak_64 Care to provide source? Thanks
So true. MQA is a complete con.
That’s an interesting standard to apply, and is it true in EVERY case?
_"Firstly I don't think the filter itself has feelings, but if I have hurt them then I apologise"_
Simply Excellent!
I've got's lots in my studio, and I hear them cry all the time and I don't care. Does that make me a monster?
It wasn't a competition... Untill he said that. Then, he won. Such a sick burn!
Not sure if you saw yet Golden, but you're linked on the MQA Wikipedia entry now. Nice.
Wow you weren’t kidding, and the entry is pretty damning. “ the authors demonstrated how the MQA process alters the sound and how the claims made by MQA do not hold true”
Very awesome indeed.
Qobuz subscriptions on QBZstore Telegram has good offers, tbh.
and apparently wiki also says MQA is a lossy format, that's surprising :o () is an audio codec using lossy compression and a form of file fingerprinting, intended for high fidelity digital audio internet streaming and file download. Launched in 2014 by Meridian Audio, it is now owned and licensed by MQA Ltd, which was founded by Bob Stuart, co-founder of Meridian Audio.
I'm not a wiki editor, but perhaps someone should find a way to edit in MQA's attempted censorship of criticism.
HI, yes I saw this too, but the bad news is that today, May, 07, the link on that wikipedia page is deleted, I guess due to attempts by MQA to suppress inconvenient truths. Probably part of damage control, as I saw some MQA people trolling serious MQA discussions on some audio forums, even John Atkinson doing his part too... Hopefully truth and good will prevail in the end.
You just saved me from the folly of keeping my top-tier Tidal subscription.
There's nothing wrong with Flac.
Yep, FLAC is actually lossless. MQA is lossy. Has been since its introduction 6 years ago. People who know what they're talking about said this 6 years ago. Said it for years.
But that doesn't stop audiophiles from falling for marketing, hype, biases and then "hearing" the improvements (that are actually degradations in sound quality). Seems like it's a mandatory component of the hobby.
The sucess of MQA proves an underlying problem in the audiophile community. Past a certain point, humans cannot percieve improvement, only change. Past this point (around lossless) any change at all is so celebrated that it insantly becomes recognised as an improvement. No matter how good your ears are, you cannot rely on them for solid analysis, no matter how "expert" or "trained" you might be. This hobby isn't about finding the objectively best sounding thing on the planet, It's about enjoying the music you love how you want to listen to it. People relying on their ears to prove that MQA is better are the essence of everything wrong with this community for many more reasons than just being wrong.
@@NVRSE500 You make some good points but I have some comments.
We cannot reliably hear small changes, regardless if they are improvements or degradations. We're fooling ourselves and prone to cognitive biases, that make us hear differences even when there are none.
That's why controlled listening tests are the only thing where there is a hope of producing reliable results.
Secondly, audiophilia is not about music in my book. It's about the equipment. It should be about striving for highest fidelity in audio reproduction, but it often is not. Why? Because the audiophile industry abuses people fooling themselves, hearing what they are told/want to hear, etc. to sell them two lies:
1) different = better
2) and that their product makes an audible difference.
Contrast that with musicophilia, when people actually love to experience the music, not drool over scammy, expensive audio equipment.
@@xnoreq fair enough, I agree with what you say, although I'm pretty sure musicophilia is an extension of audiophilia, rather than a separate entity. I think every audiophile can relate to the feeling of high fidelity listening suited to their tastes, whether their tastes be incredible detail or anything else. People can enjoy the sound of MQA if they want, what they can't do is call it lossless or "better than lossless", because that is objectively false. And you're correct, almost no objective arguments can be made through just a listening test, and the combination of objective performance and subjective enjoyment in audio is what audiophilia is at its essence. MQA only blurs the line between subjective and objective, which degrades the integrity of the hobby as a whole. Luckily, lossless is still accessible and common, and can still provide a benchmark for objectively perfect sound :)
@@NVRSE500 I didn't say no objective arguments can be made through listening tests. Quite the contrary. Properly controlled listening tests are the only hope to arrive at any objective conclusion regarding audibility of small differences.
But audiophiles have been sold the idea that different = better and therefore nothing can be objective and anything objective is the enemy ... by the industry, by magazines and this has spread to communities where now brainwashed people brainwash each other while calling it a hobby.
Your research confirms the 6moons mqa industry feature from May 2017: MQA does not want anyone to be able to do a QC. The fact that your encodes were removed from Tidal, the fact that the encoder checks for test signals and does not allow those signals to be encoded, ... The HighResAudio Press Release also mentioned that no analysis tools are available to verify the encoded MQA content. Therefore no quality control is possible, and now already three sources have confirmed this in public.
This is one of the best video's on the subject and thanks for mentioning our truncation experiments.
I've released a new audio format called "BBF". It takes a flac file, encrypts it, then doubles the encrypted file 20 times. This creates a "Big-Bloated-File". The "BBF" format can only be played on licensed products that will cost thousands more than standard players, but it's well worth it because as everyone knows bigger files means better quality.
You could advertise it as offering 20x the quality of FLAC, because it is literally true.
An absolutely fantastic deep-dive. This is the kind of investigation that HiFi magazines should be doing. Thanks so much!
Within the first 2 minutes,, summary of findings and a clear table of contents. This is how all informational CZcams videos should be!!
Hi. I am a concert pianist and I want to thank you for saying the truth and contributing people to understand how they’re constantly fooled by marketing. Unfortunately music is suffering a lot because of marketing, arts and business are rarely compatible.
I like your content😃
Keep going! Improve on your production quality a bit and surely more subscribers going to come your way.
Unfortunately, it is way easier to fool people than to be convince someone they've been fooled.
Disproving extravagant/misleading claims requires a lot of effort and expertise and usually a lengthy explanation - while marketing just needs one sentence to find its way into the brain.
But I still think it is of vital importance and that it needs to be done by good communicators in every field.
I detest proprietary solutions but trying to monetize artist’s masters to slap licensing fees on snake oil like MQA is beyond sleazy.
UPDATE:
OK! Now I have experienced the problem! TIDAL has been going through their library and arbitrarily updating songs to "MASTER" MQA. The end results are not good most of the time.
I had Billy Joel's "New York State Of Mind" from a greatest hits selection on my list for its piano opening. It was regular hi-fi, which is about the same as 44.1 FLAC. I also have this song on 44.1 FLAC that I ripped from my own greatest hits CD. Suddenly, TIDAL updates this track to Master MQA and absolutely DESTROYED the sound quality!!! The beautiful piano reverb where the echo from the previous note leads into the next is gone. You can hear the details roll off sharply, as if the song was highly compressed. His voice, instead of sounding like he recorded in a concert hall, sounded as though he was singing through burlap. It's muffled and constrained. It's also artificially forced to center-front, instead of being naturally center back. I even had my wife compare Tidal's Master MQA track to the FLAC file and she agreed the TIDAL version was terrible.
So, I have come to the conclusion that unless the track was mastered at the studio (by the studio) specifically for MQA, they are simply going to up-sample standard 44.1 and force it into MQA, which has the opposite intended effect.
Yeah what you're listening to is the original version of the song. There are 3. The greatest hits version is up as a master too.
@Kent Teffeteller I was referring to "tidal master", but they're all blue light too which means the label approved those as the definitive versions.
Call them what you like, my point was that the issue the original commenter had with the track quality has absolutely nothing to do with MQA, but that the first version of New York State of Mind released in 1976 sounds much different to the 1985 greatest hits version.
@Kent Teffeteller yeah "Tidal master" is MQA
MQA: "Just trust your ears, stop asking questions."
MQA: Master Qanon Audio
"Just trust your ears and stop asking questions" has been the audiophile motto since the beginning and so many audio manufacturers have cashed in on the vast subjectivity. Well those days are OVER, more and more people are testing, tinkering and publishing all the BS these companies may have a rude awakening in the next few years. We get better fidelity when we call the companies out and vote with our wallets.
More like "audio cancel culture!"
Yeah, my many thanks also go out to subjectivist audiophiles in all the forums, who keep this murky culture going of "anything can be true depending on whom you ask" and who keep shilling these BS technologies like MQA and NOS DACs with leaky filters.
@@iowaudioreviews those days are not over, there are still people that think 1000USD power cable sounds better than a 5USD one.
Years ago, when the annual audio expo was held in the metropolitan city I live in, someone from Meridian had a room demonstrating MQA shortly after its launch. The guy was doing very controlled auditioning demos where he would play some generally well known music tracks encoded with MQA and then went on to ask the audience if they agreed on how wonderful MQA sounded. Most people noded in agreement with some verbally expressing their positive impressions. But I, being the unfaithful and scientific minded bastard that I am, despite my name, had to be the only fly in the proverbial ointment. So I asked the showman to play an MQA track followed by its red book CD counterpart. He responded that he couldn't do it because he didn't have the original file on his server and that they didn't perform their demos in that fashion and asked me if I didn't agree that it sounded great. I replied, sure it seemed to sound good but unless we could compare it to the original CD track, we the audience had no point of reference to compare to, specially since the playback was performed under a setup, i.e. speakers, audio gear and a listening room that we were unfamiliar with. So I told him that his demo was not valid and didn't convince me of MQA's claims; you could tell from his facial expression that he didn't like that. It just goes to show you how unscientific and deceptive their whole approach to selling MQA technology is.
👏🏻
I had no idea what MQA was but I bought an MQA capable DAC and after some Googling I wanted to try it out and bought the HIFI+ subscription on Tidal. It's sad to see now that I was fooled by the MQA marketing into thinking that this is better than standard HIFi. And it was quite shocking to me too realize that MQA is not lossless.
Anyway, thank You for this informative video.
This is incredible! Not only have you taught me more about MQA than tidal ever did, but you helped me understand digital audio better than I ever have before.
Finally someone make this video. I'm from Oslo Mastering studio and have claimed this since day one! Thanks 👍
You sir are a hero. Thx for taking the considerable time and effort to simply provide facts. Lies are too easy to fabricate, hard work like this to expose them is very welcome.
This video popped up for me when it came out and I barely understood much of it. One year later I’ve become interested in better gear and suddenly everything makes sense. Thanks for the fantastic explanations here.
Terrific piece of analysis. I’m not an audio engineer, but an IT guy with years of testing experience. And I recognize your scientific approach here. Further, I’m concerned with the lack of response - or worse, sandbagging by MQA. I only ‘tripped’ over this article as I have repeatedly tried to convince myself that I must be missing something from Tidal/MQA in listening tests. I do not have ‘golden ears’. I am a 69 years music lover with decent sensitivity to pitch, dynamics and (I guess) timing / phase issues. I consistently prefer CDs and recently Amazon ‘Ultra HD’ sources. I’m becoming increasing animated by the scam here. It’s twice the price of other less pretentious (being kind) services and audibly worse. If an old guy like me can blind test in a three way bake off - then surely a teenage musician must be gagging on the artifacts? Great job. I feel better now.
I love when people use facts and science to expose a company’s purposeful distortion of truth.
they distort the truth just like the music
@@Blacktronics bruh moments
From the mere fact they blocked your content after your email I've disabled MQA on Tidal. Good grief guys.
Maybe you should double down and cancel your Tidal subscription. It'd serve them right after the shit they've pulled.
@@Some-guy-on-the-internet yeah! There must be alternatives you can switch to, right?
A possibility very valuable suggestion if you're truly (considering) switching between audio streaming services is that if you take a look around the internet and possibly Google a little bit you may get lucky and come across a tool to facilitate the switcheroo and help you with the whole shebang 😎 It would undoubtedly shorten the transitional period, greatly reduce any 'change tax' or transitional pain you may experience, and there is a chance it would make the switch painless whatsoever. And then there is the absolute shitton of time it would save for you by automagically copying all your existing playlists, favorites, compilations and any other forms of music collections may have with the old service to your new account.
If you'd like, please repeat after me: "Change is good. Change is delicious. Especially if you're changing away from the capitalistic snake oil mongering pigs trying to scam you out of your money.
Enjoy your last day of the weekend people! Tomorrow is Monday. Happy days, I hope 😇 Peace!
Problem with that, as seen by Golden as well, is that even if you stream HiFi there is high chance you'll get the folded MQA instead of the native 44.1KHz FLAC. That is for the tracks marked with the yellow Master sign.
Soon it won’t matter once tidal uses MQA exclusively for its source property encoding scheme
@@porkrinds9572 But where to can we go? What about amazon music (ultra) HD?
Let us not forget what happened at RMAF a couple of years ago when the CEO of MQA shouted down Chris of Audiophile Style (then: Computer Audiophile) when he tried to present criticism of MQA: czcams.com/video/NSv0lcHlawk/video.html
MQA is basically marketing speak, from what they claim, they sound like impossible engineering solutions.
Given that MQA is clearly not mathematically lossless, but perceptually lossless with the right source and under favorable listening conditions, that does suggest an nicely alliterative marketing slogan: “MQA: MP3 for the Modern Mug!” They’re welcome to use it for the appropriate license fee.
Except MP3 has excellent file sizes but MQA is the same size if not bigger then FLAQ.
@@groundzero_-lm4md and MP3 is not known to be related to audiophiles.
@@citycultivator2101 so it fails on 2 fronts. It isn't lossless, and it is either equal or bigger then FLAQ.
@@groundzero_-lm4md But it is at least audiophool certified. 😄
Yeah, it’s just bullshit. Amazing the crap they are spouting. No one who is competent in engineering should fall for this.
So MQA is garbage. This confirmed my suspicions.
MQA do sound really good, IF you have a top tier expensive DAC unit with mqa.
DSD is better, but few use it, prefer flac for easy of use and no need for expensive DAC.
@@Cpt.Zer0 doesnt matter 'how good' it sounds if its adding artifacts and fucking up the audio completely in some points
@@Cpt.Zer0 Wrong and wrong. It doesn't matter if MQA sounds subjectively good to you, or if you believe the moon is made of cheese. Technically it is a degradation from any common lossless source format. It was that way 6 years ago when this was introduced and we pointed out the flaws and still is today after audiophools yet again fell for quality degradation marketed as improvements.
DSD is even worse, being limited to 1 bit you get the highest possible quantization errors which means you need extremely aggressive noise shaping, which means your inaudible high frequencies will not be preserved anyway.
@@Cpt.Zer0 no matter how good it subjectively sounds good if it doesn't accurately reproduce the original sound, it's not a big deal
Well, MQA sure isn't lossless, they filed for bankruptcy after a ton of losses.
Yes. A great example of how the internet gives ordinary people a voice against companies that offer digital products. Great presentation!
Brilliant and thorough detective work.
finally golden getting some recognition
Too bad he's being dishonest. Did you actually read the response from MQA? (No need to answer that ...)
@@TheSineira LOL bruh what
His going ape about how _audible_ 20,000 Hz is surprises me, does he work with a trained detector bat?
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 not sure i get what you mean. 20kHz is within the human audible range. Obviously not everyone will have the hearing for it depending on their age (among other things) but I dont see why it wouldn't be mentioned
any company that takes criticism as an attack and does such petty sorts of things is instantly blacklisted in my books
I've just cancelled my tidal suscription
Watching this video again after I switched to Qobuz, I remembered that I said I liked Qobuz better because it sounded more "natural" than Tidal's master quality. I'm glad to see I'm not crazy.
I Spend one Month to compare Tidal and Qobuz. Qobuz is significantly more cleaner, more Detailed and resolution.
I'm disabling MQA on Tidal right now ..... In fact will be cancelling Tidal altogether
I hope thousands follow your example!
Just did it too
Isn't it still better than Spotify still? At least we can get CD quality over simple 320kbs mp3s
@@el.blanco8961 Quboz is a good alternative to Tidal and Spotify Hi-Fi is on the way as is lossless on Apple Music. Plenty of alternatives.
@@FlamencoOz I didn't know that, I've used Quboz, selection is small and Ui is awful, at least for mobile. If Spotify gets at least CD quality I'm ending my sub to tidal.
Ok, very short synopsis - "MQA is marketting bullshit". "Buy our crap", says MQA CEO.
And now Amazon Music and Apple Music are adding free lossless streaming.
It's amazing how you tricked the entire system with tones inside tracks to give this to us. I really love when i find other persons that have deep critical minds, and question all sort of things, and this especially beats me hard. As i really love lossless music but i was from the beginning seing MQA with untrustful eyes. Thanks A Lot.
I came here from Techmoan's summary of the Japanese "MQA-CD" format. When he described how this "folding" works onto standard 44.1KHz audio CDs my bullshit-ometer was off the scale. This video just confirms that for me. Thanks!
I was a Tidal fan thinking that I was getting hi-res files at standard res size. Then I received Mark Waldrep (AIX Records) emails regarding MQA and it's shortcomings. Now your video has out the nail in the MQA coffin for me. I was a Tidal subscriber twice in the past and went back and forth with Qobuz. Tidal's interface is better but Qobuz gives you the real thing. Thanks for all the great info. I am now a subscriber to your channel.
The problem is that Qobus is so expensive. what do you say about Amazon music ultra HD
@@Andersljungberg I pay $14.99 per month by paying for a year at a time. $5 cheaper than Tidal.
@@bobromano7548I'm on the same boat as you but Tidal is €10 per month as a student. Qobuz has no student discount. The €5 a month is essentially a free kebab every 30 days. Also Qobuz has a more limited library, especially for songs in my language.
I knew something was up with Tidal when I started uploading my FLAC/ALAC files to my Plex server and was doing A-B comparisons. I swore Tidal's MQA streams were just container files with 320kbs MP3 and a trigger to turn on the MQA led. Thanks for doing the thorough research, I wasn't too far off.
This is really an amazing video
Great work!
So, are you officially endorsing the view that MQA is snake oil? I heard it was used in the recording of Sandstorm, by Darude. ;^)
I always knew Tidal is snake oil
Hey man i saw your vid on streaming services and would be nice to see a new version but with amazon hd and apple lossless
This is huge and needs widespread attention.
One of the most vital pieces of info to become available to the audiophile community this year. 👍🏻
Simply Golden note! Thanks for bringing MQA issues to the table!
In brief: The emperor has no clothes. But he does have a “cleaner.”
Rambo 3 predicted the Blue Light:
"What is this for?"
"It's blue light"
"What does it do?"
"Turns blue"
Gold comment
CD/FLAC is all I need.
What to do after CD's dead, like they almost are?
@@pftvfc66 Any data that show CDs are dying? I think they're still being produced, it's just that vinyl has this resurgence and streaming is hot now.
@@elifaudio1472 Actually, there are published papers showing that the Compact Discs shelf life (about 30 years), combined with ever changing content delivery formats and manufacturing trends, creates a situation where CDs eventually become unplayable either due to degradation of the media, or a loss of the playback devices. This has happened to DAT for example and is happening to CD now.
100%, CDs and Bandcamp are my main music sources now, since all the artists and soundtracks I like show up there anyway, and good grief they sound great compared to MP3, I RIP the CDs (96khz and 16bit for no other reason than because I can) and download from Bandcamp in FLAC, feed it all to my Fiio M9 player and a nice pair of headphones, I haven't enjoyed music this much in a long time, and having it all loaded into and playing from a local file on a portable device is perfect, a far more convenient than any streaming music I've tested especially in my area with crap cell data costs and worse coverage.
TL:DR; who needs cloud streaming when local storage is better anyway?
@@TheSteveSteele as a raw data source CDs are still just fine, rip them to FLAC and backup your data regularly and it should last well over 30 years, also I have a nearly 25~30 year old CD player that actually still plays modern CDs just fine, it's a Yamaha CDC-805 if you're curious, a big old 5 disc CD changer
Thank you. Unbelieveable how much work you must have put into this effort. You give a whole new meaning to the the phrase due dilgence. By deduction, I'd known since some of the first MQA articles released in the Nov/Dec 2014 (TAS and Stereophile) time frame that MQA was anything but what they, TAS, and Stereophile claimed it to be and iimmediately tried to warn others in variious audio forums. High-end audio is so subjective and since many lack the ability to discern / interpret what they hear, I thought our music was done for. I still cannot believe the milions of hours enthusiasts and so-called experts have spent in forums arguing this crap. Nor shall I forget the wholesale sellout some leaders did for some motive. Anybody know the status of MQA today. Are they still hiding in the marsh waiting to strike? Or are they done? Regrettably, I suspect if the high-end audio industry as a whole had some level of listening discernment, MQA never would have made it out of the starting gate or perhaps ever got off the drawing board. Yes, we are ultimately to blame for some of this.
Finaly someone, that puts in the effort to scientificly debunk mqa. This was something everyone in the soundengineer game new but we werent able to support with evidence
I swear if the general public had just a little basic knowledge about audio engineering, the stuff that MQA says would make them laugh...
and 95% of the remaining 'hifi' industry yep
That "strange band of distortion" mentioned at 10:20 is probably due to Universal Music Group's copyright watermarking, which alters the audio from around 1 to 3.6 kHz. Matt Montag has more information and audio samples of it on his web site.
So MQA has claims they cannot follow thru in that case....
Wouldn't that only apply to Universal owned music?
Right smack dab in the sweet spot range where good speakers really shine. I assume they did it thinking no one but audiophiles would ever notice. I've not really analyzed this myself, but I know I have heard something in that range on many tracks. Like ive told others, I think I'm done with Tidal. I remeber doing a trial on qobuz closer to 2 years ago. Their audio was so much better to my ears, and closer to what I hear playing Tidal on an outboard dac or Audirvana. They didn't have the library then, but customer support was very friendly to me. They charged me a day early when I was trying to cancel, and offered me up some HD downloads to keep to make up for it. I'll gladly give them a shot tomorrow. :)
Intelligence agency steganography delivery system.
When I saw that spectrum waveform, I immediately thought it looked very much like a data stream. But I thought it was for decoding parameters and that "authentication" they claim. Well, you live and learn...
A tip for those of you hunting for data streams embedded in audio is to read up on software defined radio, there are a number of sites that list the spectrum, waveforms and basic data about various modulation techniques, you can often identify the basic modulation type by looking at the spectrum waterfall.
And you also have the option of using an audio signals as the input for some SDR receiver software when hunting for watermarks etc.
What I'd prefer would be some very low amplitude Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum signal which basically smears itself over the entire audio as inaudible pseudorandom noise.
Another idea would be to tweak a mix subtly for each release, like individual tracks being something like ±0.5 dB (whatever is small enough to not be heard but large enough to be reliably measurable) out compared to master.
Only common denominator is that it should be transparent across formats.
@Kesa Mek It's basically what it is, a steganographic delivery system, only what it delivers is some form of publisher, album, release and track identifier. I hope. :cue that Lalo Schifrin song:
I’m on your side. I’m using an MQA compatible hipDAC and a MSR7b on the 4.4mm output. I had Deezer Hifi for nearly a year and was pretty happy with it. Beginning of the year I’ve jump on the 3 month for 3€ offer from Tidal. I’ve started listening my favorite songs on the new platform and some of them, the MQA ones sounded pretty wrong. There was some harshness, some part of the song were too loud. I’m pretty high mids and low treble sensitive and, for me at least, some songs were pretty agressive there. I’ve tried to listen the songs in non-MQA but it still was not as smooth and pleasing then by Deezer. I’ve switched back to Deezer Hifi and now I enjoy the music again, it is just smoother and I have no more trouble. Thank you for proving I’m not just crazy 😅
I really, REALLY appreciate you having a summary at the start and then listing all the sections. Not enough people do this, thank you so much
thank you for this amazingly detailed video on what all you encountered. it definitely helps to see what all goes on behind the scenes and how legit some of the services are that we pay for
Shut up Skullcandy Evo's!
👍🍒
Damnnnn its Gamesky!
@@10shanwei 🤩🍌🤯🤫😈👻
MQA always sounded worse to me. Deezer hifi and Amazon HD sounded immediately better and I dropped Tidal. This excellent video confirms what many people heard.
Not only is MQA bullshit, but it's laughable that ANY product would advertise "master" quality, when the problem in music today IS the master. The problem is DYNAMIC COMPRESSION. The masters themselves are ruined, so why would you want an exact copy of them? The only solution to the shitty sound of masters made since the late '90s is to STOP TURNING THEM INTO A WALL OF NOISE to make them "louder."
Hit the nail straight on the head!
Fortunately there are definitely artists that use this paradigm Deadmau5 and Daft Punk at least come to mind
@@DJHastingsFeverPitch Yeah Daft Punk is not bad. I don't remember what Deadmau5 sounds like, but I'll take your word for it.
Shenanigans like MQA are why I still stick to buying CDs when possible. Not only are CDs always full quality, sometimes they are even cheaper than the digital version!
There is also MQA-CD. Why is there a need for that? I have no idea
God damn man I cannot be thankful enough for audio quality of your voice. It is so rare to find someone who decides to actually mix their audio properly even if they have a good mic.
To be honest, the only editing I did to the voice track was to remove breaths. Other than that, no EQ/Processing.
@@GoldenSound then combination of your mic's response and your voice is perfect because it sounds *really* good
@@xentiment6581 Not encoded with MQA
@@nicoras8803 lmao *WASTED*
@@GoldenSound What microphone and equipment do you use to record audio? Your voice sounds fantastic
MQA - Mediocre Quality Assured!
The problem is with us, as humans, we're always chasing the newest thing but FLAC sounds fantastic even a regular 16/44 CD rip.
I disagree. Flac sounds like crap.
@@380stroker What sounds good to you?
@@lunoirxx The original file. Wav.
@@380stroker WAVs and FLACs literally sound the same. They are both lossless PCM files.
@@lunoirxx No. On paper you are correct. Through listening tests you are wrong.
This is really bad for Tidal right now, especially with giants Apple and Spotify going Hi-res. I've been a long time subscriber of Tidal but unfortunately this may have to change.
Well they are shitty but you didn't notice the "mqa". So does it matter?
@@NamTran-xc2ip If you listen to shit long enough, then it becomes the norm.
Spotify is going hi res?
@@coin777 who's to say at this point
@@DonJuanMair they tried to go hi rez a few years back and charged 7.5 extra per month lol
Why would you need to authenticate a file that's being streamed from a music service? The marketing gobbledegook is so inane you can tell MQA is a scam immediately.
Solid video. Thanks for doing this.
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it. Hopefully it was sufficiently thorough :D
I now understand why you had an almost emotional response from my question on one of your live streams. I asked about which mqa enabled dac would be better. Just finished exporting my Tidal playlist to Spotify and canceled subscription. It totally sucks to be lied to and managed by a big company. Wish there was a better streaming service for Canadians. Maybe Spotify will fill this niche eventually.
@@MisterChibs Spotify HiFi should hopefully shake things up a bit!
@@GoldenSound Amazon HD is pretty good, but has a horrible interface and terrible suggestions. SMDH
@@MisterChibs I'm on Deezer hifi
all i can think is: "man, they REALLY tried to make ANOTHER format that wasn't really necessary at all?"
we already have god knows how many file formats and now they're trying to make one and add proprietary bs.
I went through all MQA's response. I must say a pseudoscience-paper-generator does make more sense that what they are telling you. I'm an acoustic engineer, familiar with DSP topics. Never heard the term "audio blur" before, and all this weird non-technical language on a highly technical topic, "capture a sound that is natural and accesible", "being analogue to analogue in conception" (how could a digital process be analogue-to-analogue?). Pure woo-woo.
Spotify have announced they're adding lossless support soon. I was considering keeping Tidal because I believed the stuff about MQA. Thanks for making this video as I now know, as far as objective performance goes, I do not need to worry about missing MQA with lossless Spotify.
Qobuz offers high res lossless without MQA
MQA seems quite shady and needs to fail and go away. Tidal seems shady too. I'm sticking to my lossless and high definition locally stored content.
word
@@tdmduc Island?
Smart move. Curate your own collection, don't be dependent on some shady company.
This great video reminds me at Monty's videos from Xiph and again shows me some really important things besides the topic itself.
1. This is the level I want to discuss serious topics with other people, objectively, polite and without nonsense. Sadly in most cases we are far away from that, luckily there are some positive examples like this video.
2. Closed source, trade secrets and some patents in general, are used to make sure that they can sell things that otherwise would be called out, because they are simply false claims and trick the customer.
Congrats! For someone who does due diligence on companies in the telecom segment, I am VERY impressed by your work here. Will be seriously looking at alternatives to TIDAL since I am a current subscriber.
This is one of the most relevant review videos I have seen in a while. Luckily for every marketing snake oil salesman, there is someone like GoldenSound that takes his time to carefully deconstruct it piece by piece and help people come to their own conclusion. Keep this up, Sir. The community will not be fooled.
That's a real pro stuff. Canceling my TIDAL HiFi sub for good.
Ever since I first heard of MQA it was always known as a lossy format and not lossless, interesting to see how that message has changed over time. That fact alone makes it inferior to flac in my book.
I have tried the tidal service and listened to MQA files, and then compared them to non-MQAs. I can say with certainty they do feel like information has been "injected" into the file.
It feels like the dynamic range has been artificially boosted and certain parts of the song like the instuments has been exaggerated most likely to make things more appealing.
Also what a pleasant surprise to see the connection with currawong at the end. One very intelligent audiophile reviewer to another, I'm glad I found your channel.
Professional audio engineer here. Great video! When mastering a try to tell my clients to avoid MQA like the plauge! I try to tell them that my ears hear things that theirs don't and it's not anything like the dream that they are selling!
Yup just like flac. Avoid it like the plague.
It’s impressive the amount of meaningless words MQA uses to describe absolutely nothing. It is just like the classic audiophile marketing bullshittery, and people are buying into just like they always have.
"Unfolding" is just a fancy term for decompression.
@@malice5121 Strange thing to say when an "audiophile" has made this video calling out the bullshit.
@Dizzy Gear I think you just jealous because they own better audio system and better listening experience
@@malice5121 Ironically, such generalisation only shows your own ignorance and stupidity
I'm so happy that I never paid Tidal after watching this video, and really this should be totally illegal.
MQA should be sued by a collective action.
Sued already?
What service are you using now?
@@metta3994 Right now I'm using a mix of Spotify and CDs when I'm home, I know all the flaws of Spotify but it's really the most convenient one for me right now, all the other streaming services are missing a lot of the music I listen to...
Why? You don't have to pay for the MQA option.. You can get the normal CD quality FLAC option for almost half the price... But still Spotify is more practical since most people use it. They only lack lossless.
I find that every single streaming service lacks songs I want. Or not avaliable in my region etc.. I buy the albums I really like on vinyl and/or CD.
Truly a great service to all audiophiles, thank you for your investigation.
This clearly shows that MQA is just a scam. Thanks mate. Cancelled my Tidal sub long ago because of that.
U can just use Hifi quality
Tidal is not just "mqa". Tidal fell for the bullshit of mqa also
@@shadouxg7150 he said in the video that the HiFi versions of songs are just the MQA version but with truncated bit depth
@@Roxor.Z sorry I didn't watch the video
If MQA was open source and they didn’t act shady as fuck then maybe they’d be less controversial.
If they use open source no one would fall for it.
If it was open source, nobody would use it. There are far more effective open source lossy and lossless audio codecs, like AAC, FLAC and APE. The only reason why people are into this crap is *because* they create such a mystery around it.
@@gayusschwulius8490 I mean same basic point said long lol
Finally a person that calls himself an audiophile and can actually back it up. Great video.
You sound easily convinced
@@fightingmink Yes, I'm impressed by the technical knowledge and drive to expose bullshit marketing.
You guys are so stuck up and judgemental. 🙄
It's fairly astonishing their response to your good faith offer to present a balanced report. It is heroic what you did there - releasing your own content just to perform a reverse-engineering, that is dedication to the cause!!! PS. my gear is a couple of rack mount MOTU firewire interfaces. No nasty blue lights there can't stand blue LEDs anyhow...