It's been reported on a HiFi+ Blog that MQA is badly flawed and is not a lossless format at all. Tests have been done by HiRez Audio that is said to prove that MQA is only 17bit and not 24bit. That puts the cat amongst the pigeons.
Printable View
It's been reported on a HiFi+ Blog that MQA is badly flawed and is not a lossless format at all. Tests have been done by HiRez Audio that is said to prove that MQA is only 17bit and not 24bit. That puts the cat amongst the pigeons.
I wondered where MQA was going. Things seem to have been a bit quiet. Mind you, I've not been actively chasing info.
Apparently Universal and Warner signed up recently. But then Universal specialise in low-res music, so they would probably be delighted with this HiFi+ Blog report.
I've just read the blog.
http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/hig...-offering-mqa/
The bloody details are here
https://www.xivero.com/downloads/MQA...eses-Paper.pdf
Xivero are the designers of leading music analysis software such as Musicscope, they know what they are talking about.
It's actually from the Managing Director of Highresaudio. HRA are a superb business and I buy their downloads - the best quality music I own and they really do check everything. I once complained about a recording of Shostakovich Sy. 2, there was actually nothing wrong other than a greater dynamic range than I had ever had on a recording.
So MQA may be emperor's new clothes after all. What a surprise.
MQA was never pitched as lossless, was it?
My understanding is that it uses lossy data compression on the pointless* part of the spectrum in a hi-rez recording (ie the bit much above 20kHz). It's kind of like FLAC for 20Hz to 20kHz and MP3 for 20kHz to 48kHz (or whereever it goes up to).
Not that I care one jot, nasty proprietary junk (with a closed specification) for the benefit of commercial streamers and the like. Not created in the interest of music fans and too far behind the curve to hit home; bandwidth and storage just get cheaper, so the requirement to 'save' them reduces at the same rate. Expecting and using open formats will do us all favours in the long run.
*subject to endless circular argument on the internet
What's you opinion on the claim that MQA also fixes 'timing errors'? I mean you can guess mine, but you know more about it than I do.
If it does do something like this then that does give it a USP ordinary 'hi res' doesn't have.
I've played with MQA vs cd rips a fair bit.
Using Tidal, Bluesound etc.
On some tracks, I hear very little difference. On other tracks I get more of a step up. On others, I hear a difference without being able to decide whether it's better, or merely different.
I'm still a bit unsure as to whether it's just a re-mastering effect on some older material that was recorded all analogue anyway, & my tech knowledge is nowhere near deep enough to truly understand what's genuinely going on.
However, if you already subscribe to Tidals Hifi level, it's a no cost option, so have a play with it.....what's to lose?
First MQA encoded CD , details are here : http://www.stereophile.com/content/m...vEvTeZUTmb3.97
Mqa specifically used the term lossless in all their promo, though clearly admit to attempting to spin out a new meaning, as in audibly lossless, as opposed to data lossless. Of course they've never presented blind A/B to back it up.
I have no interest in streaming from the web so mqa has no appeal to me. The timing claims are easily disprovable rubbish.