astrotoy Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 I've been intrigued by MQA, but have some of the same concerns that have been voiced in the thread. So far, the best comparison I've seen is dolby B for cassettes. The goal of dolby B was to improve the sound quality (moving toward audiophile standards of the day) by a proprietary process which required both the creators of the music to license and use the dolby B encoding process and the manufacturers of the playback equipment to license and use the dolby B decoding process. The system still allowed people without the proper playback equipment to play dolby B encoded cassettes, albeit with lower sound quality, and the music creators could release their albums without using dolby B, though without the reduction in tape hiss. Ray Dolby, IIRC, started with just professional dolby A encoding and decoding, and eventually extended his technology to films and surround sound, becoming a very wealthy individual. I believe that MQA is seeing streaming as the major market (as dolby saw cassettes) and if the growth in the market is anything like dolby B, the dual licensing could become reasonably lucrative. Like cassettes, streaming would not have to be the only medium to have MQA successful. Larry Analog-VPIClas3,3DArm,LyraSkala+MiyajimaZeromono,Herron VTPH2APhono,2AmpexATR-102+MerrillTridentMaster TapePreamp Dig Rip-Pyramix,IzotopeRX3Adv,MykerinosCard,PacificMicrosonicsModel2; Dig Play-Lampi Horizon, mch NADAC, Roon-HQPlayer,Oppo105 Electronics-DoshiPre,CJ MET1mchPre,Cary2A3monoamps; Speakers-AvantgardeDuosLR,3SolosC,LR,RR Other-2x512EngineerMarutaniSymmetrical Power+Cables Music-1.8KR2Rtapes,1.5KCD's,500SACDs,50+TBripped files Link to comment
esldude Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 The Computer Audiophile is spot on. "The future of music consumption is streaming. Period." I think that we will have niche markets for physical media and, for that matter, HiRez. Is there not a Moody Blues song "Don't fear the Future" or was that Reaper? Hummmm. Pretty sure it was "don't Reap the Future." Then again, I don't have a hirez version and may not have heard it clearly. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
esldude Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 I've been intrigued by MQA, but have some of the same concerns that have been voiced in the thread. So far, the best comparison I've seen is dolby B for cassettes. The goal of dolby B was to improve the sound quality (moving toward audiophile standards of the day) by a proprietary process which required both the creators of the music to license and use the dolby B encoding process and the manufacturers of the playback equipment to license and use the dolby B decoding process. The system still allowed people without the proper playback equipment to play dolby B encoded cassettes, albeit with lower sound quality, and the music creators could release their albums without using dolby B, though without the reduction in tape hiss. Ray Dolby, IIRC, started with just professional dolby A encoding and decoding, and eventually extended his technology to films and surround sound, becoming a very wealthy individual. I believe that MQA is seeing streaming as the major market (as dolby saw cassettes) and if the growth in the market is anything like dolby B, the dual licensing could become reasonably lucrative. Like cassettes, streaming would not have to be the only medium to have MQA successful. Larry Yeah, but Dolby C was about twice as good or actually more like 4 times as good as Dolby B. It also was available on cassette recorders and playback units in cars. Let me record LPs, FM programs and play them back with better fidelity. Now if MQA made as much difference between redbook and MQA as Dolby C improved raw cassette we would really be onto something. Alas I don't think it makes as much difference. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
NOMBEDES Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 Pretty sure it was "don't Reap the Future." Then again, I don't have a hirez version and may not have heard it clearly. . Good one! In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake ~ Sayre's Law Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 Now if MQA made as much difference between redbook and MQA as Dolby C improved raw cassette we would really be onto something. Alas I don't think it makes as much difference. Where have you heard MQA? Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
mansr Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 Yeah, but Dolby C was about twice as good or actually more like 4 times as good as Dolby B. It also was available on cassette recorders and playback units in cars. Let me record LPs, FM programs and play them back with better fidelity. Now if MQA made as much difference between redbook and MQA as Dolby C improved raw cassette we would really be onto something. Alas I don't think it makes as much difference. I don't think anything can make an improvement of that magnitude to high-res music. It can't get better than reality. Link to comment
Tony Lauck Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 I don't think anything can make an improvement of that magnitude to high-res music. It can't get better than reality. My experience, making live recordings with a Nakamichi CR-7 cassette recorder was that the best sound quality was had with Dolby switched off. One could listen through the tape hiss perfectly well, but one could not listen to the artificial sonic manipulations of Dolby processing. (The same was true with the professional Dolby A process, the introduction of which marked the end of the golden age of stereo recording, IMO.) In fairness to Dolby, he did seize on something (tape hiss) that the mass market could hear and thereby was able to cash in on his "improvement". This is not the case with MQA for two reasons: first because the mass market can not hear the difference between CD quality and hi-res, and second, because the commercial benefit (cost reduction) possible by reducing bit count is insignificant, amounting to some $0.10 per album. Link to comment
tailspn Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 Where have you heard MQA? MQA, like all psychoacoustic dynamic level and tone control compression/expansion processes strive to cover up recording and transmission process limitations. It can be very effective in altering, and be potentially more pleasing to some/many compared to the original, or not. But as has been pointed out on this thread the cost of wedding a recording to a non standardized irreversible process, controlled and profited by one company, can have grave consequences. One thing MQA is not is a new idea. It's the same snake oil repackaged and proffered many times in this business. Link to comment
Jud Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 Tesla open sourced their patents. Seems to be working for them. What is "open sourcing" a patent? One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
jabbr Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 What is "open sourcing" a patent? From my very good friends: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC_Public_Patent_License as an example Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 One thing MQA is not is a new idea. It's the same snake oil repackaged and proffered many times in this business. Two things: 1) Where have you heard an MQA A/B in order to put your statements into context? 2) Your statement about snake oil comes off as very disingenuous because you have a horse in the race. P.S. Your favorite format DSD is often seen as, "not a new idea. It's the same snake oil repackaged and proffered many times in this business." Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
tailspn Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 Two things: 1) Where have you heard an MQA A/B in order to put your statements into context? 2) Your statement about snake oil comes off as very disingenuous because you have a horse in the race. I've never heard it, and have no interest in hearing it. I hear live microphone feeds, and the DSD256 recording of them for a living. Anything that alters the result of that by altering the spectral or dynamic content is not a benefit to me, nor the reason I work. I believe you only need look at the history of Meridian in general (DVD-A), and Stewart in particular to witness disingenuous. All of course IMO. Link to comment
james45974 Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 I have an MQA question that I don't think I have seen brought up before, excuse me if it has. If MQA wants insinuate itself in the recording process right from the beginning and if the vast majority of recordings these days are from digital masters, including vinyl, where does the MQA process fit into the analog world? Jim Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 I've never heard it, and have no interest in hearing it. I hear live microphone feeds, and the DSD256 recording of them for a living. Anything that alters the result of that by altering the spectral or dynamic content of that is not a benefit to me, nor the reason I work. I believe you only need look at the history of Meridian in general (DVD-A), and Stewart in particular to witness disingenuous. All of course IMO. Wow. I hope you realize how your statements make you look. Calling a competing product snake oil without ever hearing it is preposterous. Whether or not one likes the business model of MQA is another story, but your statements about the product's worth without any experience with the product are almost laughable. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 I have an MQA question that I don't think I have seen brought up before, excuse me if it has. If MQA wants insinuate itself in the recording process right from the beginning and if the vast majority of recordings these days are from digital masters, including vinyl, where does the MQA process fit into the analog world? At the A to D converter. Although MQA never addresses the fact that many recordings use multiple A to D converters (even in the same song). Thus, correcting for problems with A to D converters will be a challenge to say the least. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 I hope people don't misunderstand my comments in this thread. In no way am I a proponent of or opponent of MQA at this point. I just want all facts to come out and get rid of one-sided rants. That's all. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
mansr Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 At the A to D converter. Although MQA never addresses the fact that many recordings use multiple A to D converters (even in the same song). Thus, correcting for problems with A to D converters will be a challenge to say the least. First you have to show that there is a problem at all. Link to comment
james45974 Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 I hope people don't misunderstand my comments in this thread. In no way am I a proponent of or opponent of MQA at this point. I just want all facts to come out and get rid of one-sided rants. That's all. Chris, it is good to attempt to get the facts out in this discussion. There seems to be very emotional responses on boths sides of the coin here (for a sense of balance and a somewhat opposite opinion of MQA check out the fanboys on the Meridin Unplugged forums) Jim Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 First you have to show that there is a problem at all. There is no such thing as a perfect A to D or any component for that matter. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
james45974 Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 At the A to D converter. Although MQA never addresses the fact that many recordings use multiple A to D converters (even in the same song). Thus, correcting for problems with A to D converters will be a challenge to say the least. Is temporal blurring not a problem with vinyl that is sourced from a digital master? Will there be MQA encoded vinyl and MQA licensed phono preamps? Jim Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 Is temporal blurring not a problem with vinyl that is sourced from a digital master? Will there be MQA encoded vinyl and MQA licensed phono preamps? I'm not following you :~) Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
mansr Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 There is no such thing as a perfect A to D or any component for that matter. No, but not all imperfections are a problem. Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 No, but not all imperfections are a problem. I hear you, but the Grammy winning recording engineers I've talked to think music reproduction on a stereo system is only a cartoon of the actual performance. I think we have a long way to go. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
duxservit Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 The future of music consumption is streaming. Period. MQA sees this, as do all the record labels (they are major investors in Spotify). I don't want to take this too far off topic so I'll just say that by 2020-2025, the infrastructure won't matter. It's consumer demand that matters and virtually nobody is demanding high resolution or even lossless 16/44.1. +1. This is shaping to be true. Related, the IP infrastructure providers are currently looking at the impact of data/traffic coming from consumer IoT devices (e.g. sensors in your home appliances). Potentially a data deluge. Audio streaming (with fixed packet sizes and predictable rates) is probably going to be dwarfed by the IoT data deluge. Let every eye ear negotiate for itself and trust no agent. (Shakespeare) The things that we love tell us what we are. (Aquinas) Link to comment
mansr Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 I hear you, but the Grammy winning recording engineers I've talked to think music reproduction on a stereo system is only a cartoon of the actual performance. I think we have a long way to go. That has much more to do with the speakers. Like that there are only two of them. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now