Announcements

Having trouble seeing your Wrapped stories? To fix this, update the Spotify app to the latest version.

Find more info on our community FAQ.

SPOTIFY in MQA format ( Meridian Audio Format )

Solved!

SPOTIFY in MQA format ( Meridian Audio Format )

I am wondering whether Spotify is considering adding the MQA file as a streaming option? MQA can pack up the information from a lossless 24-bit 192kHz PCM file into the sort of space you’d need for a ‘lowly’ 16-bit 44.1KHz stream. That’s CD-quality, and takes up around 1-1.5mbps per channel, within reach of a good 3G connection, and a cinch for a reasonable 4G one. In hi-res competitor format, DSD is 306MB while the MQA file is just 40MB. This compares with 73MB for the 24-bit/96kHz FLAC file and 142MB for the 24-bit/192kHz version

Reply

Accepted Solutions
Marked as solution

They've got to do something. 320 kb is getting pretty tired. I haven't been a fan of other Hi-rez formats. I'm just not hearing a difference (and I've bought recordings in multiple  formats for testing purposes). I WANT to hear a diffence. It just aint there (for me). MQA seems like it could be the grail. Anyway, I'd pony up a couple more bucks a month for better sound.

View solution in original post

16 Replies
Marked as solution

They've got to do something. 320 kb is getting pretty tired. I haven't been a fan of other Hi-rez formats. I'm just not hearing a difference (and I've bought recordings in multiple  formats for testing purposes). I WANT to hear a diffence. It just aint there (for me). MQA seems like it could be the grail. Anyway, I'd pony up a couple more bucks a month for better sound.

Ultra HD is scam ... grab audio of newly released albums that are recorded in HD and compare byte to byte ...

I agree, Spotify is great service but something has to be done about sound quality!

I don't care what technology is used as long as audio quality improves.

They better do something quick because Tidal and other are taking on massive quantity of new customers due to better sound...PERIOD!

Do it our loose it.........

 

A listener that wishes to remain...SPOTIFY

Well, no. MQA is commercial format, you will pay from using it. And it is also a lossy format. Would you pay from using good mp3-like stream which is not lossless like flac? Many high-end manufacturers have realised this problem and are abandoning MQA.

Only interested in higher quality sound...period!

Does not matter the format or technology.

If it sounds better do it or loose it.

 

Again, wish to remain....Spotify.

Some of us can tell the difference with high resolution music and it does fix some major issues with digital filters and brick-wall filters.  Just because you don't appreciate it does not mean it does not exist or is a scam.

That is a misleading statement - it is not lossy in the traditional sense.

Also, no music is truly lossless - what about mastering?  That changes the sound too.


@Andriza wrote:

Some of us can tell the difference with high resolution music and it does fix some major issues with digital filters and brick-wall filters.  Just because you don't appreciate it does not mean it does not exist or is a scam.


That is the claim made by audiophile proponents, but digital filters haven't been an issue for decades: https://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/01/audiophile-myth-260-detestable-digital.html

Many high-end manufacturers have realised this problem and are abandoning MQA.

Like who?

Well, that's his opinion...

This might be of interest

https://www.audiostream.com/content/abx-tests-prove-hi-res-audio-legit

And here is a site with test options for different formats.

https://www.soundliaison.com/all-categories/6-compare-formats

If you have a good DAC and a decent system, I think you should be able to hear the difference.  For me, as an analogue person, I find the sound less fatiguing, less 'digital', with some high-res material.  Of course, there are numerous factors that go in to this, in particular the mastering, but I do feel it is worth it and the MQA folding technology, in particular, is really useful here.

That's certainly relevant if anyone wants to listen to recordings of jingling keys.

 

Besides, you're posting a third-hand account of what happened, but I was actually following along when it happened. First of all, Amir is doing a very dishonest thing here:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?15255-Conclusive-quot-Proof-quot-that-higher-resolution...

 

Notice how he did 13 comparisons in the first test, but only 7 in the last one? Notice how close the timestamps are? He simply selected randomly through a large number of tests, until he got a 100% success rate, and then posted the log, claiming his amazing hearing as the key. In fact he probably did dozens and dozens of runs, exploiting pure random chance to get a result that looked nice.

 

Secondly, as several people (including Arny Krueger, who came up with the jingling keys sample) showed how you could ace the test easily, by noticing defects in the software used, a tell-tale sign of switching between the two files, in other words simple cheating.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1532092-debate-thread-scott-s-hi-res-audio-...

 

Even if the difference is actually audible, jingling keys is an utterly pathological test case, which doesn't transfer to actual music.

 

As I've said before in other threads and discussions, what you're hearing (improved quality) is not due to hi-res audio formats, but rather due to better mastering, because there is more care taken with releases targeted at audiophiles.

 

All the MQA folding does is fold ultrasonic content into lower bits, leading to a higher noise level when played on a non-MQA DAC. The fully MQA-decoded audio is equivalent to roughly 18-bit 96kHz audio (with lossy ultrasonics). Ironically, FLAC files in non-MQA 18-bit 96kHz audio take up less space than the MQA files, so it really is an utterly pointless and counterproductive format.

 

The downloadable files you linked to are interesting, but 1) you don't know if any different processing was performed, nor which sample rate converter settings they used, 2) your playback hardware may be non-optimal at the higher sample rates, leading to audible distortion, which can be perceived as "analog", and 3) the files are clearly labeled, which introduces bias. You need to properly blind test, for the comparison to have any value.

I have been using MQA for a while though I've let my Tidal subscription expire. There hasn't been a title encoded in MQA that sounded worse than the red book CD version of the same title. SACDs and other formats on the other hand have been virtually indistinguishable from the MQA version. In rare cases, the SACD version was better. This has been a totally unscientific assessment of about 100 titles, however. Nevertheless, I am convinced the SQ from Spotify would be vastly improved if MQA formats were streamed.

Agreed. Sadly, the geniuses at Spotify appear to disagree. But they were never interested in music really.

I'm so glad that well-read, well-listened folk here also realise that MQA is a huge step backwards for everybody in all aspects of quality audio listening.

 

We should already just cement Opus and FLAC formats as de facto free and superior formats.

Suggested posts