DARKO: MQA: a non-hostile takeover?

[Axial]

◙ MQA - Dead on Arrival or Not

[tailspn]

I personally disagree that judgement, as a lot of the studio-based music I listen to is well produced and sounds pretty good on my system, although it isn't classical or entirely acoustic.

 

It should sound very good in fact. The majority of studio music produced today has lots of production attention paid to sound quality. What they're all missing however is spatial reality, which the ear/brain combination is most acutely sensitive from a lifetime of walking around, experiencing and learning. The space you sense today in a well recorded studio project is added synthetically in a post production process. Very convincingly in fact, but not naturally occurring.

 

IMO, sounding good/very good/great, and spatially accurate in order to best make sound quality judgements, are independent variables.

[Axiom05]

You still appear to be saying that nearly anything which isn't classical music is 'wrong' with a 'few exceptions' and isn't 'audiophile worthy' and shouldn't be used as basis for judging sound quality in an audiophile hifi system. You've left off the 'IMHO' again.

 

I personally disagree that judgement, as a lot of the studio-based music I listen to is well produced and sounds pretty good on my system, although it isn't classical or entirely acoustic.

 

+1, and lets not forgot the fine work of people like Shawn Murphy who has made some outstanding movie soundtrack recordings.

[crenca]

You still appear to be saying that nearly anything which isn't classical music is 'wrong' with a 'few exceptions' and isn't 'audiophile worthy' and shouldn't be used as basis for judging sound quality in an audiophile hifi system....

 

If I might throw in my 1 cent, I think what he is saying (or perhaps I will just say what I would say) is that for something to be judged by fidelity (putting aside the word "audiophile" for a second) it has to have something to be fidelis to and that with classical/jazz (or acoustic folk, etc.) that standard is widely to agreed to be the live performance of said music in their typical setting (concert hall for classical for example). For the moment I am obviously putting aside the discussion of how to mike, etc.

 

With music that is a studio/post production creation then what said music is supposed to be fidelis to is simply in the mind of the creator(s) and thus can not be "confirmed" by the listener.

 

For me, what is interesting about MQA is the fact that the creators/company appear to be (mostly) using the latter type of music as an introduction and making claims about fidelity (or "authenticity" - 'real' sounding rain as just one example) with an art form that can be said to have no real fidelis to anything other then the taste of the creators on any particular day - because when they get around to "remastering" they seem to often make a different judgement as to what it is supposed to sound like and what is "authentic".

 

In any case, when I am not listening to Jazz or Classical (which I do most of the time) I am likely to be listening to good sounding Electronica (such as Tycho, etc.) and occasionally even rock/pop. It sounds real good and I consider some of it "audiophile" etc. However, I am wondering out loud what MQA really brings to such music if it is supposed to be bringing something akin to fidelity - it strikes me that any DSP process applied to such music is simply what tailspn is calling a DSP "sweetening" and NOT anything having to do with fidelity or making it "more real" because it was not "real" in the first place - not like acoustic music. This is not to say it is inferior, just different and thus anything like MQA applied to it would need a different criteria to be judged "better"....just thoughts...

 

p.s. perhaps video is a good example. Which is the "real" Star Wars - Lucas's creation in the 70's or the re-worked version of the 90's? Did Han shoot first or did Greedo - which one could a process like MQA put its "authenticated" stamp on?

[Richard Dale]

If I might throw in my 1 cent, I think what he is saying (or perhaps I will just say what I would say) is that for something to be judged by fidelity (putting aside the word "audiophile" for a second) it has to have something to be fidelis to and that with classical/jazz (or acoustic folk, etc.) that standard is widely to agreed to be the live performance of said music in their typical setting (concert hall for classical for example). For the moment I am obviously putting aside the discussion of how to mike, etc.

 

With music that is a studio/post production creation then what said music is supposed to be fidelis to is simply in the mind of the creator(s) and thus can not be "confirmed" by the listener.

 

For me, what is interesting about MQA is the fact that the creators/company appear to be (mostly) using the latter type of music as an introduction and making claims about fidelity (or "authenticity" - 'real' sounding rain as just one example) with an art form that can be said to have no real fidelis to anything other then the taste of the creators on any particular day - because when they get around to "remastering" they seem to often make a different judgement as to what it is supposed to sound like and what is "authentic".

 

In any case, when I am not listening to Jazz or Classical (which I do most of the time) I am likely to be listening to good sounding Electronica (such as Tycho, etc.) and occasionally even rock/pop. It sounds real good and I consider some of it "audiophile" etc. However, I am wondering out loud what MQA really brings to such music if it is supposed to be bringing something akin to fidelity - it strikes me that any DSP process applied to such music is simply what tailspn is calling a DSP "sweetening" and NOT anything having to do with fidelity or making it "more real" because it was not "real" in the first place - not like acoustic music. This is not to say it is inferior, just different and thus anything like MQA applied to it would need a different criteria to be judged "better"....just thoughts...

 

p.s. perhaps video is a good example. Which is the "real" Star Wars - Lucas's creation in the 70's or the re-worked version of the 90's? Did Han shoot first or did Greedo - which one could a process like MQA put its "authenticated" stamp on?

 

I don't understand why High Fidelity or 'accuracy' needs to be defined in terms of reproducing a live acoustic event.

 

'Does it reproduce the original musical intent and emotionally connect with the end listener?' would be my personal starting point. It is quite likely that a system that does that well would also sound good with acoustic music, but I don't think it follows that a system judged entirely on how well it reproduces acoustic music will tell you much about how it reproduces a musical conversation between a syncopated and funky drummer and an electric bass player as they interact, and whether or not the system makes your foot tap.

 

With the Doors LA Woman album, the reference standard would be the original analog master tape. We can judge secondary formats on how close they get to that. If the rain on the master tape sounds more like the 24/192 or more like MQA version that gives us some way of judging. Or if part of the rain track is missing altogether and neither the HDTracks or MQA metadata can tell us why, then that is a bit poor. I have a vinyl LP of LA Woman, and how the rain sounds on that when reproduced via a high quality turntable based system could be another data point for judging the MQA 'sound' with that album.

[miguelito]

Nothing in what I do makes content inaccessible with other players or technologies. Input to my player is completely standard and open and so is the output. There is nothing keeping your content a hostage. There is no content that requires HQPlayer for playing.

 

You can easily replace:

1) Player

2) DAC

3) Amps

4) Speakers

At most you lose price of that particular piece, but nothing outside of the piece. Content is different, it can be easily high value and hard to replace. You generally don't want to replace it, but you want to grow your collection instead of buying the same stuff over and over again.

This is the key.

[miguelito]

MQA's ambitions are far greater than that of a supplier of a music file player as their end game, if successful, would be to re-write the musical history of the world through an MQA lense.

Unless there's a change allowing more widespread decoding, my opinion is it will be dead on arrival.

 

This is a significant and sizable ambition that begs that MQA be far more forthcoming and be willing to readily demonstrate, by direct comparision, music files encoded with MQA and its non-MQA equivalent.

The fact that they won't will stall any further acceptance. We are given far too many long winded technical treatise but no music...why is that?

Consider TIDAL: Why would they bother with MQA at all??? This is what you get with MQA:

1- A bigger file to stream - and if you don't have an MQA DAC you're getting at most the same as before on playback

2- A weird marketing claim of higher res if you buy a new DAC or use your iphone - which defeats the whole purpose of high res

3- A content problem - TIDAL will likely want to MQA their entire higher res content and I would bet MQA is telling them no, only remastered by the original source - a no-go for sure

 

So from a TIDAL standpoint this means more streaming bandwidth (with the likely complaints from current users about dropouts since these would increase), more storage required, no software decoder so no way to claim better sound across the board, and no content. If I am running TIDAL, I'd say thanks but no thanks.

[semente]

I don't understand why High Fidelity or 'accuracy' needs to be defined in terms of reproducing a live acoustic event.

 

Imagine the picture of a red rose with a blue mid-day sky as background.

 

Now image the picture of a painting of a rose with a blue mid-day sky as background.

 

We've all seen roses and blue mid-day skies and this experience can be used as reference to judge the accuracy of the reproduction, but a painting is an interpretation of reality - let's call it a second nature, an artifice.

 

As far as I know, studio instruments and vocals are recorded with the mic placed only a few inches away; no one will listen that close.

Dynamic range and differences in level are not real, but adjusted in the console.

The booth or recording room is a dry-sounding semi-anechoich space that produces very little spatial information, and the proximity of the mic removes whatever little there is.

Space and acoustic cues are all fabricated; such a recording is as natural as orange juice powder.

 

R

[asdf1000]

◙ MQA - Dead on Arrival or Not

 

PS Audio, Schiit Audio and now Benchmark. They haven't completely ruled out supporting MQA but their initial impressions aren't entirely positive.

 

But Stereophile's impressions are the complete opposite.

 

Talk about a polarising technology.

[crenca]

Unless there's a change allowing more widespread decoding, my opinion is it will be dead on arrival.

 

 

Consider TIDAL: Why would they bother with MQA at all??? This is what you get with MQA:

1- A bigger file to stream - and if you don't have an MQA DAC you're getting at most the same as before on playback

2- A weird marketing claim of higher res if you buy a new DAC or use your iphone - which defeats the whole purpose of high res

3- A content problem - TIDAL will likely want to MQA their entire higher res content and I would bet MQA is telling them no, only remastered by the original source - a no-go for sure

 

So from a TIDAL standpoint this means more streaming bandwidth (with the likely complaints from current users about dropouts since these would increase), more storage required, no software decoder so no way to claim better sound across the board, and no content. If I am running TIDAL, I'd say thanks but no thanks.

 

I also can not see where TIDAL's self interest would be served by going with MQA for all the reasons you cite and more. Indeed, while we often read here of people arguing that MQA is really a streaming play and that they are waiting for Tidal to "throw the switch" I am afraid their wait will be infinite. The only way Tidal actually does anything significant with MQA (beyond perhaps a few token tracks - oversold as another "big new deal" of course) is basic economics: supply and demand. So the demand will have to come from its customers to such a point that Tidal (and every other streaming service) will have to provide MQA or die (I don't see that happening) or the labels will only supply MQA (and no longer provide standard 16/44) based on their own interests. For example if the labels decide the MQA is the DRM they are looking for or a step in that direction in the sense of getting a critical mass of format lock-in and then rolling out MQA 2.0 which will contain stronger DRM like copy protection, etc. Again, unlikely but I would say more likely than a sudden transformation of the 128mp3/$2 earbud crowd (the vast majority of streaming customers) into Hi-Res-done-MQA-style music lovers...

[mansr]

Imagine the picture of a red rose with a blue mid-day sky as background.

 

Now image the picture of a painting of a rose with a blue mid-day sky as background.

 

We've all seen roses and blue mid-day skies and this experience can be used as reference to judge the accuracy of the reproduction, but a painting is an interpretation of reality - let's call it a second nature, an artifice.

 

I prefer recordings where the tuba sounds like it's in a Magritte painting.

[Richard Dale]

Imagine the picture of a red rose with a blue mid-day sky as background.

 

Now image the picture of a painting of a rose with a blue mid-day sky as background.

 

We've all seen roses and blue mid-day skies and this experience can be used as reference to judge the accuracy of the reproduction, but a painting is an interpretation of reality - let's call it a second nature, an artifice.

 

As far as I know, studio instruments and vocals are recorded with the mic placed only a few inches away; no one will listen that close.

Dynamic range and differences in level are not real, but adjusted in the console.

The booth or recording room is a dry-sounding semi-anechoich space that produces very little spatial information, and the proximity of the mic removes whatever little there is.

Space and acoustic cues are all fabricated; such a recording is as natural as orange juice powder.

 

 

You may optimize your TV to show stationary pictures of roses rather well, but maybe it will mean that the TV's ability to show fast moving action is not so optimal having done that. There is more than one dimension to describe what makes good pictures, still or moving and similarly I believe there are many dimensions in describing good sound reproduction where 'acoustic space reproduction' is just one of them.

 

I think that you could argue that a performance in a church is artificial because it has a lot of echo and that affects what performances work well there such as organs and choirs. Or a small room might be better for recording a string quartet. Opera houses are designed to sound good with opera (so I assume, not being an opera expert). The acoustic space is part of the 'processing' involved in an acoustic performance. Maybe recording in the open air or in an anechoic chamber is more 'natural'.

 

Space and acoustic cues might be part of acoustic music, but I see no reason why they should be considered any more important than other factors such as timbre, dynamic range, transient attack etc etc.

[Axial]

PS Audio, Schiit Audio and now Benchmark. They haven't completely ruled out supporting MQA but their initial impressions aren't entirely positive.

 

But Stereophile's impressions are the complete opposite.

 

Talk about a polarising technology.

 

Stereophile's John Atkinson is wright, the other guys need more practice...I think.

 

♪ Listening to MQA | Stereophile.com

 

Extra: http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2016/07/a-response-re-mqa-blocking-of-meridians.html

[asdf1000]

Stereophile's John Atkinson is wright, the other guys need more practice...I think.

 

♪ Listening to MQA | Stereophile.com

 

Extra: Archimago's Musings: A Response RE: MQA, "blocking" of Meridian's responses, and A/B Tests...

 

Good reading. It's hard to know who has financial interests in this (except Bob Stuart himself, obviously) and who doesn't.

 

Even for the not-so-positive reviews by DAC makers, it's hard to know if it's only 100% technically based or if on the side they're not happy with the commercial arrangements (the fee to be paid by MQA per unit sold).

 

With the commercial aspect of reviews always lurking in the background to all of us, the sooner we can demo our own more familiar music in MQA, the better! Can't be too long now. Tidal in MQA will be a good first step.

[asdf1000]

Good reading. It's hard to know who has financial interests in this (except Bob Stuart himself, obviously) and who doesn't.

 

Even for the not-so-positive reviews by DAC makers, it's hard to know if it's only 100% technically based or if on the side they're not happy with the commercial arrangements (the fee to be paid by MQA per unit sold).

 

With the commercial aspect of reviews always lurking in the background to all of us, the sooner we can demo our own more familiar music in MQA, the better! Can't be too long now. Tidal in MQA will be a good first step.

 

Correction: (the fee to be paid TO MQA per unit sold). Also, to avoid rumours about this point, I just want to re-iterate my point is based on a fact - that we don't fully know the full story of financial interests. Some may see the commercial benefits of MQA support as positive, but some may not be happy with the commercial arrangements. We will never fully know. Best we can do audition for ourselves, when it becomes easier to do so.

[Axial]

In one of hist last two summing up paragraphs John Atkinson said:

 

"After doing all of my formal comparisons, I subjected myself to a sort-of-blind test. I created an Audirvana playlist that randomly mixed MQA and non-MQA files, and pressed Play. I then went into my test lab, which is in the room next to the listening room, to begin measuring some of the products in the review queue. At irregular intervals I returned to the listening room and made a decision, MQA or non-MQA, before looking at the Prime's front panel to see what was playing. I scored four out of seven correct; though this is insufficient to prove formal identification, I feel that it is relevant information."

[Axial]

I don't know if this link was posted before, no big deal:

SoundStage! Global | SoundStageGlobal.com - T.H.E. Show Newport 2016: I Finally Got a Decent MQA Demo!

[asdf1000]

In one of hist last two summing up paragraphs John Atkinson said:"After doing all of my formal comparisons, I subjected myself to a sort-of-blind test. I created an Audirvana playlist that randomly mixed MQA and non-MQA files, and pressed Play. I then went into my test lab, which is in the room next to the listening room, to begin measuring some of the products in the review queue. At irregular intervals I returned to the listening room and made a decision, MQA or non-MQA, before looking at the Prime's front panel to see what was playing. I scored four out of seven correct; though this is insufficient to prove formal identification, I feel that it is relevant information."

 

Four out of seven. But he also said the following about MQA: "In almost 40 years of attending audio press events, only rarely have I come away feeling that I was present at the birth of a new world."

 

To be fair to him though, I give him credit for sharing the information about the four out of seven. He could have kept that to himself but chose not to lol.

 

Reminds me of a simple blind test I did myself with a friend. We played the iTunes, CD rip, Hi-Res Vinyl Rip and HDTracks version of Billie Jean (off the Thriller album) on a pretty nice system and had to guess which version was playing. We were all over the place. We know that song back to front but couldn't differentiate which version was which - the key being all sounded great.

 

The one that I picked as the iTunes version was actually the HDTracks version, and vice versa. I can certainly empathise with JA on his 4 out of 7 lol

[Axial]

We all are avid readers and computer users (portable phones, tablets, laptops). The future will tell us on the intensity of MQA penetration into our world. So far we know that gaining more storage in an era where storage is almost free, and that with subtle sound differences...it all equals to what us we do when the manufacturers try their luck with new stuff.

[Sal1950]

Four out of seven. But he also said the following about MQA: "In almost 40 years of attending audio press events, only rarely have I come away feeling that I was present at the birth of a new world."

 

 

The usual hyperbole, it sells mag you know.

 

My question remains, how much freedom are you willing to lose for a debatable gain in SQ right now.

Adding the fact that if people chose to wait it couldn't be long till a more open solution would avail it self from another source.

Or Meridian might also be leveraged back to a mor open position too that way.

Don't fall into a OBama Care deal of "sign it now, you can find out what's in it later" LOL

[asdf1000]

The usual hyperbole, it sells mag you know.

 

My question remains, how much freedom are you willing to lose for a debatable gain in SQ right now.

Adding the fact that if people chose to wait it couldn't be long till a more open solution would avail it self from another source.

Or Meridian might also be leveraged back to a mor open position too that way.

Don't fall into a OBama Care deal of "sign it now, you can find out what's in it later" LOL

Yep, he sells mags that review gear and technologies. So I definitely agree about the hyperbole but he didn't need to share his '4 out of 7 correct'. Just trying to give him some credit for that lol, it's not an easy thing to admit and share with people, especially in our audiophile world

 

I agree - the current strategy of MQA may change over time for the better (the freedom you speak of) or someone else will come along.

 

Sent from my Blackberry DTEK50 using Tapatalk

[Sal1950]

Yep, he sells mags that review gear and technologies. So I definitely agree about the hyperbole but he didn't need to share his '4 out of 7 correct'. Just trying to give him some credit for that lol, it's not an easy thing to admit and share with people, especially in our audiophile world

 

Oh I do. Somewhere deep in JA heart there's a bit of integrity. If you look at his measurement reviews he has numerous times found gear that was wanting and reported he could not recommend this POS.

But in the end he'll always get advertiser PC and close by saying, "but (reviewer X) thinks it sounds just wonderful!"

[asdf1000]

Oh I do. Somewhere deep in JA heart there's a bit of integrity. If you look at his measurement reviews he has numerous times found gear that was wanting and reported he could not recommend this POS.

But in the end he'll always get advertiser PC and close by saying, "but (reviewer X) thinks it sounds just wonderful!"

Completely agree

 

Sent from my Blackberry DTEK50 using Tapatalk

[beetlemania]

Oh I do. Somewhere deep in JA heart there's a bit of integrity. If you look at his measurement reviews he has numerous times found gear that was wanting and reported he could not recommend this POS.

But in the end he'll always get advertiser PC and close by saying, "but (reviewer X) thinks it sounds just wonderful!"

Whatever JA faults, at least he's not Peter Aczel!

[Sal1950]

Whatever JA faults, at least he's not Peter Aczel!

You can't stand the truth?