3 ms·

ALAC and FLAC are technically very similar formats [1]. Both are bit-perfect. Compare with MQA which is utter garbage and has absolutely zero to do with losless

ALAC and FLAC are technically very similar formats [1]. Both are bit-perfect. Compare with MQA which is utter garbage and has absolutely zero to do with losless. MQA is actually, objectively worse than 16 bit audio CDs. An abject failure backed by an aggressively anti-science company backed up by a bunch of lawyers. [1] Both encode a PCM stream using linear prediction while storing the difference between the predictor's output and the actual samples. This allows recreating the samples with zero error when decompressing. It's functionally equivalent to .wav.gz.

ivraatiems 5y ago
Yeah, I've heard similar about MQA. To be honest though, what's the science behind any of these formats in terms of listening experience? Clearly there are differences in the data and how much of the original content is represented. But have there been any studies on whether people can actually tell any difference? I've come across some quizzes online, etc., and those mostly suggest I can sometimes tell, but even when I can, it's not obvious and it doesn't really impact my experience. Would be curious whether anyone has studied this more fully.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
throw_nbvc1234 5y ago
Just to add to this comment, the video breakdowns I've watched on MQA are interesting listens even as someone who doesn't use Tidal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRjsu9-Vznc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRjsu9-Vznc -- Critque of MQA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwZ5hDzQ5Jg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwZ5hDzQ5Jg -- in defense of MQA At the end of the day, people should listen to what they think sounds good (is this an opinion?). If a placebo makes someone enjoy something more, is it really a placebo? If someone can't tell the difference between low quality recordings and high quality recordings, why should they go through the trouble of sourcing the high quality stuff. It's so easy to lose track of the subjective nature of audio in all of the objective details.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  That's not really the point here - if someone says "I like how this sounds with (MQA artifacts | tube distortions | +20 dB bass)", that's perfectly fine and not something many if any people would argue with.
  - ivraatiems 5y ago
    That's fine, but it's not fine to claim MQA is lossless or represents the original lossless file.
vr46 5y ago
Very interesting and completely new to me, I had no idea Tidal wasn’t the equivalent of lossless.

ivraatiems 5y ago

Yeah, I've heard similar about MQA. To be honest though, what's the science behind any of these formats in terms of listening experience? Clearly there are differences in the data and how much of the original content is represented. But have there been any studies on whether people can actually tell any difference? I've come across some quizzes online, etc., and those mostly suggest I can sometimes tell, but even when I can, it's not obvious and it doesn't really impact my experience. Would be curious whether anyone has studied this more fully.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

throw_nbvc1234 5y ago

Just to add to this comment, the video breakdowns I've watched on MQA are interesting listens even as someone who doesn't use Tidal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRjsu9-Vznc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRjsu9-Vznc -- Critque of MQA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwZ5hDzQ5Jg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwZ5hDzQ5Jg -- in defense of MQA At the end of the day, people should listen to what they think sounds good (is this an opinion?). If a placebo makes someone enjoy something more, is it really a placebo? If someone can't tell the difference between low quality recordings and high quality recordings, why should they go through the trouble of sourcing the high quality stuff. It's so easy to lose track of the subjective nature of audio in all of the objective details.

formerly_proven 5y ago
That's not really the point here - if someone says "I like how this sounds with (MQA artifacts | tube distortions | +20 dB bass)", that's perfectly fine and not something many if any people would argue with.
- ivraatiems 5y ago
  That's fine, but it's not fine to claim MQA is lossless or represents the original lossless file.

vr46 5y ago

Very interesting and completely new to me, I had no idea Tidal wasn’t the equivalent of lossless.