The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
MQA discussion at Denver RMAF
Old 1 week ago
  #61
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by audio_truth View Post
Hello David,

Thanks for showing up in this thread. Brian Lucey has requested additional information, both pro and con, on the MQA process. Perhaps you will have some input for him, presumably on the pro-side as you feature MQA capabilities on your website. However it should be noted that your website repeats misleading and/or false claims made by MQA:

1) "Now, along comes MQA (Master Quality Authenticated), a means of delivering high-resolution audio that overcomes a major obstacle: MQA files are only a little larger than CD-quality wavs, and thus are easy to stream reliably."

This is an apples (WAV) to oranges (FLAC) comparison, as MQA files are roughly double the size of CD-quality FLAC (which is currently used by the lossless streaming services). Therefore MQA requires twice the bandwidth (and file storage size) as CD-quality streaming files.

2) "MQA files can be decoded to high resolution, up to 384k/32 Bit"

This is simply not true. The maximum resolution of an MQA file is roughly equivalent to 17 bits (it varies through the audio band due to their noise-shaping dither used to reduce the bit depth). Furthermore test have shown that there is no such thing as a "double fold" (for quad-rate source material) or a "triple fold" (for octal-rate source material). Instead all audio data above 48kHz (Nyquist of double-rate) is simply discarded. What MQA refers to as "encapsulation" of audio data above 48kHz is in reality just aliases of the audio data below 48kH allowed through their "leaky" filters.

An accurate statement would be that "MQA files can be decoded to high resolution, up to 96k/17 bit". Please note that the loss of resolution from 24 bits to 17 bits is audible in at least some cases. A good example is the famous "whisper" overdub Jim Morrison recorded for the track "Riders on the Storm". This is quite easily heard on the 96/24 remaster made by producer/engineer Bruce Botnick about 10 years ago for The Doors box set and available from HD Tracks. However it is much more difficult to hear once the MQA processing has been applied. Try it and see for yourself.

3) Finally nobody should be blamed for attempting to increase the amount of business they are doing. If you have heard MQA and like what it does, and feel there is a market for it, it only makes sense to add that capability to your facility. It would appear from reading your website that you have added two things (presumably in addition to training):

a) A Mytek Brooklyn DAC
b) The MQA Pro emulator software, whereby you can hear what sonic changes [B][I]might[B][I] be introduced by MQA processing (which cannot actually be performed at your facility)

Since you cannot charge for MQA encoding that must be implemented elsewhere (currently by MQA themselves, and perhaps some day by the 3 major record labels), one wonders what is in it for Airshow from a financial standpoint. How much extra does it cost the client to receive MQA processing? Does Airshow receive any financial incentives from MQA for referring a project to have MQA processing added? How much did Airshow pay for the MQA emulator software and Mytek Brooklyn DAC? Were the prices paid available to any mastering studio? If so, will those prices be "forever" or are they special introductory prices?

Again, I am not trying to be a hard-ass. Times are tough for everybody (in almost every business besides Wall Street ). The bottom line is a value exchange - an artist or producer wants to have the very best mastering they can to deliver the very best product to the public they can. The mastering studio earns their money by offering both expertise and specialized equipment that simply is not available elsewhere. Yet if some of that equipment and training is being subsidized by MQA in a quest to gain market share for MQA, how is that any different from the infamous payola scandals of AM radio in the '50s?

Thanks for your participation,
audio_truth

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
Seems a bit rude ... especially as you said earlier in the thread you don't care about MQA

Any one post, from anyone, is full of ideas. Credibility, or being "anybody" is something that gives weight to certain ideas for some readers. Yet an idea or argument NEED NOT be from a source you or others feel is credible to be valid on the merits.


-----

So Glasser I want to be sure I hear you right ...

You're saying that with the PM M2, a recording at 192/24 knocked down to 24 48 MQA is better on the DA than simply recording at 48/24?

This was dynamic / natural / spacious music or dense modern pop music with compression, distortions, limiting, etc.
Yes, most definitely. Decoded MQA vs original 192/24 master. Material was dynamic rock, sourced from analog tape mixes. It's easy to get hung up on the clever sample rate "origami", but the temporal deblurring is, i think, a very important innovation.

It's also easy enough to toggle MQA decoding on/off on the Mytek (and I assume other DACs as well). Comparing decoded MQA with the raw Tidal stream on a range of material, the results range from barely noticeable, to a nice improvement (to me, at least).
Old 1 week ago
  #62
Not sure if it has been posted before, but here's an extremely deep analysis of the process:

https://www.xivero.com/blog/hypothes...y-mqa-limited/


this is also where I quoted the following plots from (in the other MQA thread):


A typical, "proper" Sinc Nyquist filter (note the equal scales):



Input:



Surprise, here's the output:




Lucey, a major point in my opinion would first be "where exactly is the problem with established technology?".
Old 1 week ago
  #63
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by glassmaster View Post
1) Your reply has many errors, and makes some false assumptions. For one, MQA files ARE roughly the same size as single speed PCM; in fact it's possible to deliver MQA on an audio CD, and I think several boutique labels have done so.

2) MQA encoding is not necessarily a simple just-push-play operation, and that's the reason for studios, particularly mastering studios, to be involved in the process.

3) The places for doing MQA encoding will obviously grow. There is a whole universe of music our there not affiliated with the 3 major labels and the smaller ones which have endorsed and adopted MQA for streaming. I think it's safe to assume that MQA is aware of this.

4) I can't comment on MQA's business, and I certainly won't comment on mine either, but I will definitely say that there is no money or other quid-pro-quo involved here. (Though at times I've wished otherwise.) I paid list price for the Mytek DAC. So knock off the "payola" innuendos and nonsense.

5) And I have done A/B comparisons of some of my 192-24 masters with the same music streaming as MQA over Tidal, through the same DAC. If I didn't like the results, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Hello Dave,

Again, thank you very much for engaging. For convenience I have numbered your points:

1) No, MQA files are not "roughly the same size as single-speed PCM - unless you don't bother to use FLAC on the original PCM WAV file. In that case it is true - 1411kb/s versus roughly 1500kb/s. But as soon as you use FLAC on the original single-speed PCM, then it will shrink to a typical value of 800 - 900kb/s. (The actual FLAC compression achieved varies on many factors and varies dynamically as the file is played. I've seen some very simple files - eg, guitar and vocal - run below 600kb/s, and other complex - metal, "hard" jazz, and orchestral run over 1000kb/s -at least sometimes. As I said earlier, MQA's example is an apples to oranges comparison and doesn't bear repetition.)

As far as delivery of MQA on a CD, then the resolution is reduced to at most 13 bits. This is clearly seen in the block diagram taken from MQA's patent shown here:

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/app...855-is-mqa-doa

It makes me really wonder why people were excited about HDCD which claimed 20 bits of resolution but typically only delivered 17 (and in very rare circumstances could deliver 17.4 bits). Are we really happy as an industry to revert to 13 bits of resolution for physical discs, chained to DRM, and only capable of replaying the top octave (still with only 13 bits of resolution) by using licensed and royalty-paid hardware?

2) You are absolutely correct that MQA encoding cannot be automated for best results. Which creates a problem for the labels. Currently MQA has converted all existing titles with an annual output of a few thousand. I would imagine that some of these received more "hands-on" attention from the MQA team than others.

Currently mastering houses such as Airshow can help with this but still cannot perform the final conversion - apparently because adding the DRM requires expensive equipment, and/or top-secret ("if I tell you I will have to kill you") clearance. My understanding is that it is based on the CSS (Content Scrambling System) used for DVD, and you may remember how the launch of DVD-Audio was delayed by nearly a full year because some Norwegian teenagers hacked the key from a less-than-perfect software DVD player manufacturer. Once they broke it, they were able to generate many hundreds or thousands of keys, so the key from the particular manufacturer that "leaked" it could not simply be revoked.

One story that I have heard was that when a consumer journalist was sent a group of MQA files that he performed some blind listening tests. His results were basically chance (less than 10 trials) and he did the worst on the one that allegedly had received the most "attention" from Bob Stuart himself. Not a very reassuring result from a "format" that has been described in print as "far better than any previous format -analog or digital".

3) I'm not sure that I agree that independents have been eager to sign up. The most recent announcement was that the French streaming service Deezer (popular in Europe for streaming CD-quality music) announced that they would join Tidal in streaming MQA-processed titles. But it turns out that the company that owns Deezer also owns roughly 50% of Warners - hardly a disinterested party.

4) I am very glad to hear that, as I have heard far too many stories (certainly none specifically of Airshow) about "programs" set up by MQA for me to just automatically dismiss them all. That is why I truly appreciate your participation on this thread.

5) And this is as it should be. There will never be a universally accepted opinion on the sound of anything - hardware, software, mixes, music - everybody has their own tastes.

When I did my listening test to true-high res (mostly 96/24 files) and the MQA versions, I could always hear small differences. Nothing that made me jump for joy either way. So hats off to MQA for making a lossy compression scheme that is less audibly damaging than MP3.

However, the deal killer for me was listening to The Doors' track "Riders on the Storm". On the original 96/24 version created by original producer/engineer Bruce Botnick for the anniversary box set some years back, one can very easily hear the infamous "whisper" overdub Jim Morrison did on the lead vocal. (The very last thing recorded before he died.) On the MQA version, it was extremely difficult to make out this at all, let alone as a distinct element in the mix.

I attribute this to the loss of 7 bits of resolution and was left wondering, "If I am missing this information on an MQA-processed file, what other information am I missing." I just don't see the need for another lossy format that sacrifices sound quality for file size, especially they way MQA is handling it. Marketing mumbo-jumbo, unfair comparisons (public and private), royalties and licensing at every step of the playback chain and truly scary patent applications for extremely restrictive DRM that can easily be invoked in the future. Compare for example with what Sonos are doing with their system:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...hardware.shtml

If it really sounds so much better, why not simply sell it on its own merits? YMM(and obviously does)V.

Thanks,
audio_truth
Old 1 week ago
  #64
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by glassmaster View Post
Yes, most definitely. Decoded MQA vs original 192/24 master. Material was dynamic rock, sourced from analog tape mixes. It's easy to get hung up on the clever sample rate "origami", but the temporal deblurring is, i think, a very important innovation.

It's also easy enough to toggle MQA decoding on/off on the Mytek (and I assume other DACs as well). Comparing decoded MQA with the raw Tidal stream on a range of material, the results range from barely noticeable, to a nice improvement (to me, at least).
Hello Dave,

This is a great way for MQA to mislead potential customers. The Mytek Brooklyn uses an ESS DAC chip with several different built-in digital filters. Most of them interpolate the incoming data by 8x before being presented to the modulator where an additional 64x interpolation is performed.

However the ESS "slow-rolloff" filter only interpolates by a factor of 4x before presentation to the 64x interpolation filter. Se even listening to two built-in filters in the ESS DAC chip is not even a true "apples-to-apples" comparison.

Then when MQA is thrown into the mix, completely different digital filters are used altogether. Apparently Mytek uses an XMOS chip to perform DSP and the built-in filters in the ESS DAC chip are bypassed. So what you are really saying is "I prefer the sound of the MQA digital filters to those built into the ESS DAC chip".

That is not a surprising result, as I know for a fact that ESS does not design their digital filters based on any type of listening tests (nor does any other DAC chip maker). Instead they will include features requested by their largest customers (eg, 1 million + chips annually).

Is it possible that MQA has designed a digital filter that can make a high-res file sound "better" than the original - despite the loss of 7 bits of resolution? Apparently so.

But that is precisely why there are at least a dozen manufacturers of digital audio hardware that also design their own custom digital filters - they believe they can create something that is better than the standard one thrown in "for free" with the DAC chip.

One of the huge problems with MQA is that (to the extent that it is successful) it will also stifle any further innovations in digital filters. If you believe that Bob Stuart has designed the "best sounding" digital filter in the universe that will never, ever be surpassed by any other digital engineers, then this might be viewed as a "good thing". It certainly is an easy way for digital audio manufacturers who have no idea how to design their own digital filters not only a potential improvement in sound quality (of which they would otherwise be incapable) but also a new "must-have" feature to stimulate sales of all of their old products by adding a 3rd-party "upgrade".

Regards,
audio_truth

Last edited by audio_truth; 1 week ago at 06:28 AM.. Reason: Error - Omitted "does not" in describing the filters used in DAC chips
Old 1 week ago
  #65
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
Lucey, a major point in my opinion would first be "where exactly is the problem with established technology?".
Hello Fabien,

That's a perfectly fair question. My answer would be that to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever demonstrated that inserting two "brickwall" 22kHz LPFs in series (whether in the analog domain or the digital domain) is absolutely transparent to the source.

And not to beat a dead horse, but to the best of my knowledge it's never been demonstrated that double-blind AB/X testing is sensitive to any parameters other than measurable frequency response. Certainly none of the "audiophile" terms such as "soundstaging", "inner detail", "coherency" or many dozens of others.

But perhaps even more importantly I have no knowledge of any studies that shows that double-blind AB/X testing is sensitive to "musical" terms, such as "the players are really locked-in on this track", or "I've never heard such a performance that kept me on the edge of my seat like that", or dozens of other examples.

Everyone will have their own opinions on this, obviously. I know myself that I listened for many, many years to more and more resolving systems before I could hear any difference whatsoever in things that have (at very best) almost ludicrous "hand-waving" explanations.

Some have tried to devise measurements that do correlate with audible properties - perhaps most famously back in the 1980s when Walt Jung and John Curl demonstrated a correlation between the dielectric absorption of a film capacitor and its perceived audio quality. I've tried for decades to find something similar - unfortunately without success. Yet each year my ears become more finely tuned (much as I imagine is the case with the skills of a musician who continues to practice for a lifetime) and I continue to hear differences in blind and double-blind tests that I simply cannot explain with our current understanding of the human ear-brain hearing mechanism.

I don't intend to divert this thread from its original purpose, so will not engage further in this tangent - except to point out that (for instance) nearly 20 years after it was developed that the Pacific Microsonics Model One and Model Two A/D converters are considered by many to "sound better" than most competitor's designs - even when the HDCD features are turned off. I know of no measurements or AB/X listening tests that would explain this preference, yet it is one with which I largely agree.

Cheers,
audio_truth
Old 1 week ago
  #66
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
As said previously I was approached to support MQA on the West Coast a while back along side BL the Elder on the East. I listened and considered the ramifications, and passed.
Hi Brian,

Are you at liberty to reveal what was "offered" in exchange for your "support" on the West Coast?

Thanks,
audio_truth
Old 1 week ago
  #67
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio_truth View Post
Hi Brian,

Are you at liberty to reveal what was "offered" in exchange for your "support" on the West Coast?

Thanks,
audio_truth
Oh no, nothing in the way of cash. It was simply a conversation that lead to some listening, which lead to a lot of conversations with Mychal, Michael at BAD and others. I will say that two people from MQA have asked to meet with me, and both disappeared from the email convo on my acceptance.
-----

I'm taken especially by these two points you made.

1. Is this obviously is the best filter ever made? That can and should never be bettered? Shut down the science and innovation, Nirvana is here?! That seems ridiculous and easy to oblige.

2. All the back catalogs needs TLC, not generic settings. Do the labels care to spend/do this? No. So we are moving further from the source, not closer, given my tests. Better to use evolving tech, that is both convenient and future proof.
Old 1 week ago
  #68
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by audio_truth View Post
Hello Fabien,

That's a perfectly fair question. My answer would be that to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever demonstrated that inserting two "brickwall" 22kHz LPFs in series (whether in the analog domain or the digital domain) is absolutely transparent to the source.

And not to beat a dead horse, but to the best of my knowledge it's never been demonstrated that double-blind AB/X testing is sensitive to any parameters other than measurable frequency response. Certainly none of the "audiophile" terms such as "soundstaging", "inner detail", "coherency" or many dozens of others.

But perhaps even more importantly I have no knowledge of any studies that shows that double-blind AB/X testing is sensitive to "musical" terms, such as "the players are really locked-in on this track", or "I've never heard such a performance that kept me on the edge of my seat like that", or dozens of other examples.

Everyone will have their own opinions on this, obviously. I know myself that I listened for many, many years to more and more resolving systems before I could hear any difference whatsoever in things that have (at very best) almost ludicrous "hand-waving" explanations.

Some have tried to devise measurements that do correlate with audible properties - perhaps most famously back in the 1980s when Walt Jung and John Curl demonstrated a correlation between the dielectric absorption of a film capacitor and its perceived audio quality. I've tried for decades to find something similar - unfortunately without success. Yet each year my ears become more finely tuned (much as I imagine is the case with the skills of a musician who continues to practice for a lifetime) and I continue to hear differences in blind and double-blind tests that I simply cannot explain with our current understanding of the human ear-brain hearing mechanism.

I don't intend to divert this thread from its original purpose, so will not engage further in this tangent - except to point out that (for instance) nearly 20 years after it was developed that the Pacific Microsonics Model One and Model Two A/D converters are considered by many to "sound better" than most competitor's designs - even when the HDCD features are turned off. I know of no measurements or AB/X listening tests that would explain this preference, yet it is one with which I largely agree.

Cheers,
audio_truth
Hello,

If the listening process is between ears and auditions brain's areas, there are no reasons to fail an abx on any sound domain.

If the psychology has (and i think is a major part) an influence, where is the sound?
Old 1 week ago
  #69
Lives for gear
 
Analogue Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
And (again) taking this back to psychology: the source is WAV, this is the most true source, why would a lossy filter (we can argue marketing semantics) be an improvement? > data is lost and tone is altered. Regardles if perception is that it sounds better, the file is touched..
Old 1 week ago
  #70
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
Seems a bit rude ... especially as you said earlier in the thread you don't care about MQA

Any one post, from anyone, is full of ideas. Credibility, or being "anybody" is something that gives weight to certain ideas for some readers. Yet an idea or argument NEED NOT be from a source you or others feel is credible to be valid on the merits.


-----

So Glasser I want to be sure I hear you right ...

You're saying that with the PM M2, a recording at 192/24 knocked down to 24 48 MQA is better on the DA than simply recording at 48/24?

This was dynamic / natural / spacious music or dense modern pop music with compression, distortions, limiting, etc.
No, certainly not rude at all. I have asked for the same thing in the Remote Forum when a brand new person comes in with mouth blazing and writes posts that are filled with inaccuracies.

You, yourself, Lucey have been very dismissive and "so -called rude" to many here who you feel were not up to your standard of stringent listening. That kind of listening that would obviously cause them to relegate MQA to the "marketeering dept."

I write outrageously that I want to know if the person "is anybody?" But what I really mean is what is their background in pro audio?--hoping of course that the person has nothing to do with high end hi-fi!
Old 1 week ago
  #71
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Analogue Mastering View Post
And (again) taking this back to psychology: the source is WAV, this is the most true source, why would a lossy filter (we can argue marketing semantics) be an improvement? > data is lost and tone is altered. Regardles if perception is that it sounds better, the file is touched..
Hello AM,

I agree completely. The source file is the source file is the source file. It should be considered as a reference of some sort, and not to be arbitrarily altered. While it is true that for many decades (beginning with Mobile Fidelity LPs, primarily), there have been "remastered" recordings available. This has extended into the digital era as well.

The assumption is that there have been improvements in the equipment (eg, for LP - cutter heads, phono cartridges with improved tracking capabilities, improved vinyl formulations with lower noise, and for digital largely "better sounding" A/D converters than the original Sony units that were ubiquitous, including the Pacific Microsonics units and more recently the Plangent that can correct for speed errors in the original analog tape).

Even so there is not universal opinion that the remaster is "better" than the original. And of course, any change to the playback chain from what was originally used during the mastering, from the electronics to the loudspeakers to the listening room, means that there is no way to ensure that what the customer hears is what the artist/engineer intended. Nevertheless the system has worked remarkably well since the invention of "high-fidelity" in the 1950s.

It is pretty rare that there is wide disagreement on the sound quality of almost any release. When you go to almost any trade show (particularly ones aimed at audiophiles), at each one it is common to hear the same 2 dozen "well recorded" albums, played to death in a hundred different rooms.

Here is the kicker for MQA - the playback filters in the DAC itself (the "renderer") have already been reverse engineered. There are 32 possible ones, although the second group of 16 merely duplicates the first group of 16. The impulse responses are shown here:

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/f...comment-690307

and the corresponding frequency responses are shown here:

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/f...comment-690606

There is also some additional digital filtering applied when the PCM file is processed to become the MQA version. But here is the rub - it does not matter where in the chain the two digital filters are applied, the net impulse and frequency response will simply be the convolution of the two filters used.

Unless MQA are "cheating" by using different masters for their source files (known to be true in many instances), or by applying conventional mastering tools such as EQ, compression, reverb, and so forth, the only sonic differences between the source and the MQA files are due to the digital filters.

Therefore it stands to reason that the exact same sonic effects (good or bad) could easily be achieved by including the filters in the DAC - possibly making them be user selectable. Then there is no need to tamper with the original master source file (the "refernce"). As the people at MQA are smart enough to realize this, it becomes difficult to escape the likelihood that the sole reasons for MQA's existence is simply to make money for MQA and to sneak in DRM for the labels (under the guise of "better sound").

Best regards,
audio_truth
Old 1 week ago
  #72
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
No, certainly not rude at all. I have asked for the same thing in the Remote Forum when a brand new person comes in with mouth blazing and writes posts that are filled with inaccuracies.
Helllo Plush,

My main background is as a hardware design engineer, both analog and digital. I've been doing this for over 30 years. If you feel that any of my posts have contained any inaccurate statements, please feel free to point them out and I will be glad to discuss them with you. Nobody is perfect or infallible and if I have made errors I will be glad to correct and/or retract them.

Best,
audio_truth
Old 1 week ago
  #73
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Audiotruth,

Best to fill out your GS profile and state there your real name and your background.

The mistake you are making here on GS is treating the mastering forum as if it were just another hi-fi discussion board or a board like computer audiophile. The difference is that this community of practitioners really DOES know the difference between the master and any subsequent versions.

You and the public have no reference to compare these versions because you do not have access to the master.

The posters here are sound scientists whose specialty is artistic refinement of the master.

YOu must move from your design focus into the artistic arena governed by experience and informed taste.
Old 1 week ago
  #74
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Audiotruth,

Best to fill out your GS profile and state there your real name and your background.

The mistake you are making here on GS is treating the mastering forum as if it were just another hi-fi discussion board or a board like computer audiophile. The difference is that this community of practitioners really DOES know the difference between the master and any subsequent versions.

You and the public have no reference to compare these versions because you do not have access to the master.

The posters here are sound scientists whose specialty is artistic refinement of the master.

YOu must move from your design focus into the artistic arena governed by experience and informed taste.
Hello Plush,

Thanks for your perspective. It is true that I am not a mastering engineer by profession, although I have designed equipment for many different mastering studios and have had many chances to hear master tapes and (less frequently) be present during the mastering process.

Brian Lucey asked for information regarding MQA, hence my participation in this thread. If he feels that my input is unwanted, I have zero desire to inundate him with useless technical information. If he asks me to leave or says he has enough, I will gladly do other things with my time.

I feel what I have to offer here is both a greater technical understanding of what MQA actually does to the original source file, and how those technical changes will translate into sound quality. Again, if you think that anything I have posted is misleading or inaccurate, please let me know and we can discuss.

I will not fill out the details of my background on my GS member profile, as (for the time being) I need to maintain my anonymity regarding MQA. Thanks for your understanding.

Regards,
audio_truth

PS - the only reason I selected that user name is not because I believe that I am the only person in the world who knows "the truth" about anything (even audio), but simply because from the very beginning MQA has used deception, misinformation, and clever manipulations to promote their product. In cases where I know for a fact this is so, I will make every attempt to correct MQA's misleading marketing-based puffery (as I did when Dave Glasser at Airshow repeated MQA's false claim that MQA can "be decoded up to 384kHz, 32 bits" on his website.).
Old 1 week ago
  #75
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Analogue Mastering View Post
And (again) taking this back to psychology: the source is WAV, this is the most true source, why would a lossy filter (we can argue marketing semantics) be an improvement? > data is lost and tone is altered. Regardles if perception is that it sounds better, the file is touched..
The source is the music in the braln of a listener.

We are not a mic.
Old 1 week ago
  #76
Lives for gear
 
Analogue Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinococcus View Post
The source is the music in the braln of a listener.

We are not a mic.
No, that's the taste aproach, the source is the original recording.
Once MQA RECORDING becomes a standard just like DSD then there is diversity
But as long as every route to digital follows WAV and MQA is a rehashed wav it means it's merely a pimped MP3

At this moment in time there is no MQA without WAV.... no matter how they try to market it.

imho, MQA Is nothing more than the "hi-res" reincarnation of MP3 with a well hidden DRM trojan as bonus.
Old 1 week ago
  #77
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
No, audio truth, I will not engage in discussion with you.

You may indeed choose to remain anonymous here but will suffer the indignity of having your posts put on deep discount by making that choice.

The way to send a message to Meridian and to MQA is to not support the commercial roll-out.
Old 1 week ago
  #78
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Analogue Mastering View Post
No, that's the taste aproach, the source is the original recording.
Once MQA RECORDING becomes a standard just like DSD then there is diversity
But as long as every route to digital follows WAV and MQA is a rehashed wav it means it's merely a pimped MP3

At this moment in time there is no MQA without WAV.... no matter how they try to market it.

imho, MQA Is nothing more than the "hi-res" reincarnation of MP3 with a well hidden DRM trojan as bonus.
I'm a customer.I don't know the original sound.
How i do?

I agree with the parallel mqa mp3.
Old 1 week ago
  #79
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
No, certainly not rude at all. I have asked for the same thing in the Remote Forum when a brand new person comes in with mouth blazing and writes posts that are filled with inaccuracies.

You, yourself, Lucey have been very dismissive and "so -called rude" to many here who you feel were not up to your standard of stringent listening. That kind of listening that would obviously cause them to relegate MQA to the "marketeering dept."

I write outrageously that I want to know if the person "is anybody?" But what I really mean is what is their background in pro audio?--hoping of course that the person has nothing to do with high end hi-fi!
Where are the "inaccuracies" exactly that prompt your issue?

His points are clear and stand on their merits. If you are not satisfied that's your right. I am satisfied by the innate logic I read.
Old 1 week ago
  #80
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinococcus View Post
The source is the music in the braln of a listener.
The document is the legal, and practical source.

Each brain and room hears the source uniquely.
Old 1 week ago
  #81
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Verified Member
FYI on the upcoming RMAF show in Denver ... Mike Jbara of MQA has just pulled out on hearing of all the pros on the panel who had serious questions for him.

Spencer Crislu of MQA contacted me by email a couple months ago asking to come here and visit. I said yes, and gave times based on what he said that worked for him. I then made my concerns about MQA clear in an email to prep him for the meeting and save us both time. He disappeared without a reply. A month later I checked in with him.

"Apologies for the no-show. My schedule got completely overwhelmed and I neglected to keep you in the loop. I’d still like to come by and talk when I’m next in town. Especially since you are one of our Beta testers, it would be great to take you through the plug-in and the various options available. The next LA trip is not yet booked but I will let you know when I have some firm dates."

No show? It was a no email. How many emails a day do we all reply to? 50+ ? more???



Coincidence or pattern here? You decide.
Old 1 week ago
  #82
Gear Addict
Audio_truth may or may not have an (financial) agenda. However, he has come off polite and brings the issues with facts. If he's stated anything wrong, simply refute it step-by-step.

Another audio designer on another forum said that we should already be capable of streaming 24 bit lossless. In a few years, there should be zero reason as to why we cannot stream 24 bit lossless masters. So what will be the point of MQA then? This feels like going in a backward direction. We should be pushing for improving the recording process within the lossless domain. To deal with lossy and proprietary MQA now makes little sense. Even Apple has started supporting FLAC based on yesterday's announcement.
Old 1 week ago
  #83
Lives for gear
 
Analogue Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Old 1 week ago
  #84
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Verified Member
Audio_truth is not making money with his opinions, unlike most people who are pro MQA. His need for anonymity is about keeping his job.

Just argue the points, and skip the cred posturing game.

Posturing and game playing for stature is how people like Mr. Stuart get traction, because a who's who of corporations makes it look credible to the masses. It's about control and profit folks, if it was better, this would be an easy sell.

We all want better audio. We don't want to pay corporate overlords who kill innovation and competition with oligarchy.
Old 1 week ago
  #85
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Not posturing for credibility nor anything else about your trojan horse, Lucey. Not asking for papers. I simply think it is polite to state one's connection to the recording business.

It's as if he was conjured to expand your OWN arguments against MQA.

I'm certainly not against debunking MQA as I also see it as unnecessary.
Old 1 week ago
  #86
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Verified Member
RMAF has cancelled the MQA Panel.

This was to be Sat 12noon in prime time with Richard Schram owner of Parasound moderating. MQA rep Mike Jbara bailed first on his desire to talk with me ahead of the panel, then RMAF cancelled the panel. Coincidence or pattern? You decide. I would bet my savings they were pressured to do so by Jbara or Stuart in the face of a serious panel with serious questions.

This is perhaps how Mr. Stuart works. If he doesn't have the upper hand (like paying a magazine reviewer to go to Munich and "review" MQA ... or if speaking to an audiophile crowd that is easy to wow) he bails out. It's hard to con legit people with "deblurring" and the rest of it. Especially when we can hear the source files.

Mytek Michal was to be on the panel with many other folks of interest and credibility.

David Glasser did you have a hand in this also? Or was it decided above your station as an endorser?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Not posturing for credibility nor anything else about your trojan horse, Lucey. Not asking for papers. I simply think it is polite to state one's connection to the recording business.

It's as if he was conjured to expand your OWN arguments against MQA.

I'm certainly not against debunking MQA as I also see it as unnecessary.
Careful not to project a pattern of events from imagination. Don't know the man, never met him until this forum, same time as you. He has his own issues, and they are well founded in facts and his depth of experience which I am now privy to via PMs, and that will all stay private so that he can remain employed in this field.

He, nor I, have any financial gain in seeing MQA fall away, it's about defeating the licensing oligarchy in music they are after, that now dominates video delivery, MQA's place of roots and experience in business.

Music needs to be free, open to science and innovation and creativity on all levels. If they had the best filter for all time and forever, then maybe they make money from everyone annually. But they don't.

This would all be a lot easier for them if they did. The resistance is not for profit. The initiative is.

Last edited by lucey; 1 week ago at 11:51 PM..
Old 1 week ago
  #87
Gear Addict
As a third party independent member, it looks rather suspicious for one side.

Even if you assume that Lucey and audio_truth are the same person, it should still be easy to find mistakes in his facts. Identify and correct where he/she's wrong. Regardless of who's posting, it shouldn't matter, just correct wherever they made the mistake. Like grading test papers. How is this tough to understand?

On the other hand, why are all these MQA people dropping like flies and cancelling events. These guys should be trying to book as many events as possible to sell us on MQA and its real benefits with discussions and panels with knowledgeable people. If I owned MQA and knew that it was 100% legit and there was a legitimate benefit without any BS, you wouldn't hear me stop for a second. I'd be out there convincing people in public forums....so why the hush-hush and cancelling events?

You can go to any scientific or audiophile forum and talk about FLAC and get every detail and have it defended. It's all made clear. Not a good look for MQA!
Old 1 week ago
  #88
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Hiya, Brian

You do realize that we are on the same side!

Hilarious about the MQA panel. I have the opinion that Bob Stuart is laughing at the high end hi-fi guys as he attempts to pull the wool over their eyes and ears at these shows. His stand ins such as the names mentioned will continue to look bad.
Old 1 week ago
  #89
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
RMAF has cancelled the MQA Panel.



David Glasser did you have a hand in this also? Or was it decided above your station as an endorser?

.
Huh? I happen to think MQA is a brilliant technology. If I like something, I'll say something. I've got no skin in the game. And no connection to RMAF. You and audio truth please take your tacky conspiracy theories elsewhere.
Old 1 week ago
  #90
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by glassmaster View Post
Huh? I happen to think MQA is a brilliant technology. If I like something, I'll say something. I've got no skin in the game. And no connection to RMAF. You and audio truth please take your tacky conspiracy theories elsewhere.
What is brilliant about it in your view? And you're still using Dunlavy's to come to this ?

It was simply a question, not a "tacky conspiracy theory". What's tacky is supporting a format that's heading toward global domination when full file streaming is just around every corner. Cancelling a public and professional debate is like hanging up on someone, so I understand you affinity ... yet there is a back story I'm sure.

MQA does not want the heat of a real debate in public. Better to go after audiophiles and corporations.

It's a lot easier to kill all other digital in 2017 than it was to kill of Vinyl back in the day, but the myriad major labels were happy to do that then and are happy to do more now. The revolving door from Warners to MQA by Mr. Jbara should be a red flag.

Marjorie Beaumont is a lovely person and likely overloaded, but I will figure out what happened in time.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump