MQA - Hoisted on their own petard

[highfigh]

-It went from digital to that analog media (most likely),and you would need all analog playback equipment. But there was still a DAC before it went to disc. An early binding DAC so to speak.
OR
-Do the DAC at the listening time.

My comments are supported supported by your link and post that digital is in there somewhere in the path (except in rare instances). So - the media being analog is not really relevant.

You have it backward- it had an analog to digital converter before it went to disc (CD, DVD, etc). From the DAC output (after ANY digital format), everything is analog unless there's some reason to go back to digital, for processing. If a recording was made in digital all the way to the master, it would need to be decoded in order to make an LP, analog tape or broadcast it on AM or FM radio.

 

[Doge]

You have it backward- it had an analog to digital converter before it went to disc (CD, DVD, etc). From the DAC output (after ANY digital format), everything is analog unless there's some reason to go back to digital, for processing. If a recording was made in digital all the way to the master, it would need to be decoded in order to make an LP, analog tape or broadcast it on AM or FM radio.

I'm not sure what I am missing.

What is the difference?
-Analog performance to Digital middle to analog media, buy and play back and keep analog
vs
-Analog performance to Digital middle to digital storage and a listening time DAC conversion analog

The only difference I see in those is the quality of the DAC. I assumed goo home stuff was on par with studio stuff. The other thing, that I expect is mostly a non-issue is the analog playback must match the timing it was recorded at. i.e. 331/3 RPM.

 

[highfigh]

I'm not sure what I am missing.

What is the difference?
-Analog performance to Digital middle to analog media, buy and play back and keep analog
vs
-Analog performance to Digital middle to digital storage and a listening time DAC conversion analog

The only difference I see in those is the quality of the DAC. I assumed goo home stuff was on par with studio stuff. The other thing, that I expect is mostly a non-issue is the analog playback must match the timing it was recorded at. i.e. 331/3 RPM.

Define 'analog media'.

There is no SPARS code for analog media- it's only used for digital, AFAIK. It never existed until CDs came out, to show the formats of the tracks and mastering.

 

[Doge]

Define 'analog media'.

There is no SPARS code for analog media- it's only used for digital, AFAIK. It never existed until CDs came out, to show the formats of the tracks and mastering.

My words...
Any media that can take the entire signal where sample size limit is 0.
For practical purposes - Vinyl is the most common analog media.

I'm learning here. What is the difference in final analog output in DAC at the listening point vs in the studio?
Both have a DAC in the the stream.

I *think* storing and transporting in digital will produce better copies with less loss than transporting and coping in analog. So I like the DAC at the very end - right before you hear it.

 

[lovinthehd]

My words...
Any media that can take the entire signal where sample size limit is 0.
For practical purposes - Vinyl is the most common analog media.

I'm learning here. What is the difference in final analog output in DAC at the listening point vs in the studio?
Both have a DAC in the the stream.

I *think* storing and transporting in digital will produce better copies with less loss than transporting and coping in analog. So I like the DAC at the very end - right before you hear it.

If you want a dac at the end then you'd not use vinyl or tape, you'd use cd or other digital format.

 

[Doge]

If you want a dac at the end then you'd not use vinyl or tape, you'd use cd or other digital format.

But when it comes to what you hear - does it matter?

Those already using analog media I doubt were moved one way or the other by MQA, or what DACs do. They purchased pre-digital-analog-conversion done by the studio or contractor and and put on vinyl most likely.

For those that use the DAC at listen time - via some streaming digital source, this MQA tech may matter. It matters for digitally stored music too.

My original, now somewhat lost point on this thread is the MQA push may become their death. They are making an issue of data rate beyond what most can hear and requiring licensed equipment to get that rate - while still lossey. As such, those that care, and use a DAC, ability to hear it or not, just go with Qobuz, or DSD downloads.

 

[<eargiant]

I've had Tidal for about 3 1/2 years and Qobuz for about a month. Even though I wanted to primarily compare CD quality streams I signed up for the Qobuz Studio package trial which also gives me "Hi-Res".

After lengthy comparisons, I'm sticking with Tidal primarily because all tracks are available in full CD FLAC lossless quality plus Tidal's catalog is more extensive. Also, I believe that in order for a track to be considered Hi-Res it must be recorded in Hi-Res in the first place. Most of these "Hi-Res" tracks are really Standard Res files in a larger container. You can't take a track that was recorded prior to say the mid ~ '80's, put it into a "Hi-Res" container and call it Hi-Res. It is not. Provenance is important. Also, I don't buy and download music so I don't need that feature from Qobuz.

Here are my observations/comments from a few weeks ago on Qobuz:

• I used Roon and the integration was as seamless as what I am accustomed to with Tidal as well as my own library so I cannot comment on the UI since I did not see it (I can't remember the last time I saw Tidal's either). Roon is awesome, it also makes comparisons like this a breeze.
• Most CD quality streams sound identical to those available on Tidal. That is a good thing. I did not hear any on Qobuz that were superior to Tidal's version (hopefully someone can give differing examples for me to try) but in some cases Tidal's version was better than the available option on Qobuz (I will give a few examples that I came across later).
• I was surprised that Qobuz did not have many albums that are available on Tidal. Not a huge deal but it kind of stinks when some of the tracks that are already in your library are not available. For example, here are a few random samples:
  • Jennifer Warnes - Famous Blue Raincoat
    Ivo Pogorelich- Piano Sonatas K.283 & K.331; Fantasia K.397
    Robert Silverman - Beethoven:Three Piano Sonatas
    Christian McBride- Conversations with Christian
    Daft Punk- Tron Legacy
    Bob Seger- Night Moves
    Esperanza Spalding- Junjo
    The Police- Outlandos D'Amour
• I was disappointed that sometimes you only get the supposed "Hi-Res" version. I feel that the CD version should always be made available (especially in cases where the original was not recorded in hi-res which is most of the time). In the examples below only the "Hi-Res" version is available:
  • Willie Nelson -Red Headed Stranger
    Daft Punk- Random Access Memories
    Lou Reed- Transformer
    Jeff Buckley-Grace
• Now here are some of the tracks that were clearly worse (MUCH LOUDER) on Qobuz vs. what is available on Tidal. The selections below show dramatic loudness differences. Given the choice, louder is usually worse IME.
  
  Willie Nelson- The Red Headed Stranger- Listen to "Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain".​
  Billy Joel- 52nd Street- Listen to "Honesty".​
  Prince- Prince- Listen to "I Wanna Be Your Lover" .​
  Lou Reed- Transformer- Listen to "Walk on the Wild Side"​
• I decided to give the "Hi-Res" version of Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue" a listen. I won't re-hash how I feel about an album like this being labeled as "Hi-Res" but I at least expected it to sound the same as the CD version or for that matter the record itself (vinyl version). If you listen to the 5 track (non-Legacy) version in 24/96 within the first 10 seconds of "So What" you can hear that the piano notes on the left are terribly off. Impossible to miss if you are familiar with this track.The notes have a warbled tone. What the heck did they do to it? Horrible..So much for "Hi-Res"
  
  
  Finally, Tidal and MQA are two different entities. Tidal throws the MQA tracks in as an option at no additional cost. You get partial decode through software (Tidal or Roon) and full decode with an MQA capable DAC. You don't have to listen to MQA tracks if you feel they are somehow inferior, you will always have the Lossless CD Quality FLAC version with Tidal. At the moment I prefer Tidal's $20 mo. package vs Qobuz' $25 mo. package.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

 

[lovinthehd]

But when it comes to what you hear - does it matter?

Those already using analog media I doubt were moved one way or the other by MQA, or what DACs do. They purchased pre-digital-analog-conversion done by the studio or contractor and and put on vinyl most likely.

For those that use the DAC at listen time - via some streaming digital source, this MQA tech may matter. It matters for digitally stored music too.

My original, now somewhat lost point on this thread is the MQA push may become their death. They are making an issue of data rate beyond what most can hear and requiring licensed equipment to get that rate - while still lossey. As such, those that care, and use a DAC, ability to hear it or not, just go with Qobuz, or DSD downloads.

You were the one who said you wanted a dac just before you hear it and that's what I commented on. Does it matter what media you want to use? Not really. More about preference than real information about performance. I do agree there is no point to MQA, hopefully it will die of natural causes. Provenance is nice but we're probably going to get less and less of that in streaming world.

 

[highfigh]

My words...
Any media that can take the entire signal where sample size limit is 0.
For practical purposes - Vinyl is the most common analog media.

I'm learning here. What is the difference in final analog output in DAC at the listening point vs in the studio?
Both have a DAC in the the stream.

I *think* storing and transporting in digital will produce better copies with less loss than transporting and coping in analog. So I like the DAC at the very end - right before you hear it.

Analog means it's a continuous signal, not sampled and broken into little bits and/or encoded for assembly. Tape, LPs, broadcast radio etc are analog. It can be recorded and played back but there's no DAC or Analog to Digital conversion.

Digital is like taking a message, cutting it into little pieces and adding some kind of mark to each as a way to make it possible to reassemble everything in the same order. Sure, there may be mistakes, but by inserting random letters and characters, the reader gets the message 'right', for all practical purposes. If enough letters and character are missing, it will say "I can't read that" and it may stop talking, but will continue after a short pause.

If you take advanced math classes, like Calculus, your teacher(s) may tell you to 'integrate the area under the curve (usually a sine wave)- effectively, this is the way audio signals are sampled- it cuts the wave into little strips (at low frequencies) and determines the value, as a number. This would be voltage or whatever units they want to use.

I wish my professors had explained how this is used- I needed an application to learn it better.

 

[Bucknekked]

I've had Tidal for about 3 1/2 years and Qobuz for about a month. Even though I wanted to primarily compare CD quality streams I signed up for the Qobuz Studio package trial which also gives me "Hi-Res".

After lengthy comparisons, I'm sticking with Tidal primarily because all tracks are available in full CD FLAC lossless quality plus Tidal's catalog is more extensive. Also, I believe that in order for a track to be considered Hi-Res it must be recorded in Hi-Res in the first place. Most of these "Hi-Res" tracks are really Standard Res files in a larger container. You can't take a track that was recorded prior to say the mid ~ '80's, put it into a "Hi-Res" container and call it Hi-Res. It is not. Provenance is important. Also, I don't buy and download music so I don't need that feature from Qobuz.

Here are my observations/comments from a few weeks ago on Qobuz:

• I used Roon and the integration was as seamless as what I am accustomed to with Tidal as well as my own library so I cannot comment on the UI since I did not see it (I can't remember the last time I saw Tidal's either). Roon is awesome, it also makes comparisons like this a breeze.
• Most CD quality streams sound identical to those available on Tidal. That is a good thing. I did not hear any on Qobuz that were superior to Tidal's version (hopefully someone can give differing examples for me to try) but in some cases Tidal's version was better than the available option on Qobuz (I will give a few examples that I came across later).
• I was surprised that Qobuz did not have many albums that are available on Tidal. Not a huge deal but it kind of stinks when some of the tracks that are already in your library are not available. For example, here are a few random samples:
  • Jennifer Warnes - Famous Blue Raincoat
    Ivo Pogorelich- Piano Sonatas K.283 & K.331; Fantasia K.397
    Robert Silverman - Beethoven:Three Piano Sonatas
    Christian McBride- Conversations with Christian
    Daft Punk- Tron Legacy
    Bob Seger- Night Moves
    Esperanza Spalding- Junjo
    The Police- Outlandos D'Amour
• I was disappointed that sometimes you only get the supposed "Hi-Res" version. I feel that the CD version should always be made available (especially in cases where the original was not recorded in hi-res which is most of the time). In the examples below only the "Hi-Res" version is available:
  • Willie Nelson -Red Headed Stranger
    Daft Punk- Random Access Memories
    Lou Reed- Transformer
    Jeff Buckley-Grace
• Now here are some of the tracks that were clearly worse (MUCH LOUDER) on Qobuz vs. what is available on Tidal. The selections below show dramatic loudness differences. Given the choice, louder is usually worse IME.
  
  Willie Nelson- The Red Headed Stranger- Listen to "Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain".​
  Billy Joel- 52nd Street- Listen to "Honesty".​
  Prince- Prince- Listen to "I Wanna Be Your Lover" .​
  Lou Reed- Transformer- Listen to "Walk on the Wild Side"​
• I decided to give the "Hi-Res" version of Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue" a listen. I won't re-hash how I feel about an album like this being labeled as "Hi-Res" but I at least expected it to sound the same as the CD version or for that matter the record itself (vinyl version). If you listen to the 5 track (non-Legacy) version in 24/96 within the first 10 seconds of "So What" you can hear that the piano notes on the left are terribly off. Impossible to miss if you are familiar with this track.The notes have a warbled tone. What the heck did they do to it? Horrible..So much for "Hi-Res"
  
  
  Finally, Tidal and MQA are two different entities. Tidal throws the MQA tracks in as an option at no additional cost. You get partial decode through software (Tidal or Roon) and full decode with an MQA capable DAC. You don't have to listen to MQA tracks if you feel they are somehow inferior, you will always have the Lossless CD Quality FLAC version with Tidal. At the moment I prefer Tidal's $20 mo. package vs Qobuz' $25 mo. package.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

You and I came to a different decision about Tidal. You decided to keep it, I decided to keep going with Spotify and their premium stuff. That's just the difference between two people. I enjoyed your post because you supported with good examples why you like Tidal and what value you find in the choice. You were specific, non-emotional, and your examples could be taken by another listener and experimented on. That's good stuff. I wish more posters here would follow that model or template.

In audio we have an expanding universe of choice. That means people will cluster up around popular choices and when asked about "why" many will become defensive, or worse, offensive in how they respond. You took the high road and provided a good set of examples of why you made your choice. I enjoyed your post.

 

[Doge]

Analog means it's a continuous signal, not sampled and ...

If you take advanced math classes, like Calculus....

You asked me to define analog media. You gave some examples.
I think the only current commercial media of any fidelity is vinyl. Is there other?

I am new to this Audioholic stuff, not at all new to technology. My post "signal where sample size limit is 0." was a layman Riemann sum / Integral statement. I spent a decade in that - magnetic fields - and many late nights with digital and analog signals. I do understand digital and analog thing, but not for audio - I am new at that. It is the listening part I want some help with. A few points can determine a perfect curve, so samples in the 96KHz range vs (listening to 32/352.8 kHz now) - I don't know if they are perceivable by anyone. Certainly not me. Converting to analog in the studio does nothing IMO, but I am asking other's opinion.
I can't tell the difference between this

or this

or this

(maybe)

If something is off-note you need more samples and for timing, you need samples that are beyond perception. We are all way beyond that. So I do not think anyone can pick up stuff in an analog recording beyond what is in a great digital recording - but noise, and feeling. Those are great things. They are emotional - and I buy that (tube amp). But I can't see anyway the reproduction is better with current technology.

This thread was first about a marketing move that I think was a mistake - they (MQA) lost me.
Second, it is about what sounds better:
-Studio DAC to analog media
OR
-Stored as digital media with a DAC at the time of listening.

As technology has changed, I think the latter is better. I wanted to see what folks thought of the marketing move - and if they heard anything.

 

[lovinthehd]

You asked me to define analog media. You gave some examples.
I think the only current commercial media of any fidelity is vinyl. Is there other?

I am new to this Audioholic stuff, not at all new to technology. My post "signal where sample size limit is 0." was a layman Riemann sum / Integral statement. I spent a decade in that - magnetic fields - and many late nights with digital and analog signals. I do understand digital and analog thing, but not for audio - I am new at that. It is the listening part I want some help with. A few points can determine a perfect curve, so samples in the 96KHz range vs (listening to 32/352.8 kHz now) - I don't know if they are perceivable by anyone. Certainly not me. Converting to analog in the studio does nothing IMO, but I am asking other's opinion.
I can't tell the difference between this
View attachment 28574
or this
View attachment 28575
or this
View attachment 28576 (maybe)

If something is off-note you need more samples and for timing, you need samples that are beyond perception. We are all way beyond that. So I do not think anyone can pick up stuff in an analog recording beyond what is in a great digital recording - but noise, and feeling. Those are great things. They are emotional - and I buy that (tube amp). But I can't see anyway the reproduction is better with current technology.

This thread was first about a marketing move that I think was a mistake - they (MQA) lost me.
Second, it is about what sounds better:
-Studio DAC to analog media
OR
-Stored as digital media with a DAC at the time of listening.

As technology has changed, I think the latter is better. I wanted to see what folks thought of the marketing move - and if they heard anything.

You didn't seem to understand how the MQA worked or was decoded in your original trial, tho. More your fault than theirs....altho it's a silly proprietary codec for the most part.

 

[Doge]

You didn't seem to understand how the MQA worked or was decoded in your original trial, tho. More your fault than theirs....altho it's a silly proprietary codec for the most part.

Sure I did. I'm missing where I gave that impression.

Edit Add: The marketing that suggested it mattered, I was not aware of. I still buy stuff I can't hear the difference in. But I understand how it go.

 

[lovinthehd]

Sure I did. I'm missing where I gave that impression.

Edit Add: The marketing that suggested it mattered, I was not aware of. I still buy stuff I can't hear the difference in. But I understand how it go.

Not an impression per se, you just weren't all that familiar with a major "feature" of the product you bought. Perhaps more my way of looking at it since the Tidal marketing was quite entwined with the whole MQA thing when I did my trial (with MQA one of the only reasons I bothered trying Tidal).

 

[highfigh]

You asked me to define analog media. You gave some examples.
I think the only current commercial media of any fidelity is vinyl. Is there other?

Magnetic tape still exists- the master for vinyl was always magnetic tape before digital came along and the fidelity of tape can be better than that of vinyl. Recording studios are using analog magnetic tape much more often, lately.

 

[JerryLove]

Analog means it's a continuous signal, not sampled and broken into little bits and/or encoded for assembly. Tape, LPs, broadcast radio etc are analog. It can be recorded and played back but there's no DAC or Analog to Digital conversion.

This actually reminds me of discussions of the word "theory" in that the literal meaning depends on the context.

Let's imagine a class watchface with hands. Is that "analog" or "digital"?

Technically: It's digital. The hands move in discrete and specific steps. If, for example, the second hand is in position 1 or 2 (at least between transitioning) as it has discreet positions rather than smooth sweeps.

Inside the watch may include analog components... though those analog values are converted to digital values regardless.

In short, digital has digits... specific values that can be expressed with numbers; analog can only be approximated with values.

My actual height is analog. You can, at least to the plank scale, get more and more precise and the number changes. Once you quantify my height (6'1"), it becomes digital.

The fact that digital has a specific value is why it can be re-transmitted and re-read and error checked in a way that analog cannot. No copy of analog will ever be exact, while every copy of digital will be exact.

Digital is like taking a message, cutting it into little pieces and adding some kind of mark to each as a way to make it possible to reassemble everything in the same order. Sure, there may be mistakes, but by inserting random letters and characters, the reader gets the message 'right', for all practical purposes. If enough letters and character are missing, it will say "I can't read that" and it may stop talking, but will continue after a short pause.

I would describe digital as the act of taking a measurement and writing it down.

If you take advanced math classes, like Calculus, your teacher(s) may tell you to 'integrate the area under the curve (usually a sine wave)- effectively, this is the way audio signals are sampled- it cuts the wave into little strips (at low frequencies) and determines the value, as a number. This would be voltage or whatever units they want to use.

That's not quite accurate.

Points along the sign wave are measured. They aren't strips, they are points. The bit-depth represents the height of the Y-axis and the sample rate represents how far apart the points are on the X axis.

The DAC uses these points to recreate a continuous analog wave.

 

[JerryLove]

Magnetic tape still exists- the master for vinyl was always magnetic tape before digital came along and the fidelity of tape can be better than that of vinyl. Recording studios are using analog magnetic tape much more often, lately.

All media is analog. Everything in the real world is analog (at least above a quantum level).

The question is whether the *information* is analog.

A shape drawn on paper is analog.
That shape may for an "A".
The information "A" is digital, even though the drawing itself is analog.

A CD has a pit or a land, a bit has a charge along a range. The difference is how we interprete it.

Let's say that a memory charge is along a slope from -1 to +1. It could be 0.82109384, or -0.1309182 (both approximate, as they are analog). A binary digital system would read this as a 0 or 1. The charge was analog but the understanding was digital.

 

[highfigh]

This actually reminds me of discussions of the word "theory" in that the literal meaning depends on the context.

Let's imagine a class watchface with hands. Is that "analog" or "digital"?

Technically: It's digital. The hands move in discrete and specific steps. If, for example, the second hand is in position 1 or 2 (at least between transitioning) as it has discreet positions rather than smooth sweeps.

Inside the watch may include analog components... though those analog values are converted to digital values regardless.

In short, digital has digits... specific values that can be expressed with numbers; analog can only be approximated with values.

My actual height is analog. You can, at least to the plank scale, get more and more precise and the number changes. Once you quantify my height (6'1"), it becomes digital.

The fact that digital has a specific value is why it can be re-transmitted and re-read and error checked in a way that analog cannot. No copy of analog will ever be exact, while every copy of digital will be exact.

I would describe digital as the act of taking a measurement and writing it down.

That's not quite accurate.

Points along the sign wave are measured. They aren't strips, they are points. The bit-depth represents the height of the Y-axis and the sample rate represents how far apart the points are on the X axis.

The DAC uses these points to recreate a continuous analog wave.

Google search has this definition of 'analog' and this is what is used in engineering, it's what they taught at the engineering school I attended and it's understood by people who don't come up with their own definitions-

Analog-
"relating to or using signals or information represented by a continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position, voltage, etc. ex. analog signals"

Digital-
"(of signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization."

Your example of a watch being digital- IFF the watch has a mechanism for using toothed gears to move continuously, it's analog, but if it has something that moves a gear using a toggling lever, you could say it's digital, but it doesn't use discrete values for every tiny increment or for the display.

Your height is only analog if measurement of it is continuous. If discrete measurements are done at regular intervals, it could be called 'digital', but the measurements aren't binary.

Go to 2:35 on the video-

 

[highfigh]

All media is analog. Everything in the real world is analog (at least above a quantum level).

The question is whether the *information* is analog.

A shape drawn on paper is analog.
That shape may for an "A".
The information "A" is digital, even though the drawing itself is analog.

A CD has a pit or a land, a bit has a charge along a range. The difference is how we interprete it.

Let's say that a memory charge is along a slope from -1 to +1. It could be 0.82109384, or -0.1309182 (both approximate, as they are analog). A binary digital system would read this as a 0 or 1. The charge was analog but the understanding was digital.

How is digital tape 'analog?

Sampled audio accounts for signal amplitude AND duration- points on a curve, do not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(signal_processing)

 

[JerryLove]

Google search has this definition of 'analog' and this is what is used in engineering, it's what they taught at the engineering school I attended and it's understood by people who don't come up with their own definitions-

In wagering, at the wagering school I attend (where we also learn about appeals to authority); we'd wager that you don't *actually* use the definition you are about to paste with 100% consistancy.

Do agricultural engineers do a lot with digitization of waveforms.

Analog-
"relating to or using signals or information represented by a continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position, voltage, etc. ex. analog signals"

Digital-
"(of signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization."

Then the display of a digital watch isn't digital because the digit "2" isn't digital (not being a 0 or 1).

Is a bit in physical computer memory (say SDRAM for argument's sake) digital.
I *can* represent it as a 0 or 1, but I can also represent it as a voltage.

Indeed: your definition leaves a great deal of things (like digital watch faces) that are neither analog (continuously variable) nor digital (0 or 1)

Your example of a watch being digital- IFF the watch has a mechanism for using toothed gears to move continuously, it's analog, but if it has something that moves a gear using a toggling lever, you could say it's digital, but it doesn't use discrete values for every tiny increment or for the display.

The spring, pendulum, or oscillation sensor makes discreet movements of the gear.

You can "count" them... thus they are discrete.

But they aren't "0 and 1", so by the definition you used, almost nothing is digital.