TIDAL Brings MQA, Matt analysis

Todd Anderson

Editor / Senior Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
9,145
Location
Balt/Wash Metro
More  
Preamp, Processor or Receiver
StormAudio ISP.24 MK2
Main Amp
Emotiva XPA-5
Additional Amp
Emotiva XPA Gen3 2.8 multichannel amp
Other Amp
Denon X8500H
Computer Audio
AudioEngine A2+
DAC
THX ONYX
Universal / Blu-ray / CD Player
Kaleidescape TERRA, OPPO UDP-203, Panasonic UB9000
Front Speakers
GoldenEar Technology Triton One.R
Center Channel Speaker
GoldenEar Technology SuperCenter Reference
Surround Speakers
SVS Ultra Surround
Surround Back Speakers
SVS Ultra Bookshelf
Front Height Speakers
SVS Prime Elevation x4 (Top Front, Top Mid-Front)
Rear Height Speakers
SVS Prime Elevation x4 (Top Middle, Top Rear)
Subwoofers
dual SVS SB16s + dual PSA XS30s
Other Speakers or Equipment
Behringer 1124p; Aura Bass Shaker Pros; SuperSub X
Video Display Device
JVC NX7
Screen
Seymour Screen Excellence, Enlightor NEO AT Screen
Streaming Equipment
iFi Audio Zen Blue
Streaming Subscriptions
Qobuz, TIDAL, Spotify, ROON
Other Equipment
LG Electronics 65-inch B6 OLED, Sony 65-inch X900F, ZeroSurge 8R15W x 2, ZeroSurge 2R15W x 2
So for you the sound quality of movies matters more than the sound quality of music?

I actually find it hard to judge absolute sound quality with movies. Music is much more where sound quality matters for me.

Yes. Outweighs it by quite a bit.
 

ddude003

AV Addict
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
1,403
Location
Somewhere Northeast of Kansas City Missouri
More  
Preamp, Processor or Receiver
PrimaLuna Dialogue Premium TubePre (2 channel+sub)
Main Amp
McIntosh MC152 SS Amp (2 channel)
Additional Amp
Yamaha RX-A850 Pro (the other 5 channels lol)
Computer Audio
MacBook Pro, Custom i7 7700k De-lid 2xAsus1080ti GFX Audirvana Studio, Hang Loose Convolver, Pulsar Massive & 8200, LiquidSonics, SoX
DAC
Chord Electronics Ltd. Qutest
Universal / Blu-ray / CD Player
Sony UBP-X700 /M Ultra HD 4K HDR & PS5
Front Speakers
Martin Logan ElectroMotion ESL
Center Channel Speaker
Martin Logan Motion C2
Surround Speakers
Martin Logan Motion 4
Surround Back Speakers
Martin Logan Motion 4 (yes, another set of these)
Subwoofers
Martin Logan Dynamo 700
Other Speakers or Equipment
Cifte 12AU7 NOS & Genalex Gold Lion Tubes in Pre
Video Display Device
Samsung The Premiere LSP7T UST Laser Projector
Screen
Elite Screens Aeon CLR3 0.8 Gain 103-inch
Remote Control
PrimaLuna, Lumin iApp, Samsung & Yamaha
Streaming Equipment
Netgear Nighthawk S8000 Streaming Switch, Lumin U1 Mini Streamer Transport
Streaming Subscriptions
QoBuz Studio Premier, Amazon Prime & Netflix
Other Equipment
ThrowRug, SaddleBlankets, WideBand & Bass Traps...
I would consider it niche even if I’m a part of it. It’s total world wide market is $1 billion. It’s expected to remain stagnant or shrink. By comparison, home theater is about 15-20 times that size and is growing (and that is still considered a small and unhealthy market segment). Headphones alone are almost the same size market segment as home theater today.

Smart speakers is like a 10 billion dollar market and rapidly growing.

So when individual product sectors are selling ten to thirty times more product in revenue than the entire broad high end audio market, I think it’s fair to call it niche.

If you are talking about the market segment considered by many to be "Luxury Home Audio" with components costing $5,000 or more and with speakers costing $10,000 or more per pair, I would agree that this segment’s total world wide market is at $1 billion today... And we both know you don't have to spend $15K on a system to get into the world of High-Res sound... We are also splitting hairs as there is Hi-end Smart speakers and Headphones which may also fall into the Luxury segment as well as other areas of overlap... Marketing segments are often arbitrary and chosen by Marketing folks that aren't even in the industry they report on...

Although we are seeing some consolidation in this and other segments, there is expected world wide growth in all segments... We will again have to agree to disagree...
 

Todd Anderson

Editor / Senior Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
9,145
Location
Balt/Wash Metro
More  
Preamp, Processor or Receiver
StormAudio ISP.24 MK2
Main Amp
Emotiva XPA-5
Additional Amp
Emotiva XPA Gen3 2.8 multichannel amp
Other Amp
Denon X8500H
Computer Audio
AudioEngine A2+
DAC
THX ONYX
Universal / Blu-ray / CD Player
Kaleidescape TERRA, OPPO UDP-203, Panasonic UB9000
Front Speakers
GoldenEar Technology Triton One.R
Center Channel Speaker
GoldenEar Technology SuperCenter Reference
Surround Speakers
SVS Ultra Surround
Surround Back Speakers
SVS Ultra Bookshelf
Front Height Speakers
SVS Prime Elevation x4 (Top Front, Top Mid-Front)
Rear Height Speakers
SVS Prime Elevation x4 (Top Middle, Top Rear)
Subwoofers
dual SVS SB16s + dual PSA XS30s
Other Speakers or Equipment
Behringer 1124p; Aura Bass Shaker Pros; SuperSub X
Video Display Device
JVC NX7
Screen
Seymour Screen Excellence, Enlightor NEO AT Screen
Streaming Equipment
iFi Audio Zen Blue
Streaming Subscriptions
Qobuz, TIDAL, Spotify, ROON
Other Equipment
LG Electronics 65-inch B6 OLED, Sony 65-inch X900F, ZeroSurge 8R15W x 2, ZeroSurge 2R15W x 2
If you are talking about the market segment considered by many to be "Luxury Home Audio" with components costing $5,000 or more and with speakers costing $10,000 or more per pair, I would agree that this segment’s total world wide market is at $1 billion today... And we both know you don't have to spend $15K on a system to get into the world of High-Res sound... We are also splitting hairs as there is Hi-end Smart speakers and Headphones which may also fall into the Luxury segment as well as other areas of overlap... Marketing segments are often arbitrary and chosen by Marketing folks that aren't even in the industry they report on...

Although we are seeing some consolidation in this and other segments, there is expected world wide growth in all segments... We will again have to agree to disagree...

I agree with the notion that you don't have to spend $15K to get Hi-Res sound. I'd even argue you can spend as little has $1500 and get great Hi-Res sound.

I don't have any info on how healthy or large the high-end segment is. My personal perceptions are purely speculative based on some industry conversations I've had and my impressions of what the current teenage/early 20's generation seems to want (paired with the massive movement toward convenience based technologies).

My impression is that the industry is watching the high-end buyer segment age... and there's some concern that the next wave of buyers isn't really being cultivated. Or hasn't been cultivated. But that is all generalizations.

And the luxury segment definitely has blurred lines.
 

ddude003

AV Addict
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
1,403
Location
Somewhere Northeast of Kansas City Missouri
More  
Preamp, Processor or Receiver
PrimaLuna Dialogue Premium TubePre (2 channel+sub)
Main Amp
McIntosh MC152 SS Amp (2 channel)
Additional Amp
Yamaha RX-A850 Pro (the other 5 channels lol)
Computer Audio
MacBook Pro, Custom i7 7700k De-lid 2xAsus1080ti GFX Audirvana Studio, Hang Loose Convolver, Pulsar Massive & 8200, LiquidSonics, SoX
DAC
Chord Electronics Ltd. Qutest
Universal / Blu-ray / CD Player
Sony UBP-X700 /M Ultra HD 4K HDR & PS5
Front Speakers
Martin Logan ElectroMotion ESL
Center Channel Speaker
Martin Logan Motion C2
Surround Speakers
Martin Logan Motion 4
Surround Back Speakers
Martin Logan Motion 4 (yes, another set of these)
Subwoofers
Martin Logan Dynamo 700
Other Speakers or Equipment
Cifte 12AU7 NOS & Genalex Gold Lion Tubes in Pre
Video Display Device
Samsung The Premiere LSP7T UST Laser Projector
Screen
Elite Screens Aeon CLR3 0.8 Gain 103-inch
Remote Control
PrimaLuna, Lumin iApp, Samsung & Yamaha
Streaming Equipment
Netgear Nighthawk S8000 Streaming Switch, Lumin U1 Mini Streamer Transport
Streaming Subscriptions
QoBuz Studio Premier, Amazon Prime & Netflix
Other Equipment
ThrowRug, SaddleBlankets, WideBand & Bass Traps...
Meanwhile, back to MQA... Codec description from the wiki... MQA encoding is lossy... Let me say this again...

MQA encoding is lossy... It hierarchically compresses the relatively little energy in the higher frequency bands into data streams that are embedded in the lower frequency bands using proprietary dithering techniques.

After a series of such manipulations, the resulting 44 kHz data, the layered data streams, and a final "touchup" stream (compressed difference between the lossy signal from unpacking all layers and the original) are provided to the playback device. Given the low amount of energy expected in higher frequencies, and using only 1 extra frequency band layer (upper 44 kHz band of 96/24 packed into dither of 48/16) and one touchup stream (compressed difference between original 96/24 and 48/16) are together distributed as a 48/24 stream, of which 48/16 bit-decimated part can be played by normal 48/16 playback equipment.

One more difference to standard formats is the sampling process. The audio stream is sampled and convolved with a triangle function, and interpolated later during playback. The techniques employed, including the sampling of signals with a finite rate of innovation, were developed by a number of researchers over the preceding decade, including Pier Luigi Dragotti and others.[13][14]

MQA-encoded content can be carried via any lossless file format such as FLAC or ALAC; hence, it can be played back on systems either with or without an MQA decoder. In the latter case, the resulting audio has easily identifiable high-frequency noise occupying 3 LSB bits, thus limiting playback on non-MQA devices effectively to 13bit. MQA claims that nevertheless the quality is higher than "normal" 48/16, because of the novel sampling and convolution processes.[15]

Other than the sampling and convolution methods, which were not explained by MQA in detail, the encoding process is similar to that used in XRCD and HDCD.

However, unlike other lossy compression formats like MP3 and WMA, the lossy encoding method of MQA is similar to aptX, LDAC and WavPack Hybrid Lossy, which uses time-domain ADPCM and bitrate reduction instead of perceptual encoding based on psychoacoustic models.

This may account for the issues you are seeing with MQA... I apologize for not including the footnotes referenced above...
 

Matthew J Poes

AV Addict
Thread Starter
Joined
Oct 18, 2017
Messages
1,903
Meanwhile, back to MQA... Codec description from the wiki... MQA encoding is lossy... Let me say this again...

MQA encoding is lossy... It hierarchically compresses the relatively little energy in the higher frequency bands into data streams that are embedded in the lower frequency bands using proprietary dithering techniques.

After a series of such manipulations, the resulting 44 kHz data, the layered data streams, and a final "touchup" stream (compressed difference between the lossy signal from unpacking all layers and the original) are provided to the playback device. Given the low amount of energy expected in higher frequencies, and using only 1 extra frequency band layer (upper 44 kHz band of 96/24 packed into dither of 48/16) and one touchup stream (compressed difference between original 96/24 and 48/16) are together distributed as a 48/24 stream, of which 48/16 bit-decimated part can be played by normal 48/16 playback equipment.

One more difference to standard formats is the sampling process. The audio stream is sampled and convolved with a triangle function, and interpolated later during playback. The techniques employed, including the sampling of signals with a finite rate of innovation, were developed by a number of researchers over the preceding decade, including Pier Luigi Dragotti and others.[13][14]

MQA-encoded content can be carried via any lossless file format such as FLAC or ALAC; hence, it can be played back on systems either with or without an MQA decoder. In the latter case, the resulting audio has easily identifiable high-frequency noise occupying 3 LSB bits, thus limiting playback on non-MQA devices effectively to 13bit. MQA claims that nevertheless the quality is higher than "normal" 48/16, because of the novel sampling and convolution processes.[15]

Other than the sampling and convolution methods, which were not explained by MQA in detail, the encoding process is similar to that used in XRCD and HDCD.

However, unlike other lossy compression formats like MP3 and WMA, the lossy encoding method of MQA is similar to aptX, LDAC and WavPack Hybrid Lossy, which uses time-domain ADPCM and bitrate reduction instead of perceptual encoding based on psychoacoustic models.

This may account for the issues you are seeing with MQA... I apologize for not including the footnotes referenced above...

Maybe. If that were true I would expect to primarily see only issues in the ultra high frequencies however. This larger project has the help of a digital signals experts. We are both a little baffled and waiting for official word from MQA on diem fidnings. The best guess is that some of this is the lossy encoding and some of this is actual eq of the tracks. Since I am not directly testing MQA but rather Tidal vs Qobuz, there are a ton of variables in the mix. I don’t have a simple way to test MQA tracks directly. I need to find a player with software decoding and try that. I don’t really want to spend any more money on this project for now since this wasn’t the purpose. The guy helping me believes strongly this is de-emphasis eq that shouldn’t be there. Like the music didn’t have emphasis eq applied but the decoded track was de-emphasized anyway. I also found something he didn’t notice. He was using a method to match levels based on the average over a wide range from 500hz to 10khz. Well I found the levels to be lower at high frequencies from 800hz to the max bandwidth. So his matching method was matching in a way that emphasized the Low frequencies. So we need to retest the tracks now using a low frequency level match method.

It also explains an odd result I didn’t share earlier because I thought it was a mistake. When I made a difference track I had a ton of musical cont my. It just sound s like a slightly quieter version of the song.
 
Top Bottom