MQA is Vaporware

[GUTB]

1 minute ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

So. NEVER in your home. And you don't even own a tape machine? Ol. 

 

In my home soon...I hope. I have to find the right machine I don't won't junk, but if I don't need the show hotrods for $10k+ than I'd prefer something cheaper.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, GUTB said:

$500-$600 a piece so I assume they are 2nd or 3rd-generation master copies.

 

Now that is typical audio.

And apparently still your learning curve.

 

What do you actually do when on a break ?

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 minute ago, GUTB said:

 

In my home soon...I hope. I have to find the right machine I don't won't junk, but if I don't need the show hotrods for $10k+ than I'd prefer something cheaper.

Good luck with that. Lots of vintage machines to choose from. Those new expensive machines are toys for the ultra wealthy. 

[GUTB]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Oh, that again.

MQA sounds better than vinyl.

Or am I mixing up things now ?

 

I haven't tested MQA directly against vinyl yet. My sense is that my best vinyl records are still better. But my vinyl system is also over $10k so it's maybe not the best comparison. I paid $600 for a SMARTractor alignment tool. I'm proud of my $1k Hashimoto SUT. I'm definitely deeper into the analog side of things currently.

[KeenObserver]

For those in the know, are not all tapes being archived as PCM?

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Just now, KeenObserver said:

For those in the know, are not all tapes being archived as PCM?

many to DSD as well...especially in Japan.  

 

Here, Mobile Fidelity uses DSD512.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, KeenObserver said:

For those in the know, are not all tapes being archived as PCM?

 

I have them in a closet.

[GUTB]

1 minute ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

many to DSD as well...especially in Japan.  

 

Here, Mobile Fidelity uses DSD512.

 

There are DSD512 recorders out? I have to hear that.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Just now, GUTB said:

 

There are DSD512 recorders out? I have to hear that.

yes there are. 

[John Dyson]

4 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

So. NEVER in your home. And you don't even own a tape machine? Ol. 

I couldn't even do my project without audio from master tapes.  In reality, master tapes aren't that big of a deal -- except for security -- it is easier to listen to material that has been properly mastered anyway.  A person really doesn't want to listen directly to the 1960s through 1980s master tape audio  -- sometimes the tapes by themselves don't sound very good unless correctly processed...  Consumers might mistake a tape distribution copy as being the same as a master tape, which they are not.  Even the common, improperly mastered material has been tweaked to be listenable.  (This is especially true of the digital copies made from original analog masters -- by Library of Congress procedures aren't necessarily NR decoded -- and that is a real problem for consumers getting partially mastered materials.)

 

I am usually an open book -- examples too long/etc, but one thing that I can not/will not do is to share master tape contents.  That could cause real trouble, and I want to keep my relationships in good standing!!!  I treat that kind of material very similar as when I worked at a military installation. (I even keep seperate storage locations/etc.)

 

John

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

4 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I couldn't even do my project without audio from master tapes.  In reality, master tapes aren't that big of a deal -- except for security -- it is easier to listen to material that has been properly mastered anyway.  A person really doesn't want to listen directly to the 1960s through 1980s master tape audio  -- sometimes the tapes by themselves don't sound very good unless correctly processed...  Consumers might mistake a tape distribution copy as being the same as a master tape, which they are not.  Even the common, improperly mastered material has been tweaked to be listenable.  (This is especially true of the digital copies made from original analog masters -- by Library of Congress procedures aren't necessarily NR decoded -- and that is a real problem for consumers getting partially mastered materials.)

 

I am usually an open book -- examples too long/etc, but one thing that I can not/will not do is to share master tape contents.  That could cause real trouble, and I want to keep my relationships in good standing!!!  I treat that kind of material very similar as when I worked at a military installation. (I even keep seperate storage locations/etc.)

 

John

Well said. 

 

Occasionally a master mix is just right and needs no polishing. But in general they can sound "flat".

[John Dyson]

12 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

For those in the know, are not all tapes being archived as PCM?

DSD type stuff is more of a consumer thing.  The recording people that I deal with tend to live in the PCM world...  They seem pretty much settled on 192k/floating point, but often archive in 24bit.   I sometimes get floating-point digital master copies and sometimes 24bit, but I think 24 is more common right now.  Floating point is more for the 'processing' where there might be an overshoot or dynamic range issue -- and it is nice to be able to ignore those things when really busy on more important problems.

I always use floating point for my own processing -- never store in anything but 24 bit.

 

John

[John Dyson]

1 minute ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Well said. 

 

Occasionally a master mix is just right and needs to polishing. But in general they can sound "flat".

For older material, they can sound 'encoded', with poor documentation (guess which NR to use.)   Luckily, when I need one, they have been in good shape -- I know the calibration levels or the tones are intact/etc.  I have heard horror stories though.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

3 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Well said. 

 

Occasionally a master mix is just right and needs to polishing. But in general they can sound "flat".

Oh yea -- I really shouldn't talk down master tapes -- I have some REALLY REALLY beautiful ones also.  Mine are all DolbyA encoded, for some reason...

 

John

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

4 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Oh yea -- I really shouldn't talk down master tapes -- I have some REALLY REALLY beautiful ones also.  Mine are all DolbyA encoded, for some reason...

 

John

I am guessing from 1872 on....nothing before that from what I understand. 

[KeenObserver]

Last time I was at Symphony Hall in Boston they had some reels on display in showcases in the lobby.  Looking at them I was thinking that I would love to hear them.

[Hugo9000]

Magnetic wire masters are of course the gold standard, for over a hundred years.  Thank you, Valdemar Poulsen.  😍

[John Dyson]

16 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

I am guessing from 1872 on....nothing before that from what I understand. 

DolbyA started appearing in about 1966, and some of the older 3 track stuff was converted to DolbyA masters.   The first DolbyA units were the A301 (actually used diodes for gain control), but the up/downgrade to JFET gain control happend a few years later.  It would seem that the FETS would be better, but they were more 'tweaky'.   All of the Carpenters are on DolbyA, ONJ, ABBA, Bread (beautiful).   I have some Simon and Garfunkel, ca. 1966 recording (these aren't master tapes in my posession, but were originally done using DolbyA.)  Very luckily, I do have some playouts that leaked into the consumer realm (I mean REALLY CLEAN copies -- they just copied them!!!  Crazy!!!  Consumers have been putting up with some bad undecoded stuff.)  I have some ABBA that doesn't even sound like ABBA at all (NO 'ABBA' distortion!!!)  The hard part -- trying to figure out the decoder calibration without tones.

 

  Itis a real historical downgrade when they copied the 3 trks to DolbyA.  Nowadays, if you can find them (and don't have my decoder), it  is best to go back to the 3 track masters.  DolbyA is the proverbial deal with the devil -- and you know I am trying to fight that devil.  (Back in the '60s/'70s, the deal with the devil seemed like it was good tradeoff -- but, now since our quality demands are higher, the DolbyA modulation distortion is just not a good thing.)  The DHNRDS DA gouges out as much modulation distortion as possible -- really tricky math -- and I am not trying to siphon money from people :-). 

 

 

John

[GUTB]

Well I just compared the MQA CD and regular CD version of Portrait in Jazz (Bill Evans Trio - Riverside). My initial impression listening primarily to the 2nd track is that there little difference. I think the MQA-CD has better tone on the cymbal and the cymbal decay is more defined against the background / longer lasting. Definitely one of the least different MQA vs non-MQA tests I've done. I'll do a more comprehensive test later, maybe demag the discs too.

 

I'll note that MQA-CDs you get out of Japan like this one is are technically MQA on UHQCD media. UHQCD is a new CD media which has a priority physical mastering process and produces media that returns a much stronger signal from the laser head of a CD player. Someone on here tested it last year I believe and was able to verify this claim. Using a sampler disc I found the improvement of UHQCD is most heard in lower frequencies.

 

I bought a non-Japan MQA CD the other day so we'll see how that sounds.

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

Can you describe your MQA playback chain?

 

I’m an audiophile. I don’t have an MP3 playback chain. Lossy is for losers. 

 

If I want to play around with SQ “enhancing” DSP I can load kernels into HQPlayer Embedded etc. but I only store my music in lossless formats without exception. 

 

I also have synth software etc so there are many ways to manipulate audio.For temporal and spatial deblurring deconvolutions are effective.

[fas42]

Think of MP3 files as recordings being mastered on not the best equipment ... we have high res masterings available of old stuff done on machinery that would be laughed out of a modern studio - "the specs are atrocious!" ... but some people like them, .

 

My first experience of MP3 was files converted to WAV, burnt onto a CDR ... I didn't pick the "awfulness", not one little bit ... .

[GUTB]

17 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I’m an audiophile. I don’t have an MP3 playback chain. Lossy is for losers. 

 

If I want to play around with SQ “enhancing” DSP I can load kernels into HQPlayer Embedded etc. but I only store my music in lossless formats without exception. 

 

I also have synth software etc so there are many ways to manipulate audio.

 

You only had to say "I don't have MQA". You're anti-MQA activism appears to be ideological and/or social.

 

Why not? Weren't you curious about the sound quality improvements being reported?

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

My first experience of MP3 was files converted to WAV, burnt onto a CDR ... I didn't pick the "awfulness", not one little bit …

 

You can't turn a Sow's Ear into a Silk purse, but then again, you shouldn't be able to markedly improve low bit rate .aac audio of 128kbbps (or lower) as used on YouTube, by converting it to high res LPCM either, but others here , including esldude (Dennis) have confirmed that it can be.

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, GUTB said:

Weren't you curious about the sound quality improvements being reported?

 While away, you probably missed that quite a few members, including myself, were able to compare MQA against the original high res recording from posted samples, with the vast majority preferring the original high res LPCM

[jabbr]

10 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

You only had to say "I don't have MQA". You're anti-MQA activism appears to be ideological and/or social.

 

Why not? Weren't you curious about the sound quality improvements being reported?

 

1) I have several DACs that have

MQA playback capabilities. 

2) I am well aware that under a variety of circumstances MP3 can sound just as good as PCM

3) I am more that well aware of the ability to extract, de blur and otherwise manipulate digital signals including audio

4) I have zero interest in storing my music as MP3 or other lossy nonstandard or proprietary formats.