MQA is Vaporware

[Teresa]

On 4/30/2017 at 7:51 PM, esldude said:

Sort of like all those HDCD DACs and discs that were available and now that company, Pacific Microsonics are no more.  Bought up by Microsoft and shut down.

 

Are you sure Microsoft shut down HDCD? Did this happen recently? I ask because my 3 year old Blu-ray / SACD Universal player decodes HDCDs and Reference Recordings is still releasing HDCDs, including this upcoming release Doug MacLeod: Break The Chain! It is being released on compact disc with HDCD, as high-resolution and conventional downloads and later, as a premium 2-LP set.

[Teresa]

On 5/17/2017 at 2:55 PM, Don Hills said:

 

Unlike the majors, Linn cares about audio quality.

 

I agree. Linn, like most other audiophile labels are concerned about audio quality as their reputation depends on it. Of course I'm referring to labels which are audiophile from the microphones to finished product, not audiophile remaster labels.

 

The major labels gave us their loudness wars with almost no dynamic range. With PCM when the recording hits 0dB the music cannot get any louder, so instead of getting louder the music goes into gross overload digital distortion. The nastiest sounding distortion I've ever heard. Add to that all the stuff the major labels do with their over-processed mixing to further destroy any feeling of listening to the sound of real music in a real space.

 

I gave up on the major labels a while back and recently I have quit buying music from audiophile remaster labels, such as MFSL, Audio Fidelity and others. 

 

My favorite audiophile labels, which make their own recordings, include but are not limited to: Reference Recordings, pre-2009 Telarc, Chesky, Groove Note, AudioQuest Music and about 30 other audiophile labels. I'm curious if any audiophile labels jump on the MQA bandwagon and why.

[Teresa]

56 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Hi Teresa - I don't think that will be true for PCM. A limiter may kick in though (during the recording !), with its own effects (not really much different from compression as such).

 

...A PCM file should leave a bit of headroom too because otherwise the reconstruction filter may not be able to do its work properly...

 

Peter,

 

I wasn't talking about well engineered PCM recordings which don't clip as their engineers respect the maximum level of 0dB full scale. I'm talking about victims of the loudness wars which are made as loud as possible with almost no dynamic range and lots of clipping throughout the song which causes the music to go into very gross sounding overload digital distortion.

 

With the loudness wars good luck getting the major labels to leave a bit of headroom.

[Teresa]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

...Whatever they mean by "deblurring...

 

This deblurring has me really confused.

 

According to Wikipedia "Deblurring is the process of removing blurring artifacts from images, such as blur caused by defocus aberration or motion blur." 

 

So how does a digital or analog master audio recording become blurred? Perhaps they should figure out how masters become blurred and quit blurring them. Does this blurring only happen with heavily processed major label recordings? Or do even minimust naturally made recordings also suffer blurring?

 

Wouldn't it be better to not blur recordings in the first place?

 

And is this deblurring process available without MQA?

[Teresa]

Thanks Jud and James. 

[Teresa]

On 6/9/2017 at 10:00 PM, Sal1950 said:

Why, they're only one of the finest sports cars in the world,

And of under $100,000

Something a real person can own.

 

I guess I never met a real person. $100,000 is a hell of a lot of money! You must be a wealthy person.

 

11 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Consider me an "unreal person" then, because there's no way I'm spending that much on a car :~) ...

 

I agree, the last car I bought was a used Chevy Cavalier for $6,800 and I thought that was a lot of money. I no longer own a car, I ride the city bus now and it is much more economical. I didn't know any real people had $100,000 just laying around, to me that sounds more like the top 1%. 

 

8 hours ago, rickca said:

Aren't there enough car forums out there?

 

This being an audiophile forum I would think that the talk would be about playing computer music files in a car, not the car itself. Oh well, what do I know? 

[Teresa]

8 hours ago, miguelito said:

...It might be that there's more to sound than THD and frequency response, maybe?

 

Correct!

 

7 hours ago, esldude said:

...There is this myth accepted in much of the audiophile world.  What sounds better to you is automatically of higher fidelity.  What sounds less good to you is automatically lower fidelity...

 

It's no myth, it's true for those who occasionally listen to live acoustic music.

• What sounds better is what sounds more lifelike.
• What sounds worse is what sounds less lifelike and more like a recording.
• And what sounds the worst of all is that which sounds sterile and cold.

Specifications will not reveal these, you have to actually listen with music you enjoy.

 

If one has never listened to real musical instruments or real human voices in a good sounding performance space then one may be enticed to prefer an artificially colored presentation. However, if one has and does go to live acoustic performances, one can only move closer to realism not further away.

 

1 hour ago, ShawnC said:

So then, what is the definition of High Fidelity...

 

Thus the definition of High Fidelity is that which gets you closer to the real thing IMHO.

[Teresa]

22 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

What about HDMS?

 

What is HDMS? I did a search and failed to find anything audio related.

[Teresa]

On ‎1‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 6:20 PM, BratStrangler said:

 

What’s a “record store”?

 

How young are you?

 

It is true the major brick and mortar major chain record stores are long gone, however in the city I live in there are still independent and used record stores. Also many book stores sell new CDs and LPs. Although, I do usually have to order new SACDs on the internet. I do sometimes find used SACDs at the used record stores, however most record dealers are selling out of print SACDs on eBay instead of in their stores.

 

Do a google search for your city and you may find one or more record stores. That said I really do miss Tower Records. 

 

For me DSD and high resolution PCM downloads are for those recordings I want which are not available on SACD or Blu-ray, or in which I only want a few tracks off the album.

 

Is MQA in my future? I think not as I prefer DSD to PCM and MQA is PCM and if the naysayers are correct, crippled PCM. However, I'm in a small minority preferring DSD. If MQA wins over the MP3 listeners perhaps it will have a chance? 

 

On ‎1‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 8:50 PM, Ralf11 said:

 

 

Exactly what it says - it is a server farm where they store recordings...

 

Thanks for the definition of the modern record store. 

 

On ‎1‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 7:49 PM, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Sorry, my shorthand for HDMusicStreaming.  The Cheskys are about to launch an all-MQA streaming site.

 

Thanks. 

[Teresa]

20 hours ago, FredericV said:

If MQA becomes the only or dominant format, we lose our freedom to do whatever we like with real hi-res files...

 

I have zero interest in MQA as I actually prefer DSD to PCM.

 

However, will I still be able to listen to my high resolution uncompressed wav and dsf music files unmingled if MQA becomes the only computer format?

[Teresa]

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 10:25 PM, Ralf11 said:

I'm not on Tidal - it's CD or nothing.

 

In my case it's SACD and Blu-ray or nothing. I don't purchase high resolution downloads anymore after deleting many I didn't or no longer liked at a 100% loss. With SACD and Blu-ray discs I can sell or trade in discs I no longer want.

 

I don't stream either and won't be trying it because the free Wi-Fi my apartment complex offers slows down or throws me off the internet if I use too much data, such as downloading too many high resolution music files or watching too many YouTube videos in a short time. So the cost is too great as I would not only have to pay a monthly fee for the streaming service but also switch to a paid internet service with unlimited data. With new and used SACDs costing as little as $5 each but sometimes as much as $25 each (my average for SACDs is $13.77) and with used Blu-rays costing as little as $3 each it's hard to get excited about expensive high resolution downloads or streaming.

 

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

I use computer audio...

 

And I believe you use computer audio in the most cost effective way. Since used CDs can be had for as little as $1 each locally in my town, hopefully in yours as well, I see no sense in paying $10 or more for a 16/44.1kHz download. And I've noticed on Amazon that directly from Amazon (not marketplace sellers) that the brand new CD and sometimes even the SACD version is priced less than the MP3 version and often this cheaper CD version includes a free MP3 download. Also by owning the physical disc you have an additional backup. So, to me, it seems smarter to pay less for the CD and losslessly rip it to your computer than paying more for the download.

[Teresa]

18 hours ago, Summit said:

 

CD, SACD and Blu-ray players are not computer audio. I believe that then you buy a CD, SACD or Blu-ray and rip them to a computer that’s computer audio, but it’s not digital optical disc or nothing anymore, if you play from a hard drive in a computer or computer based server.  

 

https://www.dagogo.com/an-interview-with-chris-connaker-of-computeraudiophile-com/

 

 

I agree with you.

 

Just to clarify, I listen to both physical discs and music files from my computer's hard drive. It's just after losing lots of money purchasing and deleting high resolution downloads I either didn't like or quite liking at a 100% loss, I quit buying downloads and only purchase physical formats, mostly SACD. With SACD I can sell it or trade it in if I no longer want it, plus in most cases SACDs are less expensive than high resolution downloads.

 

Also just because I quit buying high-resolution downloads does not mean I quit playing the ones I love. I see no problem with playing SACD and Blu-ray discs and listening to music from my computer, I have many inputs on my preamp. While Ralf11 does play the rips of his CDs, I currently play my actual SACDs.

 

So when I said "In my case it's SACD and Blu-ray or nothing" I mean current and future purchases. According to my database I currently have 38 hours 4 minutes of DSD and 24-bit PCM downloads, and 200 hours 38 minutes of audio-only physical formats, mostly SACD. IMHO it's OK to like both. Hope this clarify things.

[Teresa]

17 hours ago, labjr said:

With any luck Apple will buy MQA and it will be mothballed like HDCD was shortly after it was acquired by Microsoft?...

 

HDCD was mothballed by Microsoft? My Yamaha Blu-ray / SACD player decodes HDCD as does many other universal players. Reference Recordings and many other companies are still releasing HDCDs. In addition the CD layer of Reference Recordings SACDs are HDCD encoded. The only difference I see is on the back of an HDCD credit is given to Microsoft instead Pacific Microsonics.

 

Is this perhaps something happening in the future? Also should I be concerned about decoded playback of HDCDs? Thanks in advance.

 

[Teresa]

58 minutes ago, labjr said:

To be honest, I haven't kept up on it. I looked at Wikipedia. However,  I haven't noticed any new titles with HDCD encoding.  But who shops for CD's anymore? Reference Recordings isn't exactly mainstream.

 

Thanks for clarifying. ? I'm not into mainstream, I prefer audiophile recordings and I still buy SACDs. And sometimes HDCD or CD if the audiophile recording I want is not available on SACD or as a hi-res download.

[Teresa]

39 minutes ago, Paul R said:

...IRT FLAC, other than a few high end companies, have you seen any digitally distributed master recordings from traditional record companies? If not, then FLAC is technically capable of distributing master recordings, but it ain’t happening. So is AIFF, WAV, ALAC, and a few other formats. Why is such distribution not happening? Is it a technical fault in the formats?

 

Incorrect, it is happening. Most legal high resolution downloads (24-bit PCM FLAC and DSD) are NOT from audiophile or boutique labels but from the major labels (Warner Bros., Universal and Sony) at HDtracks and Superhirez.

 

Most audiophile labels are only available in hi-res as SACDs as they don't do hi-res downloads.

 

[Teresa]

On 2/19/2019 at 8:25 PM, KeenObserver said:

...If MQA does (hopefully) go away, where does that leave the people with MQA music?  Equipment makers are no longer including hdcd decoding.  Will the same happen with MQA?...

 

I just want to point out HDCD decoding is still available. My Yamaha Blu-ray / SACD universal player decodes HDCD, true it is over 5 years old, however I checked out the new Yamaha models and they still decode HDCD, as do many models from other manufacturers.

 

Also Reference Recordings still release all of their CDs with HDCD encoding.

 

15 hours ago, Jud said:

...Pono, no one's idea of a well organized business, managed to do it just fine with their eponymous DAP...

 

I followed the Pono player introduction, and it looked like a great portable player. However, I would never send money to a crowdfunded campaign or buy a special order product. I either buy in person or order online an in-stock product from a reputable company send with tracking number and a money-back guarantee.

[Teresa]

11 hours ago, Hugo9000 said:

I believe the majority of recordings by BIS have been done in 24/44.1, and I'd say that they are the most consistently spectacular label for sound quality, out of my collection of 3,000+ classical CDs/SACDs (those are the ones I currently own, I've heard thousands more recordings over the years).  So I find it laughable when anyone claims that 24/96 or higher is inherently superior for music, or that 24/44.1 is inherently bad.  I don't see anything wrong in using 24/192, but I find Robert von Bahr's reasoning regarding his choices for BIS and his label's track record of beautifully recorded performances to be quite persuasive.

 

Better quality material, better performers, better engineers who don't participate in loudness wars, careful mastering, etc. are far more important than a particular format or resolution in my opinion.  I wouldn't be surprised if BIS could get more out of 16/44.1 than most other labels could dream of getting out of DXD.  I'd love to see a contest between record labels and engineers using the same venue and ensemble and music selections for a true comparison of absolute abilities.

 

11 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I think 24/44 is much better than 16/44 but in this day and age, why not go all the way and record in 24/96 or 24/192?  24/96 does in fact sound a lot better than 24/44.  Sure the BIS recordings sound great (good engineering there) but think how much better they would sound in 24/96!...

 

You don't have to wonder how much better BIS recordings would be at 24/96 since BIS has been recording at 24/96 and offering downloads at the same resolution during the past 4 or 5 years.

 

I agree BIS's earlier 24/44.1 recordings did sound very good.

[Teresa]

On 2/21/2019 at 11:31 AM, mcgillroy said:

...why did Lee suddenly go after Pro-Tools?

 

 

On 2/21/2019 at 11:43 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

That's been a popular product for audiophiles to bash over the years. 

 

Most audiophile recording companies don't use Pro-tools or other types of processing as they are the antithesis to natural recording techniques. I understand most posters here prefer major label recordings because that is where the music they like resides. 

 

Those audiophile labels don't like how Pro-tools changes the sound of their recordings, they believe using it and other such tools degrade the sonics. Music lovers who love the sound quality of audiophile recordings and loathe the sound of major label recordings tend to logically blame Pro-tools.

 

In my experience the most enjoyable classical, jazz and blues recordings are from audiophile labels, and boutique European classical labels.

[Teresa]

15 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

1.  On consumer playback, 24/96 sounds way better than 24/48.  It doesn't matter whether it's recording or playback, the differences are real.  I cannot even believe we are arguing this...

 

Lee, I agree with this based on audiophile recordings in my collection, 24/48 is OK but it doesn't have the sonic realism of 24/96, and I find 24/192 even better.

 

For those folks who think 24/48 is the holy grail of audio, listen to the history of Chesky Records on their 30th Anniversary Collection Complete Set (1986-2016) It's a bargain at 39.98 for 6 hours and 20 minutes of great music in the original resolution.

 

• 13 songs in 16-bit 44.1kHz
• 1 song in 24-bit 88.2kHz
• 55 songs in 24-bit 96kHz
• 3 songs in 24-bit 192kHz

 

Also to those demanding proof, tradition AB'ing either sighted or blind just doesn't work using the human mind. They just don't understand how the mind works, especially pattern matching, cognitive bias, etc., see many of my older posts. So instead of demanding proof, listen to recordings in many resolutions from recording companies who strive to make the best sounding recordings in any resolution.

 

IMHO high resolution is the real thing, I have not heard MQA and based on what I have read I'm in no rush to hear it. BTW I like DSD the best, so far. 

[Teresa]

I plan on keeping my Teac DSD DAC until I die, so I don’t have to worry about MQA infesting my DAC.

 

However, my 5-year old Blu-ray / SACD universal player will eventually break down and need replacement. Since MQA CDs have been released I worry that MQA circuits could be included in future Blu-ray / SACD universal players and possibly make my other formats sound worse by not switching off the MQA filters when playing non-MQA discs.  

 

I also hope MQA is not used to make master recordings from the audiophile recording companies I enjoy.

 

I’m no longer allowed to stream music or video using the free internet service my apartment complex provides according to the terms of my new lease, so I have not heard MQA myself. 

 

I recently converted my computer music from uncompressed WAV files to uncompressed FLAC files because of its superior metadata. Uncompressed FLAC files are actually slightly larger than WAV because the cover art and metadata is stored in the music file. MQA may be a smaller, however I fail to understand how a compressed combination lossless/lossy file can sound better than uncompressed FLAC or WAV.

 

I'm one of those nuts who thinks uncompressed FLAC sounds better than lossless compressed FLAC and MQA just to me seems a sonic step down from that. 

[Teresa]

22 hours ago, fung0 said:

...Of course, you can theoretically use the Brand X social media platform - but you won't be able to contact anyone you know. Not because Facebook is so brilliant technically, but because 2.5 billion people are already on Facebook's platform...

 

Well, they won't be able contact me as I'm not on any social media. Have you heard they have all had security breaches? No social media is secure, no matter the misinformation they try to spread. There are 7.5 billion people on Earth, the smart ones IMHO are the 5 billion who are not on Facebook.

 

You will never find me on social media and you will not find any MQA in my home. If MQA is the only thing offered in the future I will just quit buying music. I love my current music collection of many hundreds of SACDs, DSD downloads and 24-bit PCM downloads that I can live without adding another piece of music to my collection.

 

No one can force anyone to do anything. We can say No!

[Teresa]

27 minutes ago, mav52 said:

Since you didn't say it, why not get that quote removed from say Music Direct https://www.musicdirect.com/equipment/audioprism-cd-stoplight

 

I don't think he needs to, did you notice it says "Product is no longer available". also the page is not searchable at Music Direct. Search result for AudioPrism is "No results found for AudioPrism" and CD Stoplight show "No results found for CD Stoplight".

 

https://www.musicdirect.com/equipment/audioprism-cd-stoplight appears to be a dead page perhaps found in an internet search. At any rate Music Direct no longer sales CD Stoplight.

[Teresa]

4 hours ago, psjug said:

Who knows what he was talking about since he lumps it all together.  But if I were to assume I would think he was talking about 320kbps lossy streaming.

 

Neil Young could have been talking about 64kbps lossy streaming from the 1990's. 64kbps music files produced the absolute worst sound quality I've ever heard in my life. Computers have come a long ways since then.

[Teresa]

 

On 9/20/2019 at 11:25 AM, crenca said:

...What, exactly is an "analogue waveform" and how is it materially different from an "digital waveform"?  We know that factually they are the same...

 

I never knew there was such a thing as a digital waveform. My DAC (digital to analog converter) converts binary digital to an analog waveform my speakers can reproduce. I thought binary digital has just two states and that digital has to be converted to analog before it can be heard as sound.

[Teresa]

22 hours ago, firedog said:

...For a lot of remasters, including from  old tapes-LP master tapes, the hi-res and DSD versions do sound better than the older versions and show a real intent to produce a better version.

 

The problem is that a lot of other remasters don't-they actually sound worse than previous versions and many of the labels seem only to be in it for the money. 

 

As audiophiles, we've probably all been burnt by such versions and it makes us less likely to buy more newer versions. Just another example of the labels shooting themselves in the foot b/c of greed. 

 

That is one of the reasons I avoid hi-res remasters from the major and other non-audiophiles labels. I have been burned too many times by so-called hi-res downloads (24-bit and DSD) from the major labels.

 

I prefer newly made audiophile recordings but I also like a lot of rock from my teenage years and jazz from the golden age. For those recordings I wait for audiophile remasters from Analogue Productions, MFSL and other audiophile remaster labels. So far most are only on SACDs, as far as I know the only analog remasters also released as hi-res are the DSD downloads from Analogue Productions.

 

That said, I prefer newly recorded music from audiophile and the European boutique classical labels in SACD or as DSD downloads.