Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, mansr said:

2L, an obscure label, already did this. If they can do it, why couldn't Sony, given their strength in the market?

 

If they publish MQA at all, dropping the clean releases would be a saving, not a cost.

 

Got a reference for 2L? All their new releases look to be in multiple formats, at lest for 2019. 

For example. 

120986464_ScreenShot2019-02-14at6_13_59PM.thumb.png.ea243d8c66df948ea698864ebffa1889.png

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

Got a reference for 2L? All their new releases look to be in multiple formats, at lest for 2019. 

For example. 

120986464_ScreenShot2019-02-14at6_13_59PM.thumb.png.ea243d8c66df948ea698864ebffa1889.png

 

 

Yes, 2L sells their releases in a multitude of formats (including MQA). They have, however, made the decision to provide only 'CD quality' (MQA encoded) files to the streaming services. 2L has publicly acknowledged this.

Roon Nucleus REV B -> DH Labs Mirage USB Cable -> Ayre QB-9 Twenty DAC -> SPL Elector Preamp -> Bryston 2.5 Cubed amp -> Magnepan 1.7i speakers + REL T9x

 

jonathan

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, spin33 said:

 

Yes, 2L sells their releases in a multitude of formats (including MQA). They have, however, made the decision to provide only 'CD quality' (MQA encoded) files to the streaming services. 2L has publicly acknowledged this.

 

Oh I see.  That actually might make perfect sense for non-audiophiles. It *is* a step up from 128kbs MP3 sound streams. ;)

 

But, I take your point. To me it is less of an issue because I am still old school enough to buy music that I want to keep forever. I don't trust *any* of the streaming services. Rather, I don't trust any of the labels that supply the streaming services. 

 

-Paul 

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
2 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Respectfully, your not following along.  Nobody is stepping up from 128 MP3 to MQA CD.  They are stepping down from 16/44 to MQA CD.  This is true even when MQA CD replaces 16/44 as the source file for a 128 MP3 encoding...

 

The vast amount of streaming going on today is not CD 16/44.1K files, it is lossy 128kbs MP3 or 256k AAC. And while people can usually tell the difference between a 128kbs MP3 and a CD, not many can tell the difference between a 256AAC stream and a CD. Only audiophiles tend to pay the premium to stream CD and hi-res music, or in fact, really care that much about the difference. We are a very loud, but very small part of the consumer landscape. 

 

I do not believe 128kbs MP3 stream sounds as good as even a non-processed MQA CD file. MQA is, at least for the vast majority of people, a step UP from MP3s. Maybe not a step up from Apple 256AAC, but that is questionable. 

 

-Paul 

 

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

I still get a hoot out of how these labels are asked to handle all but white glove transactions.  Even better, what the underlings in charge of this task have tried feeding the online MQA simulation engine besides audio files.  

 

Maybe @mansr knows someone who could turn this premise into a hilarious sci-fi web comic?

Link to comment
4 hours ago, crenca said:

 

All this is true.  What is its relevance to the subject at hand?  Where does the MP3 or AAC come from used by streaming companies?  It comes from these compression algorithms being applied to 16/44 files.  What is 2L doing?  They are providing a step down from 16/44 (in this case, MQA CD) to Spotify, Apple, Amazon, etc. that then gets processed by these compression algorithms.  

 

Probably picking nits, but I think the MP3 or AAC files probably come from higher resolution masters than from CD quality files. It's just a couple software clicks. I know Apple holds their source files in a higher quality format than 256AAC. Not sure about 2L, but since they do offer higher resolution copies of everything, I doubt they are creating anything from CD format. 

 

Now, that isn't to say some rather despicable labels have not tried to push off upsampled CD format files as "hi res."  That's a disgusting practice that I hope has been stopped. 

 

-Paul 

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Probably picking nits, but I think the MP3 or AAC files probably come from higher resolution masters than from CD quality files. It's just a couple software clicks. I know Apple holds their source files in a higher quality format than 256AAC. Not sure about 2L, but since they do offer higher resolution copies of everything, I doubt they are creating anything from CD format. 

 

Now, that isn't to say some rather despicable labels have not tried to push off upsampled CD format files as "hi res."  That's a disgusting practice that I hope has been stopped.

The streaming services encode mp3/aac themselves from whatever the labels provide. In the case of 2L, they are providing MQA.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, firedog said:

It's nonsense. The nativeDSD and eclassical sites together easily have more.  And they aren't even near the total when you bring in the other labels.

 

Are you suggesting Quboz is converting DSD and stream it as hires ?

Why do you bring in DSD ?

 

We are talking about recordings in hires PCM. Not DSD. Right ?

 

And where does he stats he doesn’t count recordings on tape ?

Link to comment

It is the Bristol Hifi Show in the UK next week.  For those not familiar with the UK show scene, the Bristol show is one of the more popular and well-attended shows we have.  The kit on demonstration ranges from the budget end of the market, with a few manufacturers bringing more "high end" offerings.  I think this is why the show is so popular, for many people it offers the chance to go and listen to the kind of kit they might actually buy, whilst at the same time get to listen to some more aspirational equipment.  There are other shows, such as one at Windsor, that are firmly in the "High End" camp.

 

For me, the show can be done as a day trip, but it is a lot of hassle, so I have this annual routine of reviewing the show guide when it appears online, and only going to the show if there is enough on display that interests me.  Reading through the show guide yesterday I noticed that there was not one mention of MQA.  Was this the case in the past, I asked myself?  The website for the show has an archive of old show guides, so I had a look.  Last year, there were a total of three mentions of MQA, from iFi and Bluesound.  From 2017 to 2014, no mention of MQA.  In 2013, MQA was mentioned three times, and only in press listings by What Hifi, who are sponsors of the show, and Hifi Critic.

 

I do not think there is anything statistically significant here, so take this post as just a bit of trivia.  Although taking this at face value, there is not much sign of MQA taking over the world, or even much evidence of MQA gaining a bit of traction.

 

http://www.bristolshow.co.uk/showguide.lasso

Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade.  Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, firedog said:

If you are going to claim no more than 2000 albums are in hi-res, you need to include albums originating in DSD, as it is hi-res.

 

 Not if we’re talking about the 10.000 claims to be on Qobuz. Which is what he is talking about. The claimed number 10.000 vs actually there only exist around 2000. 

 

If Qobuz was offering DSD, then you would have a very good point, but they doesn’t. 

Link to comment

This reviewer is not really a big fan of MQA. Differences between MQA and SACD were very small, so how can we be sure it's not a difference between the used components? e.g. and old SACD player vs a much more recent DAC.
 

https://audiophilereview.com/cd-dac-digital/a-comparison-of-sacd-vs-mqa-in-physical-format.html

Some interesting comments from Mark Waldrep below the article.

Going to attempt Mark's challenge ;)


http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6197

Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist

Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, firedog said:

It's nonsense. The nativeDSD and eclassical sites together easily have more.  And they aren't even near the total when you bring in the other labels.

You also have to understand that that he has a specific definition: recorded at 24/48 or above and never in any other format that might "compromise" the recordings. So if a recording is made in DSD and mixed at an analog board, he doesn't count it. He also doesn't count any album originating on tape. That's a reasonable argument, but not one lots of us accept. 

I'm very happy with my "hi-res" version of the White Album. It was produced from high res conversions of the individual master tape  tracks and has much greater resolution/detail than any previous version. And because it was intended for digital reproduction, they didn't have to do things like reduce the bass response when making the master (unlike the original LPs).

So Mark Waldrep thinks it's deceptive to call it "hi-res"; I don't.
 

 

I’m willing to listen to arguments that 12-14/30ish (analog tape) is high resolution but to me high resolution starts with microphones. I need special ones to make a high-resolution recording and they weren’t around when the White Album was recorded.

 

Better is fine but at a Los Angles Audio Show seminar we were told very few studios produce high-resolution recordings.  In any case what is the point? There isn’t a commercially viable market that can distinguish a well recorded CD from a high-resolution recording.

 

Or as Mark Waldrep said yesterday MQA is a hoax and so is hi-res. Quite a change from a man whose blog is Real HD Audio and believed until recently that his High-Resolution recordings were demonstrably better than CD quality. His own readers can’t reliably tell the difference.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Jud said:

Dr. Aix's" own private personal definition of hi res.

 

I think he referring to the hi res logo trademark of the Japan Audio Society, and those criteria apply to the use of that logo. (And that logo also appears on The White Album)

 

Not his personal definition.

Maybe those supply Qobuz with music is are the ones (mis)using and promoting the logo. Would be interesting to know. 

 

BTW

I now have Qobuz on my Roon.

And the one thing I have noticed so far is that you can’t browse hi res albums or see what’s hi res. (As you can Tidal maters). But that’s a Roon issue. 

Link to comment

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...