MQA is Vaporware

[firedog]

4 hours ago, shtf said:

 

But you did and continue to stand idly by while your colleagues and superior sought to potentailly compromise or even cripple an entire industry for some kinda' gain, right?

 Maybe we shouldn't attack an industry professional who posts here and seems to be nothing but helpful to others and honest with his posts. People like you drive every professional who comes here away. 

[shtf]

48 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

I never suggested that he had left Stereophile. My comments were directed at your inappropriate and misguided attack on him. Just because you work for the same company doesn't mean that you have control over what your colleagues do. Accordingly, "my bad" would still be a proper reply on your part. Over and out!

 

Over and out?  But we never got a chance to discuss your potential complicity.  Oh, well.  Maybe another time.

[Tintinabulum]

42 minutes ago, firedog said:

People like you drive every professional who comes here away.

Not just professionals, other users/readers like myself stop coming here. People are hounded. I just popped in to see if you are all still at it but it seems it's degenerated further...

 

 

[Don Hills]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

A great deal of which , I am given to understand, is pirated. ..

 

If you mean that much of the music content on Youtube is not authorised by the rights holder, you have been given to understand incorrectly.

Youtube's content ID system identifies about 99.5% of uploaded music videos. The rights holder has the choice to have it deleted, or all revenue from it diverted to the rights holder.

 

Midia Research did a study a couple of years ago which found that only about 2% of the music videos on Youtube were actually unauthorised. About 75% of the rest were actually uploaded by the rights holders or their representatives, and the remainder were monetised by the rights holder.

[Shadders]

7 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

1.  Each of the writers and editors is free to express his opinions in print and I will not speak for them.  

2.  Over the years, I have disagreed with many statements made by my colleagues and, I suspect, they have returned the compliment.  

3.  I see more obsessiveness about MQA around here than at Stereophile.

Hi,

I have a question.

 

If someone only publishes positive remarks on a system, lauds it above all others, and never answers those questions, whose answers would provide evidence that the system is a fraud, how would you describe that person ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

2 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

I never suggested that he had left Stereophile. My comments were directed at your inappropriate and misguided attack on him. Just because you work for the same company doesn't mean that you have control over what your colleagues do. Accordingly, "my bad" would still be a proper reply on your part. Over and out!

Hi,

I am interested in which Hifi publication has openly shown MQA for what it is, a fraud.

 

Does anyone know of which Hifi publication has made such statements and in which issue etc ?. Thanks.

 

If all publishing entities are so open, and there are differences between colleagues working in the publication, where are those differences appearing in print or online (assume same publication entity) ?

 

If those differences are in the publications, and/or online, where are the MQA ones ?

 

Not directed at AllanF - just an open question to all.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[John Dyson]

8 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 I could discover music and performances via streaming, but only a reduced subset of what I want to try out - mostly recent items.

 

Instead, I use the xlnt collection of CDs at our city library, with a university library for backup (which has a very decent music school - tho not competitive with the music school/library at Indiana univ. like this place thinks they are...).

 

But that may not apply to others.

 

There is also bandcamp.

For stuff that I really like (or use for reference), I tend to need specific release versions.   Not every version of Carpenters is mastered appropriately, not every version of ABBA has been processed/mastered correctly (for a really sickening time -- listen to the premium  'The Complete Studio Recordings -- Crest of 4.6, peak-rms of 13-14dB -- BAD!!!)  There is a lot of substandard material out there, and for stuff that I love (or use as a reference), I want the proper version.  On the other hand, if I don't care, then listen to free radio.   The in-between version of paying for online-listening (streaming) seems to be a lot like a jukebox, and I never liked jukeboxes.  The jukebox might not have my chosen selection forever, so why keep on supporting it?)

[4est]

On 3/29/2019 at 12:55 PM, new_media said:

 

I actually hadn't thought of stream ripping. I will confess that I have "saved" a few tracks from SoundCloud that simply aren't available for purchase anywhere.

Me either, but I appreciate the notion if I can save some youtube streams somehow. There are some things there that just aren't available elsewhere. I'd love to be able to listen to them via my big rig which is DSD only- even if the quality wasn't the greatest. If they were available to purchase, I would do so.

[shadowlight]

On 4/3/2019 at 4:26 PM, Paul R said:

 

Just a minor disagreement there. If the risk is low enough, it doesn't make sense to worry about it. Like the risk of the sun burping and sterilizing the entire planet. It is a real risk, and even has a calculated probability. But it is about of the same order of magnitude as MQA taking "over the world."  IMNSHO, YMMV, etc. 

 

-Paul 

 

Yes, but isn't the risk decision based on what your risk tolerance is?  Something that is low risk to you and me might be medium to high risk for other folks.

[John_Atkinson]

3 hours ago, Shadders said:

If all publishing entities are so open, and there are differences between colleagues working in the publication, where are those differences appearing in print or online (assume same publication entity) ?

 

You can find negative commentary about MQA in Stereophile by Jon Iverson and Kal Rubinson, as well as in the magazine's Letters sections.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

[daverich4]

17 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I agree unless......................................................................one falls in love with an MQA recording via a streaming source but only to find that it is not available anywhere except as MQA.   

 

Has that happened to you? I don’t know about 16/44 MQA files but I have yet to find a higher rez MQA album that wasn’t available as non-MQA hiRez on HD-Tracks or elsewhere. 

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

You can find negative commentary about MQA in Stereophile by Jon Iverson and Kal Rubinson, as well as in the magazine's Letters sections.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Thanks for being on topic. I'm a bit upset that people are criticizing Kal Rubinson. After all he defined about 34% of the sound quality of MQA files. A different sort of different. 

 

Anyway you have an open invitation to visit anytime. My list of highways to explore keeps growing in the Copper State.

[mav52]

16 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 I'm a bit upset that people are criticizing Kal Rubinson. After all he defined about 34% of the sound quality of MQA files. A different sort of different.

 

 

Agree,  

[ipeverywhere]

I'm sure there are plenty of these examples but I found one for the first time yesterday: An EP released in 24/44.1.... 

Qobuz - 24/44.1 PCM

Tidal - 24/44.1 MQA

Release is from this year so I assume these are from the same master. 

 

The album does sound different (by different I mean worse / better with/without MQA) and even track to track they sound different. Is this the purist way to hear what MQA is doing before getting lossy in the "beyond redbook" frequencies? I assume that the MQA version is just applying the MQA filtering and debluring? 

[bluesman]

6 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Not every version of Carpenters is mastered appropriately, not every version of ABBA has been processed/mastered correctly (for a really sickening time -- listen to the premium  'The Complete Studio Recordings -- Crest of 4.6, peak-rms of 13-14dB -- BAD!!!)  There is a lot of substandard material out there...

A lot of what's substandard out there is the music, not the recording and its presentation.  "You can't shine [expletive deleted by author]."

 

I don't think I'm narcoleptic.  I can listen through almost any music to hear the musicians' parts and appreciate the technical quality of the charts, the playing, and the recording.  I can stay awake listening to Kenny G, even if I do have to keep reminding myself that he's a skilled musician and an educated man who simply chooses to play sonic Sominex.  But I have a bit of trouble with the Carpenters and ABBA as reference source material  .  I'd suggest checking out Wes Montgomery's California Dreamin' album on A&M to hear what they could do with a heartbreakingly dull set of performances. It's a Van Gelder / Creed Taylor production with one of the greatest studio bands in history - Herbie Hancock, Wayne Andre, Bucky Pizzarelli, Richard Davis, Grady Tate, Ray Barretto etc.

 

As I recall, the Wrecking Crew backed them on many of their records. A&M was not a shoddy house - their overall quality was pretty fine, even with the studio trickery popular at the time.  And their original mastering was pretty uniform in approach and quality.   I actually bought many such albums because I was in one of the top wedding & Bar Mitzvah bands on the east coast from '69-75 or so & had to be able to play all the hits at 3 or 4 events a week.  So I have a large collection of vinyl that includes - shudder! - Perry Como (Tony Mottola on guitar), Enoch Light & the Light Brigade (some of the best charts and musicians ever on the Command albums, e.g. Mottola, Pee Wee Erwin, Bob Haggart), Ricky Nelson (James Burton!), and a host of artists whose music would never have crept into my home were there not a practical need for it.

 

Every night I say a little prayer: "May ABBA never emerge from my speakers!"

 

PS:  Karen Carpenter was actually a fair drummer, but she couldn't play well enough to do studio work and apparently had some difficulty singing her best while also playing.

[Ralf11]

10 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

A great deal of which , I am given to understand, is pirated. I might point out that makes a good case for DRM, even if it resides within MQA.  Better to pay a little and have no moral grey area.

 

-Paul

 

 

if you are referring to youtube, then you should report any piracy and they will remove it; I dunno about bandcamp

 

I am completely opposed to DRM.

[Ralf11]

7 hours ago, John Dyson said:

For stuff that I really like (or use for reference), I tend to need specific release versions.   Not every version of Carpenters is mastered appropriately, not every version of ABBA has been processed/mastered correctly (for a really sickening time -- listen to the premium  'The Complete Studio Recordings -- Crest of 4.6, peak-rms of 13-14dB -- BAD!!!)  There is a lot of substandard material out there, and for stuff that I love (or use as a reference), I want the proper version.  On the other hand, if I don't care, then listen to free radio.   The in-between version of paying for online-listening (streaming) seems to be a lot like a jukebox, and I never liked jukeboxes.  The jukebox might not have my chosen selection forever, so why keep on supporting it?)

 

absolutely - and better source/mastering is usually one of the top SQ improvements you can make (along with speakers/room) - often much more important than a better DAC (not to mention Crazy Cables)

 

I look forward to completion and wide adoption of your (Dolby A)^-1  processing

 

speaking of hard to find material and free radio:  WWOZ

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, bluesman said:

A lot of what's substandard out there is the music, not the recording and its presentation.  "You can't shine [expletive deleted by author]."

 

I don't think I'm narcoleptic.  I can listen through almost any music to hear the musicians' parts and appreciate the technical quality of the charts, the playing, and the recording.  I can stay awake listening to Kenny G, even if I do have to keep reminding myself that he's a skilled musician and an educated man who simply chooses to play sonic Sominex.  But I have a bit of trouble with the Carpenters and ABBA as reference source material

Every night I say a little prayer: "May ABBA never emerge from my speakers!"

 

PS:  Karen Carpenter was actually a fair drummer, but she couldn't play well enough to do studio work and apparently had some difficulty singing her best while also playing.

 

My primary interest in ABBA is not the music, it is the really difficult mix of mixed female vocals, wall of sound, and hard compression.  it is a total b*tch to decode.  Think about this -- lots of potentials for IMD because of multiple vocals near same frequency, then the wall of sound adding in a randomizing factor,, and then hard limiting (or intense compression) giving a nice relatively square  shape to the envelope.

 

(I am in the Indy area -- I know ALL ABOUT Wes M....)

 

I am actually quite proud that my decoder can produce ABBA results that sound surprisingly good -- definitely better than you have ever heard...  Would it improve the lyrics?  That would be a silly  question; Here is a silly answer:  Yes :-).

 

Karen's material also has problems -- they used DolbyA to enhance her voice -- bring up the highs from her relatively mellow vocals.  DolbyA sounds BAD if not decoded, then only sounds kind-of bad if it IS decoded (most of the pop material between the late 1960's through early 1990s')   Using my decoder actually cleans up the sound VERY VERY significantly -- got the idea?  The purpose is NOT ABBA, even though it helps their recordings also.

 

On a scale of 1 to 10 in my enjoyment of music -- I'd give ABBA a 3 (because it is either happy or bright, not because of trivial lyrics.)  I like Karen carpenters stuff better, and material like Nat King Cole even better.  (I did like Simon & Garfunkel until my deocder showed the recordings not as good as they initially sounded -- kind of ruined the experience.)  Linda Ronstadt vocals are often distorted by the Aphex distorter (I think that is the name, or should be.)

Almost every pop group has a problem (early Beatles -- often bad stereo or mono, pick one.)

There is nothing that is perfect -- I can criticize almost everything, sometimes it is best just to enjoy.

 

John

[Paul R]

9 hours ago, Don Hills said:

 

If you mean that much of the music content on Youtube is not authorised by the rights holder, you have been given to understand incorrectly.

Youtube's content ID system identifies about 99.5% of uploaded music videos. The rights holder has the choice to have it deleted, or all revenue from it diverted to the rights holder.

 

Midia Research did a study a couple of years ago which found that only about 2% of the music videos on Youtube were actually unauthorised. About 75% of the rest were actually uploaded by the rights holders or their representatives, and the remainder were monetised by the rights holder.

 

That is very interesting!  Not at all what I had heard, but very believable. Is this study public, and do you have have a link to it by any chance? I would very much like to read it. 

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

5 hours ago, shadowlight said:

Yes, but isn't the risk decision based on what your risk tolerance is?  Something that is low risk to you and me might be medium to high risk for other folks.

 

That is absolutely and invariable true. In this case, one is assuming the outcry is about a risk to "every music buying person" on the planet, to paraphrase about a dozen different quotes. 

 

That's just silly. The factors that mitigate the risk are legion.

 

When applied only to buying new music, the risk is higher, but still, given how greedy the labels are, they will always sell anything given the right price. And there are always options popping up on the internet as well. Bandcamp for example. 

 

I am quite open to being convinced otherwise, but so far, the alarmist declarations have been very heavy on rhetoric and alarmingly short on facts. That is in stark contrast to the technical side of things, where the facts are clear and very very difficult to argue with. 

 

-Paul 

 

[kumakuma]

8 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

In this case, one is assuming the outcry is about a risk to "every music buying person" on the planet, to paraphrase about a dozen different quotes. 

 

 

I haven't seen a single person here making a blanket statement like this.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

And there are always options popping up on the internet as well. Bandcamp for example. 

 

 

Bandcamp is only an option if the artist releases their music via Bandcamp or similar platforms.

 

Few, if any, major artists do.

 

For example, five artists I love are Rhiannon Giddens, Melody Gardot, Alison Krauss, Madeleine Peyroux, and Cecile McLorin Salvant. None of these release their music on Bandcamp.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

I am quite open to being convinced otherwise, but so far, the alarmist declarations have been very heavy on rhetoric and alarmingly short on facts.

 

 

How do you propose finding facts about what might happen in the future?

[Ralf11]

major artists are at the library - did you see both my posts?

 

may not work for others, of course

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

major artists are at the library - did you see both my posts?

 

may not work for others, of course

 

Only works if you had good library nearby, are willing to wait until the library acquires the newest releases, and can live with CD quality.

 

Not a solution for an impatient subjectivist like myself who wants to download the HR version of my favorite artist's latest album on the day that it is released.

[Ralf11]

well, most of my favorite artists are dead...

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

well, most of my favorite artists are dead...

 

The completist in me likes dead artists...