Vincent1234 Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 I think Tidal is going to charge you something extra to stream MQA. I was told by MQA representatives at RMAF 2016 that it would cost $40 a month. Not true. Today's announcement by Tidal states that all current and new Tidal Hifi members will keep paying $/€/£20 while getting the 'Master' files included. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Yes. I think if they charge $40 a month they will get a subscriber base worldwide numbering in the thousands. Maybe not over 10000 in total. My guess is it will sound a little better than Redbook streaming and almost no one will think it is worth the price. Just as relatively few feel Redbook streaming is worth the additional cost over mp3. See my previous comment. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Given that Tidal didn't have representation at RMAF, I'm skeptical of the original claim. Hmm, wasn't that claim done by Tidal themselves..? Maybe I misread. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Different strokes I guess, check out Private Dancer in MQA or The Doors and see what you think Sorry, I wouldn't check out Private Dancer at all, be it with or without MQA. One of the worst pop songs of all time, if you ask me.. [emoji6] [emoji1] Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 MQA: Questions and Answers Sidebar 1: Example: Nielsen: 2L-120 Track 1 | Stereophile.com I guess you are flat out calling Bob a liar and that the above analysis is made up? I'm confused. I would strongly advise anyone 'throwing bits around' here and claiming MQA must be sounding really bad to read this article thoroughly first. MQA is not easy to understand from a technical PoV. But if you take the time it's certainly doable and there's a lot of very clever maths behind it. It's clear to me that a lot of technical allegations here are simply incorrect and based on lack of knowledge, which doesn't help the discussion. W.r.t. DRM: I'm still not sure what to believe. But I will be using MQA mainly/purely with Tidal, so frankly I don't really care. W.r.t. Bob: it's clear that he needs MQA badly, since Meridian has become a marginal company. So some sceptical remarks are valid. However, let's stick to the facts before criticizing. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 So, this MQA is social project to help out Bob Stuard from bad economical situation? Maybe... I'm not in this world to help out Bob socially or financially, and neither are you I guess. [emoji6] Just stating a realistic PoV here. Meridian already lost Sooloos which was probably their biggest market asset. Some clever math, applied to already "cleverly" computed PCM is better than DSD with minimal (fade-in, fade-out) or no intervention at all? Remember - all ADC is SDM (DSD) first, after that "clever" math of decimation begins... Agree, I have some doubts here too and I also think DSD is an excellent and very natural sounding format. Not sure what MQA's 'correcting' impact in the ADC process exactly is..? Are you suggesting pure DSD wouldn't need any such correction? Just curious. What about inherent ADC jitter? I can tell you for sure that my Tascam DA-3000 sounds much better when using my external dCS wordclock connected to it when digitizing vinyl in native DSD. So DSD is also not immune to jitter, and neither is PCM. MQA claims to address jitter in the ADC as one of its key assets. We must ask what is important - lifelike audio or just EQ'ed and DRC'ed somehow, sometimes cleverly, sometimes not so cleverly computed audio, resembles interlaced "full-hd" video where picture is not actual HD, only half of that. This assumption is incorrect. When you read the several MQA articles on Stereophile properly there is no indication whatsoever for either EQ or DRC used in the MQA process. The 'origami' technique used by MQA means that less data is needed within a given bitrate than usual. Let's be clear: I'm pretty sceptical towards MQA too, but I oppose to spreading personal opinions that don't reflect the actual situation. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 This assumption is incorrect. When you read the several MQA articles on Stereophile properly there is no indication whatsoever for either EQ or DRC used in the MQA process. The 'origami' technique used by MQA means that less data is needed within a given bitrate than usual. Let's be clear: I'm pretty sceptical towards MQA too, but I oppose to spreading personal opinions that don't reflect the actual situation. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Hi Maldur, I just noticed that I mixed up your post with my comments. Sorry for that, and please notice my comments in my citation of your post too. BR, Vincent Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 "EQ'ed and DRC'ed" applies to all PCM based formats, not only MQA, my question is broader than MQA. Fact is, Bob don't tell whole story about MQA and EQ. No matter where or who writes something about MQA, fact remains - some "clever" math is involved in process. Is this really nessesary? If basically every DAC is Sigma-Delta, I don't see much point. What exactly is Bob not telling us about MQA and EQ? Can you be more specific? The clever math used in MQA is the 'origami' technique, which allows a high-res file to use much less data, allowing easier streaming with much less required bandwidth. Again, see several Stereophile articles for all the details. You didn't reply to my question on ADC jitter correction yet which is claimed to be one of MQA's key assets. Looking forward to your response. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Could you please explain where is John Siau incorrect? "The MQA encoder shown in Fig. 7A accepts a 96 kHz 24-bit input. This 24-bit input is immediately reduced to 17 bits ... ... ... Note that the original 24-bit signal is never recovered. MQA does not losslessly preserve the original 24-bit signal. For this reason MQA is not truly a lossless system. At best, the MQA system losslessly conveys 17-bits at 96 kHz. Unfortunately this very complicated process is less efficient than lossless FLAC compression of the 17-bit file. It is also only slightly smaller than a FLAC version of the original 24-bit signal. MQA does not make it easier to stream 96 kHz files. With a 96 kHz 18-bit input, FLAC compressed MQA requires higher data rates than FLAC compressed PCM while delivering lower quality than 18-bit losslessly compressed PCM. MQA also requires special mastering and special playback hardware. Conventional FLAC compression requires neither." No I myself cannot, since I'm not technically savvy enough to be able to point out the correctness or incorrectness of his exact technical reasoning. Having said that: can you yourself indicate if John Siau is technically more correct or less correct than Stereophile is in their analyses of MQA's working? Furthermore: please allow me to be much more sceptical towards the VP of a DAC brand that's clearly not willing to embrace MQA for their own personal (and no doubt business/financial) reasons. For this exact reason I tend to trust Stereophile's opinion more, as they are not paid purely to represent a specific brand's own financial interest. Don't you think John (although being a digital expert) just might be a little bit biased on this topic..? To me John's opinion on MQA is just as much worth as Bob's. Both are likely to be taken with a nice grain of salt. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Could you please explain where is John Siau incorrect? "The MQA encoder shown in Fig. 7A accepts a 96 kHz 24-bit input. This 24-bit input is immediately reduced to 17 bits ... ... ... Note that the original 24-bit signal is never recovered. MQA does not losslessly preserve the original 24-bit signal. For this reason MQA is not truly a lossless system. At best, the MQA system losslessly conveys 17-bits at 96 kHz. Unfortunately this very complicated process is less efficient than lossless FLAC compression of the 17-bit file. It is also only slightly smaller than a FLAC version of the original 24-bit signal. MQA does not make it easier to stream 96 kHz files. With a 96 kHz 18-bit input, FLAC compressed MQA requires higher data rates than FLAC compressed PCM while delivering lower quality than 18-bit losslessly compressed PCM. MQA also requires special mastering and special playback hardware. Conventional FLAC compression requires neither." These links (specifically the first) might help to clarify the MQA bit depth topic. You will have to decide for yourself whose opinion you value more: John Siau's of Benchmark Audio or Jon Iverson's of Stereophile and Michael Lavorgna's of Audiostream (related to Stereophile). http://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers-bit-depth-mqa#lBdsuEtAdseh3IL8.97 http://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-reviewed#9gvuUuQaPL4ptEzy.97 Enjoy reading. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 I think we need to remember that (in my understanding) there are two aspects to MQA processing: 1. The compression algorithm 2. The ADC/DAC compensation All we are getting with the Tidal files is the compression, not the compensation. The compensation has to be applied in the hardware (DAC) because the compensation applied would have to be specific to each DAC design. Additionally, I believe (but am not sure on this) the ADC compensation has to occur in hardware where the analog source is first digitized by the ADC, either in initial recording or subsequent mastering from analog to digital. The improved sound quality claims appear to mainly stem from the compensation techniques, all the compression does is allow for a hi res file to be delivered in a smaller container (of course to the average consumer comparing this to an MP3 it might deliver improved sound quality, but to audiophiles who are already listening to an uncompressed hi res file this is a moot point). Additionally, the MQA compression technique adds alias products, said to be inaudible of course, just as the psyychoacoustically derived MP3 algorithm is also claimed to be inaudible... Yes, I agree. Although I think the ADC compensation part now seems to be able to be executed in software only. W.r.t. audible (lack of) quality of MQA: the proof of the pudding - as always - is in the eating. Since much of the audio press is pretty positive on the audible results I will keep my eyes and ears open until my Rossini fully supports MQA. And only then I will judge, not minding if I lost 1 or 0,6 least significant bits in the process; not for one bit, actually. [emoji6] Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Personally, I am more likely to trust Siau, as he has not really steered me wrong. When Bob Stuart uses the term: "Master Quality Authenticated" I immediately know there is some bad smelling stuff going on, as MQA clearly bears very little resemblance to the actual master. I can purchase, for example, 24/176.4 HRx files which are exact bit perfect copies of the master from Reference Recordings, MQA is an entirely different thing. Fair point. However I do trust Stereophile more than either Bob or John, for the reasons I have explained. Do check out the Stereophile article on actual MQA bit depths and you will understand why. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 My understanding is that MQA really reduces 24bit resolution to 17bit, that makes the 1st block on Siau's diagram. When anyone speaks about higher 'apparent' resolution, it may be caused by some DSP, but such a 'resolution' cannot return information which was lost by reducing resolution from 24 to 17 bits. It's similar like when you reduce resolution of some picture and then you perform some sharpening algorithm on it. You may improve something for your eyes, but the low level detail is not reconstructed. Now it's important how much resolution has the technical gear you are using to look at the picture and how much resolution have your eyes. But we are not using the same gear and we have not the same eyes, ears and brain. I can only say that according to the referenced Stereophile article your understanding is incorrect. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 I have read everything at Stereophile and find that most of it appears to be a regurgitation of what Bob Stuart/Meridian are saying, which I find to be obfuscating marketing speak for the most part.I do look forward to a real technical analysis of what MQA compression and compensation actually does by John Atkinson with actual measurements showing the spectrum analysis, jitter, alias products, etc. That would be interesting. Hopefully Jussi will be reporting on this in the near future, I know he has a vested interest with HQPlayer and a very high degree of understanding of digital filtering (which is what MQA does after all). Some healthy skepticism is always OK. Please note however that a pretty extensive technical analysis has already been done by Jon Iverson in the same article on several tracks, of which some were recorded by John Atkinson himself. Although I think you would like to see these analyses to be even more elaborated? Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 And there is the rub. I agree. On the one hand, for the average consumer, MQA can be, and may be a step up in sound quality, as they (may) get a version of hi res (sort of) when they are used to MP3 or (maybe at best) CD level quality. But for audiophiles it is a different thing, we are already listening to hi res (often) and are using DACs which are painstakingly designed specifically to retrieve the last bit of low level detail. Suddenly all the work of our favorite DAC developers on low level detail, and digital filter design is not really relevant anymore with MQA, and we will be settling for whatever MQA feels is appropriate. The earlier referenced Audiostream article clearly shows that the quality of your DAC will stay being paramount, also with MQA. In the article Michael Lavorgna compares the Mytek Brooklyn DAC with MQA with the dCS Rossini without MQA. The latter clearly wins. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 I was initially very enthusiastic about MQA, mostly due to the promise that it could do away with the necessity to stream using lossy compression algorithms such as MP3. Unfortunately, I think that Stuart shot himself (and his technology) in the foot by making the licenses to use MQA pretty expensive. If you are interested is launching a new technology on the consumer market, you give away the licensing - at least until the technology takes off and becomes an industry standard. I'm not sure, at this juncture, whether MQA will ever gain the market penetration it deserves. As a society, we need to get over this "Gordon-Gekko-Greed-is-Good" mentality! Well, he's a business man and he does have the right to earn his living, doesn't he? Whether he has chosen the best sales strategy indeed remains to be seen. I expect that for one John Siao from Benchmark does not completely agree with Bob's license policy.. [emoji6] Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 It's not the licensing (at least from what they say) but limited content availability that Jason and Mike have pointed to, as they have with DSD. Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile It's logical some manufacturers hold their horses now to see if and how MQA will be adapted in the market first. At the same time it's not very likely they will tell the audience that they think the license costs are too high for them, even if that's indeed the case. Schiit products are not the most expensive in the industry, so I can imagine it's a pretty big risk for them to take to step in already now. Just my guess.. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Vincent1234, correct me if I am wrong but are not John Siao, Mike Moffat, Jason Stoddard, Miska, etc actual electrical/audio engineers or otherwise with technical degrees that required them to actually pass (let alone take) calculus? And are not the "writers" you cite from Sterophile and elsewhere just that - journalists and writers who have a good bit of practical experience in "the industry" but nothing more and so really are simply regurgitating what Bob/MQA tells them? I could be wrong here... It's a fair point to bring up. However John Atkinson from Stereophile is an experienced professional recording engineer too, and he seems to be pretty enthusiastic about MQA's SQ. And (sorry for this [emoji6]) Bob Stuart is an acknowledged digital audio expert for a very long time too. I really believe one should be pretty skeptical when a new format pops up which claims so many advantages like MQA is doing. But in the end it's all about how it actually sounds and this is exactly what most of these posts are NOT about. That's logical, since indeed available MQA material is still limited. But in the meantime I'm noticing a lot of slashing going on in the technical area, which often seems to be based on poor or wrong assumptions. Some food for thought: if measurements were all that counted in audio, no one would listen to vinyl or tube amps anymore. Would they? By the way, I'm one of those losers.. [emoji4] Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 That's exactly how it is. I don't agree as you can read in my reply. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 +1 So it is ... -1 I don't agree :-) Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Bob don't tell that:http://www.computeraudiophile.com/attachments/f8-general-forum/32208d1483819592-mqa-spectrum-plots-2l-064-full.png and http://www.computeraudiophile.com/attachments/f8-general-forum/32209d1483819913t-mqa-spectrum-plots-2l-064-silence.png If that is not result of EQ, what is it? So what is it exactly you are showing here..? The scales look rather strange to me. If I'm interpreting correctly effects are shown above 20 khz which are all below -120 dB. Correct? Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Look Vincent1234, one of these "writers" says today that: "If you're thinking, "Well the DragonFlys are limited to 24/96," you like me, would be wrong." (MQA Blue Is The New Black | AudioStream) Except the (non technical) writer is wrong, and the original thought (and spec) is correct. What one has to believe to get to the point where up is down, wrong is "right" is to believe the MQA marketing claim (which is a Big Fat Lie) that "MQA is PCM". When you believe that, well then magical things happen, like DAC's that can only process PCM 24/96 being able to process higher levels of PCM (say, 24/192) but such a thing is mathematically impossible. What IS possible is for said doc to process a compressed/lossy file that CLAIMS to represent the same data in PCM 24/192. These writers in the Audiophile Press have been duped, willingly as they really want to believe it because they think MQA (or something like it) is necessary (or at least inevitable) for "the industry", or at least inevitable and because they simply do not have the technical background have a responsible critique... Aah yes, the old conspiracy theory popping up again. I studied journalism myself (it's my original profession) and I do believe that the general audio journalists have enough self critique and moral insight to know the difference between what does and doesn't sound good, especially at a well regarded magazine as Stereophile. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Michael's claim is not about SQ in what I posted - it is about the equivalency between PCM and MQA...at least that is how I understand it - perhaps your right in that his was a SQ claim of some sort... Also no "conspiracy" if I understand your use of the term, only agreement about rather something is a "good" or not. My point is that I don't really believe they are wholly ignorant about the controversial claims of MQA - just that they don't care because they want to see it succeed - they like it. They also have a bias in the direction of "the industry" that is anti-consumer. If they were consumer oriented in attitude/outlook, they would try (alot) harder to see, understand, and discuss the "cons" of MQA (or anything like it). I admit my strong consumer oriented bias... You're assuming a lot about the audio press that you can't possibly know to be true. - 'they just don't care because they want to see it succeed'? Proof? - 'they have a bias in the direction of "the industry" that is anti-consumer.' Proof? Don't they earn their money by serving the consumer and isn't that the public they are writing for? - 'they would try (alot) harder to see, understand, and discuss the "cons" of MQA (or anything like it).' Proof? You obviously haven't read the numerous Stereophile articles on MQA. The problem isn't that 'they' don't understand and don't want to discuss the 'cons of MQA'. The real problem is that you only believe your own 'proof'. Does sound to me like you believe in a conspiracy. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 I don't know the numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me if ad revenue was greater than subscription/sales revenue at this point. Again a very suggestive reaction IMO. To go into the question behind what you are suggesting here: This response indicates a profound lack of knowledge how proper journalism in the free world is organized. To be able to properly distinct ad revenue and the related business interest from editorial content both areas are strictly segregated and editors and ad sales people therefore report into completely separate lines of management. It's a popular misunderstanding that ad sales defines what is written in the editorial section. In practice it's bs. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app Link to comment
Vincent1234 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 When I read reviews or critiques of audio gear, I always apply this scale: On one end, zealously pro-consumer and always suspicious of the ultimate motivations and trustworthiness of gear makers. On the other, utterly sycophantic of audio gear manufacturers in a way that would always accept the word of the manufacturers over independent scientists or engineers. The "ideal" reviewer is completely neutral (right in the center of these extremes). I've never, ever, ever, read anything in Stereophile that wasn't on the pro-vendor side of this scale. Stereophile has a cozy relationship with vendors, period. It's absolutely fine to be skeptical and I do agree that most reviews probably are on the positive side of neutral. But I also read on Stereophile some pretty negative SQ reports from a recent audio show (I think it was RMAF) which included some big names too. And from a readers perspective it's not a strange thing that many much-anticipated products are being reviewed first, which often tend to be positive too. And who would like to read mostly about bad products? To put things in perspective: I must confess that I have been wondering too about the very friendly photographs of Bob and the editorial team a few months ago. But to me the actual analyses they made public recently appear to me to be very sound indeed. And again, most of the slashing of MQA here is still based on private scope watching and not on actual SQ. Therefore I am patiently waiting for the MQA update from dCS. If it sounds great, I will be happy. If it doesn't, I will not shed a tear and will simply return to my other excellent sounding files and analog vinyl records (thank God, no MQA needed for those!). I'm still surprised of the rancor about MQA, before it actually really started off. But it's fine to me if you like slashing MQA and all of the audio press more than listening to music. I myself prefer the latter. [emoji4] Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app 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