MQA is Vaporware

[Samuel T Cogley]

14 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

My experience, so far, is similar but different;

I am fairly sure the music gets more boring with MQA. But in the sense of a track sounding the same throughout. As if you can hear the processing ...

 

But nothing of brain overloading or tiring etc. Just more boring.  And for net result I am still in doubt. 

All I know is that I almost exclusively play MQA now. By now this includes albums I don't know which I regard a better way of "comparing".

 

I would play more if I wasn't involuntarily shackled to the Tidal desktop app.  Roon, I'm talking to you! 

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, firedog said:

Roon is working on it. Apparently, among other issues, there are issues with working with multi-room, which is a feature Roon isn't willing to give up for MQA. 

 

I hear you.  I forgot to mention I've also used Audirvana+ V3 for MQA as well.  I shouldn't need to reference a 3rd party spreadsheet to find MQA content.  But I'm sure most people who are listening to MQA on Tidal agree with me.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

I put in a request to Tidal that they allow for searches for Master versions and also allow for searches within "my Music", so among other obvious uses, you could search your Tidal library for Master versions.

They said they would consider it. 

 

I have to think that MQA themselves are disappointed with how relatively difficult it is to find MQA content on Tidal.  While I applaud the people who have researched and tracked all the MQA/Tidal titles, I've heard of instances where people in Tidal support has referred queries about MQA content to those very spreadsheets. 

 

Unless people who want to find MQA content can do so easily, the adoption rate will continue to creep along.

[Samuel T Cogley]

7 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

For anyone interested iFi is releasing an MQA Black Label DAC. 

 

From what I've read over at Head-Fi, it has the XMOS, DAC, and line-out guts of the new iOne, and the headphone amp of the iDAC2.

 

It's in the Nano form factor.

[Samuel T Cogley]

46 minutes ago, PeterV said:

 

Haha..that can be read in the e-mail ..for me this hobby has gotten out of hand more than a year ago when the slander towards MQA and Bob Stuart began..

 

Interesting to see the similarity in Andrew Quint's response to Archimago

 

Quote

I really don't feel it's fair to maintain that TAS is "ramping up the hype again" when it comes to MQA, as if the magazine was part of a coordinated promotional campaign. Both my editorial and Robert Harley's piece are responses to the vitriol that's been coming from those who feel MQA is ruining their lives, or at least polluting the sanctity of their worldview.

 

Whether amateur or professional or a mix of the two, a PR campaign seems to be underway.

[Samuel T Cogley]

23 minutes ago, PeterV said:

 

Well, I actually came up to the same conclusion Samual. I wrote several pages ago or maybe on Archimago 's blog that I do not believe in a big conspiracy in which esteemed journalists, recording engineers an who knows who more are all being paid by MQA.. What the real 'conspiracy' or better said ambush marketing strategy potentially is, are all these 190 pages of free publicity for MQA alone over here..I am (over) enthusiastically advocating and defending the format, since I do not want to lose it anymore. What also strikes me is that the more something so-called 'bad' or 'worthless format is being attacked, the more intersting it gets..! Because the observing reader will not understand what there is to lose! It is just something new, you like it or not. So maybe we are all indeed part of a smart strategy. I do not care, others might. All fuzz and buzz is free publicity.  

 

In the U.S., the saying goes, "there is no such thing as bad publicity".  I personally prefer unadulterated hi rez PCM, but I'm waiting patiently for a < $500 (US) DAC that provides a level of sound quality that matches the hype of MQA.  Maybe Pro-Ject will fix theirs, or maybe the iFI iDSD Nano BL will be the one.  The Meridian Explorer 2 just isn't doing it for me, with both vanilla PCM and MQA.  And the Mytek is not on my radar for reasons not appropriate for this thread.

 

2017 marks the first year that I haven't bought a significant DAC (the ME2 doesn't count ) since 2013 in anticipation of the eventual release of the Duke Nukem Forever of DACs: the iFI iDSD Pro.  But I'm not convinced it will ever see the light of day.

 

Even if I do find an MQA DAC that sounds good, the next step is finding the MQA diamonds in the peak limited rough.  For me, the relatively low percentage of well mastered MQA content (and MQA insisting this is "quality") is another strike against it.  Note I don't mean new releases.  I mean catalog titles where the DR is well known and the mastering engineer peak limits it (probably at the behest of the record companies) to be "competitive"

[Samuel T Cogley]

9 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

This thread is an echo chamber of a handful of malcontents, The ship has sailed guys, MQA is the future of hirez, get over it already. If you don't like MQA and want better SQ buy more vinyl OK? 

 

If the ship really has sailed as you say, MQA would not have cancelled their presentation at RMAF.  And there are DACs out there of sufficient quality that make the "need" for hirez moot.  Listen to well mastered Redbook on a high quality R2R DAC to see what I mean.

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

The issue with those dacs is they cost $$$ and I don't know that they will work at home, in a car, in a phone, etc. The funny thing is even if you play an MQA file through a non MQA dac you can still get the first unfold of the track.

 

The ambient noise level of a car in motion will likely negate any benefit from ultra high fidelity playback.  And that content would likely come from a mobile phone.

 

Your MQA advocacy borders on slavish obsession.  All sizzle and no steak.

[Samuel T Cogley]

22 minutes ago, Mordikai said:

What do you mean? Isn't this how Neal Young demoed the amazing benefits of hi-res to his musician bro's, who were so blown away.

 

Well, we saw video of them claiming to be blown away.  And many of them were in a stationary car with an audio system that Neil withheld the details about because those details would "distract".

 

Full disclosure: I own a Pono (purchased retail, not Kickstarter) and mostly like it.

 

Why is Pono relevant to MQA?  It was the first device that was targeted to decode MQA until Meridan and Neil Young had a falling out (DRM?  Who knows).  The Pono re-purposed the MQA light on the top of the Pono to a "bought from the Pono Music Store" indicator.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, Mordikai said:

I don't have a problem with the Pono player although I've never touched one. I will however trust my ears (and most other peoples) over some old rocker who listens to hi-res in a car.

 

To me, it sounds substantially better than an iPod.  But you need something like Westone W40s to really get the benefit.

[Samuel T Cogley]

35 minutes ago, #Yoda# said:

 

@Samuel T CogleyUsing IEMs is not really a proper condition for music listening in car traffic, by the way. ?

 

For that, of course it's the line out into the AUX IN in the car.  This, regardless of source, always sounds slightly better than Bluetooth.  But only slightly.

[Samuel T Cogley]

22 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

He has published research on immersive sound, has done research with people like Sean Olive, attends international AES conferences, where he presents research and moderates panels. He is a researcher in the field. I would be curious as to how some of his research is funded and if there might be some conflict of interests regarding some of what he promotes. This is not an accusation, just a concern. He did  promote on at least 2 threads a recent immersive audio event at AES in which he was a presenter, but he won't acknowledge this. I find his posting behavior somewhat baffling for a pro. 

 

 

I'm not seeing what you're seeing, but based on a quick read through the last 4-5 pages of this thread, the most likely scenario I can come up with is that he is peripherally related to an esteemed audio engineer/scientist.  Perhaps a child or young adult that gets to come along to the shows and conferences with his father?  That would explain why he's so good at name dropping companies, people, and tech without seeming to have the slightest clue what he's talking about.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

10 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Btw, I'm not saying that these albums now sound "better" in MQA fashion. But they are more tolerable (for me). This only counts for these too; I, II, III, IV lose with MQA all over. But the LZ's are typical "first MQA trials" as how I see it. Start out with those and you will ditch MQA right away (I virtually did that too, at the time). But then try Tusk. Or the now disappeared Neil Young's Peace Trail.

 

Most of my listening to those LZ titles are from the original Barry Diament Redbook masters (Page/Marino remasters were horrible IMHO).  I hear more detail in the hirez versions.  Presumably not because of the sample rate, but because the ADCs are better now.  The MQA versions (through a Meridian Explorer 2) produce listening fatigue for me in less than 30 minutes.

 

I purchased the double LP Tusk on the release date.  I remember it well.  Overall, I've probably listened to that title more from vinyl than from digital.  The original CD master shortened "Sara" so the whole double LP would fit on one CD.  Overall the original Tusk CD was dull and lifeless.  When Tusk first appeared on HDTracks (96/24), I was all over it.  After all the downloading was done, and I was able to import the tracks into DAW software, the peak limiting was quite evident.  And while the improved detail in the new remaster was undeniable, the peak limiting sometimes made that additional detail a bit grating.  The MQA version (on Tidal) sounds just as peak limited, but now with pseudo detail on top of the remaster's level of detail, which only enhances the listening fatigue for me.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

22 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

I've never been able to find a digital version of this that doesn't suffer from a high level of tape hiss.

 

Perhaps this is a fringe opinion, but I've always believed the existence of tape hiss on a digital transfer was a good sign that the digital restoration didn't overdo it on the noise reduction.  In other words, tape hiss = fidelity.

 

In the 2000s, too many remasters had way too liberal amounts of NoNOISE applied, which tended to suck the life out of the music.

[Samuel T Cogley]

In my experience, Dolby B seldom delivered on its promises.  Mass produced, pre-recorded tapes were dubbed at high speed, which typically created a treble starved cassette (there are technical reasons for this).  Add some Dolby B to the mix, and you would indeed get what people in the 70s used to call "muffled" sound.

 

On a three head cassette deck (where the gap in the record and playback heads was optimized), at home, good results could be had with Dolby B until you played that tape somewhere else.  Unless the next cassette playback device had a head alignment that was very close to your home deck, engaging Dolby B could once again "muffle" playback.

 

So unless A) you recorded the tape yourself on a high quality deck and B), you played it back on another high quality deck and C), both decks were aligned accurately, you rarely engaged the Dolby B circuit unless you wanted "muffled" playback.  Ironically, many people I knew (me too) engaged Dolby B when recording because it boosted high frequencies, making a tape that had better overall treble response (but with full knowledge that an audiophile anathema had been created ).

 

Advances like Type II (a.k.a., "CrO2") and Type IV (a.k.a., "metal") tape and Dolby C and S improved the cassette experience, but in the end, the tech mostly died when CDs rose in popularity.

[Samuel T Cogley]

15 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

Muffled sound when played on decks that didn't have Dolby B. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't as bad as you make it out to be.

 

Dolby B cut treble when engaged.

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

Of course it did. That was on purpose as those same treble frequencies were boosted on the Dolby B encoded tapes....

 

I unabashedly loved cassettes back in the day.  And I didn't even have the vaunted Nakamichi Dragon.  But in the 70s, Dolby B was kind of a joke.  I used to make kick ass tapes, but only one friend, with an Alpine car deck, appreciated the quality of my tapes.  In the days of "power boosters" and Jensen 6x9 "coaxial" speakers, the Dolby button typically made the treble vanish.

[Samuel T Cogley]

8 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

 Lee Scoggins (reviewer for Part-Time Audiophile)

 

Also a legendary Shunyata shill over at the Hoffman forums.  I've never seen sycophantic name dropping in "reviews" like this guy does.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Agreed that there is decent new music out there, but you generally won't find it in the "popular" section of your favorite streaming service.  Pop music today is more formulaic than at any time I can remember.  Auto-tune and processed vocals seem to be the norm.  Hip hop seems to have been totally co-opted by the major labels now.  And I totally don't get the Rock God status of Jack White.

 

Spend some time on Bandcamp, try to explore outside of your genre comfort zone, and you might find some modern stuff you really like.

[Samuel T Cogley]

6 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

Do you think they are wasting money on headphones to make a fashion statement?

 

Absolutely, no doubt about it!!!

 

And even an audiophile company like Audeze tries to cash in on that:

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, witchdoctor said:

I agree that there is an attempt to make them appear more fashionable but SQ is the prime motivator. 

 

Generally not with Beats, where fashion is the point.  Beats (Apple) now has a higher end to try to give themselves some audiophile cred.  Too little, too late.

[Samuel T Cogley]

29 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

Look at their marketing page, they have a line of headphones that target niches
"Take Sound Seriously: is one of the taglines:

 

https://www.beatsbydre.com/headphones/pro

 

Perhaps I'm not so easily impressed by marketing slogans as you.

 

Apple wants you to believe they "take sound seriously"?  No surprise there.  In my experience, their approach to "sound" is mass market consumer, period.

[Samuel T Cogley]

31 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

Those brands are making the top 10 reviews based on looks??

http://www.toptenreviews.com/electronics/headphones/best-stereo-headphones/

 

Really?  The "Top Ten Reviews" site?  Did you just pick the top Google search result?  Web sites like that are pure click bait (at best).  Best to avoid them completely.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, witchdoctor said:

I 100% agree, slight incremental differences are meaningless to most consumers.

However they are monumentally important to the ARTISTS! If an artist puts their music out they want it to be heard as intended, period.

 

"as the artist intended" has itself become a marketing slogan, which brings us back to MQA.  Oh wait, that's "how the record labels intended".  MQA doesn't make this (for example) peak limited soup any better, not at all.

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

I believe millenials want better SQ

 

I agree if you say 0.01% want better sound quality.  When I first met a millennial neighbor (we've since become good friends) he was playing an vintage (not a reissue!) Led Zeppelin LP on a Crosley!  I asked him how much he paid for the record and he said like $50!  You could have knocked me over with a feather.

 

He didn't give a hoot about sound quality.  He was all about the spinner.