MQA is Vaporware

[Jud]

10 hours ago, miguelito said:

And if this by some quirk of nature where true, wouldn't it be fairly simple for ADC designers to fix? I have limited patience for this bull...

 

That would be supposing that top audiophile performance, rather than good enough/way it's always been done/low cost, was the primary factor in choice of ADCs.  (This isn't to either support MQA's particular recipe for dealing with this or say it's BS, just that less than stellar performance from studio ADCs is possible).

[Jud]

7 minutes ago, Nikhil said:

 

Another thought, how do you let someone have so much leverage over you? Who are the guys who signed on the dotted line at the companies that have accepted MQA?

 

 

Signing a contract and only learning key provisions later doesn't sound like most prudent business owners I know.  When I first read this, to me it didn't hang together - I got the sense of someone making excuses.

[Jud]

13 hours ago, esldude said:

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6013

 

So at least one Grammy award winning mastering engineer does not Authenticate MQA.

 

First, before I get to Brian Lucey: The recent news does seem rather depressing from the lack of anything (at least in @Rt66indierock's report) about movement in regular hi-res, streaming or download.  Wonder how many (few?) of the Pepper purchases on Amazon had anything to do with the 24/96 versions?

 

Now, re Brian Lucey: This quote from him didn't fill me with confidence in his knowledge or musical judgment (though I could as always be wrong):

 

Quote

 

I use the Pacific Microsonics AD and even 24/44.1 that I print here (I like 44.1 for the density) was a bad result after MQA. I can only imagine it’s worse with higher math, or maybe it’s better, I wouldn’t know.

 

Don’t care if Bob Ludwig or Massenberg disagree. I have a lot of Bob’s former clients and I don’t fancy the Massenberg EQ or his ear.

The math is solid, no doubt

 

 

Maybe it's worse or better with "higher math" - he doesn't know - than 24/44.1, which he likes for "density."  He then throws in a swipe at one of his colleagues (always charming).

 

Then he says "the math is solid" after just remarking he doesn't know about it.  OK, a really solid source. 

[Jud]

Just now, esldude said:

I agree, but find this no worse than the accolades sometimes heaped upon MQA by those who know just as little and aren't recording engineers. 

 

Yep.

 

Edit: Though if it is honest - "Look, I don't know the tech stuff, but I heard it and really liked it" - then I can live with that, since I can give it a fair evaluation.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, 4est said:

Is this your subtle way of reminding us the MQA'S filter post rings like a bell?

 

Subtle?

[Jud]

7 hours ago, 4est said:

 

With all of this talk of DRM, somebody had to say it. Remind us it is a repackaging a pig with new lipstick while proclaiming it to be this new great thing. Amazing what working a frenzy over time can do.

 

And that it's usually a good thing for a frenzy to have frenzied anti- as well as pro-, to really gin up the level.

[Jud]

48 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Not only did it feel as though a veil had been lifted,

 

You can't have a carny without the Dance of the Seven Veils (Lifting).

[Jud]

7 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

No way King Crimson is going available in greater than 24/48 unless you want it to be dumped in a bigger container like The Eagles on the Border at 24/192. I will take a good effort at 16/44.1, 24/44.1 or 24/48 over some of the stuff on HDTracks at higher resolutions.

 

After all why was the definition of hi-res lowered to 24/44.1? 

 

Bissie (nickname for the head of the BIS recording label, which puts out some really beautiful classical recordings) always said the word length was more important than the sample rate.

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, esldude said:

Not buying that.  Find me pro gear that doesn't do at least 96/24.  Other than older gear even sub $100 ADCs do 96 and usually 192.

 

Mark Knopfler puts out quite some nice stuff at that resolution (or any).  I'm thinking it's just the flip side of DAC (or software) oversampling - higher rates give the filters more headroom.  Correct, or not?

[Jud]

20 minutes ago, esldude said:

I used to have the LP of that.

 

Still do.  And the DSD.

[Jud]

7 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Why, they're only one of the finest sports cars in the world,

And of under $100,000

Something a real person can own.

 

If the real person has a spare 56 grand lying around (for the stripped version).

[Jud]

6 hours ago, esldude said:

BTW, what does DSD add to a recording done with 24 tracks at 44/16,  mixed on a Neve analog desk which was recorded a second time to stereo DAT tape?

 

Mobile Fidelity's mastering.

[Jud]

48 minutes ago, esldude said:

Yeah I have some MoFi recordings.  Usually quite good.  Just spent a few minutes reading about the re-mastering.

 

Lots of funny things there. One is the original tracks use pre-emphasis.  The fellow doing the remastering said there was no way to digitally handle that so he used the old Sony Dash machines to record the analog output of them to 24/96.  One of those weird things.  He could have gotten a Meridian 516 which did digitally do the de-emphasis outputting it over a 20-bit format.  I guess they didn't know about it.

 

So this was an extra AD to DA stage.  This one then played out digitally to analog again to an analog Neve to be recorded digitally one more time.  Then of course to go DSD you needed one more step to go from PCM to DSD. 

 

I haven't heard it, and can believe it is better or at least different and good.  It still can't change that originally the tracks had real limitations which many audiophiles today would turn their noses up at.  Plus one extra ADC-DAC stage, and PCM to DSD. 

 

I don't consider it one of MoFi's best efforts for sound quality, though there's an extended version of Ride Across The River.  Songs are terrific, of course.

[Jud]

3 hours ago, Bob Stern said:

 

Yes, but he also said a huge consideration was that he had a lot of equipment that was limited to 44.1.

 

 

That would certainly help to account for his thinking about the importance of word length vs. sample rate. 

[Jud]

5 hours ago, Bob Stern said:

 

I agree.

 

As I mentioned a long time ago, it seems to me encryption, even of a weak variety, provides some legal IP protection if people need to crack it to use the product without the owner’s permission.

[Jud]

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

DMCA

 

Yup, the Disney Money Copyright Act.

[Jud]

47 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Music has been encoded at 24/96 (or more) for around 2 decades now.

If 16/44 containers for playback create psychogenic melodrama for a tiny fringe of society and there is some need for bandwidth reduction, then stream in 24/96 FLAC, which is minimally larger than a 16/44 WAV file http:// http://dsd-guide.com/size-comparison-chart-various-formats-dsd-wav-flac-mp3#.WUcKyejyvIV

"Problem" solved. No new fandangle format needed

 

Yes, that discussion was had toward the beginning of the thread.

[Jud]

36 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I think what is being inferred is that if all record companies promote MQA then :

1. Every CD we purchase in the future will be MQA encoded, and still play on CD Players.

2. MQA Ltd are stating that the 3 bits dithering is inaudible so we will have to accept MQA encoded CD's which, provide to those not interested in MQA an inferior sound.

3. The record companies may embrace the MQA marketing and only provide MQA encoded CD's, as a single pressing is cheaper than 2 different pressings.

4. The record companies buy into this as it will allow DRM to be inherent in CD's/downloads, so they can implement control at a later stage once we are accustomed to MQA only CD's etc.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

The potential problem with this line of thinking isn’t that it relies on the music companies’ greed, which is perpetual.  It is that it would hand over a fair amount of control to MQA.  The companies were down this road once before with Apple and have everlastingly regretted it (despite the fact Apple saved them, which they choose to ignore in their memory of those events).  For that reason, I have some doubt the industry will go “full MQA” without big consumer demand, and perhaps not then.

[Jud]

19 minutes ago, Digital Assassin said:

Apple "saved" the music industry?? I don't know a single person, myself included who spend a nickel to buy Apple's lossy crap. The fact that they still don't offer lossless downloads boggles the mind, and that audio is at the very bottom of their list.

 

When the accountants total up the sales figures, they don’t just run them for people you know.

[Jud]

25 minutes ago, Digital Assassin said:

Apple saved Apple. The iTunes store was mean to push iPods and later iPhones out the door. It worked.

 

Were you buying music at the time?  I was.  And if you research histories of the business at the time, you will read just what I’m about to tell you.

 

Of course Apple saved Apple.  They’re in business to make money.  

 

But the reason the music companies even bothered with Apple in the first place is because if you think they’re desperate now, they were absolutely drowning then.  CDs were going down fast, Napster was free and importantly easy to use and offered a wide selection.

 

The “alternative” offered by the music companies was something called Rhapsody.  It was a dead slow streaming service with a limited selection of mp3s and a terrible interface that cost $20 a month when that was more than some people spent for cable TV.  And where would you listen to them?  Sitting in front of a desktop on big clunky headphones.  Rhapsody went over like a screen door in a submarine.  In response, the music industry started trying to jail potential customers.  You can just imagine the favorable publicity that generated.

 

CDs on a downhill slide; nothing to replace them; creating a fervent anti-industry culture among the younger music buying generation.

 

Then into the breach steps Apple, with the iPod and earbuds, “a thousand songs in your pocket,” all the music you could ever want at less than a buck a song, and TV ads with catchy music and dancing.  Download sales outstripped CD sales quickly, and the music industry had what remained their largest revenue stream until a year or two ago.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, fung0 said:

It's simply inconceivable that any upstart competitor could create a viable alternative to, say, the audio CD.

 

Apple did.  At the time, they were certainly an upstart, and a competitor for the money to be made from music sales (while at the same time a contractual partner, so some of the money from those sales would go to the industry).  As I noted before, though, having felt burned by Apple's control over the product and share of the take, the industry is very unlikely to allow such an internal takeover again - like, for example, MQA.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, Digital Assassin said:

Apple has never provided an alternative to the CD. They have, and still do, offer an inferior product.

 

And that is exactly what you are talking about potentially taking over the music industry now with MQA, right?

 

My point once more, irrespective of quality (because the industry certainly doesn't seem to respect it): Apple stole their lunch money once, in their opinions; they're not about to let MQA do it again.

[Jud]

20 minutes ago, fung0 said:

W3C recently inserted DRM into the Word Wide Web standard, against vast opposition from users and advocacy groups, and with support only from corporate participants, including Google, Microsoft and Netflix.

 

Specifics?

[Jud]

21 minutes ago, fung0 said:

But openness won.

 

In the case of VHS, it was lower price and longer playing time, rather than anything to do with openness.

 

I think your point about companies strangling their own products by being too restrictive is well taken (SACD, anyone?), and doesn’t require further embellishment.

[Jud]

24 minutes ago, mansr said:

It was also the lack of licensing restrictions making VHS the pick of the porn industry.

 

I bow to your superior knowledge in this respect.