Is MQA lossless?

The internet seems to be divided into people that like MQA and those that don’t while probably the silent majority couldn’t care less. One item that is discussed a lot is whether MQA is a lossless codec or not. Let’s take a closer look.

Links:

[johneaton]

Thanks for this MQA update Hans. I think your explanation that no format is truly lossless is right on!

I’m old, 64 next month and a lifelong audiophile. In the 80’s when CD’s arrived and were touted as “perfect sound forever”, I wanted to love digital audio, but found CD’s to be harsh, thin and cold sounding, the opposite of warm, lush and engaging. I found myself not listening to a whole CD.

Over time CD audio improved some, better players, better A/D converters I suspect, but 16/44 CD quality Digital audio never provided me the engaging experience of analog.

Then SACD, and DVD-audio arrived. Big improvement for me. Hi-res discs we much more satisfying than CD’s. I jumped in with both feet. I loved the 5.1 surround capability and purchased as many surround DVD-audio and SACD discs as I could afford. Then, they were pretty much gone.

Next up was HDTracks with Hi-res downloads. I was intrigued enough to buy a Meridian Director DAC and purchased a few HDTrack albums. Hmmm… I liked what I heard. Much more analog like than CD for me. However, purchasing HDTracks albums gets expensive quickly.

Finally along comes, MQA, Tidal, and Roon. I think the concept of being able to stream thousands of Hi-res quality albums for only a $20 monthly Tidal subscription is a wonderful thing. Now I own a Mytek Brooklyn (MQA capable) DAC. My Hi-res audio library has gone from hundreds to thousands. There are now nearly 10, 000 MQA titles available with many more coming.

So yes, I am a fan of MQA. I think it is a wonderful technology. I can provide no charts or graphs to prove anything. Only my ears tell me I very much like/prefer listening to MQA encoded digital music.

[Currawong]

A good point made about the argument that high-frequency, inaudible frequencies from instruments affect the audible sounds, is that this will have already have happened by the time the sound hits the microphone. As for MQA, the reason people are "hateful" towards the company, is that they have repeatedly lied about their product and how it works. Even skipping the fact that they advertised it as lossless when they first announced it, NO MQA music has high-res content beyond 96k, making so-called higher-res MQA to be fake. As well, now it has been revealed that Universal lost a significant number of master recordings in a fire 10 years ago, any MQA from them very likely doesn't come from the "original master". Regardless, any benefits of their ADC/DAC synchronised filtering can be realised without their lossy format.

[travis]

I might be more interested in mqa if it were an open system with open source codecs. Dsd and high resolution pcm are already better than human ears can discern, and flac does a great job at lossless compression. Id be happier if the industry were focusing on multichannel audio, (which humans can discern) rather than on more proprietary formats.

[TheMirolab]

While I can agree with the technical benefits of MQA, in practical use (using Tidal) I have found that most popular music that's been remastered recently has been made so loud and compressed (dynamically) that the sound quality is more compromised by the mastering than the benefits of MQA give to us. On many album titles, I have found that an OLDER master of CD quality sounds better and more dynamic than a new remaster encoded & decoded with MQA. I've heard some audiophile and classical titles that sound stunning using MQA, but that is not the music that I listen to.

[anuryry]

You are such a knowledgeable person, learning alot visiting your channel. You earned yourself a new patreon from Australia :)
Thanks Hans

[gregwilliams]

You argue that it doesn't matter whether or not MQA is lossless because no file format, analogue or digital, is lossless. This is 'bold' as it is at odds with most people's understanding of what lossless means - in the digital domain, at least. Part of the definition of a lossless digital file format is that you can translate the original file into the new file format and back again and the result will be bit perfect with the original file. Can we confirm this with MQA? Your stance seems to be that this doesn't matter because you and people whose ears you trust are confident the MQA version in most cases "sounds better" than the original file and people can always listen themselves and make up their own minds. Fair enough, but the empiricists in the community will not have your level of faith in their (or your) ears or the marketing spin and they will, with good cause, argue that MQA is a black box that is mysteriously post-mastering/EQing the original file without informed consent from the original artist.

[fokkenossom]

So, basically MQA is an added distortion to the original PCM file, intending to make the decoded sound "better" for some people on some music tracks played thru some DACs. Thus technically it is just an audio effect.

[MAXLAND]

In my opinion, the problem of MQA is not about quality (even if there are things not clear) but about the additionnal cost for customer that is useless when listening to HI-Res. It's like using a fridge with a door code and have to pay the fridge and the code to open the door. I prefer using a fridge without that useless stuff. It's make the job.

[BrianClem]

Oh wow. I just heard you say you like your mqa over your dsd. That blows me away. I thought I have found sonic gold with my dsd and my new dac. Amazing to know there is competing formats. Thanks for the explanation. Love your channel.

[calaf_]

Thank you this is a great video, even though there will always be people that will have closed ears no matter what. I pulled the trigger and got Tidal a couple of days ago, taking advantage of the Bluos module my NAD C388 has and so far i like what i hear. I tried some MQA albums too and they indeed sound amazing. I was blown away last night by "Vallon Sonore" aria from Les Troyens, so they must be doing something right. Keep up the good work, most viewers appreciate what you do, haters will hate.

That been said, i hear that they charge an arm and a leg for the right to use their technology and that is what makes many manufacturers not support it for now, but i am not an expert on what is really happening in the industry behind closed doors.

[wojciechczupta]

what I don't understand is why Tidal couldn't do the full unfold of MQA, feeding any DAC with full resolved HD signal? Why the need to change DAC?

[ruudstet]

Hello Hans. A reaction on an older video with a question on a new technology. I have enjoyed mqa through Tidal for several years and hope it returns through lenbrook.
But a week ago I heard a demo at magna hifi in Heiloo of the c wave technology that has really peaked my interest. It sounded very nice indeed. At the moment it's only available in silicon through the Maria amplifier of daniel hertz, so I understood. . It seems It can be put in a software (dsp?) algorithm as well.
Could this be a new algorithm that brings enhanced pleasure in hifi? And will It be torpedoed like mqa?
First question: a reverb that's added to complete the sinewave for our hearing system? Could you shed some Light somewhere in the future?

[juanmillaruelo]

I heard something that struck me as odd. You said that you preferred a MQA file to a good (or indeed, *perfectly* mastered 24/96 file. In an ideal situation they should sound alike (or at least similar, given the heavy reliance on psychoacoustics in MQA)

How can a well crafted 24/96 file sound WORSE than an MQA? I'm not being a purist. I will risk saying that they may sound alike (to people not trained to notice the difference, since there are a few tell tale artifacts - that do not hurt the listening experience in a significant way)

But to sound BETTER? WHY better? Perhaps artificially so, if the 24/96 file is an honest one.

You rely heavily on science and are one of the small handful of truly knowledgeable people in the medium. Could you please explain your assertion in technical terms?

[Mr_Wh]

We need some real data. What come in vs what come out.

[ruells]

This is puzzling me quite a bit. I have seen the MASTER audio files that come off Tidal. They are a flac. One comparison I made with the hi-fi version of the same song was about 10kbps higher. Both registered as 44khz and both sound the same when playing on PC via hdmi to 2015 Onkyo Atmos AV amp and £1k speakers. Is this sounding right? Does extra equipment change something with the 10kbps of extra data? Normally I'm a sucker for a gadget, but on this I'm loathed to by extra stuff for no difference.

[jaraxel]

I came across your video, and thank you for your detailed and neutral opinion.

[chrissimmonds]

Thank you Hans, for the best information on Digital Audio on YouTube. I have decided to try MQA and have purchased (not arrived yet!) the Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 and have subscribed to Tidal's HiFi service. I'm hoping for good listening experiences. I trust your reviews more than anyone else, thanks a lot.

[dinosaur]

He seems angry, but I can understand why. People have hinted that MQA is giving money to him.

[kirlu]

I am enthusiastic about Mqa. But do Tidal really use Master recordings to make Mqa tracks? I think they do - but most likely only in a small percentage of the tracks they have mqa versions of.

[monochromios]

The best MQA explanation I’ve ever heard. “Sapere aude” is a great advice and I thank you for all the informations you share