MQA is Vaporware

[#Yoda#]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Most modern music is mastered at 44.1 or 48 kHz.

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.

[labjr]

2 minutes ago, synn said:

 Sure, but it’s not really equating to market traction.

 

i had mentioned in a previous post how MQA is still a no name over here in Germany.

They're basically saying, one format is good enough for everyone.

[synn]

Again, what they are saying has very little relevance to what’s actually happening in the market.

 

nothing or no one in the mass consumption arena has yet cared about MQA. 

[mansr]

3 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.

Perhaps @Brian Lucey can comment on this.

[#Yoda#]

5 minutes ago, synn said:

 Sure, but it’s not really equating to market traction.

 

i had mentioned in a previous post how MQA is still a no name over here in Germany.

 

It seems as we are living on a lucky island ?

 

Several professional reviewers of German HiFi publications told me that they are very aware of the MQA issues and handle this topic careful and not proactive.

[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.

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I'm using this language more in the sense of no one is forcing one to buy MQA, at least as far as I can tell.  However, it seems some here believe that is the case.

 

Hi Lee

 

"no one is forcing one to buy MQA" is not the point.  MQA is hard at work (and having some measure of success) convincing the major labels that high resolution PCM is a potential piracy threat and MQA should be the only high resolution audio format for consumers.

 

If the record labels believe consumers are ambivalent about this "land grab", MQA could potentially win over PCM.  I hope you agree that would not be good for consumers.

[synn]

4 minutes ago, #Yoda# said:

 

It seems as we are living on a lucky island ?

 

Several professional reviewers of German HiFi publications told me that they are very aware of the MQA issues and handle this topic careful and not proactive.

ja klar! das ist unser Vorteil. Die Deutschen sind immer vorsichtig!

[#Yoda#]

3 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

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.

A great converter at 96k blows away most converters at 44.1 and yes, we all recognized that YOU ARE THE BEST ENGINEER on this planet. I surely agree, that QUALITY IS NOT A SAMPLE RATE NUMBER. ?

[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.

 

 

[synn]

I was listening to Norah Jones earlier today at 320kbps, Redbook quality and 192khz and I could hear a distinct difference in the air as well as the cymbals. This proves that...

 

- Norah Jones’ mastering engineer is OLD FASHIONED

- My ears hear everything WRONG

Etc... etc...

[Samuel T Cogley]

4 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

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.

 

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?

 

[esldude]

3 minutes 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?

 

The fact he acts as if he doesn't tells me he has decided not to accept that as true.  A shame as well.

 

Others in the business from reports I read, say that virtually all studio work done is 44.1/24 or the occasional 48/24.  Film or video related work is nearly all 48/24.  

 

I wholeheartedly agree the best format is the one used for the recording.  If someone uses 768/32, even though I think that is ridiculous, my preference is to have the music in 768/32.  One might make a minor case for 88.2 or 96 khz rates, I don't see a rational one at all for anything higher.  Quite happy with 48/24 myself.  

[mansr]

18 minutes ago, synn said:

I was listening to Norah Jones earlier today at 320kbps, Redbook quality and 192khz and I could hear a distinct difference in the air as well as the cymbals. This proves that...

... you have at least moderately good hearing. Possibly you've also learned the telltale signs of mp3 compression. Now compare uncompressed CD quality with something higher. Differences there are subtle at best and more likely than not caused by the playback equipment rather than the ultrasonic frequencies being actually audible.

[#Yoda#]

4 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

12 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

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.

 

 

 

Ok, I'm telling myths, but please notice this  https://images.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/docs/mastered_for_itunes.pdf with the excerpt   

 

"To take best advantage of our latest encoders send us the highest resolution master file possible, appropriate to the medium and the project.

An ideal master will have 24-bit 96kHz resolution. These files contain more detail from which our encoders can create more accurate encodes. However, any resolution above 16-bit 44.1kHz, including sample rates of 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz, and 192kHz, will benefit from our encoding process."

 

I think, this demand from Apple has a great influence on the decision process about the resolution, even if Apple state that 24/44.1 is better than nothing.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

40 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Hi Lee

 

"no one is forcing one to buy MQA" is not the point.  MQA is hard at work (and having some measure of success) convincing the major labels that high resolution PCM is a potential piracy threat and MQA should be the only high resolution audio format for consumers.

 

If the record labels believe consumers are ambivalent about this "land grab", MQA could potentially win over PCM.  I hope you agree that would not be good for consumers.

 

If MQA is the only hirez format available then I can see some real issues.

 

By the way, I secured an interview with the MQA team in December and will be able to learn more from that.  I was also planning to talk to Charlie Hansen about his concerns but I learned today that very sadly he passed away yesterday.

[Lee Scoggins]

38 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

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.

 

 

Brian,

 

As someone who records in various sampling rates in PCM and DSD, I have to differ here.  44.1 can sound very good, however, we have found that 24/88 or higher is essential to getting the timbre of fine violins correct on classical ensemble recordings and it also affects instruments in jazz ensembles.

 

All else being equal (proper mic placement, decent ADC and DAC gear, good cabling and power), a hirez format is still a step up from the best 16/44.1.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

By the way, I secured an interview with the MQA team in December and will be able to learn more from that.

What makes you think that they'll tell you anything but lies? Lies is, after all, all they've told from the outset.

[Lee Scoggins]

Just now, mansr said:

What makes you think that they'll tell you anything but lies? Lies is, after all, all they've told from the outset.

 

What makes you think there is a conspiracy?

[mansr]

Just now, Lee Scoggins said:

What makes you think there is a conspiracy?

Conspiracy is a bit strong a word. However, every single verifiable claim they've made has been proven false. They are not trustworthy.

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

If MQA is the only hirez format available then I can see some real issues.

 

By the way, I secured an interview with the MQA team in December and will be able to learn more from that.  I was also planning to talk to Charlie Hansen about his concerns but I learned today that very sadly he passed away yesterday.

 

Based on past history such as Bob's reply's to our questions here at CA (and the axiom that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior) what you will "learn" from MQA itself is half truths, marketing emphasis, etc. such as  "perceived" bit depth, self serving (and just plain wrong) definition of DRM, etc.

 

What do you see is the relationship between "hi res", the consumer, and the "crown jewels" problematic (e.g. as Robert Harley sees it)?

[Samuel T Cogley]

9 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

If MQA is the only hirez format available then I can see some real issues.

 

By the way, I secured an interview with the MQA team in December and will be able to learn more from that.

 

With all due respect, your reputation from the Hoffman forums precedes you.  I sure hope your primary goal isn't to establish a relationship with the people at MQA.  If you're really a consumer advocate, here's your chance to step up.

 

Good luck with that interview.

[crenca]

11 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

If MQA is the only hirez format available then I can see some real issues.

 

By the way, I secured an interview with the MQA team in December and will be able to learn more from that.  I was also planning to talk to Charlie Hansen about his concerns but I learned today that very sadly he passed away yesterday.

 

Oh, and it is too bad that you did not get a chance to talk to Charlie.  He was one of the very few "industry insiders" who was willing to buck the "anxiety" of the current business environment and talk explicitly about what a proprietary and closed format like MQA would mean for the industry and the consumer.

[labjr]

13 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

If MQA is the only hirez format available then I can see some real issues.

 

By the way, I secured an interview with the MQA team in December and will be able to learn more from that.  I was also planning to talk to Charlie Hansen about his concerns but I learned today that very sadly he passed away yesterday.

 

Wow! That's tough news.  I loved reading his posts. Charlie brilliantly dissected MQA. What a great mind. He will be missed.   

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, crenca said:

Oh, and it is too bad that you did not get a chance to talk to Charlie.  He was one of the very few "industry insiders" who was willing to buck the "anxiety" of the current business environment and talk explicitly about what a proprietary and closed format like MQA would mean for the industry and the consumer.

Indeed. He was one of those rare individuals who did not bullshit. I respected him for that, despite having had a few heated disagreements.