UPDATES: - MQA has not yet responded to requests for encoding of the natural sound file. - There is a mistake in this video. I falsely claim that the MQA AES paper is not peer reviewed, this is incorrect. This was included based on a discussion I came across which is a few years old, which discusses the fact that the AES paper at the time was not peer reviewed. This has since changed and I did not sufficiently check for up to date info here. For this I apologise.
I can't speak to the quality differences between MQA and other formats - what I can say is that the timing and hence spacial sound of MQA is vastly better. My studio room is over 1000 cubic meters in volume with a Hi-End 12Kw PA system and the difference is like night and day. MQA seems to just float in the air like the sound is everywhere, while CD's spacial sound quality collapses to with a few meters left/ right of the speakers. ruclips.net/video/vB1oQhc-5Po/видео.html I understand that for the average audiophile sound system, in an average sized room of only a few square meters this may not be apparent. My system (Alcons) although excellent for PA is not intended to be an audiophile system.
MQA was great in the past when we needed compressed audio to overcome slow internet connection. Nowadays any audiophile person wants 100% lossless audio streaming and it's readily available already. E.g. I stream from Amazon HD Music up to 192kHz 24 bits LOSSLESS. Nowadays MQA might make sense for non audiophile users? LOL
@@fx-studio I'm having a hard time understanding how that is supposed to work (and the video linked doesn't really help). Sound doesn't decay differently at a distance depending on the format - there would be some differences based on frequency, but the major difference would be dependent on volume. Are you sure MQA isn't just volume boosted?
@@hadoryu The volume doesn't alter the effect - I believe its the timing of MQA which is faster - our hearing can detect 5-7 micro seconds whereas CD is down at 23 micro seconds. That's why MQA creates this very noticeable spacial sound everywhere effect. Note: most, but not all MQA's do it - some obviously up-res ones like Tina Turner (Whats love got to do with it) and some rehashed old Jazz tracks don't have the spacial effect. When I have some time I will recorded both MQA and CD of the same tracks with a high res recorder to show the effect better.
i dont ever want added effects to anything labelled "master quality" with a straight face...only the effects chosen or approved by the origjnal artists and engineers.
Did you read the edits the MQA employee suggested for Wikipedia? "MQA is a system which combines new findings in human neuroscience with advances in digital audio techniques, to more efficiently distribute high fidelity audio." What a joke.
it's actually the bass control and time domain.. it makes the music come through in a unique and special way.. I went out of the way to pay for it.. good R2R dacs, good DSD and of course the need for MQA goes away, Quboz not avail here but where possible in Roon you can demo 24/192 hard cocpies vs. MQA and non mqa versions.. why does Goldensound try to make the encoder fail.. what is the goal if you can listen to MQA and non MQA releases and evaluate with a wide range of sample material. So funny how he loves FLAC and flac was based of Meridian packing technology.. dsp and filtering may be proprietary, would you trust your proprietary info with this guy with his "balanced" video.. he will not be an MQA partner for testing.. that I can guarantee..
@@2232-q1l I doubt that, as that would be drawing less round than a circle - a triangle is as not-round of a two-dimensional object as you can get, but the square is literally the next best option.
Imagine defending your codec against claims of it beeing lossy, and one of your points beeing that it sucks. 7:00 ENCODER OVERLOAD! IT IS A CLASS 10 ON THE BS SCALE. RUN YOU FOOLS!
There is an element to all of this that people are missing. Sure, MQA is a scam, but the motivation behind it is more than just money. The motivation behind it is the fear of people sharing FLAC files like people did with mp3s back in the day of Napster. With the increase transfer speeds on the internet the worry is that the days of Napster will come back. It's all about DRM. That is why people in the music industry such as Jay Z support it. :)
@@thatchinaboi1 Frankly, people already can and do share oodles of MP3s, and nobody but audiophiles care about getting anything above that. No, I think this is just audiophile specific snake oil, for people with subjective preferences that buy thousands of dollars worth of equipment.
@@hadoryu Frankly, MP3s isn't FLAC. And people do care about sound quality. More and more people will care. If you think the popularization of MQA has nothing to do with protecting from music piracy, then you are being naive. 🙂
@@thatchinaboi1 The catch is that people are already sharing FLAC files like that. It's just not over P2P networks like Napster, limewire and eDonkey. It's all on a specific p2p network, or with torrents. If you want to get something losslessly, that's pretty damn easy to do. I say as a collector who looks into some very obscure music that is only really preserved within these communities. It's not as prevalent as it was in the late 90's/early-mid 2000's on your Napsters and Limewires, but it's still quite prevalent.
There is an element to all of this that people are missing. Sure, MQA is a scam, but the motivation behind it is more than just money. The motivation behind it is the fear of people sharing FLAC files like people did with mp3s back in the day of Napster. With the increase transfer speeds on the internet the worry is that the days of Napster will come back. It's all about DRM. That is why people in the music industry such as Jay Z support it. :)
It cost the music industry a shitload of money to hire people to pollute music sharing sites with terrible quality re-encoded mp3s in an effort to combat piracy, not to mention the futile attempts of taking legal actions against a few individuals. Music piracy never went away. The popularity of streaming music doesn't change this.
@@dwightballard3868 Measurements tell you the exact. When a company sells you clean water for a premium, we can both measure it to verify it is indeed clean. If we "measure it" and find there is a high amount of lead in the water, you are still perfectly free to poison yourself by drinking it, but they should not be allowed to sell it as clean water. Same applies to MQA, you are free to consume it, like it and even pay premium for it. It is however, NOT what it says (said now that they've edited it) on the tin, which is lossless.
@@dwightballard3868 They tell you if the claim of "lossless" is true or not. Remember, this is all about MQA marketing claims which are to be verified as objective fact through measurements.
It's the old way of doing dodgy business, embarrassingly text book scam-like behaviour you see in almost every case where they're trying to discredit critics, be it in business or politics or whatever.
They made the mistake of thinking they were more intelligent than everyone else. They thought that most consumers don't understand how audio works and they could pull a fast one on them and make money with licensing fees.
@@CeeStyleDj I mean, they kind of did with their snake oil file format. It led to waves of consumers demanding it in DACs, forcing manufacturers to deal with it.
I was wondering if it was going to, I wasn't wondering too hard because both tidal and meridian seem to take the ignore the problem that exists but you can leave an email, with support if there's anything we can help you with on your end kind of thing you know privately... But then there's Bob... Bob is excitable, Bob has his own blog that manages to talk a bunch of stuff about an amazing thing that says absolutely nothing... At some point Bob's going to have to explain in science terms how this shit actually works, or at least back up any of the non-science things regarding this... And if it's a matter of proprietary knowledge in super secrets, I have a feeling it's either going to be absolutely nothing... Which so far the evidence seems to be pointing, or the actual secrets to the universe, and and we're all fucked cuz Bob finally cracked and it was actually key to the survival of humanity that he kept that shit deep down inside...
There is an element to all of this that people are missing. Sure, MQA is a scam, but the motivation behind it is more than just money. The motivation behind it is the fear of people sharing FLAC files like people did with mp3s back in the day of Napster. With the increase transfer speeds on the internet the worry is that the days of Napster will come back. It's all about DRM. That is why people in the music industry such as Jay Z support it. :)
@@thatchinaboi1 and yet, thanks to Bob's Bose quality fantasy cult of 1... plus current employees with timecard punches for the day... Still ain't takin off on that level lol... Way to make it weird bob... Way to make it weird...
Based on the blind listening tests that have been done, its very slightly in some cases distinguishable, but preference is 50/50 at the end none the less...
@@LordVictorHalgaard It’s not so much about if you can hear a difference or not, it’s about them blatantly lying to the consumer through deceptive marketing practices in order to profit off a false narrative.
@@bardenhick2121 I agree, that is exactly my point: I think, particularly in such cases as this, it is *extremely* important to keep the rhetoric clear! Not fight fire with fire - that just gets your entire town burnt down, and everyone loses. To be more direct, I see a lot of people talking about 'better or worse', or commenting how much better Qobuz sounds: My point is there is about as little to support that as there is to support what MQA is claiming, therefore, in my opinion, it is quite important to steer clear of that, and focus on, as you said, this issue here is their deceptive/shady behavior, not the quality of the product. The moment we go down that road, that's already one step in their direction. This isn't coming at anyone in specific, by the way, this was honestly more relevant to other comments - I just see it a lot to various degrees. You are naturally more than welcome to make jokes about the matter... We are here to have fun after all :P
There are videos showing home-delivery "pirates" stealing packages from homeowners' porches and getting caught in the act. Their attempt at excuses would be hilarious were it not actually a serious matter. This audio scam (for such it certainly appears to be) reminds me of those.
MQA: "It's lossless." Objective, repeatable analysis: "It isn't though." MQA, while furiously editing their webpage and Wiki: "Yeah, well, it's better than lossless!" MQA still: "Also, libel." Hilariously enough, MQA again: "I bet you are paid well for this."
Well... there are various sizes of infinities. There are more numbers between 0 and 1 then there are all whole numbers... Yeah I know... but Cantor's diagonal argument is a thing and proves it.
MQA encoding applies deblurring filters to the original PCM master so it’s not the same thing. Now how does one measure the benefits of that is the question. I just use my ears and MQA is in almost all cases sounds better than it’s hi-res PCM counterpart
@@Rhcpbedders Using candy as the placebo does not make it any less placebo. If you find that MQA sounds better, off you go, listen to it all you want. But it doesn't sound closer to what the artist heard in the studio. It's just DSP. This is the absolute opposite thing to what audiophiles have been forever looking for: hearing the original master. Applying audio effects to the master might make it sound more lossless, but the only exclusive content encoded in is the audio effects they layered on top. Are you willing to pay for that? Well, you're in luck: The GTO filter available in some of Ifi's DACs MQAfies all music if you so desire. They even got the MQA devs to help in development. Once MQA dies you won't miss it as much, and you won't have to pay extra for it ever again.
@@nodezsh what the artist hears in the studio is flawed due to A/D conversion. Technology improves, and I think most artists wouldn’t consider the inherent flaws with A/D conversion to be part of the music, particularly in older tracks that used worse equipment. I don’t really care what the artist signed off on if it can be improved upon. So yes, I will continue to enjoy MQA on my ifi Zen DAC
@Lassi Kinnunen 81 yes. Are you familiar with time smearing of A/D conversion? Basically what happens is when a discrete signal is encoded by A/D converter it’s impulse response is “smeared” across time. So you will get pre and post ringing of a signal such as the hit of a hi hat. It is particularly noticeable in high frequencies such as hi hats and cymbals and anything with fast attack/decay. MQA applies filters to vastly reduce pre and post ringing and improves the definition and dimensionality of the sound as a result. Of course this cannot be a lossless process. It’s possibly not ideal to be listening to MQA encoded tracks on the Hi-Fi tier of Tidal either as the base layer FLAC would not be the same as the equivalent lossless FLAC and you won’t be getting the benefits of MQA. But if you have Tidal masters with a compatible DAC (of which there are plenty of great affordable options) it sounds fantastic.
@@WalterReade Deezer also sounds better in my opinion. But that may be biased as I did the comparison after watching the first MQA video... Needless to say, even if Tidal did sound a bit better, I would still change to Deezer or similar platforms because I strongly disagree with the way MQA and Tidal do things. And Deezer is also much cheaper 😅
@@th3m3du54 It appears as if Tidal has been sold off to Square Investments. The people behind the scene knows that their little scam is running out of time- so they sold it while the company while value was still high.....due to these videos being just released and not that many views yet.
Part VII: Re-hashes parts III & V in a sad attempt to gain more followers Part VIII: The Last Lossless Part IX :......... Damn it ! - the sequels were so effing lame that it just... doesn't work Thank you Kennedy, you spacktard.
By their definition of "sounding better", they alter the master = its not the same. Clear as day. An enhancer will do the same. Such bs, hidden behind marketing. As a sound engineer this whole thing is genuinely worrying.
I'm just going to say, as an electronic music producer myself: MQA claiming the test files are not representative of actual music is fucking bullshit. Actual music can have such extreme tones in it. A lot of experimental & electronic music has pretty much no bounds, & could easily be as much of a torture test to the encoder as directly encoding test tones. Hell, one of my recently produced tracks has sound information from 20hz-70khz throughout, when exported as a 192khz 24bit FLAC. Saying that the test signals aren't representative of music is pretty much an insult to the more experimental music producers of today, quite a few experimental producers push the limits of not only their hardware, but also their DAWs, and can easily create music that I bet would make MQA's encoder shit itself. If an encoder cannot encode test data without any modification to the original data or additional noise, it's just not a lossless encoder, and it shouldn't be marketed as better than a lossless encoder, even if it performs mostly alright with music. No lossy encoder is better than a lossless encoder, and as an artist myself, I think people should hear music exactly how it comes from the studio, *NOT* altered by some bullshit processing algorithm that tries to improve it for you, regardless of if it actually does well at that or not. The way most artists want you to hear their music is how they hear it, not how some computer program thinks you want to hear it. Computers might seem like they're never wrong, but computers were made by man, and man is prone to making mistakes, which of course means computers are prone to making mistakes too. What decides how you hear an artist's music should be the artist, then you, the listener, with whatever hardware you choose & whatever signal processing you like using. A computer shouldn't decide the sound for you.
Computers are never wrong in the sense that they always do exactly what you tell them to do. They never screw that part up. If your program is flawed the computer doesn't care and will gladly and perfectly follow your wrong instructions.
@@superslimanoniem4712 That is correct. Though there's also hardware malfunctions that can occur, such as faulty RAM, or in the case of older computers, a bad connection between a program ROM & the CPU, which cause instructions to become corrupted & eventually turn into what you didn't tell the computer to do.
It’s great you babe music with sounds that are in freq ranges beyond human hearing. But what good does that do for the typical listener. I can’t hear past 16khz.
It's sad to hear that this will be your last video on MQA. I want more, especially if their next response (if there will ever be one) is as equally ridiculous as this one. Love your channel and your work!
@@kesamek8537 Sure. If they sue they will lose even more subscribers. And I'd love to see these videos in court 😂. What I'm curious about is what Square (Tidals new parent company) thinks of this, considering they just bought Tidal 😱
@@kesamek8537 Exactly this. They would force our intrepid detective to lawyer up and destroy him financially, because corporations are jerks like that.
10:23 Wow. That's pretty much a hand-in-the-cookie jar situation. Glad to see you continuing this pursuit in a constructive manner. This is the opposite of promoting toxicity and warrants whatever positive attention you receive from the community or press.
A very strong and concise follow up. I was surprised at the end to hear that this is the last video you will be making on MQA. If MQA were to send you encoded files for you to test, would a follow up video not be essential? If MQA were to revise their marketing material, or if tidal started using true lossless files for their HiFi Audio Tier I feel you have every right to make a video on that. Great video regardless, keep up the great work!
I think it's potential to let things back for the community to work and decide the conclusion of MQAs. Getting this level of calling for transparency of MQA has been good enough for him to create roadmap for the community to go. Deeping in with those conmen might leave him being in court with, you know, sucks guys who conclude the court that is benefit for those who are richer.
The reason he said he won't be making another video is very clear: He knows they WON'T give him the file they screenshotted - most likely because it's a MOCKUP - and they WON'T give him the MQA encoded version of the file he linked because it would prove that their encoder isn't any better than any other lossy encoder on the market. The next thing that happens is either MQA refusing to talk to him and trying to sweep the whole thing under the rug, or a lawsuit. Mark my words.
Falsely claiming something that's true but when in fact it isn't is most definitely a scam. It applies everywhere in the business industry and it's illegal. MQA isn't just scamming Audiophiles, they're also scamming Tidal, its customers, and the other manufacturers of hardware that want to include an MQA certification.
I read the official MQA response to your last video and it seemed quite like a shady Scientology document to me. I would steer well clear of such scams and all the people who promote them. Luckily as a result of this exposé we can clearly see who the bs merchants are.
MQA, to my ears, sounds much shoutier and less balanced, emphasizing some frequencies while dampening others. I much prefer Qobuz's Hi-Res and lossless CD quality.
Been using Tidal for a year, I just feel weird listening a Master song in Tidal by using my Sennheizer equipment compare to other song that I'm own. I start to doubt, does Tidal really offer lossless? Because a couple of the Master song that I hear are worst sometime. So I start to search for MQA, and it leading to him explaining all this. Thank god, I will never ever sub Tidal again.
@@bogdanadzic9305 too bad, the hifi subscription are much more expensive in my country and Deezer don't have a song that I want. Qobuz out of question because of region lock. For now I'm sticking with YT Music until those platform had much more content, good price, and availability. Also I'm sticking with my flac collection for now.
I've been rather suspicious of MQA since I saw a video about MQA CDs a few years ago, and when I saw your detailed breakdown on how they fail to live up to the 'lossless' moniker I thought "yep, makes sense". I love how their 'rebuttal' is just hundreds of words to say "nuh-uh!". Not a single attempt at proving you wrong, just a lot of bland marketing.
I've just read Stereophile magazine's front page response to your testing. I have to say they've convinced me.... to not renew my subscription to their magazine.
I suspect MQA is similar to image processing, such as sharpening: Altering data, in sometimes a pleasing way. Stupid to claim easily refuted properties. It does make me question the technical knowledge of some of the senior people involved.
the "touchup to lossless" box reminds me of when back in my comp sci programme any especially cumbersome or impossible seeming nodes on flowcharts would get labeled with "and then a miracle happens"
Star Trek had a Heisenberg-compensator in their transporter. The issue was that transportation as they portrayed violated a fairly basic 'law of nature' called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle... so the writers added a Heisenberg-compensator as a 'this magic box fixes that issue' thing to finish making the series without being asked stupid questions from fans. (When asked how the Heisenberg compensator worked, one of the writers answered 'it works just fine, thank you'). I guess MQA has a 'touchup to lossless' box instead.
They would have done better by shutting up and letting this all get forgotten by the internet. It's kinda dumb that they would choose to respond to you and revive this conversation at all.
I'm reminded of the early days of Bose. Their speakers were innovative, but didn't actually sound very good. So, they went on a campaign of suing anyone who wrote a negative review and consistently claimed that the review was biased, improper, etc.. until the audio press simply ignored them. Likewise, MQA may be innovative, but never let the PR department tell you how good something sounds.
So let me get this straight. If I make an atonal abstractivist song consisting of different square waves, my art is not musical enough for MQA? Is this MQA thing a joke or something? People are actually making money out of this?
Yoko Ono is getting the shortest end of the stick here cause her "music" isn't musical enough for MQA standards. Granted, it's not musical enough for anyone's standards, but that's a different argument.
@@AirplaneJunkie82 that's the point. It is obsurd that a file format would fail to decode based on some arbitrary notion of what is music. I just can not understand how did anyone take them seriously to start with. This is next level marketing. Steve Jobs would hire their entire marketing team on the spot.
@@jaytorr6701 Well, it does happen, precisely with lossy perceptual codecs that have all been independently tested for their claims. 😆 MQA is just trying really hard to dodge having to "prove" anything which in & of itself is worse than failing a specific test...
*I can watch hours of this. It's time the charlatans of the Audiophile business are called out and demanded to provide empirical and undisputable measurers of their claims. "Feelings" "perceptions" or are not a part of that.*
Thank you for your videos on MQA, which brought me from "what am I missing if I'm not using MQA" to "luckily I'm not using MQA" ... and I don't even consider myself an audiophile and I can't hear any difference between a good quality MP3 file and a FLAC file (at least not on the equipment I use) P.S.: You have a new subscriber :)
*Responses of MQA, but i cut down the BS:* 1. "Tidal deleted your files. Im sure we have no common interests kappa" 2. "yeah our fault let me just quickly flip our marketing entirely" :D 3. "If you copy an mp3 that counts as lossless right?" 4. "WE decide IF and WHEN our encoder makes sense." 5. *MQA changing subject to something that does not matter 6. "I has errur ur argument is invalid" 7. "do as i say not as i do" *Wikipedia admin bullying intermission 8. "your results do not matter, because we invented the term 'deblurring' " 9. "Water isnt wet" 10. "MQA is lossy". "Shit did i say that out loud?" 11. "how dare you use clickbait"
The fact there is so much required effort to analyze and prove this, and there is optimal data for encoding vs just any data is reasonable enough to just stop supporting and requesting MQA, Ive been pushing for FLAC and DSD
The DSD format may be great, but it's dead. You can't edit in DSD. Or DSP it. For that you need DSD Wide. Or simply converting the DSD signal to PCM, which is how it's typically done. Worst of all, forget streaming. You have no access to the data stream, only the analog signal. Blame the RIAA for this. The RIAA wasn't going to repeat the mistake it did with the CD. You know, allowing it to make them more money than ever. Because there's something even more important than making money. Making sure everybody else remains poor and miserable. Being hyper paranoid (cocaine and raping under-aged girls do that to you), the RIAA's main concern was that which didn't hurt their bottom line. Home copying. Edited for clarity.
It's a shame cos there are at least 3 Japan MQA CDs (History Of Moody Blues, The Free Story, History Of Fairport Convention) seemingly derived from DSD Masters that I'd love to have and probably would have had as SACDs had this lossy, foldy-up, foldy-down, requires extra equipment waste-of-space format not come along.
@@grisflyt Bro you are getting into esoteric topics that most here will have no clue what you are going on about. I don't disagree with you, for the record.
@@paulj9821 The last 2 paragraphs were unnecessary. Couldn't contain myself. I like to rip the record industry. An industry that now is dead. I don't think coke and under-aged girls are as common today.
I miss the point of MQA in 2021 when widespread of wideband internet connection is a given for most of us because the whole concept of MQA was to help streaming of large files when the connection wasn't up there 2010 or so and fleecing a fee on outdated software is a bit of dishonesty.
Connection still isn't up there in 2021, with cellular Internet providers "deprioritizing" subscribers who transfer too many gigabytes of data in a monthly billing cycle.
@@DamianYerrick But the question surely is why do people listening to music on their phones and likely on shoddy headphones need as good as original masters then? 320kbit mp3 would be more than enough for music on your phone.
@@RichardNutman Living in the country outside the service area of fiber or cable means you're stuck on either cellular or Viasat, which has a monthly quota close to that of cellular, until Starlink expands.
So, MQA, dealing with smart people with scientifically acquired data is pretty hard, right! Fantastic job, excellent information, also I think your position trying to speak with the company, perfect.
Well done for your honest review(s), something that is very rare these days. I really admire your findings and also appreciate the effort, time and diligence to piece your findings together. 🤝🤝
Better than lossless. Wow. They raised the bar there! It became suddenly clear they don't deal in the audio business but in magic industry. Or the Snake Oil business as some call it.
Information theory dictates that if you have a 192 kHz 24-bit original signal and... squeeze it down to 44.1 kHz 16-bit, you have something which has lost 85% of its original information. Sure, you might be able to "unfold" it up to a digital bit-stream that's back at 192 kHz 24-bit - however, it sure as hell isn't going to be the original bit-stream you started with. Audibly, you might not be able to hear the difference, but the signal is going to be different, bit for bit, and therefore, MQA cannot ever be lossless. You do not need a PHD in information theory to understand this fact. The level of gaslighting MQA are exhibiting here is laughable.
Exactly, right? It's basic knowledge for anyone involved in information technology. I don't get how they can comfortably claim things that are just not possible.
This company ended as a joke in the "a libelous manifesto that was unscientific", Goldensound did in basic terms test your encoder for multiple frequencies and it failed with capital F; something you haven't been able to even respond to people making this questions since they launched the damn thing.
Thank you for your analyses of MQA format. I found it to be insightful and educational. I hope U retract your decision on not doing another video on MQA. We need people like yourself to help point out the inconsistencies and lies that these companies, unscrupulously or otherwise wrong groups are putting out for us to hopefully buy into. Keep fighting the go fight!
The analysis and reporting of this entire topic is simply outstanding. Also, the way that MQA has responded to your analysis and report gives a ton more credibility to you and it damns them even further. This video rebuttal of everything that they have responded with just brings it all home. Bravo! 👏🏾
We have to spread word. I personally have never bought any products that support MQA. I was looking them but since i saw GoldenSound part 1 video i put stop and now its clear.
I rarely have heard such well substantiated video's. When it comes to trust you clearly have my vote! Keep up this good work. Best regards from the Netherlands.
"Touch-up to lossless" 😂 This is so snake-oil! When I take pictures on my DSLR camera, I prefer saving the image as NEF or RAW. With that line in their patent, does that mean I can also go ahead, do the math, and create a technology to convert JPEGs back into RAW with "touch-up to lossless"? No one can create something out of nothing. There is no way we can add something into a compressed media to make it lossless again. I just can't wrap my mind around that.
What, haven't you seen those crime shows on TV where they have a photo but it's too pixelated to read the license plate or whatever, and they say, "ENHANCE!" and it makes it bigger and more detailed so they can solve the crime? Obviously this sort of thing MUST be possible, because it wouldn't be on TV if it weren't true! MQA is just doing "ENHANCE" on audio files. So of course it's better than lossless. Duh. More seriously, people and computers can make up data, using their imagination or algorithms respectively. What they can't do is make up the same data that was lost. At least not without some sort of data time machine. Or psychic powers. MQA must be using the latter, since it somehow reflects not what the artist recorded, but what they intended.
@GoldenSound try a recursive test if you want to shine further light. Put MQA output back into itself (the encoder) a few times, and do the same with FLAC. I think you will have quite an interesting result to discuss.
@@StephanWahlen Anyone who publishes music on Tidal can re-up stuff and test for recursive degradation, demonstrating if a process is lossy or not, or destructive or not, and if MQA 'improves' the file then running the output back into itself 10x or 100x thru the encoder would improve it 10x or 100x. Easy to test.
The real question is, what does this mean for TIDAL? They Kind of look like the bad guy accomplice now. My advice is for them to drop MQA as a partner and just provide a FLAC streaming tier.
These 2 videos aged very well now that MQA is in administration. These videos educated me on why MQA was a waste of time compared to other lossless formats, especially FLAC. Thanks!
@@technicolourmylesIt’s the UK equivalent of filing for bankruptcy. Not only that, Tidal has since added non-MQA hi-res lossless FLAC to their service and now defaults to that even when MQA is available for a track.
Much appreciation for all the effort you’ve put into this! I don’t anticipate mqa will ever open up about what they’re doing but if they ever do I look forward to hearing from you! The audio world is so full of BS the market was practically asking for something like this! Most people like me simply don’t have the understanding to refute what mqa claims!
Thanks. Im one of the customers that intentionally chose a DAC model over another because it had MQA capability. All arguments you are pointing to in your videos are pretty much disheartening. I feel cheated to say no more. I will never chose again another piece of equipment sporting that logo. Fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice, shame on me.
5:05 i think they chose their words carefully here: approves in this context means anything at all, it could mean the moment you hit accept in TOS. It could mean the button that says “upload” in the user menu. In fact they could provide 60 seconds of silence instead of a track and claim “artist, studio, or label approves” due to technicality. This is not a confirmation of lossless-ness
What a coincidence.... I just came across part 1, 6 hours ago and It blew my mind. I enjoyed it so much I subbed great hard thorough work. 🍻 Thank you for being here for the community.
UPDATES:
- MQA has not yet responded to requests for encoding of the natural sound file.
- There is a mistake in this video. I falsely claim that the MQA AES paper is not peer reviewed, this is incorrect. This was included based on a discussion I came across which is a few years old, which discusses the fact that the AES paper at the time was not peer reviewed. This has since changed and I did not sufficiently check for up to date info here. For this I apologise.
I can't speak to the quality differences between MQA and other formats - what I can say is that the timing and hence spacial sound of MQA is vastly better. My studio room is over 1000 cubic meters in volume with a Hi-End 12Kw PA system and the difference is like night and day. MQA seems to just float in the air like the sound is everywhere, while CD's spacial sound quality collapses to with a few meters left/ right of the speakers. ruclips.net/video/vB1oQhc-5Po/видео.html
I understand that for the average audiophile sound system, in an average sized room of only a few square meters this may not be apparent. My system (Alcons) although excellent for PA is not intended to be an audiophile system.
MQA was great in the past when we needed compressed audio to overcome slow internet connection. Nowadays any audiophile person wants 100% lossless audio streaming and it's readily available already. E.g. I stream from Amazon HD Music up to 192kHz 24 bits LOSSLESS. Nowadays MQA might make sense for non audiophile users? LOL
@@fx-studio I'm having a hard time understanding how that is supposed to work (and the video linked doesn't really help). Sound doesn't decay differently at a distance depending on the format - there would be some differences based on frequency, but the major difference would be dependent on volume. Are you sure MQA isn't just volume boosted?
@@hadoryu The volume doesn't alter the effect - I believe its the timing of MQA which is faster - our hearing can detect 5-7 micro seconds whereas CD is down at 23 micro seconds. That's why MQA creates this very noticeable spacial sound everywhere effect.
Note: most, but not all MQA's do it - some obviously up-res ones like Tina Turner (Whats love got to do with it) and some rehashed old Jazz tracks don't have the spacial effect.
When I have some time I will recorded both MQA and CD of the same tracks with a high res recorder to show the effect better.
i dont ever want added effects to anything labelled "master quality" with a straight face...only the effects chosen or approved by the origjnal artists and engineers.
"It's better than lossless!"
You'll hear sounds the musicians only ever *thought* of in the studio!
Did you read the edits the MQA employee suggested for Wikipedia? "MQA is a system which combines new findings in human neuroscience with advances in digital audio techniques, to more efficiently distribute high fidelity audio." What a joke.
@@andysmith1996 Reminds me of the time Burger King edited the Wikipedia page for the Whopper as part of their Google Home hijacking ad.
HAHAHAHAHA
@@andysmith1996 The fact that said neuroscience might mostly be about animals like Barn Owls, just makes it all the more amusing...
it's actually the bass control and time domain.. it makes the music come through in a unique and special way.. I went out of the way to pay for it.. good R2R dacs, good DSD and of course the need for MQA goes away, Quboz not avail here but where possible in Roon you can demo 24/192 hard cocpies vs. MQA and non mqa versions.. why does Goldensound try to make the encoder fail.. what is the goal if you can listen to MQA and non MQA releases and evaluate with a wide range of sample material. So funny how he loves FLAC and flac was based of Meridian packing technology.. dsp and filtering may be proprietary, would you trust your proprietary info with this guy with his "balanced" video.. he will not be an MQA partner for testing.. that I can guarantee..
Better than lossless... yeah and I can draw rounder than a circle
😂😂😂 love this. 👌🏽
Savage!
nice 🤣
Are you referring to ´squaring the circle´?
@@2232-q1l I doubt that, as that would be drawing less round than a circle - a triangle is as not-round of a two-dimensional object as you can get, but the square is literally the next best option.
When the damage control is worse than the damage...
Imagine defending your codec against claims of it beeing lossy, and one of your points beeing that it sucks. 7:00
ENCODER OVERLOAD! IT IS A CLASS 10 ON THE BS SCALE. RUN YOU FOOLS!
There is an element to all of this that people are missing. Sure, MQA is a scam, but the motivation behind it is more than just money. The motivation behind it is the fear of people sharing FLAC files like people did with mp3s back in the day of Napster. With the increase transfer speeds on the internet the worry is that the days of Napster will come back. It's all about DRM. That is why people in the music industry such as Jay Z support it. :)
@@thatchinaboi1 Frankly, people already can and do share oodles of MP3s, and nobody but audiophiles care about getting anything above that. No, I think this is just audiophile specific snake oil, for people with subjective preferences that buy thousands of dollars worth of equipment.
@@hadoryu Frankly, MP3s isn't FLAC. And people do care about sound quality. More and more people will care. If you think the popularization of MQA has nothing to do with protecting from music piracy, then you are being naive. 🙂
@@thatchinaboi1 The catch is that people are already sharing FLAC files like that. It's just not over P2P networks like Napster, limewire and eDonkey. It's all on a specific p2p network, or with torrents.
If you want to get something losslessly, that's pretty damn easy to do. I say as a collector who looks into some very obscure music that is only really preserved within these communities.
It's not as prevalent as it was in the late 90's/early-mid 2000's on your Napsters and Limewires, but it's still quite prevalent.
Their response wasn't supposed to be this tonedeaf, but unfortunately they put the statement through MQA before release.
LOL
LMFAO
Savage lol
Baahhhaaa 😂
perfect :)
Absolute master detective work.
White glove detective work, if you will.
Good to see other content creators in the comment section on this one!
The Sherlock of the audio community. Sherlock Ohms, if you will
@@MidFiGuy bravo. Masterful pun work.
I've seen u before ....
Didn't know you could murder something twice.
But damn was it enjoyable to watch! 🤣
Sure. When people order steak medium well.
@@smoak888 Only a monster would do such a thing.
Oof
Zombies.
EDIT: Wait, no, that's not quite right, is it...
Wow! Just wow! You’ve did an awesome job uncovering this Snake Oil!
There is an element to all of this that people are missing. Sure, MQA is a scam, but the motivation behind it is more than just money. The motivation behind it is the fear of people sharing FLAC files like people did with mp3s back in the day of Napster. With the increase transfer speeds on the internet the worry is that the days of Napster will come back. It's all about DRM. That is why people in the music industry such as Jay Z support it. :)
@@thatchinaboi1 Why the fear? Because of piracy?
Wytse you could mention this somewhere, I'm sure our community would love to hear about this too!
MQA was created to combat the existence of FLAC. Being able to pirate high quality lossless music easily is not good for business.
It cost the music industry a shitload of money to hire people to pollute music sharing sites with terrible quality re-encoded mp3s in an effort to combat piracy, not to mention the futile attempts of taking legal actions against a few individuals. Music piracy never went away. The popularity of streaming music doesn't change this.
MQA: Tries their hardest to prevent you from making any measurements...
Also MQA: Your measurements are wrong!!!!
Also MQA: We measured it ourselves and it’s good
What exactly do measurements tell you? Do you think measurements represent some sort of absolute truth of how humans perceive music? What a joke.
@@dwightballard3868 so you either didn't watch the video or you missed the point completely.
@@dwightballard3868 Measurements tell you the exact.
When a company sells you clean water for a premium, we can both measure it to verify it is indeed clean. If we "measure it" and find there is a high amount of lead in the water, you are still perfectly free to poison yourself by drinking it, but they should not be allowed to sell it as clean water.
Same applies to MQA, you are free to consume it, like it and even pay premium for it.
It is however, NOT what it says (said now that they've edited it) on the tin, which is lossless.
@@dwightballard3868 They tell you if the claim of "lossless" is true or not. Remember, this is all about MQA marketing claims which are to be verified as objective fact through measurements.
Their actions are completely consistent with someone who is in the wrong.
It seems like 'always attack never defend' behavior which is a red flag to me for scam/cult/organized crime activities.
It's the old way of doing dodgy business, embarrassingly text book scam-like behaviour you see in almost every case where they're trying to discredit critics, be it in business or politics or whatever.
They made the mistake of thinking they were more intelligent than everyone else. They thought that most consumers don't understand how audio works and they could pull a fast one on them and make money with licensing fees.
@@CeeStyleDj I mean, they kind of did with their snake oil file format. It led to waves of consumers demanding it in DACs, forcing manufacturers to deal with it.
@Lassi Kinnunen 81 but what I mean by my comment is that they got caught. I should have rephrased it that they thought they could get away with it.
Part 2: it gets even more spicy
it*
@@strangelyrepulsive77 merci 💜
I was wondering if it was going to, I wasn't wondering too hard because both tidal and meridian seem to take the ignore the problem that exists but you can leave an email, with support if there's anything we can help you with on your end kind of thing you know privately... But then there's Bob...
Bob is excitable, Bob has his own blog that manages to talk a bunch of stuff about an amazing thing that says absolutely nothing...
At some point Bob's going to have to explain in science terms how this shit actually works, or at least back up any of the non-science things regarding this... And if it's a matter of proprietary knowledge in super secrets, I have a feeling it's either going to be absolutely nothing... Which so far the evidence seems to be pointing, or the actual secrets to the universe, and and we're all fucked cuz Bob finally cracked and it was actually key to the survival of humanity that he kept that shit deep down inside...
There is an element to all of this that people are missing. Sure, MQA is a scam, but the motivation behind it is more than just money. The motivation behind it is the fear of people sharing FLAC files like people did with mp3s back in the day of Napster. With the increase transfer speeds on the internet the worry is that the days of Napster will come back. It's all about DRM. That is why people in the music industry such as Jay Z support it. :)
@@thatchinaboi1 and yet, thanks to Bob's Bose quality fantasy cult of 1... plus current employees with timecard punches for the day...
Still ain't takin off on that level lol...
Way to make it weird bob... Way to make it weird...
MQA= Most Questionable Audio
Maximum Qertified Awedio
Master Quality Absent
MP3 Quality Audio
Meridian Qwirky Audio
@@alexxbaudwhyn7572 Hahahaa too funny 😂😂😂
"It's better than lossless!"
Morgan Freeman: It was indeed, NOT better than lossless.
😂😂😂
Based on the blind listening tests that have been done, its very slightly in some cases distinguishable, but preference is 50/50 at the end none the less...
@@LordVictorHalgaard It’s not so much about if you can hear a difference or not, it’s about them blatantly lying to the consumer through deceptive marketing practices in order to profit off a false narrative.
@@bardenhick2121 I agree, that is exactly my point: I think, particularly in such cases as this, it is *extremely* important to keep the rhetoric clear! Not fight fire with fire - that just gets your entire town burnt down, and everyone loses. To be more direct, I see a lot of people talking about 'better or worse', or commenting how much better Qobuz sounds: My point is there is about as little to support that as there is to support what MQA is claiming, therefore, in my opinion, it is quite important to steer clear of that, and focus on, as you said, this issue here is their deceptive/shady behavior, not the quality of the product. The moment we go down that road, that's already one step in their direction.
This isn't coming at anyone in specific, by the way, this was honestly more relevant to other comments - I just see it a lot to various degrees. You are naturally more than welcome to make jokes about the matter... We are here to have fun after all :P
Ron Howard: It was DEFINITELY not better than lossless.
MQA is the most "source(s): dude trust me" stuff i think i've ever seen lmao
When scammers get caught they always make the worse excuses
Fun to see though 😂
It is the psychopath way
There are videos showing home-delivery "pirates" stealing packages from homeowners' porches and getting caught in the act. Their attempt at excuses would be hilarious were it not actually a serious matter. This audio scam (for such it certainly appears to be) reminds me of those.
MQA: "It's lossless."
Objective, repeatable analysis: "It isn't though."
MQA, while furiously editing their webpage and Wiki: "Yeah, well, it's better than lossless!"
MQA still: "Also, libel."
Hilariously enough, MQA again: "I bet you are paid well for this."
Yes, it's "better than lossless". Also safe and effective.
"It's better than lossless!"
"It's bigger than infinity!"
If only infinity is a size. 😂
It's redder than red!
Well, in higher math (e.g. used in quantum field theory) there are several orders of infinity.
"To Infinity....and Beyond!" [falls without style, crashes, burns and then bitches at the fireman because he noticed your slip was showing]
Well... there are various sizes of infinities. There are more numbers between 0 and 1 then there are all whole numbers... Yeah I know... but Cantor's diagonal argument is a thing and proves it.
When you save a JPEG as a TIFF in Photoshop, it's lossless. That's how it works in MQA Wonderland.
MQA encoding applies deblurring filters to the original PCM master so it’s not the same thing. Now how does one measure the benefits of that is the question. I just use my ears and MQA is in almost all cases sounds better than it’s hi-res PCM counterpart
@@Rhcpbedders Using candy as the placebo does not make it any less placebo.
If you find that MQA sounds better, off you go, listen to it all you want. But it doesn't sound closer to what the artist heard in the studio. It's just DSP.
This is the absolute opposite thing to what audiophiles have been forever looking for: hearing the original master. Applying audio effects to the master might make it sound more lossless, but the only exclusive content encoded in is the audio effects they layered on top.
Are you willing to pay for that? Well, you're in luck: The GTO filter available in some of Ifi's DACs MQAfies all music if you so desire. They even got the MQA devs to help in development. Once MQA dies you won't miss it as much, and you won't have to pay extra for it ever again.
@@nodezsh what the artist hears in the studio is flawed due to A/D conversion. Technology improves, and I think most artists wouldn’t consider the inherent flaws with A/D conversion to be part of the music, particularly in older tracks that used worse equipment.
I don’t really care what the artist signed off on if it can be improved upon. So yes, I will continue to enjoy MQA on my ifi Zen DAC
@Lassi Kinnunen 81 2L has comparisons of all kinds of different formats from the same master including MQA which sounds the best to my ears
@Lassi Kinnunen 81 yes. Are you familiar with time smearing of A/D conversion? Basically what happens is when a discrete signal is encoded by A/D converter it’s impulse response is “smeared” across time. So you will get pre and post ringing of a signal such as the hit of a hi hat.
It is particularly noticeable in high frequencies such as hi hats and cymbals and anything with fast attack/decay. MQA applies filters to vastly reduce pre and post ringing and improves the definition and dimensionality of the sound as a result. Of course this cannot be a lossless process. It’s possibly not ideal to be listening to MQA encoded tracks on the Hi-Fi tier of Tidal either as the base layer FLAC would not be the same as the equivalent lossless FLAC and you won’t be getting the benefits of MQA. But if you have Tidal masters with a compatible DAC (of which there are plenty of great affordable options) it sounds fantastic.
Lol. Totally wrecked MQA. In other news, i cancelled Tidal today.
Tidal prooves MQA, preventing from recording and copying to get more cash fom publishing. But as streaming, it sounds good.
@@ericberger6966 I did a direct comparison with Qobuz. Qobuz was noticeably better.
@@WalterReade Deezer also sounds better in my opinion. But that may be biased as I did the comparison after watching the first MQA video... Needless to say, even if Tidal did sound a bit better, I would still change to Deezer or similar platforms because I strongly disagree with the way MQA and Tidal do things. And Deezer is also much cheaper 😅
@@th3m3du54 It appears as if Tidal has been sold off to Square Investments. The people behind the scene knows that their little scam is running out of time- so they sold it while the company while value was still high.....due to these videos being just released and not that many views yet.
@@WalterReade Qobuz High Res is High Res, and MQA is n...
next up:
part III: Revenge of MQA
part IV: A New Lossless
part V: MQA Strikes Back
part VI: Return of Lossless
...
Part VII: Re-hashes parts III & V in a sad attempt to gain more followers
Part VIII: The Last Lossless
Part IX :......... Damn it ! - the sequels were so effing lame that it just... doesn't work Thank you Kennedy, you spacktard.
@@humm6155 fact : most people can't differentiate between 320kbps MP3 and 44.1 16 FLAC
@@AbhishekNag666 that's beside the point. Nobody claimed that MP3 is lossless. The lie is the problem. The format still sounds ok.
Gold 😂😂😂
part XX Vader dies sad and alone because everyone has moved on.
The absolute audacity to call one of the most scientific videos I have ever seen on RUclips unscientific is quite frankly appaling
What was scientific about it?
@@2232-q1l Empirical evidence. What wasn't scientific if I may ask?
@@2232-q1l it uses scientific method! Honestly should not have to explain that.
By their definition of "sounding better", they alter the master = its not the same. Clear as day. An enhancer will do the same. Such bs, hidden behind marketing. As a sound engineer this whole thing is genuinely worrying.
Ive only watched 3 minutes this is gold alredy cant wait to come back to it later
Better than i expeted , gj
I'm just going to say, as an electronic music producer myself: MQA claiming the test files are not representative of actual music is fucking bullshit. Actual music can have such extreme tones in it.
A lot of experimental & electronic music has pretty much no bounds, & could easily be as much of a torture test to the encoder as directly encoding test tones. Hell, one of my recently produced tracks has sound information from 20hz-70khz throughout, when exported as a 192khz 24bit FLAC. Saying that the test signals aren't representative of music is pretty much an insult to the more experimental music producers of today, quite a few experimental producers push the limits of not only their hardware, but also their DAWs, and can easily create music that I bet would make MQA's encoder shit itself.
If an encoder cannot encode test data without any modification to the original data or additional noise, it's just not a lossless encoder, and it shouldn't be marketed as better than a lossless encoder, even if it performs mostly alright with music. No lossy encoder is better than a lossless encoder, and as an artist myself, I think people should hear music exactly how it comes from the studio, *NOT* altered by some bullshit processing algorithm that tries to improve it for you, regardless of if it actually does well at that or not. The way most artists want you to hear their music is how they hear it, not how some computer program thinks you want to hear it.
Computers might seem like they're never wrong, but computers were made by man, and man is prone to making mistakes, which of course means computers are prone to making mistakes too. What decides how you hear an artist's music should be the artist, then you, the listener, with whatever hardware you choose & whatever signal processing you like using. A computer shouldn't decide the sound for you.
Computers are never wrong in the sense that they always do exactly what you tell them to do. They never screw that part up. If your program is flawed the computer doesn't care and will gladly and perfectly follow your wrong instructions.
@@superslimanoniem4712 That is correct. Though there's also hardware malfunctions that can occur, such as faulty RAM, or in the case of older computers, a bad connection between a program ROM & the CPU, which cause instructions to become corrupted & eventually turn into what you didn't tell the computer to do.
It’s great you babe music with sounds that are in freq ranges beyond human hearing. But what good does that do for the typical listener. I can’t hear past 16khz.
@@Simon-oq6dsHe probably doesn't intend to, the freq's above 20K are likely a side effect.
It's sad to hear that this will be your last video on MQA. I want more, especially if their next response (if there will ever be one) is as equally ridiculous as this one. Love your channel and your work!
proud that someone like you in our community finally stood out with concrete facts. :)
"This will be my last video on MQA."
I already see part 3 because MQA's response to this will likely be quite spicy.
What response? There is no rebuttal. This is a K.O.
@@jhabawack MQA claims the first GoldenSound video is libelous which reads like 'prepare for court if you don't shut up'.
@@kesamek8537 Sure. If they sue they will lose even more subscribers. And I'd love to see these videos in court 😂. What I'm curious about is what Square (Tidals new parent company) thinks of this, considering they just bought Tidal 😱
they are going to get destroyed in the discovery process
@@kesamek8537 Exactly this. They would force our intrepid detective to lawyer up and destroy him financially, because corporations are jerks like that.
The work above is mastered.
10:23 Wow. That's pretty much a hand-in-the-cookie jar situation. Glad to see you continuing this pursuit in a constructive manner. This is the opposite of promoting toxicity and warrants whatever positive attention you receive from the community or press.
This guy puts so much research in these videos, great stuff man
@@2232-q1l Last time I checked it was one fellow
Master Quality Assured. More like "Missing Quadrant on the Analyzer"
Mystery Quality Added?
Marketing Quality Arrogance
Master Quality Absent
A very strong and concise follow up. I was surprised at the end to hear that this is the last video you will be making on MQA. If MQA were to send you encoded files for you to test, would a follow up video not be essential? If MQA were to revise their marketing material, or if tidal started using true lossless files for their HiFi Audio Tier I feel you have every right to make a video on that. Great video regardless, keep up the great work!
I mean it's pretty much a given that they won't let him prove difinitively that they are full of shit. And they really sound like they are
I think it's potential to let things back for the community to work and decide the conclusion of MQAs. Getting this level of calling for transparency of MQA has been good enough for him to create roadmap for the community to go. Deeping in with those conmen might leave him being in court with, you know, sucks guys who conclude the court that is benefit for those who are richer.
The reason he said he won't be making another video is very clear: He knows they WON'T give him the file they screenshotted - most likely because it's a MOCKUP - and they WON'T give him the MQA encoded version of the file he linked because it would prove that their encoder isn't any better than any other lossy encoder on the market. The next thing that happens is either MQA refusing to talk to him and trying to sweep the whole thing under the rug, or a lawsuit. Mark my words.
"It's lossless" -> "It's better than lossless" LMFAO
I think, saying a file is lossless when it’s lossy isn’t just misleading. It’s scam. And I believe most audiophile will agree with me here.
Falsely claiming something that's true but when in fact it isn't is most definitely a scam. It applies everywhere in the business industry and it's illegal.
MQA isn't just scamming Audiophiles, they're also scamming Tidal, its customers, and the other manufacturers of hardware that want to include an MQA certification.
I read the official MQA response to your last video and it seemed quite like a shady Scientology document to me. I would steer well clear of such scams and all the people who promote them. Luckily as a result of this exposé we can clearly see who the bs merchants are.
"shady Scientology document to me" 😂😂😂
Spot on 👍🏼
Bs merchants, have to remember that one 😂
GoldenSound is my favorite journalist! He is a rare breed these days and a true inspiration.
honestly I did not train my hears enough to be able to tell the difference between FLAC and MQA, but one is not lying to me and is costing 0 money
MQA, to my ears, sounds much shoutier and less balanced, emphasizing some frequencies while dampening others. I much prefer Qobuz's Hi-Res and lossless CD quality.
Perfect
Been using Tidal for a year, I just feel weird listening a Master song in Tidal by using my Sennheizer equipment compare to other song that I'm own. I start to doubt, does Tidal really offer lossless? Because a couple of the Master song that I hear are worst sometime. So I start to search for MQA, and it leading to him explaining all this. Thank god, I will never ever sub Tidal again.
@@EstherTakumi try deezer
@@bogdanadzic9305 too bad, the hifi subscription are much more expensive in my country and Deezer don't have a song that I want. Qobuz out of question because of region lock. For now I'm sticking with YT Music until those platform had much more content, good price, and availability. Also I'm sticking with my flac collection for now.
Option 1: Show Proof
Option 2: Damage Control
"Yeah let's be vague and talk like a lawyer, that will help our image"
It's not snake oil sale anymore, it's an entire snake oil factory
And a snake farm with a hatchery
I've been rather suspicious of MQA since I saw a video about MQA CDs a few years ago, and when I saw your detailed breakdown on how they fail to live up to the 'lossless' moniker I thought "yep, makes sense". I love how their 'rebuttal' is just hundreds of words to say "nuh-uh!". Not a single attempt at proving you wrong, just a lot of bland marketing.
I've just read Stereophile magazine's front page response to your testing. I have to say they've convinced me.... to not renew my subscription to their magazine.
I suspect MQA is similar to image processing, such as sharpening: Altering data, in sometimes a pleasing way. Stupid to claim easily refuted properties. It does make me question the technical knowledge of some of the senior people involved.
What is claimed without proof can readily be dismissed without proof.
the "touchup to lossless" box reminds me of when back in my comp sci programme any especially cumbersome or impossible seeming nodes on flowcharts would get labeled with "and then a miracle happens"
deus ex machina of engineering :)
Star Trek had a Heisenberg-compensator in their transporter. The issue was that transportation as they portrayed violated a fairly basic 'law of nature' called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle... so the writers added a Heisenberg-compensator as a 'this magic box fixes that issue' thing to finish making the series without being asked stupid questions from fans. (When asked how the Heisenberg compensator worked, one of the writers answered 'it works just fine, thank you'). I guess MQA has a 'touchup to lossless' box instead.
WARNING! This box may contain violations of basic information theory!
Keep up the good work.
Wow, I never expected a part two! But I am all for it!
Thanks!
I've designed a something better than MQA, FLAC, etc
A lossless encowder, that adds the cow noises back in to the sound how the artist truly intended.
Boo! 😆
Needs more cowbell
you are a hero :")
Can't wait to hear "Atom Heart Mother" on this!!!
Is it bad that I genuinely want this
Спасибо!
They would have done better by shutting up and letting this all get forgotten by the internet. It's kinda dumb that they would choose to respond to you and revive this conversation at all.
I'm reminded of the early days of Bose. Their speakers were innovative, but didn't actually sound very good. So, they went on a campaign of suing anyone who wrote a negative review and consistently claimed that the review was biased, improper, etc.. until the audio press simply ignored them. Likewise, MQA may be innovative, but never let the PR department tell you how good something sounds.
So let me get this straight. If I make an atonal abstractivist song consisting of different square waves, my art is not musical enough for MQA? Is this MQA thing a joke or something? People are actually making money out of this?
"Is this MQA thing a joke or something?" Yes, it is. Worse than that, it's a full-blown scam.
Like with so many other things, you can sell anything to the masses, so long as you pour enough money into branding and marketing.
Yoko Ono is getting the shortest end of the stick here cause her "music" isn't musical enough for MQA standards. Granted, it's not musical enough for anyone's standards, but that's a different argument.
@@AirplaneJunkie82 that's the point. It is obsurd that a file format would fail to decode based on some arbitrary notion of what is music. I just can not understand how did anyone take them seriously to start with. This is next level marketing. Steve Jobs would hire their entire marketing team on the spot.
@@jaytorr6701 Well, it does happen, precisely with lossy perceptual codecs that have all been independently tested for their claims. 😆
MQA is just trying really hard to dodge having to "prove" anything which in & of itself is worse than failing a specific test...
*I can watch hours of this. It's time the charlatans of the Audiophile business are called out and demanded to provide empirical and undisputable measurers of their claims. "Feelings" "perceptions" or are not a part of that.*
They took the lossless out of the logo.. that says everything about it. What a pity show...
And cables as well.
The old cliché of “Having a battle of wits with an un-armed opponent” leaps to mind.
Great video sir. Thank you for bringing this out in the open.
Since they are updating their marketing speak, how does this rebranding sound?
MQA: Theranos of HiFi audio.
Exactly. I read "Bad Blood" few months ago and this story immediately seemed similar to me.
Thank you for your digging and sharing your analysis in detail.
"unscientific, illogical and inaccurate" - that's an accurate description of MQA.
Thank you for your videos on MQA, which brought me from "what am I missing if I'm not using MQA" to "luckily I'm not using MQA" ... and I don't even consider myself an audiophile and I can't hear any difference between a good quality MP3 file and a FLAC file (at least not on the equipment I use)
P.S.: You have a new subscriber :)
*Responses of MQA, but i cut down the BS:*
1. "Tidal deleted your files. Im sure we have no common interests kappa"
2. "yeah our fault let me just quickly flip our marketing entirely" :D
3. "If you copy an mp3 that counts as lossless right?"
4. "WE decide IF and WHEN our encoder makes sense."
5. *MQA changing subject to something that does not matter
6. "I has errur ur argument is invalid"
7. "do as i say not as i do"
*Wikipedia admin bullying intermission
8. "your results do not matter, because we invented the term 'deblurring' "
9. "Water isnt wet"
10. "MQA is lossy". "Shit did i say that out loud?"
11. "how dare you use clickbait"
That was pure bliss. Thank you for your efforts buddy! 😀👍
They don't want transparency. They just want your money.
Masterfully done. Thank you for this channel.
Edit: At the rate you're going, if you hit 100k subs by the end of the year I wouldn't be surprised 👌
"Carefully worded statement" = lie with an alibi. As much as like risk-taking innovators, I hate liars. Tidal subscription cancelled!
The fact there is so much required effort to analyze and prove this, and there is optimal data for encoding vs just any data is reasonable enough to just stop supporting and requesting MQA, Ive been pushing for FLAC and DSD
The DSD format may be great, but it's dead. You can't edit in DSD. Or DSP it. For that you need DSD Wide. Or simply converting the DSD signal to PCM, which is how it's typically done.
Worst of all, forget streaming. You have no access to the data stream, only the analog signal. Blame the RIAA for this. The RIAA wasn't going to repeat the mistake it did with the CD. You know, allowing it to make them more money than ever. Because there's something even more important than making money. Making sure everybody else remains poor and miserable.
Being hyper paranoid (cocaine and raping under-aged girls do that to you), the RIAA's main concern was that which didn't hurt their bottom line. Home copying.
Edited for clarity.
It's a shame cos there are at least 3 Japan MQA CDs (History Of Moody Blues, The Free Story, History Of Fairport Convention) seemingly derived from DSD Masters that I'd love to have and probably would have had as SACDs had this lossy, foldy-up, foldy-down, requires extra equipment waste-of-space format not come along.
@@grisflyt Bro you are getting into esoteric topics that most here will have no clue what you are going on about. I don't disagree with you, for the record.
@@paulj9821 The last 2 paragraphs were unnecessary. Couldn't contain myself. I like to rip the record industry. An industry that now is dead. I don't think coke and under-aged girls are as common today.
@@adz693 plus we already had HDCD all the way back in 1995. why microsoft basically killed that format is beyond me. still irks me to think about it.
This was golden. MQA, we’re watching you.
I miss the point of MQA in 2021 when widespread of wideband internet connection is a given for most of us because the whole concept of MQA was to help streaming of large files when the connection wasn't up there 2010 or so and fleecing a fee on outdated software is a bit of dishonesty.
Connection still isn't up there in 2021, with cellular Internet providers "deprioritizing" subscribers who transfer too many gigabytes of data in a monthly billing cycle.
@@DamianYerrick But the question surely is why do people listening to music on their phones and likely on shoddy headphones need as good as original masters then? 320kbit mp3 would be more than enough for music on your phone.
@@RichardNutman Living in the country outside the service area of fiber or cable means you're stuck on either cellular or Viasat, which has a monthly quota close to that of cellular, until Starlink expands.
This is Golden! depth analysis and no stone left unturned. Kudos!
So, MQA, dealing with smart people with scientifically acquired data is pretty hard, right!
Fantastic job, excellent information, also I think your position trying to speak with the company, perfect.
Well done for your honest review(s), something that is very rare these days.
I really admire your findings and also appreciate the effort, time and diligence to piece your findings together. 🤝🤝
Had no idea there'd be a sequel, bit this is exciting. Gives me something to do in band class after we've had a concert.
it's a series now. BAHAHA
Better than lossless. Wow. They raised the bar there! It became suddenly clear they don't deal in the audio business but in magic industry. Or the Snake Oil business as some call it.
Information theory dictates that if you have a 192 kHz 24-bit original signal and... squeeze it down to 44.1 kHz 16-bit, you have something which has lost 85% of its original information. Sure, you might be able to "unfold" it up to a digital bit-stream that's back at 192 kHz 24-bit - however, it sure as hell isn't going to be the original bit-stream you started with. Audibly, you might not be able to hear the difference, but the signal is going to be different, bit for bit, and therefore, MQA cannot ever be lossless.
You do not need a PHD in information theory to understand this fact. The level of gaslighting MQA are exhibiting here is laughable.
Exactly, right? It's basic knowledge for anyone involved in information technology. I don't get how they can comfortably claim things that are just not possible.
They just hope people are too dumb to realize this.
destroying MQA part two: electric boogaloo
This company ended as a joke in the "a libelous manifesto that was unscientific", Goldensound did in basic terms test your encoder for multiple frequencies and it failed with capital F; something you haven't been able to even respond to people making this questions since they launched the damn thing.
The levels of projection on their part are pretty staggering huh
although MQA might not offer you transparency on their files and process, they can probably de-blur them!
LOL that was brilliant
It is good to know that MQA can't handle electronic music.
One of the best analysis I ever seen on RUclips. Keep up the good work.
Thank you for your analyses of MQA format. I found it to be insightful and educational. I hope U retract your decision on not doing another video on MQA. We need people like yourself to help point out the inconsistencies and lies that these companies, unscrupulously or otherwise wrong groups are putting out for us to hopefully buy into. Keep fighting the go fight!
Thank you for revealing us these important information！Great video！
The analysis and reporting of this entire topic is simply outstanding. Also, the way that MQA has responded to your analysis and report gives a ton more credibility to you and it damns them even further. This video rebuttal of everything that they have responded with just brings it all home. Bravo! 👏🏾
You're doing gods work! I would definitely not mind another video on this if there are any updates!
The fact they would change their website to cover up what they said before is a huge red flag. I’m done with MQA. FLAC will always be king.
We have to spread word. I personally have never bought any products that support MQA. I was looking them but since i saw GoldenSound part 1 video i put stop and now its clear.
I rarely have heard such well substantiated video's. When it comes to trust you clearly have my vote! Keep up this good work.
Best regards from the Netherlands.
The saga continues
Respect for your work on this
The irony is that the title of Bob’s post would have been a much more apt title for your video. Keep up the good work man :)
Loved this. Thanks again!
"Touch-up to lossless" 😂
This is so snake-oil! When I take pictures on my DSLR camera, I prefer saving the image as NEF or RAW. With that line in their patent, does that mean I can also go ahead, do the math, and create a technology to convert JPEGs back into RAW with "touch-up to lossless"?
No one can create something out of nothing. There is no way we can add something into a compressed media to make it lossless again. I just can't wrap my mind around that.
Inbefore AI upscales become the new original source material. 🤔
@@MLWJ1993 Spot on! Even Nvidia won't describe their DLSS technology as "touch-up to lossless".
What, haven't you seen those crime shows on TV where they have a photo but it's too pixelated to read the license plate or whatever, and they say, "ENHANCE!" and it makes it bigger and more detailed so they can solve the crime? Obviously this sort of thing MUST be possible, because it wouldn't be on TV if it weren't true! MQA is just doing "ENHANCE" on audio files. So of course it's better than lossless. Duh.
More seriously, people and computers can make up data, using their imagination or algorithms respectively. What they can't do is make up the same data that was lost. At least not without some sort of data time machine. Or psychic powers. MQA must be using the latter, since it somehow reflects not what the artist recorded, but what they intended.
@@nirhymeswithhi4849 🤣
@@nirhymeswithhi4849 What you are saying, is that MQA is trying to sell us an expensive EQ solution?
this is many times more satisfying than any rap battle I have ever watched!
@GoldenSound try a recursive test if you want to shine further light. Put MQA output back into itself (the encoder) a few times, and do the same with FLAC. I think you will have quite an interesting result to discuss.
He doesn't have the MQA encoder though? If he had, the videos could be a lot shorter, their BS would easily be dismantled
@@StephanWahlen Anyone who publishes music on Tidal can re-up stuff and test for recursive degradation, demonstrating if a process is lossy or not, or destructive or not, and if MQA 'improves' the file then running the output back into itself 10x or 100x thru the encoder would improve it 10x or 100x. Easy to test.
More Questionable Aliasing
Great video, Meridian should learn their lesson sooner or later.
Snake Oil Bob's Elixir of Lossy Sounds, Now With Extra Noise !
The real question is, what does this mean for TIDAL? They Kind of look like the bad guy accomplice now. My advice is for them to drop MQA as a partner and just provide a FLAC streaming tier.
Or even start with offering both.
They are the bad guy. You think no one at TIDAL knew about this?
Definitely shady .. I am happy to have terminated my Tidal subscription .. thank for your work and transparency, I highly appreciated it ..
Just Awesome work and Investigation! Thank you for keeping them honest and setting the record Straight. Brilliant!
These 2 videos aged very well now that MQA is in administration. These videos educated me on why MQA was a waste of time compared to other lossless formats, especially FLAC. Thanks!
What do you mean in administration?
@@technicolourmylesIt’s the UK equivalent of filing for bankruptcy. Not only that, Tidal has since added non-MQA hi-res lossless FLAC to their service and now defaults to that even when MQA is available for a track.
@@MysteryMii oh wow, that means it might be time to consider TIDAL again!
Much appreciation for all the effort you’ve put into this! I don’t anticipate mqa will ever open up about what they’re doing but if they ever do I look forward to hearing from you!
The audio world is so full of BS the market was practically asking for something like this! Most people like me simply don’t have the understanding to refute what mqa claims!
Thanks. Im one of the customers that intentionally chose a DAC model over another because it had MQA capability. All arguments you are pointing to in your videos are pretty much disheartening. I feel cheated to say no more. I will never chose again another piece of equipment sporting that logo. Fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice, shame on me.
Companies support the program but not the company because they don’t want to lose money
"It's better than lossless!"
"It's colder than absolute zero!"
5:05 i think they chose their words carefully here: approves in this context means anything at all, it could mean the moment you hit accept in TOS. It could mean the button that says “upload” in the user menu. In fact they could provide 60 seconds of silence instead of a track and claim “artist, studio, or label approves” due to technicality. This is not a confirmation of lossless-ness
What a coincidence.... I just came across part 1, 6 hours ago and It blew my mind. I enjoyed it so much I subbed great hard thorough work. 🍻 Thank you for being here for the community.