MQA is Vaporware

[firedog]

I just very much hope they weren't serious about this if they want ANY customer at all.

 

Redbook streaming is already twice the price of compressed offers, limiting this offer to some crazy audiophiles like us (very small numbers) willing to pay for this premium for what is in absolute terms not a huge improvement in SQ.

 

I've never heard MQA but even if it is an improvement over redbook who in their right mind would pay 4x Spotify Premium or 2x the price of full resolution redbook streaming?

 

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.

[firedog]

couldn't get it to work anyway. Tidal kept telling me I had to have the computer output set to 41k for it to work. So the master versions were played back in 41k

[firedog]

It seems to me that a more imminent and real concern is the decline of download sales and increasing popularity of streaming. I think we can agree that hi-res downloads are a niche within the download niche. As such, one question on my mind is how long can hi-res download sites survive?

 

If we couple this with hi-res streaming and the label's desire for copy protection, it strikes me that the more real and present danger (apologies) is the longevity of hi-res downloads.

 

Agree

[firedog]

 

 

Its called exposed.

 

FYI, you exposed nothing. Michael has a basic disagreement with you in approach and how human perception works. So he doesn't see the need to use your approach, which he thinks is incorrect, by definition.

 

You are convinced your approach is the only correct one. That's fine, but you confuse your OPINION with fact. Some of what you seem to think is fact is only your approach and your opinion. It isn't science, it's what you've decided science is. The two aren't equivalent.

 

I'm not arguing with you about what you think is the correct way to evaluate audio. Evaluate it any way you want.

 

I am criticizing your dogmatism, and insistent demands that others' opinions are worthless if they don't toe your line. It also often veers into nastiness and personal invective, which only takes away from the level of discussion for most of us.

[firedog]

I have been holding off on Roon because of Tidal's viability (and now, MQA) - I wonder with others soon providing 16/44 or higher streams (non MQA) if Roon will be working with those services (Pandora, Napster, etc.)?

 

The problem is that Roon will only do it with a streaming service willing to integrate their database with the Roon interface and allow Roon access. Roon won't compromise the interface/user experience it has designed.

 

So far only Tidal has been willing to,take the plunge.

[firedog]

If I can find all the MQA on Tidal and pass it undecoded to the Explorer 2, that will do for now.

 

Still can't understand why Tidal doesn't label the MQA masters so they are easy to find.

[firedog]

In a sense (not that you mean it this way), you are correct. Look up the etymology of "civil". We are not of the same "city", the same philosophy and loyalties when it comes to audio. That is why we have real disagreement (your a subjectivist all the way, I lean towards an "objectivist" understanding, etc.). What you can't do is control the city and put me in jail or otherwise silence my perspective, and that bothers you...So you come with a SCIENCE on your side...or so you thought

 

Instead of talking about the etymology of "civil" - which is a red herring in this context - why don't you look up the MEANING of "civil", in my dictionary, definition number 2 is "courteous and polite".

[firedog]

Hi Chris

 

I was talking strictly about catalog titles that we have earlier examples of where they are not dynamically compromised. I care very little about mastering techniques of modern music. One exception: some newer classical titles seem to be flirting with the Loudness Wars.

 

I agree with you. But, today many would say that even with a re-release/remaster of catalog titles, the decision to volume compress is an "artistic" one by the producer of the remaster.

 

Technically that is clearly correct.

But it's also clear that the "artistic" decision in many cases has nothing to do with any "artistic" consideration; or that the original artist/musician/producer isn't being asked his/her opinion.

[firedog]

According to Roon, the full unfolding of MQA files will be done within Roon. I think Paul’s post above suggests this is preferable to MQA being decoded by the DAC.

 

I don't think Roon has said this at all, and Bob Stuart has specifically stated that full unfolding won't be done in software.

 

My understanding is that Roon is going to have the same stage 1 processing (i.e., one unfold) of MQA software, just like Tidal is doing at present. No further unfolding, and no application of the deblurring done in an MQA DAC.

[firedog]

You're right. I was referring to Roon statements by Danny Dulai that he posted in Jan '16 where he kept saying "we are in a unigue situation because of our certified USB Dacs." He even said Roon may be able to build in DAC profiling because of their "unique position." He never said "full" decoding. Stuart told Chris C. in Apr '16 that deals were in place for software decoding, and that there is no technological reason DAC profiling couldn't be done effectively via software. The only reason he said it should be in the DAC was to promote "creativity" for the hardware engineers or some such marketing BS. Roon has not yet announced whether their decoding will be one fold or two folds. We just have to wait and see (and I know that's hard around here).

 

But you're right. You guys got me again. Mea Culpa.

 

I've posted citations and links over on the PS Audio forum, as I've already told you.

 

In this environment, quotes from 8 and 12 months ago are highly likely to be less relevant than statements from a week or so ago directly addressing these issues. That said, I'll be happy if I'm wrong and Roon includes more than first fold unfolding.

[firedog]

Regarding MQA in Roon I am confidently expecting something more than the Tidal software decoding. Roon have made it clear that MQA have had to do new development on their side. I don't see why if its just another license of their software decoder.

 

None of us know. I'm betting the "new development" had to do with multi-room and other aspects of Roon that don't exist for a software like Tidal desktop.

[firedog]

I read elsewhere, I've tried it, and it is so that if, on a desktop, one saves a TIDAL Master to favourites, the album will show up in ones favourites on a tablet. Here's my question, do you think that the saved TIDAL Master played through the tablet as an MQA file?

 

At present, no. The only way to get the MQA playback (partially or completely) is with the Tidal desktop app or an MQA DAC. Supposedly, Tidal playback is coming for phones and tablets.

[firedog]

On 3/31/2017 at 6:40 PM, Rt66indierock said:

 

Jud, how can you say the Grateful Dead were unsuccessful? They had one of the best business models for a band ever. The Dead are a case study in business schools to this day because they succeeded. And Jerry Garcia’s estate was valued at $9.9 million. Unsuccessful people don’t pass away with that kind of money.

 

There are two topics in this thread I won’t discuss, your post touched on one and the issue that lead to the Michael Lavorgna bashing is the other.

Unsuccessful is relative. Relative to some of the other rockers of their era 9.9 million is pocket change. Maybe the point is that wth the same music and a different business model a lot more money could have been made. 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

If this is the route taken, it means you will not ever have available to you a lossless copy of the high resolution master.  MQA is incapable of it by design.  It claims to be lossless audibly, but is incapable of true bit perfect lossless transfer.   There goes any chance to get the real master bit perfectly.  Getting the lossless version will cost extra just to rub salt into the wound. 

True, but people who think MQA sounds better (and there apparenty are many) won't really care: I have no opinion, as I haven't heard it yet.

 

Although I 'd prefer to have the real master, we rarely get it from most labels anyway. Even the high res they sell isn't actually the master in many cases. If a master was made in 24/96 and they sell it to us in 24/48, I'm not really sure how much diference it makes. 

Of course, if they continue charging full hi res prices for it, that will be a ripoff.

[firedog]

7 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Yes, that would be my definition.

I think of things like original masters of live performances along the lines of AIX, Blues Coast, etc.

Not unfortunately things like remasters of 40 yo rock recordings that are so far from the real thing that no amount of dial twisting or remastering of the analog tape to 100X PCM or DSD is ever going to help.

Sadly that describes most every single bit of the music I really love. 

Sorry, Sal. don't think your definition makes much sense. On either a 40 year or one year old multi-track rock recording, there's going to be all sorts of editing, manipulation, and mixing.That's just how they are made. 

If the end of that process is a "recording master" that is directly turned into a "release master" with no further manipulation, then I have the "master" recording. It's the most accurate to "the original master" there is. 

Doesn't matter if it is a modern recording or an older recording.

 

It may not be the way you would like music to be recorded. But you choice is only to buy the relatively few recordings done by labels like NativeDSD -and you aren't going to find much music of the kind you like there. 

 

[firedog]

4 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

Hi Thomas,

 

The store you linked is Warner Brother's store, not Neil Young's. There are other stores for other Warner Brother's artists as well. Neil Young's store was Pono Music, which was shut down when Apple purchased the digital file vendor, Omnifone. Omnifone was immediately shut down and all employees fired. Apple fan-boys say that Apple wanted some key patents that Omnifone owned. Neil Young fan boys suspect the whole thing was a cheap ($11 million) way for Apple to kill off the only other company in the world that supplied all 3 components required for a successful music enterprise - players, downloads, and desktop player software.

 

Pono only sold downloads in the highest available resolution. They had a "Pono Promise" that if any album purchased from Pono were released in a higher resolution that they customer would receive it for free. I don't think that ever happened, however - not because of Pono but because the labels didn't release any new versions of existing albums during Pono's lifetime.

 

Neil's position was that all music should be the same price, regardless of resolution. I don't think the record labels felt the same - if there were any justification for making more money, they didn't want to leave any of it on the table.

 

Cheers,

Charles Hansen

I and some others actually did get free upgrades to higher resolution versions of some albums when they became available.

[firedog]

3 hours ago, #Yoda# said:

Hi Charlie,

 

anyway if it is a primarily a WB  or NY store, it is currently the cheapest way to buy NY records in HiRes. I know all the history, I was a Kickstarter backer for the PonoPlayer and we already had some inspiring talks in the Pono community.

 

I'm not really a NY fan boy, in fact, I bought the player because it's circuits has been designed by Ayre. I don't think it was Apples objective to prevent a new competitor. I would rather call it a collateral damage and the reason of failure had been primarily the financial effects of the PonoPromise, missing financial strength and several other management issues.

 

Anyway, the basic approach of Neil Young is correct, IMHO. The very most albums today are produced in 24/96 or even better resolutions and from a cost perspective it would be best to sell the HiRes masters originally to the customers. DR shaping to "Mastered for iTunes" and downsampling to redbook standard are additional costs but in fact, selling an original master in an open format like FLAC means to sell it finally. A "No Go" for the marketing guys. For this reason they are very happy to have an alternative like MQA and for the time beeing until this will be the standard, they put us off with 24/44.1 or /48 downgrades in best case. 

 

Cheers,

Thomas

I think if you check you will find most albums are made in 24.44.1 or 48 and not higher resolutions.

[firedog]

23 minutes ago, #Yoda# said:

 

Not necessarily. Beside Meridian/MQA the major labels could be the winner in this game. There is not longer any need to sell their "crown jewels" in an open format, having an alleged alternative in a closed folded (compressed) format, not to mention the  DRM capabilities of MQA. As we can already notice, the very most new albums are issued at only 24/44.1 or /48 and not in the resolution they had been mastered.

 

 

Maybe ten years ago, you were right, but today the very most albums are produced in 24/88.2  or even higher resolutions simply because, as far as I know, iTunes requires a minimum resolution for incoming files for their store at 24/88.2

 

 

I think what actually happens is that most music is recorded at 24/44.1 or 24/48 and possibly Mastered in 88 or 96. Not the same as being recorded in those high resolutions.

[firedog]

55 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Was this an auto-correct?

No it wasn't. You don't get that as an autocorrect for lavorgna, at least on two devices where I just tried it.

[firedog]

HI Charles-

Appreciate your last post.

When using a Mytek (ESS) DAC, I found that upsampling PCM to DSD sounded superior to even hires PCM playback. I chalked that up to the  DAC doing fewer iterations of upsampling and conversion before filtering for the analog output. 

 

Now my system is a native PCM one with with it's own ASRC setup of upsampling and filtering. It converts 
DSD to PCM along the way.  I find that letting it do it's  thing sounds best - so I usually send it everything in "native" format.

 

However, I do have some recordings (mostly early digital) that sound to me a little harsh. I find that converting them to DSD (DSD 128 with 7th order filter) before sending them to the DAC does exactly what you described - it "softens" or "rounds" the sound in a way that even  upsampling to hi-res PCM doesn't. For those recordings, I like the coloration involved.  So having that option in software is quite useful. 

[firedog]

13 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

My point was that you railed against DSD, and still do, yet you built the feature into your components when you didn't have to. You're supporting DSD by making playback available on your products. that seems very incongruent with your hatred of DSD.

My memory says that Charles' so-called rants boiled down to something like: "DSD is pointless, but if enough DSD recordings come to market to make it a viable format, we will support it". Is that not correct? 

 

Enough did, and Ayre began to support it. I don't see anything hypocritical or reprehensible about that. 

[firedog]

4 hours ago, Don Hills said:

 

Did you take notes? Record the conversations? Obtain their permission to quote them? A real journalist would.

 

Otherwise it's hearsay, and should be weighed as such.

(Please note, I don't doubt you heard it as you described.)

I think this was all discussed/documented at the time here on the site by Auralic and Chris. Just my admittedly fallible memory. Do a search. And if anyone wants me to do the search - answer is no. If you care, do it yourself.

[firedog]

18 minutes ago, FredericV said:

 

The fact that MQA is certifying tubedac's (which add distortion praised by many audiophiles), debunks the whole idea of having the studio sound at home.

Why? the tube DAC has the tube on the DAC analog output to the amp/speakers. Not on the MQA processing.

 

Every DAC, amp, and set of speakers colors the sound in some way. Tube or not. 

 

Acc'd to your logic,  I need to use the same active speakers as the record producer used to master the file in order to get the "studio sound" at home, or MQA is "debunked". 

 

The slogan clearly isn't meant literally. it is claiming that the analog from the DACs output filters will be just like what was in the output of the master studio electronics, not that your system will make it sound exactly as it sounded in the studio. 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

 

The essence of MQA is that the DAC does not color and outputs the same "analog signal" as in the studio as it is supposed to be an end-to-end system for AD-transport-DA. By having tubes in the DAC, they break that chain.

So MQA has dual standards.

No, I think you are over interpreting it. The analog output section of the DAC (not the DA converter itself) has a tube. So as far as the end result, it's no different than using a non-tube dac and a tube preamp. So why should MQA care? 

 

And where does MQA says the DAC "does not color"? I haven't read that. MQA say the result of the digital to analog conversion (the electronic analog signal) will be the same as in the studio. Not that the DAC as a device won't have a sound.

They can't make the claim that "the DAC does not color", because all  DACS color - every DACs analog output stage has a sound. 

[firedog]

7 minutes ago, FredericV said:

I used to sell tube dacs/amps/cd-players, and solid state dac's. The output sounds completely different.

What is your affiliation with MQA?

They sure do, which is exactly what proves my point - all DACs color, tube or not. MQA or not. 

 

You are conflating the D/A conversion section of a DAC, which then sends the signal it has produced to the analog output section - which sounds different on every model of DAC.

 

Zero affiliation with MQA, which means I can claim to understand it just as well as you do. 

 

Please show me the proof of your claim that MQA has said an MQA DAC will "add no color" and all MQA DACs will sound the same. 

Your interpretation of what they are saying is simply incorrect.