MQA is Vaporware

[Brian Lucey]

 

3 hours ago, beetlemania said:

 

Because MQA is BETTER than the master tapes?

 

 

All kidding aside ... nothing is better than a master, ever.

 

The commercial games used to create fear and thus to sell high res to music consumers are all corrupt.  The master is what it is.  

 

I often print at 44.1 with the Pacific Microsonics AD.  This is not inferior to 96k or higher in a modern piece.   Production CHOICES are more important than slices per second and cutoffs above human hearing.  44.1 has a density in the low end that 96k does not.   HF details are not the prime currency of music, they are only one form of ear candy in a cocktail of musicality.

[Brian Lucey]

33 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

No, let's get back on topic. I really like having you here.

 

Have you heard anything from the inside about if the labels are talking about OTHER options like 24-bit FLAC streaming? Other than MQA.

 

Any whispers of that from the inside?

 

Or if the streaming companies themselves are considering non-MQA 24bit options? At the moment it's just Qobuz I think

 

And any whispers about Apple Music's plans and Spotify, regarding lossless? Or are you not allowed to say (probably the latter, but worth asking). I know Spotify are/were trialling CD quality recently. But whispers of Hi-Res from the biggest 2 streamers?

I don't have a lot of help on this.    24 bit is so easy it's boring I'm afraid, yet that is a guess, no real data.

 

Many of the label heads these days are recently graduated A&R people under 50, so they have no idea about MQA ... it's others in the machine who are making these decisions.

 

MQA is very aggressive.   I'm hoping that Apple will say no to them and put an end to it.  If it's not more convenient then Apple is generally not a fan.

[Brian Lucey]

So ... MQA

 

Anyone?

 

[Brian Lucey]

Just now, mansr said:

Then it would be easy to do a fair comparison. They clearly don't want that to happen.

I have done the comparison, it's not lossless.

 

They also have failed to even offer files up for comparison to AIX Records Mark Waldrep who supplied TRUE hi res, 100% hi res files.  3 years later .... still nothing.

 

[Brian Lucey]

Just now, synn said:

So, the 2L files are still the only source for comparing MQA, 192khz, DSD and DXD, correct?

 

 

Just an aside here ... still on the basic topic of codecs.   Comparing all these files (above) is the game some people play to feel like they are in the process of creation. Yet that is not the case.   It's off topic.

 

1. There is the master file in the mastering session.  The master.

2. There is the released master (may or may not be the same files)

3. There are profit motivated other options released often with the lie that they are better, at higher sample rates..

4. Folks get invested in the AB of these NON MASTER files for sport.  This is simply a case of being USED to make money for others.

 

Higher sample rates DO NOT equal a better sound, a more accurate sound, a more faithful to the source or more respectful to the artists, etc, sound.

 

Reality check please.

[Brian Lucey]

11 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

I found this section of the fairhedon interview especially interesting:

 

 

So, even if we accept that MQA comparisons have used the same master (a dubious assumption), this might explains some people's preference for MQA . . . and it doesn't reflect well on their tastes!

 

If we could measure it very accurately, it might seem louder by 1/10 or so from the EQ and the distortions.   An old trick.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Abtr said:

 

Thanks. Any tube amp has a fair amount of euphonic harmonic distortion of its own. Doesn't that make it difficult  to assess euphonics and harmonic distortion of MQA? How would you characterize this distortion in MQA soundwise?

 

 

Myth alert!   All amps have distortion, all life is distortion, all rooms have distortion.   My work speaks for itself.  And I hate the sound of Class D.

10 minutes ago, synn said:

Hi Brian,

 

I am not involved in music production nor I ever intend to get into it. I am involved in photography and retouching, so I do get the general gist of the concepts such as dynamic range, sampling frequency etc.  when I extrapolate them to the audio realm.

 

A/B testing of samples is not about seeing which one is "Better", at least not for me. It's more about understanding the specific character of each codec. For example, I do regularly compare the output from my medium format gear, my full frame gear and compact gear, not to see which one is "better" (In the ideal conditions, the medium format wipes the floor with everything else and then sits down for a smoke, but we don't always get to shoot in ideal conditions), but to understand how each of them behave in those conditions. This helps me make informed decisions on what gear to use where.

 

Similarly, comparing the 2L samples is more about understanding the specific sonic characteristics of MQA vs PCM vs DSD in the same environment (i.e. my audio setup).

As a matter of fact, I rarely buy anything over 48 or 96khz. I do not have the golden ears to distinguish anything above that quality and I am not particularly inclined to build up a DSD collection (Or MQA, for that matter). I did buy a 192Khz album from 2L, only because I felt like giving them more money after I used and abused the test track from that album a few dozen times (Quiet Winter Night from Hoff Ensemble. Give it a go, beautiful music).

 

Rest assured, I am not (And am not even pretending to) come after your job! I'm just a guy who likes to come home, sit in front of the audio rig for an hour or so and listen to some good music.

 

 

All good.  Just be careful of the marketing that says higher rates are better.    For example, I would disagree with this:

"I do not have the golden ears to distinguish anything above that quality "

 

Quality is not going up at higher rates.

 

I could buy a $200 AD at a Guitar Center and print my work at 96 or 192 and it would not even barely get close to the Pacific Microsonics Class A Discrete, cost-no-object converter I use at 44.1

 

 

MARKETING ... creates FEAR ... and FEAR sells products. 

 

When audiophiles complain about the fear based loudness and then engage in fear based "high quality" sample rate purchasing I just have to say PLEASE STOP the hypocrisy !

[Brian Lucey]

1 hour ago, Abtr said:

 

OK, but tube amps tend to distort (much) more than solid state amps. I have a tube preamp and I can clearly discern the added 'tube sound'. But as yet I can't hear any characteristic added distortion in MQA. I hear differences between redbook and MQA, but IMHO that's fully the result of the use of a different master in MQA (usually, IME, a relatively low DR version is used but apparently not always). Can you describe how this distortion in MQA sounds? 

 

What matters is sufficient resolution to hear a sonic signature and compare it.   The ability to AB has nothing to with the gear actually, I can AB on headphones at a loud trade show and hear much more than most.

 

Tube amps can be more revealing than solid state, again watch the myths.   It's all in how things are done and ultimately how they interplay.   The room also, is huge.

 

 

To answer ... MQA has been tested to have harmonic distortion, and I heard it before the tests.  It's a potentially euphonic haze.

[Brian Lucey]

4 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

You will find few people here who believe that higher sample rates are always better. 

 

Instead the consensus among most people here is that the quality of the work done by folks like you trumps resolution every time and that music released in Redbook format can sound amazing. 

 

Good news.

What matters is the work, yes, but the gear aspects matter hugely given the same work.

 

1. The analog line to and from the AD or DA

2. The clock

3. The filtering

 

Power supplies factor in 1 and 3 also

[Brian Lucey]

15 minutes ago, GUTB said:

BTW there is obviously no chance most of these MQA albums have been mastered with individual care, simply given the sheer volume of releases. I bet Meridian worked with the studios to build a bulk conversion script.

 

The true benefit will come from — as usual — audiophile labels and other special releases taking care in the mastering phase by talented engineers.

 

What benefit will come?

 

 

19 minutes ago, synn said:

One inconsistency I noted about MQA:

 

on one hand, they claim that each track has to be examined by their engineers and correction for the original ADC will be applied during the encoding process to MQA. And apparently the files have to be sent to them for this.

 

on the other hand, you hear announcements like how Warner etc. will be converting a huge portion of their catalog to MQA. If you consider the sheer amount of man hours required for this according to the claimed MQA workflow, not to mention the amount of logistics involved, there’s no way they are actually doing what they claim to be doing; unless they have an entire country at their disposal to churn the gears.

 

Yes, they are just kicking out something to make money that was not vetted or custom made.  And even if it was, it's not better or equal.

[Brian Lucey]

22 minutes ago, GUTB said:

The most most revealing, flawless sound I’ve ever heard came from tube amps. One such system was VAC’s incredible million-dollar room at CAF. Another was a much more modestly priced $50k Raven Shaman MkIIs.

 

Exactly

 

VAC makes a nice amp line for sure.  I'm very happy with my modded 211 but they are a contender if I was not.

[Brian Lucey]

B level corporate partners, B level reviewers, B level mastering engineers.

 

If we can't hear the problems perhaps we can smell them?

[Brian Lucey]

13 minutes ago, synn said:

I am a bit lost now. Was a double blind test ever done between MQA and proper high res tracks derived off the same master?

 

Please ... myths.

 

There is no "proper hi res" derived from a master.    24 bits is high res.  

 

We CANNOT upgrade ANY master from where it was printed.  There is nothing above 22k to grab, understand?  And no one here can hear 16k I'll bet.  

 

There is only loss with MQA or ANY alteration of the master as it was printed at the mastering session sample rate.

 

Higher rates are not better, they are useful for plug in processing during ITB or in-the-box mixing and for lesser converters to sound better.

[Brian Lucey]

1 minute ago, synn said:

Dear sir, no need to argue semantics or adopt the schoolteacher stance.

you know what I meant.

 

What you meant was .. vs. the ACTUAL MASTER

 

That is the best and only hi res that matters.

 

What you said implies there is more to gain by going up.

[Brian Lucey]

44 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

This is only true if you print at 44.1. I've got tons of downloads that were mastered at higher frequencies than this.

 

Whether or not, the additional audio information makes any difference is another discussion...

 

Everything about a format is incorporated into the released master

 

Bottom line

 

There is no "upgrade" only downgrades

[Brian Lucey]

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

3.  I do classical recordings and I plan to ask Bob Stuart or Mehow (Mytek) if they can encode a recording I did with the Texas Guitar Quartet.  That will allow me to do a more thorough and meaningful comparison.

 

4.  I have been impressed with two MQA demos I heard, one set up on a listening station at Mytek's Axpona booth and the demo that Peter McGrath and Bob Stuart did at the LA Audio Show.  The MQA encoded files sounded better to my ears in each instance.

 

So I am now on the forum here and I am still exploring the pros and cons of MQA encoding.  I hope these comments are helpful.  Let me know if you have any questions.

 

Thanks,

Lee

 

HI Lee,

 

Sounded "better to my ears in each instance" ... than what?

[Brian Lucey]

6 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Than the non-MQA files.

 

Was that the actual master file?  What was the resolution and source?

 

Was it "better" enough to stop all future innovation in filtering and for the world to pay MQA a royalty for every transaction using this one piece of tech .... for all time?

[Brian Lucey]

If MQA was so amazing, it would EASILY and with LITTLE DEBATE inspire people to get on board.  And to pay them forever, as it would blow away all filters ... for all time !

 

It's however not amazing, we know this at the very least by the mixed reviews and resistance, often on hard science or based on credible ears.  It's not inspiring people to get on board as well as it should IF IT WAS AS GREAT AS ADVERTISED. 

 

Further, if MQA was an honorable organization they would never, ever, sell it based on "bettering" printed PCM.  That's just insanity.  Even those manufacturers on board know this is a lie.

 

 

As far as the name,  the re-brand was needed as Meridian is not making money.  Using the words "Master Quality" to raise the cred/profile of this lossy codec (deemed lossless via manipulative legal jargon in their filing papers) is the ultimate insult to those of us who deal in master quality daily.

 

Many of my records currently sold as MQA, I had nothing to do with any of them.   Draw your own conclusions about the integrity here.

[Brian Lucey]

13 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Great point.  Don’t like MQA? Don’t buy it.

 

The difference here between choosing between 2 types of hamburgers or 4 types cars that exist in a world of options based on features, quality, price, etc .... , is that MQA exists to eliminate the other options and dominate global music delivery.  And plants a flag in the dirt that says this idea is the best we can ever do, stop the progress, we have arrived !

 

If we have a conscience, that is alarmingly ambitious and in need of deep study. 

 

If we don't, maybe we make a quip that misses the whole point?

[Brian Lucey]

40 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I think in the best scenario, MQA becomes a niche format.  I have not seen any evidence that Bob Stuart and team are "trying to corner the market."

 

Bob told me, in a room of 100 people, that is the aim. 

 

It's so obviously the business plan, why are so many corporate people on board?  Why is there the budget and investment?

 

DRM with MQA is huge money for everyone, in perpetuity

 

WAKE UP FRIEND !

[Brian Lucey]

4 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I'm not sure this is true.  Does MQA prevent a label from doing an LP or  hirez download?

 

So in your mind there are 3 formats?
 

MQA - the new standard

HI RES - I'm assuming you mean a high sample rate?

Vinyl.

 

Let's break this thought down:

 

1. Hi Res = 24 bits.   Period.  There is nothing better about 96 or 192, that's a marketing myth.   The PHYSICAL CONVERTER and the PROCESSING are the quality of the result.  The "best quality" is the sample rate from the mastering session.   Higher humbers are just an easy way for lazy people to measure quality and for greedy people to take your money and perpetuate this myth of more samples= better.

 

Filtering, analog stages, clocking.   These are everything.   44.1 in a great AD kills 96k in a lesser AD.

 

2. MQA as the new standard ... is VERY dangerous.  It's a lossy format.

[Brian Lucey]

14 minutes ago, #Yoda# said:

 Today, the very most new albums, primarily in the top-selling Pop/Rock genre, but others as well, are released only in 24/44.1 or 24/48, the minimal requirements for HiRes music and not nearly in the real master quality. Simply a coincidence? 

 

Please stop with this myth

 

Hi Res as you have come to be sold on it,  has everything to do with marketing and nothing to o with quality or artistic intentions or "the sound in the mastering room" , etc.  All marketing buzzword lies.

 

The best and only true master of a digital release is the one at the NATIVE RATE in the mastering session.  Any alteration to that master is a LOSS in QUALITY and artistic intention, etc.

 

A great converter at 44.1 blows away a lesser converter at 96k, a great engineer at any rate blown away a lesser engineer.  Quality is not a sample rate number.  Please stop.

 

 

[Brian Lucey]

9 minutes ago, #Yoda# said:

As far as I know, this is not correct. Today, most studios are able to record and master in at minimum 24/96, many at DXD standard. Due to the "Mastered for iTunes" requirements most Pop albums are originally recorded according to this demand.

 

Again, myths.

 

1. Mastered for iTunes (which sounds harmonically cold and shortens the groove of all music) requires

 

a. 24 bit mix (which is a stupid thing to require, as that eliminates many great 16 bit records from contention)

b. 24 bit master (at 44.1 and up)

c. Mastering Engineer who is certified (which is anyone, really) to sign off on the master.

 

 

2. This notion of "able to master in a minimum 24/96"  AGAIN assumes inherent superiority of rates over 44.1.   False.    Marketing, to sell you "hi res". 

 

I could print with Pacific Microsonics Model Two at 192 and I choose 44.1.  Others have their methods and work flow.   Like everything in the studio it's about work flow and the taste of the engineer. 

 

Nothing objectively better in higher rates.  It's the gear and the ears not the sample rate.   Marketing exists why? To make you think you need something and to take your money creating fear of NOT HAVING THE BEST!  The native session rate is always the best master ... always ... and great 44.1 captures all, plus has no need to be converted to 44.1.  44.1 is not evil and is still the universal release rate. 

 

44.1 with great hardware has MANY SONIC ADVANTAGES which have been lost in this penis measuring era of listening to air and details and comparing rates,  nothing about music in that.  It's just making some audiophiles feel important about themselves as they are fleeced.

 

Sorry if that hurts, yet it's the truth.

 

 

[Brian Lucey]

1 hour ago, #Yoda# said:

A great converter at 96k blows away most converters at 44.1

 

 

 

A well made AD at 44.1 beats a shitty AD at 96k.  The engineering is 98% of the sound.

 

96k vs. 44.1 in the Pacific Microsonics = less low end density at 96k, plus you need to SRC down to release it on CD.  This is stupid.  Lesser gear needs higher rates to shine, the best gear does not. 

 

Higher rates alters the presentation, not the quality.  Flavors of the same meal.  Not a better meal.  Sideways by sample rate, assuming great gear.
 

[Brian Lucey]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I agree that 44.1 has a lot of advantages, but you're not really selling your expertise by pissing all over audiophiles.  That is your audience here.  You know that right?

 

 

I am not here to make friends, I'm telling the truth to music lovers and those who seek the best.   Audiophiles are  often caught up in the wrong thing.

 

If you want AUTHENTIC and IN THE STUDIO masters, you need to know the native sample rate of the mastering session.   That is the best quality, the rest is making people money and bolstering egos ..." I have that record on DSD" !   Dumb.

 

Any change from the native sample rate of the session is not authentic to the artist and lesser quality.  

 

Absolutely, always.

[Brian Lucey]

5 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

This is not always true. For instance, in 1991 I ran the tape machine for the McCoy Tyner New York Reunion session. We also used the latest converters to record digitally in 16/44.  Later the tape was mastered to DSD for a Super Audio CD.  While the early LP is very good, in many respects the SACD is my favorite version.

 

As long as one uses care in the mastering, an analog tape can be a great source for CDs and hirez formats.

 

You're confusing topics.   Audiophile recording in a flat transfer vs creative pop mastering.  Best gear higher rates for flat transfers, sure.  Not most mastering however.