MQA is Vaporware

[synn]

Back to MQA... again.

I am very interested to hear @PeterSt's experiences comparing MQA and non MQA heavy metal albums.

[Brian Lucey]

So ... MQA

 

Anyone?

 

[mav52]

Why is it , that since MQA is supposed to use  the master to make this new MQA product that MQA fails to provide which master was used ?

Was it the original master, was it from tape, LP, CD, Hi-rez and which format etc...  Whats the harm of letting the customer know ?

[mansr]

1 minute ago, mav52 said:

Why is it , that since MQA is supposed to use  the master to make this new MQA product that MQA fails to provide which master was used ?

Was it the original master, was it from tape, LP, CD, Hi-rez and which format etc...  Whats the harm of letting the customer know ?

Then it would be easy to do a fair comparison. They clearly don't want that to happen.

[Brian Lucey]

Just now, mansr said:

Then it would be easy to do a fair comparison. They clearly don't want that to happen.

I have done the comparison, it's not lossless.

 

They also have failed to even offer files up for comparison to AIX Records Mark Waldrep who supplied TRUE hi res, 100% hi res files.  3 years later .... still nothing.

 

[synn]

So, the 2L files are still the only source for comparing MQA, 192khz, DSD and DXD, correct?

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Brian Lucey said:

I have done the comparison, it's not lossless.

Yeah, that much is obvious.

 

1 minute ago, Brian Lucey said:

They also have failed to even offer files up for comparison to AIX Records Mark Waldrep who supplied TRUE hi res, 100% hi res files.  3 years later .... still nothing.

Telling, isn't it?

[mansr]

1 minute ago, synn said:

So, the 2L files are still the only source for comparing MQA, 192khz, DSD and DXD, correct?

Sometimes it's possible to find the matching master for MQA tracks on Tidal, but it's a lot of work. The 2L samples are all in one place, which makes them convenient. Unfortunately, the music styles covered are rather limited.

[Brian Lucey]

Just now, synn said:

So, the 2L files are still the only source for comparing MQA, 192khz, DSD and DXD, correct?

 

 

Just an aside here ... still on the basic topic of codecs.   Comparing all these files (above) is the game some people play to feel like they are in the process of creation. Yet that is not the case.   It's off topic.

 

1. There is the master file in the mastering session.  The master.

2. There is the released master (may or may not be the same files)

3. There are profit motivated other options released often with the lie that they are better, at higher sample rates..

4. Folks get invested in the AB of these NON MASTER files for sport.  This is simply a case of being USED to make money for others.

 

Higher sample rates DO NOT equal a better sound, a more accurate sound, a more faithful to the source or more respectful to the artists, etc, sound.

 

Reality check please.

[Fair Hedon]

11 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

I have done the comparison, it's not lossless.

 

They also have failed to even offer files up for comparison to AIX Records Mark Waldrep who supplied TRUE hi res, 100% hi res files.  3 years later .... still nothing.

 

In FACT...two people on the planet have had their 'master files" encoded by Stuart...

 

Peter McGrath of Wilson Audio, and John Atkinson of Streophile.

 

Funny, that.

[beetlemania]

I found this section of the fairhedon interview especially interesting:

 

Quote

It’s definitely a lossy codec, that was clear. And like Mastered for iTunes or any reduction scheme the losses are in critically important areas.    Where as mastered for iTunes is harmonically cold and loses some low volume/low end information, actually altering the groove to make everything sound like a nerdy white wedding band, MQA brightens the high-mids in the Mid section while thinning the low-mids on the Sides. There’s also some harmonic distortion which some people could find pleasing,  If I want that distortion in the master I would’ve put it there in the first place. The results of MQA I would call fatal to the source material even as they are very subtle.

 

So, even if we accept that MQA comparisons have used the same master (a dubious assumption), this might explains some people's preference for MQA . . . and it doesn't reflect well on their tastes!

[Abtr]

15 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

...

Yes I use class A push pull tube amps to assess everything, they are modified Cary 211 FE ... w Bricasti M1 SE DA  ....Sonics Allegra speakers in a special room.  Router (pre amps) is a Class A Crane Song Avocet.

 

Thanks. Any tube amp has a fair amount of euphonic harmonic distortion of its own. Doesn't that make it difficult  to assess euphonics and harmonic distortion of MQA? How would you characterize this distortion in MQA soundwise?

[Brian Lucey]

11 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

I found this section of the fairhedon interview especially interesting:

 

 

So, even if we accept that MQA comparisons have used the same master (a dubious assumption), this might explains some people's preference for MQA . . . and it doesn't reflect well on their tastes!

 

If we could measure it very accurately, it might seem louder by 1/10 or so from the EQ and the distortions.   An old trick.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Abtr said:

 

Thanks. Any tube amp has a fair amount of euphonic harmonic distortion of its own. Doesn't that make it difficult  to assess euphonics and harmonic distortion of MQA? How would you characterize this distortion in MQA soundwise?

 

 

Myth alert!   All amps have distortion, all life is distortion, all rooms have distortion.   My work speaks for itself.  And I hate the sound of Class D.

10 minutes ago, synn said:

Hi Brian,

 

I am not involved in music production nor I ever intend to get into it. I am involved in photography and retouching, so I do get the general gist of the concepts such as dynamic range, sampling frequency etc.  when I extrapolate them to the audio realm.

 

A/B testing of samples is not about seeing which one is "Better", at least not for me. It's more about understanding the specific character of each codec. For example, I do regularly compare the output from my medium format gear, my full frame gear and compact gear, not to see which one is "better" (In the ideal conditions, the medium format wipes the floor with everything else and then sits down for a smoke, but we don't always get to shoot in ideal conditions), but to understand how each of them behave in those conditions. This helps me make informed decisions on what gear to use where.

 

Similarly, comparing the 2L samples is more about understanding the specific sonic characteristics of MQA vs PCM vs DSD in the same environment (i.e. my audio setup).

As a matter of fact, I rarely buy anything over 48 or 96khz. I do not have the golden ears to distinguish anything above that quality and I am not particularly inclined to build up a DSD collection (Or MQA, for that matter). I did buy a 192Khz album from 2L, only because I felt like giving them more money after I used and abused the test track from that album a few dozen times (Quiet Winter Night from Hoff Ensemble. Give it a go, beautiful music).

 

Rest assured, I am not (And am not even pretending to) come after your job! I'm just a guy who likes to come home, sit in front of the audio rig for an hour or so and listen to some good music.

 

 

All good.  Just be careful of the marketing that says higher rates are better.    For example, I would disagree with this:

"I do not have the golden ears to distinguish anything above that quality "

 

Quality is not going up at higher rates.

 

I could buy a $200 AD at a Guitar Center and print my work at 96 or 192 and it would not even barely get close to the Pacific Microsonics Class A Discrete, cost-no-object converter I use at 44.1

 

 

MARKETING ... creates FEAR ... and FEAR sells products. 

 

When audiophiles complain about the fear based loudness and then engage in fear based "high quality" sample rate purchasing I just have to say PLEASE STOP the hypocrisy !

[kumakuma]

36 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

Higher sample rates DO NOT equal a better sound, a more accurate sound, a more faithful to the source or more respectful to the artists, etc, sound.

 

Reality check please.

 

15 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

All good.  Just be careful of the marketing that says higher rates are better.    For example, I would disagree with this:

"I do not have the golden ears to distinguish anything above that quality "

 

When audiophiles complain about the fear based loudness and then engage in fear based "high quality" sample rate purchasing I just have to say PLEASE STOP the hypocrisy !

 

You will find few people here who believe that higher sample rates are always better. 

 

Instead the consensus among most people here is that the quality of the work done by folks like you trumps resolution every time and that music released in Redbook format can sound amazing. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Yes, this thread is out of hand with off topic stuff. I had to take my daughter to the doctor this morning, but will be moving the off topic stuff to another thread asap.

[The Computer Audiophile]

OK, 8 pages moved to another thread. Let me know what comments I missed in this first pass through.

[Abtr]

1 hour ago, Brian Lucey said:

...

Myth alert!   All amps have distortion, all life is distortion, all rooms have distortion.   My work speaks for itself.  And I hate the sound of Class D.

...

 

OK, but tube amps tend to distort (much) more than solid state amps. I have a tube preamp and I can clearly discern the added 'tube sound'. But as yet I can't hear any characteristic added distortion in MQA. I hear differences between redbook and MQA, but IMHO that's fully the result of the use of a different master in MQA (usually, IME, a relatively low DR version is used but apparently not always). Can you describe how this distortion in MQA sounds? 

[Charles Hansen]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

OK, 8 pages moved to another thread. Let me know what comments I missed in this first pass through.

 

Thanks very much, Chris!

[synn]

MQA is still making very little buzz over here in Europe. No one i know is talking about it and the Hi-Fi shops are still putting good old stuff in the forefront.

 

i was in the market for a network streamer a little while ago and I emailed Onkyo/ Pioneer Europe if they have any plans to offer MQA deciding in their current range of network players. The answer I got was that they currently have no plans. That’s interesting because they are both fully paid up members. So far, all that they have offered are rebranded versions of a portable player.

 

Either the PMPs are about “Testing the waters” to see if MQA sticks or they are planning to release “All new” versions of the network streamers with MQA.

[Charles Hansen]

26 minutes ago, synn said:

MQA is still making very little buzz over here in Europe. No one i know is talking about it and the Hi-Fi shops are still putting good old stuff in the forefront.

 

What country do you live in? MQA is trying to establish a European "beachhead" in the Netherlands, but I don't think they are making very much progress.

26 minutes ago, synn said:

i was in the market for a network streamer a little while ago and I emailed Onkyo/ Pioneer Europe if they have any plans to offer MQA deciding in their current range of network players. The answer I got was that they currently have no plans. That’s interesting because they are both fully paid up members. So far, all that they have offered are rebranded versions of a portable player.

 

I am unaware of either Pioneer or Onkyo making rebranded anythings. Can you please specify the model of portable player  Pioneer/Onkyo is selling in Europe, and who the actual OEM manufacturer is?

 

26 minutes ago, synn said:

Either the PMPs are about “Testing the waters” to see if MQA sticks or they are planning to release “All new” versions of the network streamers with MQA.

 

Another reason I dislike the internet. I couldn't for the life of me figure out what "PMP" stood for. I even looked on an internet slang dictionary and found "Peed My Pants", "Practice Makes Perfect", "Poor Man's Pizza", and "Poor Man's Porsche". It wasn't until I was typing the above paragraph that I realized you meant "Portable Music Player". As I've said before, I'm not particularly quick-witted, but usually figure out things when given enough time.

 

EDIT: PS - No, they are not planning to release "All new" versions. They are only "testing the waters". Just look at when DVD was first released. All of the movie studios (more then than now, due to US government relaxation of anti-monopoly policies) released titles to "test the waters". Pretty much every release made lots of money, so within a few years there were tens of thousands of titles.  Contrast this to any other failed format, such as DVD-Audio, SACD, or MQA. All of the big companies that are driven solely by profit (eg, public and greedy private) stopped. The only companies making SACDs are tiny private ones, serving a niche market, and dedicated to quality over profit.

[synn]

Haha apologies for the acronym!

 

what I meant by rebranded is that Pioneer’s hifi business is owned by Onkyo now, so they are selling the same device with their respective brand names and slightly different designs.

 

i am in Germany, no MQA waves here so far.

[wushuliu]

4 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

 

Just an aside here ... still on the basic topic of codecs.   Comparing all these files (above) is the game some people play to feel like they are in the process of creation. Yet that is not the case.   It's off topic.

 

1. There is the master file in the mastering session.  The master.

2. There is the released master (may or may not be the same files)

3. There are profit motivated other options released often with the lie that they are better, at higher sample rates..

4. Folks get invested in the AB of these NON MASTER files for sport.  This is simply a case of being USED to make money for others.

 

Higher sample rates DO NOT equal a better sound, a more accurate sound, a more faithful to the source or more respectful to the artists, etc, sound.

 

Reality check please.

 

Boom.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

MQA is trying to establish a European "beachhead" in the Netherlands, but I don't think they are making very much progress.

Perhaps they should have started in Normandy.

[Abtr]

I live in the Netherlands. No MQA offensive here.

[Charles Hansen]

7 minutes ago, synn said:

what I meant by rebranded is that Pioneer’s hifi business is owned by Onkyo now, so they are selling the same device with their respective brand names and slightly different designs.

 

Thanks for clarifying - that makes perfect sense, given the current situation.

 

10 minutes ago, synn said:

i am in Germany, no MQA waves here so far.

 

Very interesting information, given that:

 

1) Germany is the largest market for almost everything (including audio) in Europe.

2) Not too long ago, Digital Audio Review relocated from Australia to Berlin, and that website has also been promoting MQA (although still in the English language. (www.digitalaudioreview.net).