Are we heading for a time when all CDs will be MQA coded - no redbook available?

[voodooless]

Actually, it might be even worse? What happens to the original noise shaping and dithering? Are they still encoded in the 3 MQA bits somehow? Or is that just lost information?

 

[nimar]

I realise that by saying anything that could be construed as pro MQA, that I'll be tarred with a heavy brush but I've a few bug bears which people tend to ignore entirely or not fully take in to account. Its probably worth saying that I find it improbable that MQA can "sound better" than the equivalent FLAC file.

Why fear a new format? There was the same fear with WMA, ALAC, AIFF, etc and we've forgotten anyone ever cared. I was a strong proponent of OGG back in the day because MP3 required royalties, its now free, doubtless the same will happen with MQA with time, either by mass adoption or by lack there of.

Without going into the weeds of why anyone should care about hi-res music (lower noise floor / higher sampling rate). People seem to get hung up on two points, FLAC is lossless and this must be better, and MQA solves a problem that doesn't need solving.

FLAC is lossless, and FLAC is a great free codec, but your redbook / 16/44 FLAC file is not lossless compared to the original DXD or 24/192 master. It's been downsampled to become that, information has been lost. If MQA can provide the listener with more information than redbook at similar file sizes that seems like an improvement, even if it means using lossy compression on the 96Khz+ frequencies (which we can't actually hear). The first unfold to 24/96khz can already been done in software with Tidal/Roon etc without needing new hardware.

And the obvious rebuttal is, then just give me the original 24/192 or 24/352 file, storage is cheap and I have a huge hard drive that can store this and a super fast fibre connection that can stream this, but this isn't taking the big picture into account. For a 24/192 file the MQA version is roughly 1/3 of the standard FLAC. This matters at scale, 1/3 the bandwidth -> 1/3 the disk space -> 1/3 the electrical use etc (and yes this is a simplification), streaming services need to deal with 10's to 100's of thousands of people wanting to stream these files at the same time. A four minute MQA file at 24/192 is about 50MB vs 150MB FLAC, so for 100,000 people to listen to this its 5TB with MQA or 15TB for FLAC. Thats just to listen to one song. For those that have the means to listen to hi-res the problem is not the last mile of delivery, but there are real infrastructure hurdles. And perhaps as a world we should entertain solutions that reduce our global footprint without sacrificing our listening pleasure?

 

[mansr]

I must have been wrong them. but it is not free and open source?!

The spec costs money, yes, though not a prohibitive amount. If you're planning on building a CD player, you'll be making some much bigger investments. Open source is a meaningless term in this context, but there is nothing to stop you releasing full schematics etc for your CD player.

 

[mansr]

Its probably worth saying that I find it improbable that MQA can "sound better" than the equivalent FLAC file.

It is, in fact, impossible. This is obvious considering that what ultimately enters the DAC chip is plain old PCM that could have delivered without the DRM wrapper.

If MQA can provide the listener with more information than redbook at similar file sizes

It can't. End of story.

 

[Lambda]

but there is nothing to stop you releasing full schematics etc for your CD player.

But i have to pay licensing fees?

Maybe it is kind of accessible but why not use a true open source codec like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLAC

The wohle DRM thing is not so new:

copy protection

for CDs and DVDs. Such methods include DRM, CD-checks, Dummy Files, illegal tables of contents, over-sizing or over-burning the CD, physical errors and bad sectors. Many protection schemes rely on breaking compliance with CD and DVD standards, leading to playback problems on some devices.

The Red Book CD-DA audio specification does not include any copy protection mechanism other than a simple anti-copy flag. Starting in early 2002, attempts were made by record companies to market "copy-protected" non-standard compact discs. Philips stated that such discs were not permitted to bear the trademarked Compact Disc Digital Audio logo

MQA seems an attempt to putsch a new version of DRM

It can't. End of story.

Can you say this wihtout knowing how it works?

 

[SKBubba]

MQA gets way more attention than market share and certainly more than it deserves. It is (hopefully) DOA.

Its reason for existing was to save streaming bandwidth. Bandwidth is now essentially free. Now they are promoting it for a dying/dead medium, at the expense of a decades-old standard of quality. They don't seem like very smart business people. It is a poorly conceived, rent seeking solution in search of a problem.

Anyway, according to one report, streaming subscriptions as of Q1 2020 were:

Spotify: 128 million
Apple Music: 72 million
Amazon Music: 56 million
Tencent Music: 44 million
Google Play / YouTube Music: 24 million
Deezer: 8 million
Pandora: 4 million
Others: 64 million

Among “others,” Tidal claims 3 million subscribers, or about 0.7% of all streaming subscribers. We don't know how many of those are hi-fi/masters v. Mp3.

(Qobuz said in 2019 they had 200,000 subscribers. Could not find recent figures, but if you assume 100% growth in the past year that’s 400,000, or about 0.1%.)

So 99.3% of music streaming subscribers do not even have access or listen to MQA. In fact, 97% don’t even seem to care about CD quality lossless streaming.

So basically MQA is a rounding error in the marketplace. It will not be the differentiator that drives Tidal to overcome Spotify (and when Spotify checks the hi-fi box, which is all they are doing, all bets are off), and MQA will not reserruct CDs.

 

[mansr]

But i have to pay licensing fees?

There may be a fee payable for use of the official CD logo. Any patents applicable to CD playback are long since expired.

Maybe it is kind of accessible but why not use a true open source codec like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLAC

CD is a physical format, not a codec.

Can you say this wihtout knowing how it works?

Yes. It's a simple matter of observation. MQA files are bigger than their FLAC equivalents and considerably bigger than plain CD quality (with FLAC compression).

 

[Lambda]

MQA files are bigger than their FLAC equivalents and considerably bigger than plain CD quality (with FLAC compression).

I can’t follow how you can conclude from this observation that MQA can't provide more information.

Assuming the MQA CD contains 14 uncompressed bits and 2 compressed bits
so 12,5% compressed data and 87,5% uncompressed data.
Assuming the compression ratio is about 50% the 12,5% data become 25% can end up with 112,5% the data compared to no compression CD.

 

[sergeauckland]

I can’t follow how you can conclude from this observation that MQA can't provide more information.

Assuming the MQA CD contains 14 uncompressed bits and 2 compressed bits
so 12,5% compressed data and 87,5% uncompressed data.
Assuming the compression ratio is about 50% the 12,5% data become 25% can end up with 112,5% the data compared to no compression CD.

Yes, perhaps, but data isn't information. There's nothing in that data that would be missed, it's empty, devoid of value. It's there to light up the MQA indicator, and that's it.

And for that we have to put up with a loss of information, (again of questionable value) when played back without MQA decoding.

S

 

[mansr]

I can’t follow how you can conclude from this observation that MQA can't provide more information.

If it can, why are they not utilising this ability?

 

[nimar]

Yes. It's a simple matter of observation. MQA files are bigger than their FLAC equivalents and considerably bigger than plain CD quality (with FLAC compression).

This may well be true for 16/44 MQA, and to be honest I don't entirely understand the purpose of 16/44 MQA. I suppose it's caused by something similar to upsampling to increase the sample rate without increasing the frequency response to improve the time blurring.

But for high bit/sample rates the MQA files are significantly smaller (1/3 - 1/6th the size), can compare public files from http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html

At the end of the day, I don't have a dog in the MQA fight, Its not going to improve the absolute sound quality but I am more than happy if it can deliver a similar auditory experience with smaller files, and so far no one has proved this not to be the case*. Not to mention that I don't decide what the labels / streaming services provide.

* I am not entirely convinced by Archimago's analysis, which has't been widely confirmed. I don't have an ADC to do an accurate side by side comparison justice.

 

[mansr]

But for high bit/sample rates the MQA files are significantly smaller (1/3 - 1/6th the size), can compare public files from http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html

You're not doing the right comparison. MQA delivers approximately the same quality as 96 kHz, 18-bit FLAC, but it needs more bandwidth to do so, and it's not lossless.

 

[nimar]

You're not doing the right comparison. MQA delivers approximately the same quality as 96 kHz, 18-bit FLAC, but it needs more bandwidth to do so, and it's not lossless.

I don't know if _that_ is a fair comparison, yes they utilise 18 bits of dynamic range for the lossless 96khz of music, so if you were just comparing that portion your point is fair, but the rest of the data is not meaningless in an MQA file (if you have the appropriate decoder), it contains additional compressed data. Unlike in a traditional FLAC file where it is most likely inaudible noise both low and high frequencies.

Honest question, are 18bits not enough, do you have music that uses more than 108db of dynamics? With headphones on I can only hear about 60db of dynamics at comfortable levels).

Again, just to be fully clear, if someone can prove that MQA is entirely a hoax I'd be perfectly happy. There are definitely a fair number of hoax's in the audio world, eg. paying a premium for DSD and yet many of the anti MQA folk are pro DSD. I just want to get the full picture, and have an honest debate about the real pro's / con's of a new technology.

 

[Lambda]

Honest question, are 18bits not enough, do you have music that uses more than 108db of dynamics? With headphones on I can only hear about 60db of dynamics at comfortable levels).

I tested myself 1khz tone at -70dBFS, pressed play/stop repeatedly and turned the volume up till i could reliably hear if its on or off.
Measured the at the same gain wit 0dBFS 50hz and a volt meter showed 160mV RMS.
https://reference-audio-analyzer.pro/en/amp-spl.php#gsc.tab=0
This gives ne Peak level 18.87 dB SPL i can hear with normal background noise
At normal music listening gain i get 2-4Vrms at 0dBFS = Peak level 116.82 dB SPL
so apparently ~97dB is all i need!
But it depends if the music is mastered very low and has only a view peaks i would turn the gain up.

And as a reminder Peak level 116.82 dB SPL is not the same as 116.82 dB(A)RMS!

But if mastering engenders don’t need to engage in Loudness war because the distributors normalize the volume maybe the would master at a lower volume and with more dynamic.
With lower volume source i would turn up the gain and therefore hear more dynamic?

 

[dc655321]

I am not entirely convinced by Archimago's analysis, which has't been widely confirmed.

Is it solely what you perceive of as a lack of sources corroborating Archimago's analysis, or a lack of analytical depth that causes your doubt?

There are other sources out there - @mansr is one of them..

 

[mansr]

I don't know if _that_ is a fair comparison, yes they utilise 18 bits of dynamic range for the lossless 96khz of music, so if you were just comparing that portion your point is fair, but the rest of the data is not meaningless in an MQA file (if you have the appropriate decoder), it contains additional compressed data. Unlike in a traditional FLAC file where it is most likely inaudible noise both low and high frequencies.

There is no "rest of the data."

Perhaps it's easiest to demonstrate with an example. Take this file: http://www.lindberg.no/hires/mqa-2018/2L-110_04_stereo.mqa.flac

First, check the MQA metadata:

$ mqascan -1 2L-110_04_stereo.mqa.flac
00000000: MQA signature at bit 8
00000000: [5] datasync
          magic                     36: 0x11319207d
          stream_pos_flag            1: 0
          pad                        1: 1
          orig_rate                  5: 0x03 [352.8 kHz]
          src_rate                   5: 0x00 [44.1 kHz]
          render_filter              5: 6
          unknown_1                  2: 0
          render_bitdepth            2: 1 [18 bits]
          unknown_2                  4: 0x0
          auth_info                  4: 0x0
          auth_level                 4: 0x9
          item_count                 7: 2
          size                       8: 0x14
          size                       8: 0x0b
          type                       8: 0x00
          type                       8: 0x01
          [type 0]
          stage2_dither              2: 2
          gain_index                 4: 0
          unknown_5                  7: 15
          unknown_6                  7: 127
          [type 1]
          unknown_7                  6: 25
          unknown_8                  2: 1
          unknown_9                  1: 0
          unknown_10                 2: 1
          checksum                   4: 0xc

This tells us that the original file had a sample rate of 352.8 kHz, the MQA file is 44.1 kHz, and that the "renderer" output should have a resolution of 18 bits. It also instructs the decoder to turn on the blue light.

Next, decode and "render" the file to 352.8 kHz:

$ mqadec 2L-110_04_stereo.mqa.flac dec.wav
mqaAuthored/88200
$ mqarender -r 352800 dec.wav rend.wav
$ soxi dec.wav rend.wav

Input File     : 'dec.wav'
Channels       : 2
Sample Rate    : 88200
Precision      : 24-bit
Duration       : 00:05:42.88 = 30242016 samples ~ 25716 CDDA sectors
File Size      : 181M
Bit Rate       : 4.23M
Sample Encoding: 24-bit Signed Integer PCM


Input File     : 'rend.wav'
Channels       : 2
Sample Rate    : 352800
Precision      : 24-bit
Duration       : 00:05:42.88 = 120968064 samples ~ 25716 CDDA sectors
File Size      : 726M
Bit Rate       : 16.9M
Sample Encoding: 24-bit Signed Integer PCM

The decoder outputs an 88.2 kHz file, and the "renderer" upsamples this to the requested 352.8 kHz.

Take a closer look at that final output:

$ sox rend.wav -n stats
             Overall     Left      Right
DC offset  -0.000000  0.000000 -0.000000
Min level  -0.892944 -0.849609 -0.892944
Max level   0.931061  0.909576  0.931061
Pk lev dB      -0.62     -0.82     -0.62
RMS lev dB    -21.89    -21.80    -21.98
RMS Pk dB      -9.90    -10.38     -9.90
RMS Tr dB     -69.40    -69.40    -69.00
Crest factor       -     11.19     11.69
Flat factor     2.92      4.44      0.00
Pk count        2.50         3         2
Bit-depth      16/16     16/16     16/16
Num samples     121M
Length s     342.880
Scale max   1.000000
Window s       0.050

Well, ain't that funny. There are only 16 bits actually in use here.

As we know that "rendering" is just upsampling with a strange filter that might affect the passband, taking that final version (that would have been sent to the DAC chip) and downsampling it to 88.2 kHz using a proper filter will preserve all real information that the MQA process provided. To preserve the dynamic range (dither/quantisation noise density), we give it 2 more bits of resolution, one for each halving of the sample rate.

$ sox dec.wav alt.flac rate -u 88200 dither -p 18

Finally, we can compare the size of the MQA file to the equivalent plain FLAC:

$ ls -l *.flac
-rw-r--r-- 1 mru users 57976825 Mar  6 22:57 2L-110_04_stereo.mqa.flac
-rw-r--r-- 1 mru users 54312047 Mar  6 23:19 alt.flac

The FLAC file is only 94% of the MQA file size. In conclusion, MQA is useless for saving bandwidth.

 

[EJ3]

Yes i think "redbook CD" will not be available for ever.
Why be nostalgic about a digital format older then many users here.
I don't think MQA is the future but redbook CD sure has no future.
For those who think CD is good enough. sure ok but why not use FLAC or something?

I bet they are happier with a micro sd card congaing the content of 1000CDs compressed to mp3

I do use FLAC. As to MP3: No way, I would give this micro SD card away to someone who would never play it in my presence or take a pair of pliers and crush it so that it could not be played in my presence.

I would rather be waterboarded (something that I have experienced) than to be forced to listen to any MP3, no matter the bit rate.

Anyone who has ever had a migraine headache will understand what it does to me in three average length tracks of MP3.

I am one of the ones who figured that it would never catch on (because, to me, MP3 is absolutely horrific).

I cannot listen to MP3 at all (speakers, head phones or in a car), (I cannot get through one single track without getting the beginnings of a screaming headache). Perhaps this is because I have heard "LIVE" music all my life? (My mother and friends singing and playing instruments to German/Austrian folk songs since before I could (swim or walk [don't know which one came first]). Any MP3 that I have ever heard (perhaps 15) just grates me in the same way as fingernails on a blackboard. I have run sound for bands, recorded local bands live (from rock to Jazz to 60 piece bands). I have never owned any MP3's & would simply do without if MP3 was all there was. Vinyl, R2R, Cassette, 8 track, CD (or higher quality digital) don't do this to me.
l cannot even fathom that anyone would make a statement like that, knowing that we all hear differently.

 

[Jimbob54]

I do use FLAC. As to MP3: No way, I would give this micro SD card away to someone who would never play it in my presence or take a pair of pliers and crush it so that it could not be played in my presence.

I would rather be waterboarded (something that I have experienced) than to be forced to listen to any MP3, no matter the bit rate.

Anyone who has ever had a migraine headache will understand what it does to me in three average length tracks of MP3.

I am one of the ones who figured that it would never catch on (because, to me, MP3 is absolutely horrific).

I cannot listen to MP3 at all (speakers, head phones or in a car), (I cannot get through one single track without getting the beginnings of a screaming headache). Perhaps this is because I have heard "LIVE" music all my life? (My mother and friends singing and playing instruments to German/Austrian folk songs since before I could (swim or walk [don't know which one came first]). Any MP3 that I have ever heard (perhaps 15) just grates me in the same way as fingernails on a blackboard. I have run sound for bands, recorded local bands live (from rock to Jazz to 60 piece bands). I have never owned any MP3's & would simply do without if MP3 was all there was. Vinyl, R2R, Cassette, 8 track, CD (or higher quality digital) don't do this to me.
l cannot even fathom that anyone would make a statement like that, knowing that we all hear differently.

Ever blind tested a higher rate MP3 and the equivalent lossless file?

 

[Chrispy]

I do use FLAC. As to MP3: No way, I would give this micro SD card away to someone who would never play it in my presence or take a pair of pliers and crush it so that it could not be played in my presence.

I would rather be waterboarded (something that I have experienced) than to be forced to listen to any MP3, no matter the bit rate.

Anyone who has ever had a migraine headache will understand what it does to me in three average length tracks of MP3.

I am one of the ones who figured that it would never catch on (because, to me, MP3 is absolutely horrific).

I cannot listen to MP3 at all (speakers, head phones or in a car), (I cannot get through one single track without getting the beginnings of a screaming headache). Perhaps this is because I have heard "LIVE" music all my life? (My mother and friends singing and playing instruments to German/Austrian folk songs since before I could (swim or walk [don't know which one came first]). Any MP3 that I have ever heard (perhaps 15) just grates me in the same way as fingernails on a blackboard. I have run sound for bands, recorded local bands live (from rock to Jazz to 60 piece bands). I have never owned any MP3's & would simply do without if MP3 was all there was. Vinyl, R2R, Cassette, 8 track, CD (or higher quality digital) don't do this to me.
l cannot even fathom that anyone would make a statement like that, knowing that we all hear differently.

This is about how I feel about the thought of using mqa files.....I don't have a problem with mp3, tho, that would be just silly, but if your ears are that golden, does it make it hard to lift your head off the pillow in the morning? LOL vinyl, 8 tracks and cassettes over mp3.

 

[danadam]

I tested myself 1khz tone at -70dBFS, pressed play/stop repeatedly and turned the volume up till i could reliably hear if its on or off.
Measured the at the same gain wit 0dBFS 50hz and a volt meter showed 160mV RMS.

Did you mean "uV", i.e. micro, µ?

I tested myself 1khz tone at -70dBFS, pressed play/stop repeatedly and turned the volume up till i could reliably hear if its on or off.
...
so apparently ~97dB is all i need!

Now try with 3.5 kHz, you will likely need more. Now try after listening to loud music, you will likely need less.