MQA is Vaporware

[esldude]

9 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

I have no professional affiliation with MQA or Tidal.

You forgot to include immersive audio in your list of non-affiliations.  

[esldude]

5 hours ago, mansr said:

That's hilarious. The Marantz digitises the analogue input (don't know the ADC chip) at 48 kHz, runs the Audyssey process, and plays the result through the AKM DAC chip. Whatever "deblurring" benefit MQA might provide, it will be obliterated by this process.

[esldude]

2 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

To all the malcontents here, thanks for reading my posts. If you don't like MQA don't buy it, I am good with that.

. FWIW MQA will not make you gain weight, cause heart disease or cancer. Even if you spend the extra $10 a month no one will force you to listen to it, you can still play the FLAC versions of every MQA track.

Please make your crusade more meaningful, why not go take on the tobacco industry?

 

 

Do you understand why mansr's post was devastating to your credibility on the sound of MQA?  By resampling into and out of the 7702 you have no chance to maintain any deblurring or increased time domain advantages claimed.  It is now clear any improvements you heard in MQA are due to different mastering or your imagination.  More specifically you had your brain alter your perception from the marketing and promises of MQA.  You should be the poster child in the confidence game thread as far as MQA is concerned.  

 

Now yes I am singling you out.  It is a chance for you to learn something worthwhile.  Do you want to learn or not?  It can be scary I know.  You'll be glad you did when it is over. 

 

Maybe you should listen to the geezers a bit now.  They know not to listen to you on MQA. You have no standing. 

[esldude]

2 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Apologies, off topic, but do US people know what a geezer is ?. Is it current US slang ?

(as in diamond geezer).

Regards,

Shadders.

In the US it is an old crotchety man.  Behind the times, stuck in the past old geezer who can't keep up with modern times. 

 

I understand some places it is not age related and similar to calling someone a dude or hipster. 

[esldude]

2 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

If Bruno is the engineer he claims to be he should invent something better than MQA instead of going around whining about it. He should stick with amps. The guy was very sheepish when he asked his question and instead of producing a better solution what does he do? What all malcontent engineers like to do, whine.
Bob may not have done blind testing but the labels did tons of it in what they call test groups when they were doing their due diligence. They went all in on MQA so what do you think the results were? Duh.

 

 

Please expand on this group test.

 

As someone who doesn't listen to MQA you have no grounds for being critical of Bruno.

[esldude]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

 

You are into “immersive” multichannel but don’t grok a convolution kernel ??? — not everything is politics and marketing. 

 

Bruno Putzey’s or anyone else’s technical arguments stand on their own. As I said math is math. Understand?

I think it is pretty clear that he intends not to understand.  He hasn't cleared up how he hears all the beauty of MQA by going through an extra AD/DA stage at lower sample rates with conventional filters.  

[esldude]

8 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

One of my favorite MQA/Tidal features...playlists. Sunday night playing Bossa Nova Vibes but look at some of these others. It is a helluva lot easier than trying to make this many hirez playlists yourself:

One could say the same about mp3 streaming too.  If one favors a lossy format.  

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

If you have a favorite on Tidal or Spotify please post a link or something

Don't have such favorites, and don't have Tidal.  

[esldude]

2 hours ago, Don Hills said:

 

All of the dual-capstan Nakamichis had pressure pad lifters to keep the pressure pad retracted. They used differential capstan speed to maintain a consistent tape tension across the heads.

I found Dolby B and C did work well on the 3-head Nakamichis, because they had enough HF bandwidth and tape level capability. Most decks had Dolby calibration level about +3dB, the Naks had it at 0 or -3 depending on the deck.  I had 2 decks that I matched in level and response so that I could record on one deck, then move the tape to the other and have the levels and frequency response matched to less than 0.5 dB. Nakamichi helpfully included RC networks on the circuit board so that you could add/remove solder bridges to fine tune the responses.

 

But as you point out, as soon as you moved the tape to a lesser deck with poorer HF frequency response, you may as well turn the Dolby off.

Count me as another of those who found Nakamichi to work well with Dolby.  Did all my needledrops (not what they were called then) with Dolby C and good tapes.  Of course I played them back on Nak tape decks.  I even had Nak head units in my cars in those years.  A TD700 and TD500.  Those head units were excellent all the way around.  Not only great tape sections, the FM tuners were exemplary as well.  Still have one head unit, one home tape deck and some tapes. 

 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Shocking, just shocking!....

Where’s the witchdoctor to set us right?

 

Well ultimately WD would have us put 13 channel Atmos upconverting chips in the phones and then do some VooDoo DSP to create that over earbuds.  Anything else is antique.  Dinosaur-like.  Discarded as a failed branch of audio evolution.  We're all doomed!

 

On the brite side, I guess that makes Atmos immersive audio and MQA like twin meteors that impact the audio earth with devastating consequences from which phoenix like modern audiophiles will evolve and populate the previously scorched earth.  

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, synn said:

The last thing I want is for Audio equipment to suffer the fate of AV receivers.

 

a plethora of proprietary tech logos in the front, which means a significant chunk of the purchase price goes into licensing costs, which in turn means that the internals of the devices will suffer from budget cuts. A decade or so ago, mid price receivers had excellent sound quality, all the inputs you wanted and a shorter spec list. Now most have ho hum sound quality, a bare minimum of inputs and spec sheets longer than a polar summer day. And it drops resale value like a bad habit two weeks after launch because Dolby whatever or DTS whatchamaycallit is out and your brand spanking new receiver doesn’t support it. Any receiver that has fancy features AND good sound quality is stratospherically priced.

 

this is why I am still a firm believer in separates for Audio. I like my amp to be simple and do one thing: sound fantastic for years. Everything else is secondary.

Amen to that.  I too don't want the AVR effect.  Some have so many logos to display they use up the entire box they come in to show them.  

[esldude]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

The articles where they used a tape measure to assess the sound of metadata in FLAC files? That was pure entertainment.

Yes, yes, the tape measure was to measure how high some recorded bit appeared.  Since height is heard as comb filtering of your outer ear, and tops out with interference around 13 khz, I suppose better metadata gave a boost to 13 khz, and you could measure it with a tape.   And presumably the better your playback the higher it sounded.  

 

Now don't fool yourself with an o-scope or spectrum analyzer.  But perceived height measured with a cloth tape is golden.  Top notch research there.  Had it been gov't funded they would have qualified for at minimum an Ignoble nomination.  

[esldude]

27 minutes ago, semente said:

 

This is (UK) Government funded (BBC) research which measures image width:

 

Yes.  Don't confuse that with the tripe printed by TAS.  Just because they are measuring image height doesn't make it research in anything approaching the same way.  I was embarrassed for TAS when I first read it. Not when they published the additional parts later. 

[esldude]

1 minute ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I think in the best scenario, MQA becomes a niche format.  I have not seen any evidence that Bob Stuart and team are "trying to corner the market."

Well if you look for that evidence, you probably don't even have to walk around the corner to find it. 

[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.  

[esldude]

MQA hopefully not here to stay. 

MQA don't rue the day.

MQA don't listen to what Bob will say.

 

 

Is that back on topic?

[esldude]

1 minute ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

 

What music recording is not "cookie cutter" to you?

 

 

What's your opinion regarding MQA on cookie cutter music?  Not claiming the music you work on is cookie cutter. Just wanting your opinion about using MQA on other types of music.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

My take on MQA has nothing to do with musical or production style, it's about the codec, the marketing, the lies, and the desire to dominate.

 

What is cookie cutter?  What is not ?

 

All recordings are cared for by those who create and love them, each is someone's baby ... and all are products, judged by the market and critics, etc.  So what's the distinction here?  

 

The music you think is important vs. that which you don't?  A certain DR?  The lack of creative distortion vs. dense and processed productions?

 

I don't see a distinction in any objective way.  What am I missing oh wise consumers of music?

Seems your too busy, and too dismissive to pay attention. 

 

Cookie cutter wasn't even the point. The point is you are being an arrogant ass to people who would prefer you not be.  But you just won't have it any other way.  You seem intent on making your idea of 'audiophile' some nincompoop you can dismiss and dazzle with your brilliance.  What not drop the bullshit and have a conversation instead of a tone deaf monologue?

 

Since the topic is MQA, why not address that.  Or answer a simple question: whom do you hold in lower regard, MQA purveyors or audiophiles? At least the answer to that is marginally on topic.  If its audiophile's then fine, we'll know to dismiss you.  Your twaddle isn't worth hearing.  If it is MQA, then some of us have some common ground, or is that too difficult for you to accept? Go meditate and calm your mind enough to get on topic.  

[esldude]

24 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

No one who makes music uses that spelling, it's stupid.   Microphone.  Mic.  The end.

Of course they do.  You are truly being ridiculous now.  

[esldude]

25 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

I post while I work, as a form of distraction.  Working now.  Printing a pass on in the background. It helps the focus to stay on principle with people who want to make things worse not better.

 

Very busy, 50 clients a month, I can't do more.

Some might mention quality over quantity.  Whores have a different idea.  One oriented toward servicing the most clients.  

[esldude]

1 hour ago, rickca said:

Well, that was a quick flame out.  Too bad.  We could have learned some good stuff rather than learn about his personality.  I wonder if this contempt for listeners is prevalent in the industry, or if he just got his buttons pushed.

I have run into two other guys who had similar opinions and contempt for listeners.  Both were mastering pros, and both defended modern loud recordings as a superior way to do modern music that has no base in the acoustic world.  Both were simply impossible to not just reason with, but to have a conversation with about the dynamic range of music.  Like BL they insisted vehemently that you just didn't get the value of loud, loud, LOUD music.  Very strange to me.  It wasn't enough to say you preferred loud music, they seemed intent upon denigrating anyone with a different opinion.  

 

To my knowledge this doesn't mean such is the norm for mastering people.  Several more seem to not at all have that opinion.  Then again some of them said the situation is loud wins in modern context though they would prefer to be able to work with more DR.  So maybe they were hack mastering guys.  

 

So I would not say BL's opinion of listeners and apparent contempt toward them is the norm among mastering professionals, but it isn't exactly unheard of from anyone else.  You can imagine how well discussions of people with the opinion that without LP we don't need mastering anymore will go with such people.  

[esldude]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Please show me the post calling him a whore and I will happily enforce the same standards. 

Here is the post where the term was used.  I will point out I tried in several posts to create a bridge of conversation with BL.  He obviously has zero interest in that.  The whore comment wasn't so much to say he was one.  But to point out if one wanted to to pre-judge someone, there were plenty of ways to pre-judge his activities in negative light.  The very ways he thought gave him credibility.  That he had so many clients we should all quit complaining and listen to the wise Brian Lucey mastering genius extraordinaire. In context of a few posts between he and I it was meant to try one more time to get his attention as being subtle wasn't working.  Reading back over it I think that context wasn't very clear. 

 

If Chris thinks that should result in a ban, then okay. 

[esldude]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I'll use the same rules with you as I did Brian. 

 

This is a warning.

 

 

P.S. I always give people warnings and hope to come out with a win-win in the long run. I don't need to tell you about personal attacks and I totally understand your context. With Brian things were much different, but the same rules applied. He received warnings. Hell, I even offered to meet with him next week while I'm in Los Angeles. 

Alright.  Thanks Chris.  I'll be more circumspect in future comments.  Should have just put BL on ignore. 

[esldude]

25 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

Brian Lucey is banned here?

smh

Rightfully so if you ask me.   Nothing directly related to MQA.  He is anti-MQA, I am anti-MQA.  He just didn't play nice with others in the kindergarten sense.  

[esldude]

13 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

Here's what I wrote in that thread after many threw rocks at Lucey:

 

LOL, yeah, none of you are "attacking" Brian Lucey. You're merely giving him unsolicited critiques of how he's doing his job wrong. Each of you would be totally cool with random people giving uninformed critiques of your work, right? This after he forcefully weighed in on mqa (with barely any recognition from posts here) and went off topic to explain the "loudness war" and his limited ability to address it.

 

SMH.

 

So, yes, it's reasonable that he was angered.

No, I don't agree.  You are leaving out his saying those who disagreed with his mastering were old.  Nor his well known disdain for audiophiles expressed elsewhere.  He came here with a not a chip, but a huge block on his shoulder about audiophiles and hair trigger ready to react. Quite a bit of the early responses about his mastering he could have ignored and stuck to MQA.  Instead he made multiple posts expressing how he was somebody, he was busy, he was in demand and audiophiles were nobody at the end of the chain with no basis for even expressing an opinion.  Then every so often he would say he wanted to talk about MQA.  

 

Now not everyone needs to be an ultimate politician at sticking to the important topics and ignoring going off topic.  That wasn't Brian's problem here.  He immediately became aggressive and started out quite arrogant.  Any surprise with the response he received? No.  

 

While it would have been nice to manage a bridge of communication to keep him around for his knowledge, experience and POV, it was clear he never had any intention of that being the style of posting here.  He was right, other views were errant by definition and that was going to be that because everyone else was no one anyway.