https://hackaday.com/2021/04/21/mythbusting-tidals-mqa-format-how-does-it-measure-up/ Skip to content Logo Hackaday Primary Menu * Home * Blog * Hackaday.io * Tindie * Hackaday Prize * Submit * About * Search for: [ ] [Search] April 22, 2021 Mythbusting Tidal's MQA Format - How Does It Measure Up? 65 Comments * by: Lewin Day April 21, 2021 * * [i_publishe] MQA is an audio format that claims to use a unique "origami" algorithm, promising better quality and more musicality than other formats. At times, it's been claimed to be a lossless format in so many words, and lauded by the streaming services that use it as the ultimate format for high-fidelity music. With the format being closed source and encoders not publicly available, these claims are hard to test. However, [GoldenSound] wasn't born yesterday, and set out to test MQA by hook or by crook. The results were concerning. (Video, embedded below.) To actually put the format through its paces, the only easy way available was to publish music to the Tidal streaming service, which uses the format. [GoldenSound] went this route, attempting to get some test files published. This hit a brick wall when the publishing company reported that the MQA software "would not encode the files". The workaround? [GoldenSound] simply cut some audio test content into the middle of an acoustic track and resubmitted the files, where they were accepted without further complaint. Testing with the content pulled from Tidal, [GoldenSound] found concerning evidence that the claims made around MQA don't stack up. Significant amounts of added noise are often found in the MQA-processed files, and files served from Tidal are clearly not lossless. Additionally, MQA's "blue light" authentication system, designed to guarantee to listeners that they're listening to a identical-to-studio release, is demonstrated to be misleading at best, if not entirely fake. Upon writing to MQA to get a response to his findings, [GoldenSound] 's test files were quickly stripped from Tidal. The company eventually disputed some of the findings, which is discussed in the video. The general upshot is that without open, transparent tools being made publicly available to analyse the format's performance, it's impossible to verify the company's claims. We've had fun looking at audio formats before, from the history of MP3 to musing on digital audio at truly ridiculous sample rates. [Thanks to Chris for the tip!] * [share_face] * [share_twit] * [share_in] * [share_mail] Posted in digital audio hacksTagged audio, audio format, audio formats, compressed audio, digital audio, flac, lossless, mqa, tidal Post navigation - Easy USB-C Power For All Your Devices ISO 8601: Ending The Date Wars And Confusing Everyone Equally - 65 thoughts on "Mythbusting Tidal's MQA Format - How Does It Measure Up?" 1. Antron Argaiv says: April 21, 2021 at 4:51 am Audio encoding seems to be a lot like cryptography in the respect that every so often, someone comes on to the scene, touting a "breakthrough technology" that's orders of magnitude better than the current standard...and then, someone takes the time to do some analysis, and demonstrates that some of the claims made by the newcomer are...optimistic. Very much worth watching and the evidence shown is persuasive. Report comment Reply 1. Ostracus says: April 21, 2021 at 5:52 am "Breakthrough" will be when we find out the psychoacoustic model used no longer applies. Report comment Reply 1. Jonathan says: April 21, 2021 at 12:22 pm It was never universally applicable to start with. For most people it worked well enough for casual listening and anyone who claimed to be able to hear a difference was labelled a 'Purist' and/or other far less polite things... Report comment Reply 2. Pat says: April 21, 2021 at 6:43 am Audio stuff at the digital level always baffles me because, um... it's kindof a pathetically low information rate - which is a point made in that video. 24-bit, 192k sampling is just... tiny. I mean, c'mon, we shuffle data vastly larger than that all the time, and I can buy chips that can transfer that data point to point on the crappiest cable ever with no effort. Even time transfer point to point (jitter) is essentially a solved problem at that level. The difficult part of audio is *all* analog. It makes *zero* sense to try to save space/bandwidth after you've gone through all the work to actually get something with 140+ dB dynamic range. Report comment Reply 1. Antron Argaiv says: April 21, 2021 at 7:02 am It's the compression thing...which is not unlike cryptographic systems (though the goal is different). There's a lot of prestige to be gained by building a better compression scheme. What people often forget, is that compression is only half of the problem, decompression needs to restore the information with minimal distortion. Look up "Sloot Coding System" for a humorous tale of a "breakthrough compression technology" Report comment Reply 1. Pat says: April 21, 2021 at 9:06 am Sure, but the hilarious thing about this is that if I'm an audiophile equipment manufacturer or a recording studio I *wouldn't ever want* a lossy compression scheme (which obviously is what a system where there's any compression/decompression distortion is) because you'd never be able to show that it's actually *better*. There aren't any fancy pointless tests you can do, for instance, to justify higher-end, expensive equipment. I mean, if I'm trying to sell people stuff I'd start with a container that contains full multichannel studio recordings + mixing/selection information in some cryptographic container plus some dedicated ASIC /FPGA "reconstruction processor" outputting to DACs. Yeah, the end result would be exactly the same, but *there* would be justification for some magic "blue light." Plus now your filesize is like, 20 times larger and you can charge more for it or something. Report comment Reply 1. abjq says: April 21, 2021 at 2:04 pm Going back to the audio domain, it begs the question as to why any audiophile would put up with the decompression 'algorithm' applied to vinyl recordings. I am of course referring to the RIAA equaliser. What that does to group delay is anyone's guess! Report comment 2. Laurens says: April 21, 2021 at 10:42 am Yep. With multiple terabyte-size HDDs now being standard, there is no reason anymore to save anything in a lower quality. 24 bit, 192k, flac'd. Sometimes i downsample to 16/44/flac, for on my phone or whatever where i still have tens of gigabytes of space. Maybe it's different for streaming, but if i care so much about good quality i just download the thing. Report comment Reply 1. Ostracus says: April 21, 2021 at 11:24 am "Maybe it's different for streaming, but if i care so much about good quality i just download the thing." ISP caps. Report comment Reply 1. Jonathan says: April 21, 2021 at 12:31 pm That's a common misconception. There's very little difference in the amount of data transferred between streaming and downloading audio which uses the same encoding method and quality settings, e.g. bitrate. Report comment 2. PPJ says: April 21, 2021 at 2:12 pm The reason is well... reason. Even if we assume there are people who can hear difference between 44,1/16 and 192/24 that requires really high quality equpiment plus well prepared environment. Our home audio and mobile phones are nowhere near to that. Waste of space and money. Report comment Reply 1. Chris says: April 22, 2021 at 4:29 am I have a modest system by audiophile standards and hear and feel a huge difference between 16/44 And 24/192. 16/44 can sound great, but 24/192 can be phenomenal Report comment 2. Pat says: April 22, 2021 at 9:42 am Nope. No way. If all you do is just *play* the audio, sure. Fine. But it's similar to the reason why you need better color resolution than RGB888 gives you in games, even though it's essentially fine for photos: when you try to algorithmically screw with stuff, you get obvious color banding. Similarly, if you *manipulate* that audio, say, rebalance it, alter it, mix it with other things, a higher-fidelity master would clearly be audible. I mean, the obvious example would be just (digitally) turning up the volume on an extremely faint portion of a recording, possibly to compensate for changes in one's hearing over the years. Report comment 3. Darryl says: April 21, 2021 at 10:22 am The evidence shown is flawed,ask goldenone himself, what he should do is go back and correct his mistakes,P.S. don't believe everything you read on the internet. Report comment Reply 1. sjm4306 says: April 21, 2021 at 6:49 pm How so, pls provide evidence of how it's flawed otherwise do you seriously expect others to take you, a stranger online, at your word alone (especially after ironically telling others to not believe what they read online). And when I say evidence I mean measurements, calculations, data that contradicts what you are claiming is false, not just hand waving, angry diatribes and emotional arguments. Report comment Reply 2. Neville Carter says: April 22, 2021 at 4:44 am I am reading what you have wrote! Report comment Reply 3. GoldenOne says: April 22, 2021 at 11:22 am No I did not say that it was flawed. I said that it would be insufficient to answer all questions/potential situations. MQA is a lossy codec. The point of the video was to prove that. The MQA encoder would NOT have fallen over in the way it did had it been lossless. The point is that MQA (and Tidal) are advertising either lossless or "better than lossless" content, and that is NOT what the user is getting. It is false advertising. How good/bad MQA is as a lossy codec isn't really the point, because I wouldn't want to have to use a lossy codec anyway, and seeing a lossy codec advertised as a lossless one is pretty bad. Report comment Reply 4. Mike Curtis says: April 21, 2021 at 11:02 am If you read MQA response they pretty much show the tester doesn't know what hecis doing. And if you google his name he is on multiple sites ranting about MQA. The problem with his analysis is what we care about is the sound. Charts don't tell you about the sound. And MQA sounds good to me. Sorry but this article is crap. Report comment Reply 1. sjm4306 says: April 21, 2021 at 1:17 pm So in a nutshell, discredit someone based on personal preference and smearing their name as opposed to looking at their data and charts which are inherently unbiased (much more so than a corporate entity who financially gains from spreading false info). But no, let's crap on someone who provides actual data to instead be swayed by bias and emotion. If all you look for in music is that it sounds good then by all means good on you, but for them to make unsubstantiated marketing claims that can be dis-proven and attempt to stifle any attempt to do so is not just dubious, it's actually illegal. Sorry but your opinion (and it is an opinion without any evidence beyond vaguely saying some stranger online doesn't know what they are doing, as sort of "pretty much" "proven" by a questionable entity and that an article is crap) is simply crap. Report comment Reply 1. Dan says: April 21, 2021 at 11:41 pm " If all you look for in music is that it sounds good then by all means good on you" What on Earth else are you looking for in your music?! If it sounds good, listen to it. If it doesn't, don't; perhaps it's over-compressed, or perhaps it was just rap music to begin with. Either way, who's going to listen to it if it doesn't sound good other than a pretentious audiophile? Report comment Reply 1. sjm4306 says: April 22, 2021 at 3:10 am As a user that's all that matters, that it sounds good to them. But as a company making marketing claims, they are held to the truth of their claims or they should be fined for false advertising. And any attempt to hide or prevent verification is unacceptable. Report comment 2. NickW says: April 22, 2021 at 10:19 am I want my music in a lossless format for archival purposes. If I want to put a lot of music on a portable player without a lot of space, I can compress it as ogg at q5 or q6, and get around 5x as much music into the same space as I can with flac. Then if I want to play it on my friend's player in his car that only works with mp3, I have a lossless source, and I can encode it for that. If I'm listening at home with my good quality headphones, I can hear it as clearly as possible, by listening to the original lossless material. a good quality ogg or mp3 file will generally sound good enough most of the time, but it is objectively, and subjectively worse than lossless, and something that has been transcoded from one lossless format to another is almost always obvious on any reasonably decent headphones. (decent, not necessarily expensive) I often hear tracks on spotify with obvious weird distortions, which 9 times out of 10, aren't present when I listen to the CD, or flac file I have at home. high bit depths and sampling rates, OTOH, are a total red herring. I doubt anyone could tell the difference between a properly mastered 44/16 lossless file, and a 192/24 of the same material. (double blind ABX between 192/24, and same file properly resampled to 44/16) There may be many cases where the "high def" versions are re-mastered with better levels, less dynamic compression/distortion, etc. But in these cases, when it "sounds better" it sounds better because of the better mastering, and not the higher resolution. The extra sampling rate/bit depth does nothing but waste space. Report comment 3. NickW says: April 22, 2021 at 10:20 am Ugh, no edit button. I meant to say transcoded from one "lossy" format to another, not lossless. Report comment 2. Yeshua Watson says: April 22, 2021 at 1:17 am I have to say after over a decade of being on this site, I've never seen this degree of hand waving for a product. "Not a hack," par for the course. "He's wrong because I said so," very rare. That crap may work over at Reddit or the YouTube comments but here, show your work. You're dealing with people that with timers, transistors, capacitors, and free time can reproduce the ADC/DAC needed to record and play back high quality sound with plywood or anything else from the low bandwidth analog world. Are there flaws in his work? Only from a sample size for the audio and hardware, but that doesn't invalidate his findings. It's not like comparing two waveforms is mathematically difficult and he's not comparing some low/high pass filters, it's a straight input vs output from the magical black box. Show some respect. Report comment Reply 3. e says: April 22, 2021 at 2:53 am I think I found the same guy commenting here ( https:// hackaday.com/Anno1543/De-revolutionibus-orbium-coelestium ): "If you read the Vatican response, they pretty much show Copernicus doesn't know what he is doing... the problem with his analysis is what we care about is subjective perception. Science-y maths, equations and charts, don't tell you about subjective perception. And it is obvious to me that the sun goes around the Earth. Copernicus' article is crap." Report comment Reply 2. Alice Lalita Heald says: April 21, 2021 at 4:58 am Pied Piper anyone? Report comment Reply 1. Tito Figueiredo says: April 21, 2021 at 6:31 am that weissman score Report comment Reply 3. mac012345 says: April 21, 2021 at 5:08 am They can't beat I2BP in the b*sh*t department, and that was two decades ago! Report comment Reply 1. chaosbc says: April 21, 2021 at 6:55 am I have read this bullshit company story. Man this is too funny, they should make a movie about it (and stream it at 2kb/sec of course :D) Report comment Reply 1. JC says: April 21, 2021 at 7:13 pm Hahahahah Report comment Reply 2. Matt Cramer says: April 21, 2021 at 7:17 am My favorite audiophile nonsense was a device that was intended to play four identical ordinary CDs at the same time, apparently because you'd only lose 1/4 as much audio signal that way. Not sure what I2BP is though - any more info on that one? Report comment Reply 1. mac012345 says: April 21, 2021 at 9:34 am It was a scam from a phony startup in the begining of y2k in France, sorry no link in english, only french. Basically a codec ala divx with 16kbps... Report comment Reply 2. chaosbc says: April 22, 2021 at 12:14 am original text is in french but google translate is our friend...I had a good laugh reading this : https:// translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https:// transfert.net/Le-fabuleux-destin-d-i2bp-1-4 Report comment Reply 4. Earl Colby Pottinger says: April 21, 2021 at 5:38 am The fact they rejected the original test files, and then delete the later test files tells all I need about how honest their claims are. If they had problem with the tests, they could have kept the summit-ed files and post what they thought was wrong in the tests, instead they try to hide the fact the tests even exist. Report comment Reply 5. Pio says: April 21, 2021 at 5:39 am Anyone up for a 64 bit Audio DAC? https://www.akm.com/jp/en/products/audio/audio-dac/ak4191eq/ supply voltage of 5 V, so we resolve 2.7 E-19, ie 0.27 attovolt! lulz or 32 bit ADCs https://www.akm.com/jp/en/products/audio/audio-adc/ https://www.akm.com/jp/en/products/audio/audio-dac/ Report comment Reply 1. SomebodyAnybody says: April 21, 2021 at 10:01 am The AK4191 is a digital modulator meant to interface to a separate ADC. The 64bits refers to internal digital filtering signal path and not the bit depth of the ADC. Report comment Reply 1. CW says: April 21, 2021 at 2:34 pm The AKM factory also burned down, so you won't be buying that in quantity anytime soon. They make great DACs and it is a shame. Research ESS hump. There is now one main player in the market with design problems built in. AKM was the better choice. Report comment Reply 6. prutser says: April 21, 2021 at 5:43 am MQA has been the the reason for me to cancel my Tidal subscribtion after many years. After a bit of looking around on the internet, it seems I am not the only one. It is a premium price for lossless, while actually it isn't lossle Without 'MQA equipment' you definitely get less than standard CD quality, since they "mis"use some of the bits for MQA 'noise' . Report comment Reply 1. Ren says: April 21, 2021 at 10:22 am "while actually it isn't lossle" What an excellent example! (slow clap) Report comment Reply 2. EM says: April 21, 2021 at 11:25 am I agree with you 100%. I am about ready to cancel my tidal as well. Between the lies about MQA compatibility and the never ending lies about atmos native content, I feel like I've been paying for years waiting for the payoff that's been promised and it just never comes. There's questionable sound quality, horribly questionable support for true multi channel atmos and what hardware will support it, and seemingly no end in sight. It makes me want to sue over the years of paying for a service that has yet to deliver on all the things promised in the bill of sale. Report comment Reply 7. Fred W says: April 21, 2021 at 6:12 am I came here for the mythbusting, all I got was a link to someone else's mythbusting work. Report comment Reply 1. Shannon says: April 21, 2021 at 10:59 am You came here for the mythbusting, and got some mythbusting. It's difficult to have strong emotions about this one. Report comment Reply 2. John says: April 21, 2021 at 1:47 pm This is mostly a news aggregation site, no? I don't see the problem. If you want new and original content, maybe you could make some and submit it to the tip line. Just don't post it anywhere else or people like you will complain. Report comment Reply 8. Col. Panek says: April 21, 2021 at 6:35 am You didn't use unidirectional OFHC AC power cables?! Test invalid! Report comment Reply 1. JohnU says: April 22, 2021 at 1:14 am Also it's important to listen inside a 99.9999% oxygen-free booth. Report comment Reply 9. Essa says: April 21, 2021 at 7:03 am Thank you for objective view on MQA, it is a bit of black box and you do get the feeling that the quality is better. My observation is some are better than others, but again i think it comes back to if the original is from a master studio. I would like to get your recommendation on which one is better out of the streaming services, or maybe one should wait for Spotify HIFI to come out. From a hardware i got the KEF LS50 Wireless 2 and the sound quality on these are amazing. Yet i want to match it with some service which is high quality. Its shame the Tidal does not provide more information about MQA and equally force MQA to be more transparent. Thanx Report comment Reply 1. e says: April 21, 2021 at 7:56 am I think audio CDs are most cost effectively streamed to the listener by postal services. Couriers are often more expensive, but may not be as lossy. A pair of wires, combined with a CD player, is likely to be less lossy than anything streaming to a KEF LS50 Wireless 2 and can be plugged into the Aux jack on the back of the speaker. You'll also get decent dynamic range. Report comment Reply 1. lj says: April 22, 2021 at 1:52 am > You'll also get decent dynamic range. ... provided you can find a CD with a mix that has some dynamic range left in. Report comment Reply 10. DainBramage says: April 21, 2021 at 7:07 am And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the difference between the marketing wank spilled forth from the chronically lying mouths of any major company's marketing department and real life. Report comment Reply 11. kc8rwr says: April 21, 2021 at 8:35 am Testing? Objective, reproducible measurements? Waste of time! That's going about it all wrong. No format will be truly audiophile quality until someone makes a vacuum tube based computer fast enough to encode/decode it! Report comment Reply 12. jwcrawley says: April 21, 2021 at 8:36 am This really isn't that hard to prove... Well, its quite trivial really. The moment audiophiles give up trusting their ears, they can start using algorithmic methods to prove lossy/lossless codecs. [Here is a Gnuradio flow](https://imgur.com/a/DMLR3ey) comparing the same song, one that is "high rate MP3" and the next is "64KB mp3" And if you don't want to download and set up Gnuradio, here's a [Peertube video] https://videos.trom.tf/videos/watch/ 457b99a5-e3ee-4cf7-951c-e250b6840724 of me showing how to do it. The expectation for a lossless encoding would be NO outputted data, since their waveforms would have annihilated each other. Any deviations are emitted as waveflow. And if you listen to it acoustically, is effectively white noise (expected with XOR). Note that even tiny deviations would show the codec is lossy - as in data is being thrown away. We don't care the quantity or quality - a non-zero number of deviations is enough to show us their claim is blatantly false. Report comment Reply 13. Christie says: April 21, 2021 at 8:43 am If they had any confidence in their encoder, they would proudly display those test files! Report comment Reply 14. CW says: April 21, 2021 at 8:47 am Anyone really interested in this should check out the well-written blog, Archimago Musings. He took on MQA and the audio industry and won. Report comment Reply 15. Frederick Law says: April 21, 2021 at 9:39 am Back in the day, I used oscilloscope to compare output from CD, MiniDisc and mp3. mp3 is crap below 8MB with high got cut off. Anyone with half a brain will hear the different. MD is pretty close to CD with some smoothing. Report comment Reply 1. Elliot Williams says: April 21, 2021 at 1:32 pm MD (or whatever AAC it was) was surprisingly good. MP3s of that era were audibly crappy b/c of low bitrate. (Cymbals are a dead giveaway, if anyone puts you in a low-bitrate MP3 listening test.) But at 192k, they're not so bad either, really. I store all my audio in FLAC. It's really hard to beat bit-for-bit identical with the source, and 30% compression. Report comment Reply 2. rnjacobs says: April 21, 2021 at 8:12 pm ATRAC1 was pretty lackluster, but by the end of the MD's effective life upgrades in the decoders made it sound pretty good. All of the ATRAC codecs were designed for RAM and CPU efficiency while being better quality per bitrate than ADPCM Report comment Reply 16. Gregg Eshelman says: April 21, 2021 at 10:04 am At least it's not like that old image file compression scam that "compressed" images to incredibly tiny sizes, while shuffling most of the data off to a hidden file. Report comment Reply 17. Leonard says: April 21, 2021 at 10:28 am When you suffer from a slight form of tinnitus anyway, fuck it. For me, digital audio is engineered to an end. It is a tiny amount of data. done. it is good. no loss, great. Don't start about it again. thanks. Great tho someone actually tries to debunk false claims. Report comment Reply 1. Wilko says: April 21, 2021 at 10:59 am And combine tinnitus with a total loss of everything above 4 kHz and even AM radio is fine. Report comment Reply 18. MrSVCD says: April 21, 2021 at 12:47 pm Wasn't MQA made for CDs? Report comment Reply 19. echodelta says: April 21, 2021 at 12:54 pm One tends to forget the degrading number and type of processes done in studios and by publishers. What are we really listening to? Report comment Reply 1. CW says: April 21, 2021 at 2:37 pm Exactly. Most people have no idea about M-S mastering (Hackaday great article idea BTW) or compression or Eqing. Mastering engineers are solely there to make it sound good and sometimes that means ADDing harmonics or distortion. Report comment Reply 20. Jonathan Wilson says: April 22, 2021 at 1:51 am Are there any software-only decoders for this MQA thing or do you need a hardware decoder even on a Windows PC? Maybe someone just needs to do what has been done to many other proprietary media formats over the years and reverse engineer the thing... Report comment Reply Leave a Reply Cancel reply Please be kind and respectful to help make the comments section excellent. (Comment Policy) This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Search Search for: [ ] [Search] Never miss a hack Follow on facebook Follow on twitter Follow on youtube Follow on rss Contact us Subscribe [ ] [ ] [Subscribe] If you missed it * [08ng6bchgx] The Fascinating World Of Fasciation 24 Comments * [Date_thumb] ISO 8601: Ending The Date Wars And Confusing Everyone Equally 159 Comments * [Aerodynami] A Look At The Most Aerodynamic Cars Ever Built 69 Comments * [MartianHel] The Wright Stuff: First Powered Flight On Mars Is A Success 55 Comments * [SpacePropu] Space Propulsion: Separating Fact From Science Fiction 96 Comments More from this category Our Columns * [pinecube_h] Hands-On With PineCube: An Open IP Camera Begging For Better Kernel Support 6 Comments * [ortur600] Hacking An Air Assist For The Ortur Laser 10 Comments * [solidstae-] BMW Pushing Hard For Solid-State Battery Tech; Plans Demo By 2025 25 Comments * [3D-Printer] What To Expect From 3D Scanning, And How To Work With It 17 Comments * [uri-shaked] AVR Reverse Engineering Hack Chat 9 Comments More from this category Search Search for: [ ] [Search] Never miss a hack Follow on facebook Follow on twitter Follow on youtube Follow on rss Contact us Subscribe [ ] [ ] [Subscribe] If you missed it * [08ng6bchgx] The Fascinating World Of Fasciation 24 Comments * [Date_thumb] ISO 8601: Ending The Date Wars And Confusing Everyone Equally 159 Comments * [Aerodynami] A Look At The Most Aerodynamic Cars Ever Built 69 Comments * [MartianHel] The Wright Stuff: First Powered Flight On Mars Is A Success 55 Comments * [SpacePropu] Space Propulsion: Separating Fact From Science Fiction 96 Comments More from this category Categories Categories[Select Category ] Our Columns * [pinecube_h] Hands-On With PineCube: An Open IP Camera Begging For Better Kernel Support 6 Comments * [ortur600] Hacking An Air Assist For The Ortur Laser 10 Comments * [solidstae-] BMW Pushing Hard For Solid-State Battery Tech; Plans Demo By 2025 25 Comments * [3D-Printer] What To Expect From 3D Scanning, And How To Work With It 17 Comments * [uri-shaked] AVR Reverse Engineering Hack Chat 9 Comments More from this category Recent comments * Gregg Eshelman on PiCorder: Raspberry Pi Stands In For Stone Knives And Bearskins * Gregg Eshelman on Faux Stained Glass Effect, With 3D Printing And Epoxy * Eric on Battery Analyzer Puts Alkaline Cells To The Test * TeeZee on Turn On Your Lights With A Wave Of A Magic Wand * on Build Your Own Bluetooth Notification Ticker * ROB on Woofer-Based Parts Cleaner Bounces To The Beat * Simon on LibreVNA Is A Quality Open Hardware Vector Network Analyser * on The Fascinating World Of Fasciation * D00med on Woofer-Based Parts Cleaner Bounces To The Beat * Bob A. on The Fascinating World Of Fasciation Now on Hackaday.io * Evgeniy An has updated the project titled Impossible, perfect auto-moto suspension. * Evgeniy An has updated details to Impossible, perfect auto-moto suspension. * nagup has added a new log for USB volume knob. * setCREATE has added a new project titled 3D Print Time lapses Without Octoprint. * setCREATE has updated components for the hackerspace titled 404. * nagup wrote a comment on Smart glasses: Notifications and heart-rate. * setCREATE wrote a reply on MC60HB. * land-boards.com liked PERSEUS-8 homemade 6502 computer. * nagup has added a new log for HUD That Shows You Notifications. * kutluhan_aktar has updated the project titled Twitter Follower Tracker and Status Notifier. Logo * Home * Blog * Hackaday.io * Tindie * Hackaday Prize * Video * Submit A Tip * About * Contact Us Never miss a hack Follow on facebook Follow on twitter Follow on youtube Follow on rss Contact us Subscribe to Newsletter [ ] [ ] [Subscribe] Copyright (c) 2021 | Hackaday, Hack A Day, and the Skull and Wrenches Logo are Trademarks of Hackaday.com | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service Powered by WordPress VIP [impression] [close] By using our website and services, you expressly agree to the placement of our performance, functionality and advertising cookies. Learn more OK