Paul R Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 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. Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
KeenObserver Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 Betamax was indeed a better system. Sony got aced. The Sony root kit fiasco was Sony's big misstep. It cost them. MQA has the smell of the root kit fiasco. MikeyFresh 1 Boycott Warner Boycott Tidal Boycott Roon Boycott Lenbrook Link to comment
spin33 Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 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. 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
Paul R Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 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
Popular Post crenca Posted February 15, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Paul R said: Oh I see. That actually might make perfect sense for non-audiophiles. It *is* a step up from 128kbs MP3 sound streams. 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... Kyhl, mcgillroy, Shadders and 1 other 3 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Paul R Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 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 loop7 1 Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
new_media Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 I don’t think any streaming service is using 128 kbps MP3 at this point. Even the free Spotify tier is 160 kbps OGG. At any rate, 2L isn’t replacing their lossy streams with MQA, just the lossless ones. Link to comment
loop7 Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 11 hours ago, BrokeLinuxPhile said: Sony has been more than willing to shove proprietary media down our throats for decades now You just reminded me of the Sony BMG copy protection rootkit scandal. Link to comment
Popular Post crenca Posted February 15, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 15, 2019 7 hours ago, Paul R said: 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 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. Shadders, mansr and MikeyFresh 2 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
rando Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 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
Paul R Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 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
mansr Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 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
R1200CL Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 Her is some interesting facts. http://secure.campaigner.com/csb/Public/show/566i-y4gg0--jilj9-5q8j86o9 Also he says there only exist 2000 real hi res album in the world. Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted February 16, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 16, 2019 42 minutes ago, R1200CL said: Her is some interesting facts. http://secure.campaigner.com/csb/Public/show/566i-y4gg0--jilj9-5q8j86o9 Also he says there only exist 2000 real hi res album in the world. 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. Jud, #Yoda#, Paul R and 4 others 6 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
R1200CL Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 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
Confused Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 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 crenca 1 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
Popular Post firedog Posted February 16, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 16, 2019 1 hour ago, R1200CL said: 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 ? I'm making no such suggestion. DSD is hi-res. That's the only suggestion I'm making. And in the linked article referred to Mark Waldrep includes DSD in the discussion. 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. But even without DSD albums the claim is false. As noted, classical albums are routinely recorded in hi-res for the last decade or so. Teresa, jhwalker, Jud and 2 others 3 2 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Popular Post Shadders Posted February 16, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 16, 2019 Hi, Hifi News March 2019 has a news item "Audiolab adds MQA", and another news item indicates that NAD using BluOS has MQA decoding. BluOS does not have HDCD decoding - not in their support website. Hopefully MQA is just a tick box exercise, unless the major labels who are part owners of MQA decide MQA is the only permissible format. Given that the Hifi press are aware that MQA is a scam, their failure to expose MQA confirms their complicit and duplicitous behaviour. They are not really on the side of the consumer. Regards, Shadders. crenca and Sonicularity 2 Link to comment
R1200CL Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 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
Popular Post rickca Posted February 16, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 16, 2019 I'm waiting for Stereophile to publish something lamenting the fact that Qobuz doesn't have MQA files (other than from 2L). I guess if Qobuz becomes an advertising client, Stereophile will be conflicted. crenca and MikeyFresh 1 1 Pareto Audio AMD 7700 Server --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs i7-6700K/Windows 10 --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's Link to comment
FredericV Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 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.htmlSome 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
Rt66indierock Posted February 16, 2019 Author Share Posted February 16, 2019 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. crenca 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Jud Posted February 16, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 16, 2019 9 hours ago, R1200CL said: 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. What they do have are albums like the one he started out discussing, the 24/96 version of the White Album. I'm very pleased Qobuz has it, and could care less whether it meets "Dr. Aix's" own private personal definition of hi res. He and you are perfectly free not to subscribe, or to subscribe to a non-hi-res tier. Lee Scoggins and 4est 2 One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Popular Post FredericV Posted February 16, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said: 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. Some years ago I took a 24/96 file which I considered one of the best guitar demo tracks ever, and ran that through foobar with and without DSP. The DSP was: downsample it to 16/44.1, and upsample it back to 24/96 - both with secret rabbit code. I was doing the A/B on the fly by switching the DSP on and off in foobar, on a set which included a big Vitus amp and a big pair of Marten speakers on some hifi show. Nobody could hear the diff. I later did another experiment with the same file, where i used sox with highest settings, to create a "cd filtered" 24/96 version, and posted this on some internet fora. Both files were 24/96 files, but one had downsampled to 16/44.1 + upsampled back to 24/96 content from the original, in order to eliminate any sound differences by the DAC. Nobody except one hifi dealer claimed to hear the difference. One listener cheated by opening the files with an audio editor and looking at the spectrum. The content of that file was produced by Mark, so yes I believe him as I did a similar experiment. So why go for hi-res? Not for the sound quality of hi-res itself, but for the fact that most likely more effort was put into the production as it is geared towards those who want quality. And thus recording & better mastering leads to better sound quality ... crenca, Hugo9000, Shadders and 2 others 3 2 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
R1200CL Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 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
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now