DARKO: MQA: a non-hostile takeover?

[esldude]

Thank you. I want to encourage people to listen to the song and discuss what they hear.

 

So it is down to this. Evaluating the benefit of an advanced new method of digital processing and transmission which claims controversial and probably minor benefits in fidelity. The vehicle is going to be a highly processed early 70's multi-track recording done quickly in a home with modest pro-gear at the time. Further it hinges on the sound of fake rain which comes from A) a sound effects LP played on we don't know what type of TT as background to music all going to analog tape, and/or B) that some of the rain sound may have been synthetic on a Fender Rhodes? Can you hear those things more clearly with MQA or not, and I am not even convinced anyone actually knows for certain which parts were laid down how at the time.

 

A song I first heard on FM radio and 8 track tape, later LP and finally CD. Maybe we should have just stopped with the endless loop of the 8 track????????????? Or at least pick a better song to go on and on about. I love the song and the Doors btw, just don't think this is the song which should be used for this kind of judgement. A song whose very essence and spirit was meant to be and evoke surreality. Well then again, maybe the surreality of modern audiophiles makes this absolutely the perfect possible song if you think about it too long.

[tailspn]

So it is down to this....

 

Gee, when you explain it that way...

[Rt66indierock]

So it is down to this. Evaluating the benefit of an advanced new method of digital processing and transmission which claims controversial and probably minor benefits in fidelity. The vehicle is going to be a highly processed early 70's multi-track recording done quickly in a home with modest pro-gear at the time. Further it hinges on the sound of fake rain which comes from A) a sound effects LP played on we don't know what type of TT as background to music all going to analog tape, and/or B) that some of the rain sound may have been synthetic on a Fender Rhodes? Can you hear those things more clearly with MQA or not, and I am not even convinced anyone actually knows for certain which parts were laid down how at the time.

 

A song I first heard on FM radio and 8 track tape, later LP and finally CD. Maybe we should have just stopped with the endless loop of the 8 track????????????? Or at least pick a better song to go on and on about. I love the song and the Doors btw, just don't think this is the song which should be used for this kind of judgement. A song whose very essence and spirit was meant to be and evoke surreality. Well then again, maybe the surreality of modern audiophiles makes this absolutely the perfect possible song if you think about it too long.

 

The Meridian and MQA people chose to use "Riders on the Storm" I didn't. I couldn't hear things more clearly when I was allowed an A/B test of MQA that's the point. I could hear the difference in the rain on my home system in the seventies, point two. And I could hear it in a broadcast booth of a radio station, point three. The sound effects rain was real. Just a recording of rain. And it was a tape of the rain not a record. The sound of rain on a Rhodes is different than the sound effects rain. Actually we know Ray laid the bass and the rain with the Rhodes and the sound effects rain was randomly added.

 

Your second paragraph correctly questions the judgement of the people marketing MQA.

[esldude]

The Meridian and MQA people chose to use "Riders on the Storm" I didn't.

Yes, and it wasn't really a great choice for showcasing MQA

 

I couldn't hear things more clearly when I was allowed an A/B test of MQA that's the point. I could hear the difference in the rain on my home system in the seventies, point two. And I could hear it in a broadcast booth of a radio station, point three.

Yes, and given all the possible paths to MQA we aren't sure what to make of it.

The sound effects rain was real. Just a recording of rain. And it was a tape of the rain not a record.

Yet we have people who worked on it saying otherwise. Saying it was from an Elektra sound effects LP.

 

“When we first recorded ‘Riders on the Storm,’ it was a nice, light song. But when we got into mixing it [at Poppy Studios on a Quad Eight board] is when it all came together. I was a nut for sound effects, and I said, ‘I want to try something.’ Elektra Records [The Doors' label] had a bunch of sound effects discs, including one with rain and thunder. I took it off a disc and put it on a stereo tape. Then I just ran the tape in the background while I was mixing because we were already maxed out on tracks. When the [effects] tape ran out, I would just back up the tape somewhere and hit Play again, and then go into record on the stereo [mixdown], and by serendipity, the thunder came where they did; nothing was planned. - See more at: Classic Tracks: The Doors' "Riders on the Storm" | Mixonline

 

I am not really trying to be argumentative toward you. It all points out why this is the wrong recording to use. Did MQA get the master tapes or mix tapes or copies or remasterings or what to make their MQA'd release?

 

MQA if beneficial has its best possible use for any new, all digital recordings going forward. Next best is prior all digital recordings in which they know the gear used. Last would be old analog or part analog where things get complex and the history or provenance is less certain.

 

It isn't clear who the real customer is. Or maybe they are trying to be all things to all people. Or maybe they are trying to create demand and have chicken/egg issues.

[Rt66indierock]

Yes, and it wasn't really a great choice for showcasing MQA

Yes, and given all the possible paths to MQA we aren't sure what to make of it.

Yet we have people who worked on it saying otherwise. Saying it was from an Elektra sound effects LP.

 

“When we first recorded ‘Riders on the Storm,’ it was a nice, light song. But when we got into mixing it [at Poppy Studios on a Quad Eight board] is when it all came together. I was a nut for sound effects, and I said, ‘I want to try something.’ Elektra Records [The Doors' label] had a bunch of sound effects discs, including one with rain and thunder. I took it off a disc and put it on a stereo tape. Then I just ran the tape in the background while I was mixing because we were already maxed out on tracks. When the [effects] tape ran out, I would just back up the tape somewhere and hit Play again, and then go into record on the stereo [mixdown], and by serendipity, the thunder came where they did; nothing was planned. - See more at: Classic Tracks: The Doors' "Riders on the Storm" | Mixonline

 

I am not really trying to be argumentative toward you. It all points out why this is the wrong recording to use. Did MQA get the master tapes or mix tapes or copies or remasterings or what to make their MQA'd release?

 

MQA if beneficial has its best possible use for any new, all digital recordings going forward. Next best is prior all digital recordings in which they know the gear used. Last would be old analog or part analog where things get complex and the history or provenance is less certain.

 

It isn't clear who the real customer is. Or maybe they are trying to be all things to all people. Or maybe they are trying to create demand and have chicken/egg issues.

 

I can only tell you what Ray told me in the late seventies that the sound effects were added by tape which Mixonline confirmed. Back then audio was moved around a studio by records, tape and cartridges. Which one the original sound effect was on is not relevant for this discussion. Somebody at Elektra had put a microphone outside and recorded rain and thunder which was the real thing. The sound is different from the rain produced by a Rhodes. That's what I'm getting at two sounds not one.

 

Or look at it this way. A rainy night in Portland Oregon at concert venue with a door open so you can hear the rain. Simulate the sound of the rain on a Rhodes or other electric piano. Those two sound different. That is what was on the the original vinyl. There was only one sound on the MQA version and the Hi-Res version.

 

I can only speculate about the master. But in interviews about what was wrong with the recording industry in the late eighties and early nineties "a dead man (Jim Morrison) is still selling records" it came up that the master had degraded several times.

 

I have addressed your final paragraph on John Darko's site and this tread.

 

I find this all very interesting because you, John Atkinson and some others are trying to find any flaw in what I've reported as hearing in the seventies. And of course what a member of the Doors confirmed as well. I can't wait to go back to Portland for Thanksgiving and listen to a pristine copy of the record (I only own a CD) and report back I heard both types of rain again.

[Sal1950]

MQA promotion → https://mqa-production.s3.amazonaws.com/default/0001/01/6a10f3ba2385770ac3658df2cadc537ffcd09cd3.pdf

 

Harley hit's it right on the money in the very beginning. The eight paragraph beginning with,

"That development was both a blessing and a curse"

he brings forward the most important aspect of MQA beyond making a fortune for Meridian, the DRM like design of MQA and once again being able to lock out consumers from usable access of the digital stream.

Read that one paragraph and you'll understand why so many of the industry people are trying to shove this down our throats.

[asdf1000]

MQA promotion → https://mqa-production.s3.amazonaws.com/default/0001/01/6a10f3ba2385770ac3658df2cadc537ffcd09cd3.pdf

 

Lots of hyperbole, as expected of course. What I want is access to that Meridian Library he has photos of, so I can start testing for myself - hurry up Tidal!! The pic of Daft Punk RAM shown in that article is where I'd start :-)

[firedog]

Mytek Brooklyn MQA-Compatible DAC | The Absolute Sound

 

Very positive review of the Brooklyn DAC - MQA enabled. He also reviews the sound of MQA, comparing it to his own recordings, that he had processed with MQA in order to compare. Basically, he says there an improvement with MQA, especially in the ability to hear low level detail.

[mansr]

Mytek Brooklyn MQA-Compatible DAC | The Absolute Sound

 

Very positive review of the Brooklyn DAC - MQA enabled. He also reviews the sound of MQA, comparing it to his own recordings, that he had processed with MQA in order to compare. Basically, he says there an improvement with MQA, especially in the ability to hear low level detail.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it's the 17-bit dither being mistaken for detail.

[cmarin]

Mytek Brooklyn MQA-Compatible DAC | The Absolute Sound

 

Very positive review of the Brooklyn DAC - MQA enabled. He also reviews the sound of MQA, comparing it to his own recordings, that he had processed with MQA in order to compare. Basically, he says there an improvement with MQA, especially in the ability to hear low level detail.

 

Firedog,

 

Thanks for the link to the Mytek Brooklyn MQA-capable DAC review.

 

If I read the review correctly, the author is trying to subdue his praise for MQA citing J. Holt's admonition of not falling too easily for new technology that reduces distortions. But even under that constraint, his positive praise for MQA, gained by comparing MQA and non-MQA recordings (some of which were his own), is quite compelling as evidenced by this quote from the last sentence of the review: "Once you throw MQA into the equation, I have to say, “Game over” for any DAC or DAC manufacturer that can’t keep up."

[firedog]

I wouldn't be surprised if it's the 17-bit dither being mistaken for detail.

 

Did you read the review before you made the comment? He's talking about his own recordings, so I think he knows what detail is supposed to be there. One of the recordings in question was made outside at a festival, and the "detail" he can hear more clearly is other (ambient) sounds at the festival that aren't supposed to be on his recording, as it were. I don't think "dither" is giving him this detail....

[Hifi Bob]

One of the recordings in question was made outside at a festival, and the "detail" he can hear more clearly is other (ambient) sounds at the festival that aren't supposed to be on his recording, as it were.

Hmm, that doesn't seem good: the recording was mic'd, mixed, and mastered to get the level of ambience just right, then MQA comes along and changes it! On what basis?

[The Computer Audiophile]

I wouldn't be surprised if it's the 17-bit dither being mistaken for detail.

Your opinions are losing credibility because you constantly pipe in with something negative to say, without any experience on the topic.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hmm, that doesn't seem good: the recording was mic'd, mixed, and mastered to get the level of ambience just right, then MQA comes along and changes it! On what basis?

That's an interesting take on this Bob. I don't disagree, but would like more info from him about what he heard etc...

[firedog]

Hmm, that doesn't seem good: the recording was mic'd, mixed, and mastered to get the level of ambience just right, then MQA comes along and changes it! On what basis?

 

His point was that the MQA reproduced file has lower distortion, so more low level detail is revealed. He didn't say the low level detail wasn't heard on the non MQA version, just that with MQA, the exact detail of what the ambient noises actually were was more easily heard. What's wrong with that?

 

A lot of "knee-jerk" negativity going on here. An experienced recordist has his own recording undergo the MQA process, and reports specific positive results. The only reaction some of you can have is to search for negatives, and some of you without even reading what he wrote.

At the least, a write up such as his should caution you to suspend your entrenched disbelief, before you've even heard MQA.

[Octavius]

His point was that the MQA reproduced file has lower distortion, so more low level detail is revealed. He didn't say the low level detail wasn't heard on the non MQA version, just that with MQA, the exact detail of what the ambient noises actually were was more easily heard. What's wrong with that?

 

A lot of "knee-jerk" negativity going on here. An experienced recordist has his own recording undergo the MQA process, and reports specific positive results. The only reaction some of you can have is to search for negatives, and some of you without even reading what he wrote.

At the least, a write up such as his should caution you to suspend your entrenched disbelief, before you've even heard MQA.

 

Good post!

[tailspn]

His point was that the MQA reproduced file has lower distortion, so more low level detail is revealed. He didn't say the low level detail wasn't heard on the non MQA version, just that with MQA, the exact detail of what the ambient noises actually were was more easily heard. What's wrong with that?

 

Lots, if you're a recording engineer/producer, and it's mandated on all delivery media and playback hardware.

[plissken]

Rt66indierock,

 

Recently (perhaps back on last MQA thread - or was it the one before that?) over at Stereophile you posted this information/criticism (at least I think it was you), and you were summarily dismissed by both JA and Micheal L. In essence, they told YOU how the rain should sound and why the MQA treatment was the best. Of course I don't know if you are telling the truth or not, but what you say is plausible and as far as I know you are not a quack. What struck me most about the response by the editors over at Stereophile was how quickly they judged you to be a quack and how confident they were in what the rain should sound like (from both the Rhodes and the recording) and the "finality" of their impression of MQA and it's treatment of the rain.

 

I don't believe in conspiracies per se (e.g. that MQA has somehow paid off the major Audiophile press) but really, there seems to be absolutely zero level headedness or critical faculty AT ALL by these guys - something is really really fishy about their love affair with MQA...

 

You have to consider the sources. One is a paid shill, the other is a paid lunatic. Remember, Lavorgna can hear readily apparent differences in Ethernet cables.

 

Rt66's recounting of affairs has such specificity that I'm positive that with all their connections either Atkinson or Lavorgna could handily dispatch this if false.

[plissken]

Ask a serious question get a serious answer. There are two rain sounds in the song. One is a recording and the other is created by a Fender Rhodes. How do I know this?

 

First I had a really good pressing of LA Women and a good enough system to back then AR-LST speakers etc. Second I moonlighted outside my profession (accountancy) as a consultant in the broadcast industry because of my hearing ability until 1988 and had access to some very good headphones to help me pick out such differences. Third I asked Ray Manzarek when he was playing with Nite City about the sound effects that can be created with a Fender Rhodes piano in the seventies. He confirmed that the rain was partly a recording and partly by him. So I have horse’s mouth confirmation there are two rain sounds.

 

The song is iconic for four reasons. It’s the last thing Jim Morrison ever recorded. It was only played live twice. It is Jim’s take on the song Ghost Riders in the Sky. And finally Ray playing rain on a Rhodes.

 

Is there any CD pressing or download that would exhibit this?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hmm, that doesn't seem good: the recording was mic'd, mixed, and mastered to get the level of ambience just right, then MQA comes along and changes it! On what basis?

Now that I think more about this, haven't all technology changes in recording and delivering music to the public changed the sound? Albums released on vinyl back in the day had to be mastered for this medium (and still do today). Maybe it's the same as MQA, the material should be mastered for this technology. Just an idea.

[crenca]

Your opinions are losing credibility because you constantly pipe in with something negative to say, without any experience on the topic.

 

Actually (and I am a complete amateur at this aspect so perhaps someone else can pipe in) but is that not exactly what dithering does? By randomizing the noise floor dithering allows low level detail to "rise" as it were out of the noise floor and be distinguished from said noise floor?

[crenca]

His point was that the MQA reproduced file has lower distortion, so more low level detail is revealed. He didn't say the low level detail wasn't heard on the non MQA version, just that with MQA, the exact detail of what the ambient noises actually were was more easily heard. What's wrong with that?

 

 

A lot of "knee-jerk" negativity going on here. An experienced recordist has his own recording undergo the MQA process, and reports specific positive results. The only reaction some of you can have is to search for negatives, and some of you without even reading what he wrote.

At the least, a write up such as his should caution you to suspend your entrenched disbelief, before you've even heard MQA.

 

 

Well, consider the source (i.e. Absolute Sound - which was sold on MQA *BEFORE* any A/B). Also, consider this contradiction:

 

 

"My natural tendency would be to write a spittle-flying gobsmacked rave, but that would be giving in to my baser instincts."

 

 

&

 

 

"One of the unique features of the Brooklyn is the ability to turn off MQA decoding if you wish. Although I’m at a loss as to why you would want to do this on a regular basis, you can use the feature to compare any MQA-encoded file with what it sounds like with no MQA encoding. You can also compare an MQA-encoded file without MQA decoding against a non-MQA-encoded version of the same file. While this provision may be of value to recording engineers and record labels, for your average audiophile it’s not a feature that needs to be used, except when he or she is driven by extreme boredom."

 

 

The second quote says to me that MQA is such an obvious benefit that you would be crazy to even question it - it is as obvious as CRT > 1080 or mono > stereo. Yet even after heaping such "birth of a new world" praise on MQA JA of Stereophile could do no better than a coin flip. Which is it? Will the real MQA please stand up!

 

 

In any case, based on this review MQA seems to add a subtle Dolby like effect of the low level noise reduction kind of way - how is it doing this? Will we ever know beyond hyperbole heaping genius status on "audio savants" like Bob? I read this from Bob Stuart (quoted in the review):

 

 

"“MQA’s target for temporal blurring is to do no more harm to sound than passing through a couple of meters of air—it seems trite, but it is actually a profound concept. Simultaneously, but separately, MQA uses advanced sampling and playback methods that particularly stabilize low-level signals and the recording ‘noise-floor.’ This uses advanced insights from sampling theory and neuroscience.”"

 

 

And ask myself is it *really* all that "profound"?

[crenca]

Now that I think more about this, haven't all technology changes in recording and delivering music to the public changed the sound? Albums released on vinyl back in the day had to be mastered for this medium (and still do today). Maybe it's the same as MQA, the material should be mastered for this technology. Just an idea.

 

If I am not mistaken, this is exactly what MQA is intended to be. In other words (circling back to the DARKO's article) it is ideally (as in "best case" implementation) an "end to end" from the very beginning. Will vendors and consumers turn over their business/music to such a tyrannical process that is a "black box" that can not be examined? Perhaps. Maybe Dobly is an example - I am ignorant as to its market status - is it "open" and can vendors and consumers examine its inner workings?

[mansr]

In any case, based on this review MQA seems to add a subtle Dolby like effect of the low level noise reduction kind of way - how is it doing this? Will we ever know beyond hyperbole heaping genius status on "audio savants" like Bob?

 

We know from the patents that it dithers the input to 17 bits. It's possible that this initial processing also includes a slight boost to low-level signals, i.e. compressing the dynamic range a little. This would certainly result in background "details" becoming more easily heard.

 

Now that a few DAC firmware updates with MQA are available, perhaps someone will be able to reverse engineer the decoder and find out what it's really doing. Of course that still won't tell us how the encoder works in detail.

[mansr]

If I am not mistaken, this is exactly what MQA is intended to be. In other words (circling back to the DARKO's article) it is ideally (as in "best case" implementation) an "end to end" from the very beginning. Will vendors and consumers turn over their business/music to such a tyrannical process that is a "black box" that can not be examined? Perhaps. Maybe Dobly is an example - I am ignorant as to its market status - is it "open" and can vendors and consumers examine its inner workings?

 

Which of the numerous Dolby technologies are you referring to?