DARKO: MQA: a non-hostile takeover?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Considering how bad some of these Grammy nominated recordings sound, I am not sure this is an endorsement. I guess it depends on exactly who you are referring to. Without knowing that, your statement doesn't carry much weight.

Does Steely Dan's Aja sound OK to you? Does anything from Reference Recordings sound OK to you?

[esldude]

I agree with your understanding if the objective is to provide the illusion of actually being at an acoustic music performance, or as close as possible. That that reproduction requires more than two channels, and the currently available 5.0 or 5.1 channels is but a step forward. But a giant step!

 

If on the other hand, the objective is to optimize stereo performance of studio processed music, a creative art form in itself, then we've reached a point of diminishing returns. The available Digital Audio Workstations today, coupled with the current delivery systems are a very far cry from just 20 years ago. Any/every concievable effect is easily created today with a much less investment in hardware and software.

 

But if the choke point is the software delivery system, and that fantasy can be sold, then the likes of MQA have a chance. But I'd be inclined to doubt it.

 

Stereo keeps egging us on with more bits and higher sample rates. Now this MQA kind of thing. While my fear with surround is always more, more and more. 5.1 to 7.1 and now to Atmos 7.1.2 with options for even more Atmos channels. Object oriented audio. Not to mention the 64,000 various surround decoding standards available (slight exaggeration, but give it time, we'll get there).

 

I have heard surround, liked it some, it has obvious advantages. But finding the sweet spot seems hard. Is $10,000 per channel stereo better than $2000/channel Atmos? The always multiplying surround standards are mainly what has kept me away. It forces you to buy on the cheap end because you'll need to discard some parts in just 2 or 3 years or so. Plus the total available catalog just for music is always going to be in danger of being spread across multiple standards.

 

So maybe this object oriented audio will take off not just for movies where it is, but for music. Then we can forget about real upgrading. Just save up to add another channel every year. Atmos standards currently can make use of up to 24 speakers at floor level and 10 speakers overhead. That is 34 channels, and I don't know if that includes sub-channels or not. Wonder if I could be satisfied with just the basic 2 overhead channels. Maybe a couple of my Soundlabs on the ceiling. Or maybe just a vintage pair of ESL-57's would do the trick for overheads. WAF be damned!

[The Computer Audiophile]

I agree with your understanding if the objective is to provide the illusion of actually being at an acoustic music performance, or as close as possible. That that reproduction requires more than two channels, and the currently available 5.0 or 5.1 channels is but a step forward. But a giant step!

 

If on the other hand, the objective is to optimize stereo performance of studio processed music, a creative art form in itself, then we've reached a point of diminishing returns. The available Digital Audio Workstations today, coupled with the current delivery systems are a very far cry from just 20 years ago. Any/every concievable effect is easily created today with a much less investment in hardware and software.

 

But if the choke point is the software delivery system, and that fantasy can be sold, then the likes of MQA have a chance. But I'd be inclined to doubt it.

I'm no recording engineer, but I'm willing to bet the digital workstation has little to do with the sound quality when a competent engineer si recording the session. Rudy Van Gelder had no workstation.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Wasn't there a tidbit about MQA not having any A/B tracks available at shows? I think that is a sword that has two edges.

That's why I asked. Because an A/B is so rare. I have demo files to A/B, but I've never seen them at a show.

[asdf1000]

Yes, high end stereos sounding cartoonish. The best of the best with respect to HiFi products.

If its with respect to HiFi then this can only be a good thing, for us as consumers. If I already love the way my music sounds right now on my system, it's exciting to know that there is still a long way to go to approaching (not reaching of course) the quality of the studio main monitors or the live performance itself.

 

Sent from my Blackberry DTEK50 using Tapatalk

[The Computer Audiophile]

If its with respect to HiFi then this can only be a good thing, for us as consumers. If I already love the way my music sounds right now on my system, it's exciting to know that there is still a long way to go to approaching (not reaching of course) the quality of the studio main monitors or the live performance itself.

 

Sent from my Blackberry DTEK50 using Tapatalk

I agree 100%.

[Rt66indierock]

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."

 

Ignoring the snake oil, I got an A/B test at T.H.E. Show this year with The Doors “Riders on the Storm” exactly as I wanted with three other songs between the Hi-Res version and the MQA version. It wasn’t very useful because the rain should have two sounds, one a recording and one from a Fender Rhodes. In the Hi-Res version the all the rain sounds like the Rhodes and in the MQA version all the rain sounds like the recording. So to me both are wrong. My guess is the original is unusable.

 

When the music from my test suite of nine albums becomes available, I will acquire a DAC with MQA and play them. I wonder how long I’ll have to wait.

[TubeLover]

As there are no hires Beats, no. So no there is no bizness case for Apple.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

I'm not sure that you could make a case that there are even "normal res" Beats!

 

JC

[Miska]

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.

 

And in any case, MQA processing/encoding is performed on the final mixed and mastered end-result. So the same de-blurring can be performed just as fine at the playback end, where it has been done for ages (for example in Meridian DACs and in HQPlayer).

[Miska]

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.

 

And Dolby C had horrible side-effects on rock music, because it made the sound pumping really annoyingly... Unlike Dolby B.

 

So I ended up mostly using B on my tape deck, even though my deck also supported C. Depending on content genre.

 

But even bigger difference was made by choosing suitable high quality tape material. I was using mostly Cr (chrome) and Ma (metal) tapes. The TDK SA-X and MA-X tapes were my favorites. SA-X was IMO, better for rock while MA-X was better for jazz/blues/classical.

 

Anyway, compared to Dolby NR, MQA adds noise to the original, instead of reducing it.

[Miska]

Wasn't there a tidbit about MQA not having any A/B tracks available at shows? I think that is a sword that has two edges.

 

I just solved the problem by obtaining a DAC with MQA decoding and bunch of tracks for listening and measurement purposes. Down side is still that there's not really any of my normal test material available as MQA and since "nobody" outside of MQA can encode whatever they please to MQA, it makes things really hard to compare properly. Most of the MQA encoded material is such that there is really nothing much to "de-blur" in first place.

 

In any case, I believe I've found a way to decode MQA in software, so comparing should become a little bit easier.

[Paul R]

Yes, high end stereos sounding cartoonish. The best of the best with respect to HiFi products.

 

With respect, this is a bit of a misleading statement. If you mean does an orchestra in your living room sound like an orchestra at a concert hall, well, yes it does. In the same way a photograph looks like a person in real life. I would hardly call that cartoonish.

 

Is there music that is meant to be cartoonish? Outlandish impossible sounding antics? Sure - but it *is* meant to be that way.

 

I do think this chase for the "absolute" sound is a no-win situation. Our music reproduction systems are not really meant to do that. Now, high res PCM and DSD today do a very good job of delivering more of what the artist, engineer, and producer want you to hear than ever before. I suspect the real question that has to be answered is does MQA do as good or a better job than what we have today?

 

I take your opinion seriously, because I have not been able to compare MQA to DSD to high sample rate PCM. At least, not using the same music from the same mastering. That's probably the reason I remain unconvinced about MQA, along with the question of "If I re purchase most of my music yet again, will it finally really be master quality, or is it simply yet another gimmick to get more money out of me?"

 

Understand, I am not opposed to re-purchasing some of my music. But MQA is not making that easy, meaning of course, they really intend to make money from another audience and then have that audience pass the costs on to we consumers. That hardly encourages great support at the moment.

 

-Paul

[Axiom05]

It seems that every discussion about MQA always comes down to "Bah, blah, blah... but it sounds better." This can only be a one sided discussion because the majority of people have not heard it. I believe that the referenced article in post #1 was taking a look at the bigger picture that MQA represents. What would the industry look like if MQA is intertwined into every aspect of the recording, distribution and playback chain? What would it be like to live within this so-called "walled garden?" Is this scenario good for us the end users? Is it good for the small hardware and software providers? I don't think anyone here is saying that MQA doesn't have the potential to improve SQ or that improved SQ is not desirable. But I don't think that improved SQ should be achieved at any cost. Personally, I don't think that an MQA-controlled world is good for anybody in the long term.

[tailspn]

What do you do with your recordings, keep them for private listening? I was under the impression that Native DSD was your site - https://www.nativedsd.com/

 

Mine is a retirement gig with no financial interest, or return. I work with several labels for no financial reward to gain access to artists and venues to record. I either doing their surround content exclusively (Yarlung Records), or overlaying their existing multi microphone surround recording process with my own microphones and placement (Channel Classics). I only record that which interests me; classical acoustic music in 5.0 surround using simple/purist ITU alignment omni microphone techniques. The challenge is the selection and location of five microphones within an acoustic enviorment that yields a believable recording. It's all about the balance of spaciousness with instrument detail through microphone selection and placement. The object is to increase the emotional involvement of the listener with the music they hear. I've been fortunate to have won two Grammys, and having two different recordings publicly receiving favorable comments from Kal Rubinson and John Atkinson.

 

Like several other contributors here at CA, I volunteer work at NativeDSD.com, with no ownership, financial investment, or financial return. I do the file preparation and uploading to their Amazon Web Services servers for all the site's labels. Aside from the social aspect, it's about furthering the advancement of DSD as a recording and delivery process. NativeDSD also provides a vehicle for publishing work I've done for labels I've contributed to, or as freely shared recording examples on their Just Listen label.

 

But you're correct, my recordings are primarily for my listening pleasure. To see how far the best purist techniques and recording technology can yield the "you are there" experience.

[tailspn]

I'm no recording engineer, but I'm willing to bet the digital workstation has little to do with the sound quality when a competent engineer si recording the session. Rudy Van Gelder had no workstation.

 

Actually, the DAW has everything to do with 99.99% of the recorded music produced today, and for the last 15+ years. It's the tool used for digital recording, editing, mixing and balancing, and the ever over applied post process sweetening and mastering.

 

Except for the fraction of mostly independent label purest acoustic music recordings, the recording you buy bares little resemblance to the original microphone fed tracks. The convenience and power of Pro Tools like DAW's today make most recorded music a synthetic layered artistic construction, an art form like an impressionist painting. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just not real with naturally occurring spaciousness cues.

[Axiom05]

Does Steely Dan's Aja sound OK to you? Does anything from Reference Recordings sound OK to you?

 

I missed the context of your post. I thought we were still talking about MQA and not just stereo reproduction. No, stereo does not sound like the real event but it can still sound pretty good. I used to attend live performances of the Philadelphia Orchestra. When I came home and listened to my stereo, I never said "wow, this sounds like crap in comparison." It absolutely sounds different, but still highly involving and enjoyable. Unless there is some kind of "virtual reality" for music reproduction (and maybe we will get there), just moving a performance into a different physical location will change that event. You will never hear what is heard in the recording studio or at the live recording venue.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Actually, the DAW has everything to do with 99.99% of the recorded music produced today, and for the last 15+ years. It's the tool used for digital recording, mixing and balancing, and the ever over applied post process sweetening and mastering.

 

Except for the fraction of mostly independent label purest acoustic music recordings, the recording you buy bares little resemblance to the original microphone fed tracks. The convenience and power of Pro Tools like DAW's today make most recorded music a synthetic layered artistic construction, an art form like an impressionist painting. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just not real with naturally occurring spaciousness cues.

Let's not talk about recordings for the masses. My thoughts were more geared to the idea that sound quality is about the people who do the recording and their skills, not the fact they chose to use a certain DAW. You can get equal quality without a DAW, like all the great recordings prior to use of DAWs. Thus my thinking that it's not the DAW that matters, it's the people.

[tailspn]

You will never hear what is heard in the recording studio or at the live recording venue.

 

I agree with the live recording venue part, especially with just two channels, but why do you believe what's heard in the recording studio? I'm assuming you mean over their monitors in the control room, and not amongst the musicians themselves making the music.

[Axiom05]

I agree with the live recording venue part, especially with just two channels, but why do you believe what's heard in the recording studio? I'm assuming you mean over their monitors in the control room, and not amongst the musicians themselves making the music.

 

Because my listening room and my playback chain will alter the sound.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Mine is a retirement gig with no financial interest, or return. I work with several labels for no financial reward to gain access to artists and venues to record. I either doing their surround content exclusively (Yarlung Records), or overlaying their existing multi microphone surround recording process with my own microphones and placement (Channel Classics). I only record that which interests me; classical acoustic music in 5.0 surround using simple/purist ITU alignment omni microphone techniques. The challenge is the selection and location of five microphones within an acoustic enviorment that yields a believable recording. It's all about the balance of spaciousness with instrument detail through microphone selection and placement. The object is to increase the emotional involvement of the listener with the music they hear. I've been fortunate to have won two Grammys, and having two different recordings publicly receiving favorable comments from Kal Rubinson and John Atkinson.

 

Like several other contributors here at CA, I volunteer work at NativeDSD.com, with no ownership, financial investment, or financial return. I do the file preparation and uploading to their Amazon Web Services servers for all the site's labels. Aside from the social aspect, it's about furthering the advancement of DSD as a recording and delivery process. NativeDSD also provides a vehicle for publishing work I've done for labels I've contributed to, or as freely shared recording examples on their Just Listen label.

 

But you're correct, my recordings are primarily for my listening pleasure. To see how far the best purist techniques and recording technology can yield the "you are there" experience.

Lack of financial interest is a plus, with respect to your disparaging comments about MQA, but you're hardly a bystander without a horse in the race. You even say your agenda is "about furthering the advancement of DSD as a recording and delivery process."

 

If your motives were truly altruistic, you'd be interested in MQA if it could further your goals, "To see how far the best purist techniques and recording technology can yield the "you are there" experience."

 

I'm not arguing for or against MQA, but it seems you digging your heels in against something with which you have no experience, only a historical perspective on previous technologies released by the same inventors.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I agree with the live recording venue part, especially with just two channels, but why do you believe what's heard in the recording studio? I'm assuming you mean over their monitors in the control room, and not amongst the musicians themselves making the music.

Shouldn't we be aiming to reproduce the actual sound the musicians hear rather than the microphone feed? Keith Richards doesn't tune his guitar through monitors. He wants the sound of his amp.

[tailspn]

Let's not talk about recordings for the masses. My thoughts were more geared to the idea that sound quality is about the people who do the recording and their skills, not the fact they chose to use a certain DAW. You can get equal quality without a DAW, like all the great recordings prior to use of DAWs. Thus my thinking that it's not the DAW that matters, it's the people.

 

Agreed, the production people; engineers and producer completely determine the sound quality of recordings. Both in the analog days with multi-track tape and processors, and today's digital. But we differ on both what's achievable with and without a DAW, and the definition of a great recording.

 

But this discussion is getting off the track of my original thrust; which is MQA like processes are simply another cog in the wheel of post processing sweetening/mastering. None of this is new, except for the potential of irreversible intrusion into the music production and delivery system by a single for profit company employing proprietary psychoacoustic techniques. If Stewart was actually interested in advancing the sound quality of music, he could share through licensing his technique(s) with DAW manufacturers, so that music producers could decide their applicability to their project, rather than position that ALL music has to be shoveled through his application.

[tailspn]

Because my listening room and my playback chain will alter the sound.

 

Granted, and probably for the better given that which the majority of studios use for monitoring. But do you believe the actual digital content as heard in the final mastered studio production is the same as delivered to you? It should be.

[The Computer Audiophile]

If Stewart was actually interested in advancing the sound quality of music, he could share through licensing his technique(s) with DAW manufacturers, so that music producers could decide their applicability to their project, rather than position that ALL music has to be shoveled through his application.

I'm with you 100% that to MQA or not MQA should be up to those making the recording, not those responsible for reproducing the recoding at the consumer end. I haven't her Bob or MQA (the company) say that all music should be shoveled through this. That wouldn't be helpful and were hurt artistic choice.

[tailspn]

If your motives were truly altruistic, you'd be interested in MQA if it could further your goals, "To see how far the best purist techniques and recording technology can yield the "you are there" experience."

.

 

Again, we're speaking from different experience levels. I have an advantage in that I have the reference of comparing the actual live microphone feeds with the recorded. If I as a producer determine my product is as accurate a representation of the analog microphone feed possible with the equipment available, why on earth would I be interested in some third party applying their sweetening process to my recording without my consent?