Archimago's MQA listening test results

[Blumlein 88]

https://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html

This is a report of the results. A link to part 1 describing the procedure is in the first sentence of this write up.

Three tracks each for 83 respondents.

 

[amirm]

Thanks. I didn't expect that final report to come out so quick.

Looking at it, someone needs to teach him how to post graphs online. I can't read most of them. But the conclusion is clear:

"At least we can say the MQA version achieves the same sound as a 24-bit Hi-Res PCMversion in a data-compressed package. Depending on which of the 3 tracks, I'm seeing that the MQA file is 60-70% the size of the original 24/88 or 24/96 downsample (remember that MQA Core only unfolds to these 2X samplerates, the rest is upsampling to the "original" samplerate)."

To people who say MQA is lossy, they lost their case here. MQA is providing similar fidelity to PCM at lower data rates/file sizes.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Thanks. I didn't expect that final report to come out so quick.

Looking at it, someone needs to teach him how to post graphs online. I can't read most of them. But the conclusion is clear:

"At least we can say the MQA version achieves the same sound as a 24-bit Hi-Res PCMversion in a data-compressed package. Depending on which of the 3 tracks, I'm seeing that the MQA file is 60-70% the size of the original 24/88 or 24/96 downsample (remember that MQA Core only unfolds to these 2X samplerates, the rest is upsampling to the "original" samplerate)."

To people who say MQA is lossy, they lost their case here. MQA is providing similar fidelity to PCM at lower data rates/file sizes.

Of course next question is, would the results have differed if it had been CD vs HiRes PCM? CD files in a FLAC container are at least equally small.

 

[Thomas savage]

Thanks. I didn't expect that final report to come out so quick.

Looking at it, someone needs to teach him how to post graphs online. I can't read most of them. But the conclusion is clear:

"At least we can say the MQA version achieves the same sound as a 24-bit Hi-Res PCMversion in a data-compressed package. Depending on which of the 3 tracks, I'm seeing that the MQA file is 60-70% the size of the original 24/88 or 24/96 downsample (remember that MQA Core only unfolds to these 2X samplerates, the rest is upsampling to the "original" samplerate)."

To people who say MQA is lossy, they lost their case here. MQA is providing similar fidelity to PCM at lower data rates/file sizes.

And hopefully bringing a version of the original masters that is not horribly compressed and dynamically stifled , that seems to be the real advantage if it indeed does turn out to be true.

 

[amirm]

Of course next question is, would the results have differed if it had been CD vs HiRes PCM? CD files in a FLAC container are at least equally small.

He should have done that as a control. After all if that difference was null, then it wouldn't matter if either high-res or MQA provided wider spectrum or deeper bit depth. We can infer that this may be the underlying cause of his results anyway.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

And hopefully bringing a version of the original masters that is not horribly compressed and dynamically stifled , that seems to be the real advantage if it indeed does turn out to be true.

This idea somehow keeps coming up. But, it does not seem relevant to a discussion of MQA. I believe that the complaint about overcompression is something that happens at a different stage in mastering than MQA is focused on. It seems, unfortunately, part of the "art" of mastering pop music these days. I don't see MQA changing that, and it has never promised it will do so.

 

[danadam]

someone needs to teach him how to post graphs online. I can't read most of them.

Even if you click on them?

 

[Thomas savage]

This idea somehow keeps coming up. But, it does not seem relevant to a discussion of MQA. I believe that the complaint about overcompression is something that happens at a different stage in mastering than MQA is focused on. It seems, unfortunately, part of the "art" of mastering pop music these days. I don't see MQA changing that, and it has never promised it will do so.

Well I actually think it's far more relevant than the nit picking of criteria that are likely not audible. The chance to go back to the 'original ' master ( that was put together in the studio, rather than what was done after ) will definitely be far more effecting than anything you discuss here. At least having a clear provenance rather than a confused mess from a large record label that might end up actually being upsampled MP3 is kinda useful lol

So a new format offers the 'chance' to do that in a comprehensive way that otherwise would never happen, certainly not on this scale.

Of course they can do all that and still screw it up assuming nobody will be listening to it on anything other than a set of earphones, apply all sorts of strange EQ etc

 

[Jinjuku]

Thanks. I didn't expect that final report to come out so quick.

Looking at it, someone needs to teach him how to post graphs online. I can't read most of them. But the conclusion is clear:

"At least we can say the MQA version achieves the same sound as a 24-bit Hi-Res PCMversion in a data-compressed package. Depending on which of the 3 tracks, I'm seeing that the MQA file is 60-70% the size of the original 24/88 or 24/96 downsample (remember that MQA Core only unfolds to these 2X samplerates, the rest is upsampling to the "original" samplerate)."

To people who say MQA is lossy, they lost their case here. MQA is providing similar fidelity to PCM at lower data rates/file sizes.

All the graphs expand for me upon click. If I need them to display larger I just hold the CTRL key and scroll up on the mouse wheel.

 

[mitchco]

about original masters and over compression/limiting: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/ca-academy/dynamic-range-no-quiet-no-loud-r643/

 

[NorthSky]

Amir is correct; all his graphs are low resolution when zooming them, unreadable, even from my hi-res PC's screen.

 

[danadam]

This is what shows when I click on the graph (some kind of gallery opens):

This is what opens after middle-clicking on the graph:

Plenty readable to me.

 

[NorthSky]

Ok, I was only zooming; you have to click on them too after zooming, and they are very clear and readable.
Try it Amir, it works perfectly.
Or like you said; simply by clicking them, without zooming, and just like you showed above...perfectly clear.

 

[amirm]

Even if you click on them?

Ah, that makes them better but they are still soft. He needs to save them as PNG in native resolution he needs. Scaling just makes them soft.

 

[amirm]

Ok, I was only zooming; you have to click on them too after zooming, and they are very clear and readable.
Try it Amir, it works perfectly.

But that takes you out of the article. Never been a fan of viewing things that way. It is trivial to fix it per above so that it shows fine in the page.

 

[watchnerd]

When you guys say you want uncompressed masters, are you sure?

Full range raw digital can be a driver killer.

Even high DR consumer recordings have been limited.

 

[NorthSky]

But that takes you out of the article. Never been a fan of viewing things that way. It is trivial to fix it per above so that it shows fine in the page.

I emailed him to let him know. Also, there is a comment section @ the bottom of his articles; another great place of advanced education.

 

[watchnerd]

"At least we can say the MQA version achieves the same sound as a 24-bit Hi-Res PCMversion in a data-compressed package. Depending on which of the 3 tracks, I'm seeing that the MQA file is 60-70% the size of the original 24/88 or 24/96 downsample (remember that MQA Core only unfolds to these 2X samplerates, the rest is upsampling to the "original" samplerate)."

I just got my new broadband today and it's clocking in at 228 Mbps download, which is enough for 4K video streaming.

So why should I care about investing in a technology that saves me 30-40% of an audiostream, which is a tiny fraction of what video streaming consumes?

I just don't see a point to MQA with today's bandwidth.

 

[amirm]

I just got my new broadband today and it's clocking in at 228 Mbps download, which is enough for 4K video streaming.

So why should I care about investing in a technology that saves me 30-40% of an audiostream, which is a tiny fraction of what video streaming consumes?

I just don't see a point to MQA with today's bandwidth.

It is not to save us bandwidth but the content streaming company. There is hardly any profit in selling music so saving bandwidth is something they like to do. There is also server storage cost.

 

[RayDunzl]

Cell Phone BW.