MQA is Vaporware

[firedog]

Hi Chris

 

I was talking strictly about catalog titles that we have earlier examples of where they are not dynamically compromised. I care very little about mastering techniques of modern music. One exception: some newer classical titles seem to be flirting with the Loudness Wars.

 

I agree with you. But, today many would say that even with a re-release/remaster of catalog titles, the decision to volume compress is an "artistic" one by the producer of the remaster.

 

Technically that is clearly correct.

But it's also clear that the "artistic" decision in many cases has nothing to do with any "artistic" consideration; or that the original artist/musician/producer isn't being asked his/her opinion.

[Jud]

That's still not vaporware.

 

I do believe that may have been mansr's point, unless I misunderstand him (which is entirely possible).

[firedog]

According to Roon, the full unfolding of MQA files will be done within Roon. I think Paul’s post above suggests this is preferable to MQA being decoded by the DAC.

 

I don't think Roon has said this at all, and Bob Stuart has specifically stated that full unfolding won't be done in software.

 

My understanding is that Roon is going to have the same stage 1 processing (i.e., one unfold) of MQA software, just like Tidal is doing at present. No further unfolding, and no application of the deblurring done in an MQA DAC.

[jbwhite]

I do believe that may have been mansr's point, unless I misunderstand him (which is entirely possible).

Could be. My definition is "software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed." It hasn't been vaporware for a long time. I thought a while back he said it was because it represented only .25% (25 basis point) of the market or some nonsense like that.

[james45974]

I agree with you. But, today many would say that even with a re-release/remaster of catalog titles, the decision to volume compress is an "artistic" one by the producer of the remaster.

 

Technically that is clearly correct.

But it's also clear that the "artistic" decision in many cases has nothing to do with any "artistic" consideration; or that the original artist/musician/producer isn't being asked his/her opinion.

 

Your thoughts could be extended to other artistic fields as well. The concept of taking a classic or well known entity and updating it today's standards is not exclusive to music. I am an architect and this updating or remastering happens all the time, both good and bad. Take for instance the renovation to Soldier Field in Chicago. It could be considered the architectural equivalent of the loudness wars!

[realhifi]

The smart money is not to do this to CA. Chris really doesn't need this.

 

Oh, I bet he doesn't mind this a bit. More eyes, more clicks. It's what any internet site wants. This thread has gotten boring though.

[Jud]

It could be considered the architectural equivalent of the loudness wars!

 

Points for creative analogy!

[jbwhite]

I don't think Roon has said this at all, and Bob Stuart has specifically stated that full unfolding won't be done in software.

 

My understanding is that Roon is going to have the same stage 1 processing (i.e., one unfold) of MQA software, just like Tidal is doing at present. No further unfolding, and no application of the deblurring done in an MQA DAC.

You're right. I was referring to Roon statements by Danny Dulai that he posted in Jan '16 where he kept saying "we are in a unigue situation because of our certified USB Dacs." He even said Roon may be able to build in DAC profiling because of their "unique position." He never said "full" decoding. Stuart told Chris C. in Apr '16 that deals were in place for software decoding, and that there is no technological reason DAC profiling couldn't be done effectively via software. The only reason he said it should be in the DAC was to promote "creativity" for the hardware engineers or some such marketing BS. Roon has not yet announced whether their decoding will be one fold or two folds. We just have to wait and see (and I know that's hard around here).

 

But you're right. You guys got me again. Mea Culpa.

 

I've posted citations and links over on the PS Audio forum, as I've already told you.

[mansr]

I do believe that may have been mansr's point, unless I misunderstand him (which is entirely possible).

 

I don't think it's still accurate to characterise MQA as vapourware. At the time this thread was started, the notion had merit, mostly due to the lack of content.

[mansr]

Your thoughts could be extended to other artistic fields as well. The concept of taking a classic or well known entity and updating it today's standards is not exclusive to music. I am an architect and this updating or remastering happens all the time, both good and bad. Take for instance the renovation to Soldier Field in Chicago. It could be considered the architectural equivalent of the loudness wars!

 

What does that make the Monkey Jesus remaster?

[jbwhite]

I don't think it's still accurate to characterise MQA as vapourware. At the time this thread was started, the notion had merit, mostly due to the lack of content.

Thank you for explaining. But the definition of vaporware has nothing to do with content.

(Although I couldn't care less about the name of the thread). It would be helpful for me if there were a few facts and a little bit of logic in your arguments. There may even be merit in your arguments if I could figure them out.

[Tintinabulum]

This is one of hundreds of active threads here. I admit there might be a "car crash" effect going on here: Even disinterested people will slow down and gawk.

 

But I'm not buying that this back-and-forth is really offensive to the delicate sensibilities of some here. If it was spilling into other threads, I would understand. I think a lot of the complaints of incivility (excepting of course the principals in the debate, which I am not one :-) are proxies for something else.

 

I use "what's new" to see what going on, it gets tiresome when it's bitching rather than hifi. Delicate sensibilities? Yawn, this is just boring, offensive might be more interesting. Egos? Not so interesting.

[firedog]

You're right. I was referring to Roon statements by Danny Dulai that he posted in Jan '16 where he kept saying "we are in a unigue situation because of our certified USB Dacs." He even said Roon may be able to build in DAC profiling because of their "unique position." He never said "full" decoding. Stuart told Chris C. in Apr '16 that deals were in place for software decoding, and that there is no technological reason DAC profiling couldn't be done effectively via software. The only reason he said it should be in the DAC was to promote "creativity" for the hardware engineers or some such marketing BS. Roon has not yet announced whether their decoding will be one fold or two folds. We just have to wait and see (and I know that's hard around here).

 

But you're right. You guys got me again. Mea Culpa.

 

I've posted citations and links over on the PS Audio forum, as I've already told you.

 

In this environment, quotes from 8 and 12 months ago are highly likely to be less relevant than statements from a week or so ago directly addressing these issues. That said, I'll be happy if I'm wrong and Roon includes more than first fold unfolding.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I agree with you. But, today many would say that even with a re-release/remaster of catalog titles, the decision to volume compress is an "artistic" one by the producer of the remaster.

 

Technically that is clearly correct.

But it's also clear that the "artistic" decision in many cases has nothing to do with any "artistic" consideration; or that the original artist/musician/producer isn't being asked his/her opinion.

 

Personally, I think with catalog titles, the "artistic decision" claim is a dodge by the record labels. See Bob Katz's discussion about "competitive" loudness levels. It's all about what the labels believe is "marketability". They just pay someone (a producer) to be a human shield for this "artistic decision".

 

The most recent Led Zeppelin remastering pass is proof that you can stay in the mid-teens LUFS wise, and still be "competitive".

[Samuel T Cogley]

Thank you for explaining. But the definition of vaporware has nothing to do with content.

 

In this context, I believe it does.

[jbwhite]

In this environment, quotes from 8 and 12 months ago are highly likely to be less relevant than statements from a week or so ago directly addressing these issues. That said, I'll be happy if I'm wrong and Roon includes more than first fold unfolding.

 

I agree with most of what you've said. But I have less confidence in the PR statements than you do. What the guys running the business know and are willing to reveal carries more weight with me than the PR BS.

 

Also Danny Dulai made it very clear that he wasn't allowed to release any more details.

 

I'm also very intrigued by Dulai's statements about being in a unique positions do things that nobody else is able to.

 

But like I said before, we'll just have to wait and see.

[jbwhite]

In this context, I believe it does.

Fine, believe what you like.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Fine, believe what you like.

 

There are several areas that need to meet the threshold of adoption. One not discussed much here is the mastering facility.

[jbwhite]

Oh, I bet he doesn't mind this a bit. More eyes, more clicks. It's what any internet site wants. This thread has gotten boring though.

Not possible. Chris would never want to make $money$ from his site.

[jbwhite]

There are several areas that need to meet the threshold of adoption. One not discussed much here is the mastering facility.

Agreed, I haven't seen much of anything discussed here.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Agreed, I haven't seen much of anything discussed here.

 

I'll bet the entire Warner MQA dump was done at the same facility. I'm happy to be wrong if someone has details on this.

[jbwhite]

I'll bet the entire Warner MQA dump was done at the same facility. I'm happy to be wrong if someone has details on this.

 

Wrong. As I recall it was done in 7 or 8 facilities around the globe, although the number may be off. All automated with very little change in parameters to adjust for the ADC used (if known at all).

[Samuel T Cogley]

Wrong. As I recall it was done in 7 or 8 facilities around the globe, although the number may be off. All automated with very little change in parameters to adjust for the ADC used (if known at all).

 

Do you have a URL to share about this? Would like to know some details. Thanks

[jbwhite]

Sorry to leave, but I have to go work out. I'm an old man and I don't want the brain to deteriorate any more.

[jbwhite]

Do you have a URL to share about this? Would like to know some details. Thanks

 

I don't recall where I read it. It was within the last week or so.