MQA is Vaporware

[lucretius]

Delete

 

[Charles Hansen]

14 minutes ago, lucretius said:

Different timelines:

 

You are correct - I was editing my post while you were making a new one. I can see that Fokus must have been looking at the "Electronics" entry. I can't see how it could be that hard to have two articles actually agree with each other. Surely someone in the world knows the right answer. Perhaps if one read Korean they could find out at Wikipedia.kr...

 

EDIT: None of this changes my point that I still think that Astell & Kern was selected as a deliberately deceptive name, just as the example of the Chinese TVs being sold under the "Bush" brand name (means nothing in the US, but apparently was big in the UK). Please note that LG purchased the Zenith brand name. I still remember their slogan from when their TV sets were all tubes, wired point-to-point by hand in the US - "The quality goes in before the name goes on".

 

2nd EDIT: Who said that advertising (programming) doesn't work?

[PeterSt]

55 minutes ago, lucretius said:

You can't always trust Wikipedia.

 

That's because guys like me write the pages.

[PeterSt]

Talking about Wikidedia, want some fun ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_Authenticated

[Charles Hansen]

21 hours ago, Confused said:

So taking a simple case as an example, an 80's digital copy made from a master tape, using a single ADC of known make and model, is there anything in MQA that can improve the digital copy?

 

Hi Confused,

 

Did you ever receive a satisfactory answer to your question? I think the real answer is that it depends. The sound quality of an analog transfer to digital will depend on dozens of different variables:

 

1) The sound quality of the heads and electronics in the tape playback machine.

2) The sound quality of the cables and connectors that brings that analog signal to the mixing board (assuming that is the signal flow - some recordings were mastered in the analog domain with analog EQ, analog mixers, and analog compressors, et cetera - others would convert to digital first and then use digital tools to do all of that.

3) The sound quality of the signal converters (A/D and often D/A so that analog tools can be used on a digital file).

4) The skill and ears of the mastering engineer.

 

I would say that in general, the sound quality of professional analog equipment has slowly but steadily degraded over the decades. Back in the '50s, everything was tubes and it is hard to make tubes sound bad. In the '60s a lot of pro equipment started going solid-state, and early solid-state simply didn't sound that good. By the '70s everything started going to IC op-amps, which in general sound even worse than discrete solid-state electronics. I'm truly unsure if modern IC op-amps sound better than the old crap, or if they have just become so pervasive that everyone is used to the way they sound now and thinks that is "normal".

 

On the other hand, there have been real advance (in general) in digital audio technology, from their preliminary introduction in the late-'70s to the current day.

 

The other thing is that there are always exceptions to the general rule. For example the Pacific Microsonics A/D converter was the first and one of the only A/D converters designed by someone with a high-end background who was proficient in both analog and digital electronic design. So that stands out as a classic even almost 20 years after it was made.

 

But I think the question you are looking for is if one has already made the transfer and there is no option to go back and re-transfer it with another, better sounding chain of electronics - which would definitely be best. Anything else is basically putting lipstick on a pig. Some pop albums (especially) sound like poop because the large multi-channel mixing console had hundreds of high-feedback IC op-amps, and there is no known way to ever get those to sound fantastic. The best we can hope for is that the playback system will not magnify the defects - something which is all too common and usually (and mistakenly) referred to as "ruthlessly revealing".

 

Instead what is happening is that are some types of signals in the recording that trigger misbehavior in the playback circuitry, exacerbating the existing problem. The goal is to instead make playback circuitry that is imperturbable by any signal (including RFI/EMI) that might be played through it.

 

As far as modifying a digital audio file to make it sound "better" (attempt to "correct" for errors in the A/D converter itself), MQA have basically painted themselves into a corner. All of their literature refers to the "time blur", which is the "ringing" of a digital filter that only occurs when it is hit by an illegal signal that violates sampling theorem. MQA claims that this happens more often than suspected, and based on my own experience, this may in fact be true.

 

But herein lies the problem. The only way to remove this type of ultrasonic noise (uncorrelated with the music signal) without cheating, by using already known tools such as EQ, compression, and so forth is to use digital filters that remove the ultrasonic "ringing". And therein lies the rub. There is nothing special about creating a digital filter to do exactly that. Dozens of companies (starting with Wadia in the late '80s, followed by Pioneer in the early '90s, and growing rapidly thereafter) do exactly that.

 

It became so popular to do so (a so-called "slow rolloff" digital filter) that it is hard to buy a DAC today that doesn't offer a slow-rolloff option, as all the current chips have them built in. The reason that MQA have painted themselves into a corner is that in essence, they are claiming that they have discovered the very best sounding digital filter for compensating for recording defects of all time and that it can never be improved upon. Which is of course, total nonsense.

 

There are around a dozen or more companies in high-end audio that have developed the ability to create their own custom digital filters. Some of them (such as Ayre) hew very closely to what MQA uses - slow-rolloff, minimum phase filters. Others (such as Schiit and Chord) use ultra-steep brickwall filters with many tens of thousands of taps. The nice things about this approach are:

'

1) Once you find an approach that you think sounds good to you on your system with the music you like to play, that the sonic improvement is completely free and will apply to every recording you own, no matter when you bought it or how it was encoded.

 

2) Many of these custom filters are now programmable via a firmware upgrade. If and when the manufacturer decides that they have created an improved set of filter coefficients for even better sound quality, it is trivial (and often free) to update the product.

 

The bottom line is that if MQA actually improved sound quality as they claim, the recording studios would be all over them to license the technology and resell their back catalog again. It would be a trivially simple way for them to make billions. As that is clearly not the case, we have to assume that something else is afoot. And the evidence for this grows stronger every day. Specifically, the sole reasons for the existence of MQA are:

 

1) To rescue Bob Stuart from decades of losses of running Meridian Audio and owing some very wealthy and powerful people many tens of millions of dollars.

 

2) For the record labels to sneak in DRM, which is key to the MQA process and allows for future control of music distribution and playback in ways that are potentially horrifyingly draconian.

 

3) There is some small incentive to the streaming companies to reduce bandwidth and storage requirements by using the lossy compression employed by MQA, but this was recently sharply undercut by Apple's announcement that iOS 11 will support FLAC. This cuts lossless storage for streaming services by half, as they currently have to store FLAC versions for Windows and Android machines and ALAC versions for Apple and iOS machines. The iOS upgrade is compatible with any iPhone or iPad with a 64-bit processor, which includes the iPhone 5 and newer.  It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that people will replace their old Apple devices far more quickly than the record labels can convert their entire back catalogs to MQA, and that there doesn't need to be any arm-twisting, deceptive marketing, or shady business practices required to do so.

 

Hope this helps.

[firedog]

6 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

I know of many music lovers who use this exact same strategy. I believe it combines the best of both worlds - less than the best sound quality for a very low (or free with ads) cost, when all that is desired is background music or discovering new music, and then buying the things you like in the format  (digital or analog) you like for music that you will want to listen to repeatedly.

 

Cheers!

+1

[synn]

7 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

I know of many music lovers who use this exact same strategy. I believe it combines the best of both worlds - less than the best sound quality for a very low (or free with ads) cost, when all that is desired is background music or discovering new music, and then buying the things you like in the format  (digital or analog) you like for music that you will want to listen to repeatedly.

 

Cheers!

Hi Charles,

 

thanks! I find this approach quite satisfactory for my needs. This is also why I personally find the “Hi Fi” Tier for most streaming services not worth the cost. I don’t need to listen to every track I stream at high quality. Additionally, many commercial recordings (also dependent on the Genre) are produced rather unexceptionally that any improvements that one might hear above the 320kbps that Spotify streams are marginal at best.

 

for example, I own Pearl Jam’s Ten on CD. I probably won’t be able to tell it apart from a Spotify stream in a blind test. I also own Some Dire Straits CDs. Brothers in Arms in particular is ASTOUNDING in Redbook compared to a stream. 

 

Which also ties in nicely with the other post you quoted (production quality of 2L). To my ears at least, production quality is more important towards excellent sound than sampling rates, bit rates and bit depths.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

This is an interesting data point. While the mastering clearly will affect the sound quality of any recording, so will innumerable other factors. What recording venues was used? Which microphones were used? Where were the microphones placed and how were they oriented? Which mic preamps were used? Which brand and model of microphone cable were used? What A/D converter was used (if the recording went straight to digital)? What was the original format? Was there a sample rate converter used between recording and release? If so, which one? Here is a link to an article that describes the equipment used by 2L:

 

http://www.soundstageglobal.com/index.php/shows-events/twbas-2012-north-carolina-usa/84-twbas-2012-product-profiles/195-2l-q2l-twbas-2012-samplerq

 

We don't know the microphones, preamps, or cables, but many of 2L's recordings are done in multi-channel. Apparently most of the recent ones use the A/D converter built into the Pyramix DAW made by Merging Technologies of Switzerland. I've no idea how that sounds, as if you think about it, all of the same factors that affect the sound quality of a DAC also affect the sound quality of an ADC:

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/35106-how-does-a-perfect-dac-analog-signal-look-different-than-a-cheap-dac/?page=7&tab=comments#comment-713189

 

If you look at the graphs in the linked article, the DAC in the Pyramix really can't do much more than about 96/24 before the noise floor of the converter begins to rise and obscure any musical harmonics that might be captured with a good 192/24 converter. Who knows how good the analog circuitry inside there is?

 

The point is that there is not any particular reason to think that the 2L recordings will sound any better than something made in the '50s by RCA or Decca when they were using ribbon and condenser microphones with tubed signal chains all the way through. Newer is NOT always better...

The most important pieces are the musicians and recording engineers. Give me good people with decent gear and I know they will get great sound.  Same with HiFi. Obviously the best situation is the best components and the best engineers.

[psjug]

7 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

What's wrong with China?

I have a pair of Usher V601 speakers.  I love how they sound and they did not cost very much.  Usher is Taiwanese, and they get a hand with engineering from Joe D'Appolito (at least that's my understanding).  So not mainland Chinese, but I don't see any reason a mainland chinese audio company would not be accepted if they did similar.  With or without without western collaboration, as long as the product is solid.

[psjug]

3 hours ago, synn said:

Hi Charles,

 

thanks! I find this approach quite satisfactory for my needs. This is also why I personally find the “Hi Fi” Tier for most streaming services not worth the cost. I don’t need to listen to every track I stream at high quality. Additionally, many commercial recordings (also dependent on the Genre) are produced rather unexceptionally that any improvements that one might hear above the 320kbps that Spotify streams are marginal at best.

 

 

I think this is fine if you are happy.  I have a different way of looking at it though.

 

I really like hifi/lossless streaming and to me the small price difference is completely worth it.  I also love vinyl, even though I think digital sound quality is superior to vinyl.  With hifi redbook flac streaming, I feel free to purchase vinyl knowing that almost always I can just stream the redbook digital version.  So now I never buy cds, pretty much just vinyl, and most of this is at shows where I get it signed by the artist.  Then I might play the LP or I might just stream the digital version. (Getting even more off topic, I think it's a bummer that the norm is including a mp3 download with vinyl, instead of a flac download or cd).

 

I think spotify plays gapless but one thing I hated with Rdio (maybe the only thing) was that their handling of 320AAC was not gapless.  Other than that, though, I agree that 320kbps sounds really good; I don't know if I can tell the difference between that and redbook.

[maxijazz]

5 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

3) There is some small incentive to the streaming companies to reduce bandwidth and storage requirements by using the lossy compression employed by MQA, but this was recently sharply undercut by Apple's announcement that iOS 11 will support FLAC. This cuts lossless storage for streaming services by half, as they currently have to store FLAC versions for Windows and Android machines and ALAC versions for Apple and iOS machines. The iOS upgrade is compatible with any iPhone or iPad with a 64-bit processor, which includes the iPhone 5 and newer.

Support for FLAC in iOS11 is from iPhone 7 up. 

But I agree with sentiment, in general. 

[lucretius]

2 minutes ago, maxijazz said:

Support for FLAC in iOS11 is from iPhone 7 up. 

But I agree with sentiment, in general. 

 

And no support for iPod Touch's or iPad Mini's.

[Indydan]

On 10/26/2017 at 6:05 AM, Charles Hansen said:

 

Hello Samuel,

 

Thanks for the info. I don't know why some people do such shilling. Are they paid to do so, or are they just so insecure as to need "approval" from some authority figure like Bob Stuart or Caelin Gabriel. (The fact that Caelin Gabriel chose a Japanese sounding name for his company makes me very suspicious right off the bat. Why would he want to potential customers to think that he was based in Japan? It's kind of the reverse of Korean company Astell & Kern who deliberately chose a British-sounding name for their company. It makes the opposite impression on me than what was intended, as it clearly implies that they are being deceptive from the ground up. Then you get really weird things like designed in the Netherlands, made in China equipment from a company that chose a grammatically-incorrect Spanish name of "Prima Luna" - first moon - it should be "Luna Prima". Their latest ad is obviously attacking Audio Research and claims that ARC's PCB are wave soldered "overseas" - I doubt this is true - while completely glossing over the fact that all of their equipment is made in Chinese sweat-shops.)

 

And people wonder why so many think high-end audio is a joke...

 

Mr. Hansen, I enjoy reading your posts, and I appreciate Ayre components. I am fortunate to have a dealer within walking distance from my home who sells Ayre, as well as Shunyata gear. I don't know Caelin Gabriel personally, but I have communicated with him on What's best forum a few times. Mr. Gabriel is a straight shooter. There is no deception on his part in choosing his company's name, nor in his technology. I consider myself to be a discerning person, and I do a lot of research and demo gear before I buy. I can say from experience, that Shunyata gear is worth it. 

 

Many cable companies create a marketing mystique around their cables. Shunyata does not. They are the company that best explains in technological terms why cables make a difference. My dealer only carries brands and equipment that are worthwhile and works, while being priced accordingly with regards to their performance. I know a good number of brands that tried to get this dealer to carry their products, only to be refused after the employees of the dealer tried out their stuff. And yes, Meridian tried hard recently to get this dealer to sell its gear. They were politely refused (after the dealer tried out its gear). 

 

I am sure that you know the people at my dealer. They will certainly vouch for Shunyata products if you speak to them.  I say this with respect, and with humour; Mr. Gabriel, like yourself, seems to not be shy about expressing his opinions. Maybe the two of you could have an online debate. It would be popcorn worthy no doubt!

 

I have linked a video in which Mr. Gabriel explains one of his concepts, DTCD. I would enjoy reading your comments about this concept if you care to offer your insights and opinion.

 

Regards

 

 

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Indydan said:

Mr. Gabriel is a straight shooter. There is no deception on his part in choosing his company's name, nor in his technology. 

 

Many cable companies create a marketing mystique around their cables. Shunyata does not. They are the company that best explains in technological terms why cables make a difference.

ROTFL. Show me one, just one, "technical" explanation from Shunyata that is even scientifically meaningful, never mind accurate.

[Indydan]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

ROTFL. Show me one, just one, "technical" explanation from Shunyata that is even scientifically meaningful, never mind accurate.

As usual, you are negative and overly skeptical. Did you even watch the video I posted? I will not debate this issue with you. You have your opinions, I have mine. I have tried a lot of power cables, and know from experience that Shunyata gear works very well. I speak from experience. 

 

Caelin Gabriel does not need for people like me to promote his credentials. I also want to avoid looking like a fanboy or shill like a certain poster who touts MQA constantly. But, Gabriel is an engineer and former researcher for the NSA. He is not just some angry guy on the internet.

 

That's it. I will happily discuss my experience with products if people are interested, but I will not engage in a useless forum debate or argument. I am expressing my experience and appreciation of Shunyata products. I do not wish to spend energy and time to defend myself, or a company I have no ties with (beyond being a customer). 

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, Indydan said:

Did you even watch the video I posted?

You added it after I replied.

 

43 minutes ago, Indydan said:

I have linked a video in which Mr. Gabriel explains one of his concepts, DTCD. I would enjoy reading your comments about this concept if you care to offer your insights and opinion.

That's nothing but technobabble. Waving about a mystery meter and showing some pretty graphs doesn't make his words any more meaningful.

[Charles Hansen]

6 hours ago, psjug said:

I have a pair of Usher V601 speakers.  I love how they sound and they did not cost very much.  Usher is Taiwanese, and they get a hand with engineering from Joe D'Appolito (at least that's my understanding).  So not mainland Chinese, but I don't see any reason a mainland chinese audio company would not be accepted if they did similar.  With or without without western collaboration, as long as the product is solid.

 

One thing that left a really bad taste in my mouth with Usher was their deceptive advertising practices. The had a stand mount monitor called the "Dancer" or "Tiny Dancer". It was claimed to have a 1" beryllium dome tweeter and engraved on the metal faceplate was a large "Be" the chemical symbol for beryllium. Be offers many performance advantages over virtually all dome materials, but is quite expensive.

 

It turned out that it was a flat out lie, and the dome was simply painted titanium (about 1/20 the cost). I'm unimpressed with the corporate culture that disrespects its customers so blatantly. YMMV.

[Charles Hansen]

3 hours ago, maxijazz said:

Support for FLAC in iOS11 is from iPhone 7 up. 

But I agree with sentiment, in general. 

 

That is not what I read from an official Apple press release. But they are free to do anything they want to try to induce you to upgrade, obviously. Perhaps they changed their mind? I really don't know. The article I saw said that iOS 11 was ready for all phone with 64-bit processors, but not yet for iPads with the same processor. Keep 'em confused... 

[psjug]

18 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

One thing that left a really bad taste in my mouth with Usher was their deceptive advertising practices. The had a stand mount monitor called the "Dancer" or "Tiny Dancer". It was claimed to have a 1" beryllium dome tweeter and engraved on the metal faceplate was a large "Be" the chemical symbol for beryllium. Be offers many performance advantages over virtually all dome materials, but is quite expensive.

 

It turned out that it was a flat out lie, and the dome was simply painted titanium (about 1/20 the cost). I'm unimpressed with the corporate culture that disrespects its customers so blatantly. YMMV.

Did not know about that - that's pretty bad.  The V601 that I have are the lower end stuff - I only paid $400 for the pair and they are nice for that.

[Charles Hansen]

2 hours ago, Indydan said:

Mr. Hansen, I enjoy reading your posts, and I appreciate Ayre components. I am fortunate to have a dealer within walking distance from my home who sells Ayre, as well as Shunyata gear. I don't know Caelin Gabriel personally, but I have communicated with him on What's best forum a few times. Mr. Gabriel is a straight shooter. There is no deception on his part in choosing his company's name, nor in his technology. I consider myself to be a discerning person, and I do a lot of research and demo gear before I buy. I can say from experience, that Shunyata gear is worth it. 

 

Many cable companies create a marketing mystique around their cables. Shunyata does not. They are the company that best explains in technological terms why cables make a difference. My dealer only carries brands and equipment that are worthwhile and works, while being priced accordingly with regards to their performance. I know a good number of brands that tried to get this dealer to carry their products, only to be refused after the employees of the dealer tried out their stuff. And yes, Meridian tried hard recently to get this dealer to sell its gear. They were politely refused (after the dealer tried out its gear). 

 

I am sure that you know the people at my dealer. They will certainly vouch for Shunyata products if you speak to them.  I say this with respect, and with humour; Mr. Gabriel, like yourself, seems to not be shy about expressing his opinions. Maybe the two of you could have an online debate. It would be popcorn worthy no doubt!

 

I have linked a video in which Mr. Gabriel explains one of his concepts, DTCD. I would enjoy reading your comments about this concept if you care to offer your insights and opinion.

 

It's an interesting idea. And pretty much every cable company has their philosophy they espouse. The vast majority of them make some sort of sense, in at least a "hand-waving" way. However the linked video seemed to imply the "DTCD" was far and away the single most important parameter.

 

That always sets off alarm bells for me. I have "designed" some cables that Cardas made to Ayre's specifications, and my experience is somewhat different in that I find many, many factors will affect the "sound" of a cable.

 

One of my biggest gripes with cable companies is that they are almost universally designed to sound "impressive" and "spectacular" in a quick 5 minute back-and-forth demo at your dealer. This simply does not work for me. For example with power conditioners, I have found that the only reliable test is to put into your system for at least 3 weeks. This allows it to fully break in and for you to become accustomed to the sound.

 

It's only when you REMOVE the PLC that you can get a clear picture of how it helps and how it harms.

 

The other ridiculous thing is the pricing. I find it extremely hard to believe that any pari of speaker cables is worth as much as a pair of our top=-line monoblock amps. I've built some prototypes of interconnects and speaker cables tat would retail for between $300 and $500 that are simply the best sounding cables I've every used. (And no, I don't think they would do especially well on the DTCD test.

 

Cheers!

 

PS - Full disclosure - I've never tried any Shunyata cables. It is possible that they would become my new favorites. But my experience has always been the opposite - when I listen to the latest "must-have" cables, I am always left unimpressed overall. There will be certain aspects of their performance whereby I can understand how someone would be impressed, but I could never live with them long term.

[Charles Hansen]

2 hours ago, Indydan said:

He is not just some angry guy on the internet.

 

You mean he's not like me?

[psjug]

3 hours ago, Indydan said:

I have linked a video

So the crappy power cord only allows a burst of 500 amps?  How much does your amplifier's transformer want?

[crenca]

44 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

One thing that left a really bad taste in my mouth with Usher was their deceptive advertising practices. The had a stand mount monitor called the "Dancer" or "Tiny Dancer". It was claimed to have a 1" beryllium dome tweeter and engraved on the metal faceplate was a large "Be" the chemical symbol for beryllium. Be offers many performance advantages over virtually all dome materials, but is quite expensive.

 

It turned out that it was a flat out lie, and the dome was simply painted titanium (about 1/20 the cost). I'm unimpressed with the corporate culture that disrespects its customers so blatantly. YMMV.

 

After a little bit of googling, apparently there was a controversy about rather there was enough beryllium in the cone material for Usher to claim that is was a "beryllium" driver.  Apparently (if I am following the controversy correctly) all "beryllium" cones are in fact an "alloy" (i.e. a mix of beryllium and some other metal), and this reality gives manufactures much room to drop a little (some small percentage) of beryllium in their cones and claim to have a beryllium driver.

 

Yet more tales from the crypt of subjective Audiophiledom...

[Miska]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

After a little bit of googling, apparently there was a controversy about rather there was enough beryllium in the cone material for Usher to claim that is was a "beryllium" driver.  Apparently (if I am following the controversy correctly) all "beryllium" cones are in fact an "alloy" (i.e. a mix of beryllium and some other metal), and this reality gives manufactures much room to drop a little (some small percentage) of beryllium in their cones and claim to have a beryllium driver.

 

Yet more tales from the crypt of subjective Audiophiledom...

 

There is a nice way to find out material properties of these metal dome tweeters. Just check out the frequency where the about +20 dB dome breakup resonance is. For aluminum domes it is around 25 - 30 kHz (combine that with leaky digital filters for some ear piercing fun). For harder materials it can get up to around 50 kHz.

 

Soft dome tweeters typically have that resonance below the cross-over frequency.

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, Miska said:

There is a nice way to find out material properties of these metal dome tweeters. Just check out the frequency where the about +20 dB dome breakup resonance is. For aluminum domes it is around 25 - 30 kHz (combine that with leaky digital filters for some ear piercing fun). For harder materials it can get up to around 50 kHz.

In the B&W 600 series the aluminium dome resonance is at roughly 25 kHz. In the more expensive CM series, still aluminium, it is at 35 kHz or so. Can't say I can hear any difference from this.