Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA Software / Hardware Decode Etc... Questions


Recommended Posts

Chris,

You sound like there is no choice, but I (naively?) want to believe that we (the demand side) can somewhat influence the industry (the supply side)...

 

They were forced to drop DRM some years ago due to market demand. Now they're sneaking it back in under the guise of master, quality, authentication, deblurring, high-res, and whatever other fancy words they can dream up. The gullibility on display is astounding.

Link to comment
C'mon Chris, that's a little condescending. Up-rezed lossy files are easy to spot. We don't need MQA for that. What about Madonna's "Like A Virgin"? The "hi-rez" version was sampled from a tape that captured a lower than Redbook quality digital master years ago, when that digital version could still be played back on that old equipment. That same tape gets sampled decades later at 192kHz and MQA gets slapped on at the end, and Voila! Audiophile Nirvana! How is MQA protecting us from that? Hint: It's not.

 

Can you explain why you and other apparent MQA enthusiasts seem so willing to give the record labels a pass on willfully producing non-audiophile product? We have early digital examples of catalog titles (Fleetwood Mac "target" CDs are a great example) where the original dynamic range was preserved. It's quite disingenuous to dismiss valid complaints of willful dynamic range compression as some kind of "artistic decision". It's antithetical to audiophilla and yet, you seem quite happy that the "Q" is "MQA" is a deserved moniker.

 

Hi Samuel - My post was not meant to be condescending at all.

 

With respect to the Madonna example, MQA is not designed to protect anyone from that situation. It's meant to protect you from someone altering the file between the final version signed-off on and the version you listen to. Again, you want MQA to dictate what is sold, but that's not a good thing. The free market can decide that it won't purchase albums like this one because of XYZ. It's not MQA Ltd's job to dictate what is sold.

 

I would love more dynamic range, but I also want the people who sell a product to be the people who decide what is sold. If AARP came to my office and said I have to publish articles in size 72 font, I would be very unhappy. If I publish in size 3 font and most AARP members can't read my site, we both lose. If I publish in size 72 font we also both lose because I'm not going to do it.

 

Back to audio, what is delivered from the label is all about artistic decisions. This doesn't mean the actual artist makes the decision, but it's a decision by those involved in creation of the product. Willful dynamic range compression doesn't make me happy, but I don't want to control what other people do and sell. I'll use my voice through my dollars.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
They were forced to drop DRM some years ago due to market demand. Now they're sneaking it back in under the guise of master, quality, authentication, deblurring, high-res, and whatever other fancy words they can dream up. The gullibility on display is astounding.

 

You lack of real facts and libel are astounding. Please go to the MQA DRM thread and start providing real information rather than dumping your beliefs in every thread. I've provided a platform / area for you to make your case. Please do it.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/mqa-and-drm-31569/

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
I don't believe the supply side demand from a small group of us will make a difference. The movie industry delivers what it wants. The music industry will deliver what it wants.

You're probably right, but you see, it is precisely because the music industry has been deaf and blind to the market and has done what it wants that it missed the digital revolution and lost billions because of piracy.

So yes, we're only a tiny part of that market, but you would think they learnt something about how people behave when they don't listen to them... :-)

Link to comment
You're probably right, but you see, it is precisely because the music industry has been deaf and blind to the market and has done what it wants that it missed the digital revolution and lost billions because of piracy.

So yes, we're only a tiny part of that market, but you would think they learnt something about how people behave when they don't listen to them... :-)

 

I agree. It's a different world now though. Streaming is so easy and piracy is too difficult and risky for the masses. I don't see a return to piracy on the level it once was. Who knows. I guess we'll see how it all plays out.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Give me a break. I gave you and everyone else a forum to do it, now you won't. Something suspicious here.

 

Have you forgotten the "respect for intellectual property" discussion already? If I explained how the DRM works in detail, it would effectively be a recipe for subverting it, and you were quite explicit that you didn't want anything of the sort on your site.

Link to comment
Have you forgotten the "respect for intellectual property" discussion already? If I explained how the DRM works in detail, it would effectively be a recipe for subverting it, and you were quite explicit that you didn't want anything of the sort on your site.

Thanks for raising the issue. If you really understand how it works, you should be able to explain it without crossing any lines. Give that you've seen where my line is, I think you have a decent idea what I'm talking about. Maybe not.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
The playback app could do the verification. That's certainly much less of a burden that what MQA places on the system.

 

One of the release vehicles it supports is CDs. You can't get that information from a CD to an MQA capable device except through the sound data bitstream.

 

Also, you can't take excerpts of songs and know it is the original mastering if you have to Hash the whole file. Now this also means someone could shorten a song and no one would be the wiser except a momentary blip in the blue light in transition points, but at least the sound that is coming out is as intended from the studio.

 

And because they've designed it so DACs can decode and authenticate, the requirement is there to get all necessary info from the bitstream. If they didn't do it in the dac, the internal decoding to higher sample rates beyond the dac interface wouldn't be possible either.

Link to comment
Hi Samuel - My post was not meant to be condescending at all.

 

With respect to the Madonna example, MQA is not designed to protect anyone from that situation. It's meant to protect you from someone altering the file between the final version signed-off on and the version you listen to. Again, you want MQA to dictate what is sold, but that's not a good thing. The free market can decide that it won't purchase albums like this one because of XYZ. It's not MQA Ltd's job to dictate what is sold.

 

I would love more dynamic range, but I also want the people who sell a product to be the people who decide what is sold. If AARP came to my office and said I have to publish articles in size 72 font, I would be very unhappy. If I publish in size 3 font and most AARP members can't read my site, we both lose. If I publish in size 72 font we also both lose because I'm not going to do it.

 

Back to audio, what is delivered from the label is all about artistic decisions. This doesn't mean the actual artist makes the decision, but it's a decision by those involved in creation of the product. Willful dynamic range compression doesn't make me happy, but I don't want to control what other people do and sell. I'll use my voice through my dollars.

 

MQA is inarguably a process marketed exclusively to audiophiles. But if it doesn't improve the sound quality, what's the point? Why should consumers care if the content is "authenticated"? Many releases from boutique mastering companies lack this explicit "authentication", but are often the best sounding version of the title available. If MQA is not careful, they could become the de facto indicator of poor quality (dynamic range compression).

 

Your AARP straw man makes absolutely no sense to me, unless you think I'm being quixotic and are comparing me to this guy:

 

91sn32Q.jpg

 

If so, that's pretty weak.

 

At the end of the day, you're giving a complete pass to the content providers, and you have recited almost verbatim the pro-MQA mantra that Michael Lavorgna was chanting here recently. I'm now beginning to think it was foolish of me to expect otherwise.

Link to comment
MQA is inarguably a process marketed exclusively to audiophiles. But if it doesn't improve the sound quality, what's the point? Why should consumers care if the content is "authenticated"? Many releases from boutique mastering companies lack this explicit "authentication", but are often the best sounding version of the title available. If MQA is not careful, they could become the de facto indicator of poor quality (dynamic range compression).

 

Your AARP straw man makes absolutely no sense to me, unless you think I'm being quixotic and are comparing me to this guy:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]33120[/ATTACH]

 

If so, that's pretty weak.

 

At the end of the day, you're giving a complete pass to the content providers, and you have recited almost verbatim the pro-MQA mantra that Michael Lavorgna was chanting here recently. I'm now beginning to think it was foolish of me to expect otherwise.

 

Wow, the glass is 3/4 empty. MQA success has nearly nothing to do with audiophiles. The fact that Tidal is offering it puts it outside of this tiny little niche. When other streaming services come on board it will be even further outside the audiophile niche. MQA as a company is marketing to audiophiles, but the people using MQA Ltd technology are marketing to everyone.

 

You may not care if you purchase lossless content that was created from lossy MP3. That's fine. Boutique companies aren't the issue. Main stream music has delivery issues. That's a fact.

 

MQA has zero to do with dynamic range compression. Trying to loop it into the same bucket is either disingenuous or shows a lack of understanding.

 

I'm not comparing you to the Simpson's guy. My AARP example is right on. You want to tell other people (record labels) what to do. I don't.

 

What pass am I giving to content providers? A pass that they can produce any product they want? If yes, sign me up 100% for this all day long. I don't want to be told what product I can sell. I vote with my dollars and my opinions that I prefer better dynamic range.

 

I don't know what MQA mantra you're talking about with respect to Michael. Perhaps he sees both sides of this as I do. I don't know as I haven't talked to him about it.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
You may not care if you purchase lossless content that was created from lossy MP3.

 

This is a complete red herring. HDTracks suffered from some negative publicity when some of their content was found to be upsampled Redbook by the record labels themselves. They now test for this when new content arrives.

 

MQA explicitly uses the word "Quality" in their acronym. If you're saying that "Master Quality" doesn't imply what any reasonable audiophile would characterize as "quality", then that pretty much sums up the vacuousness of the MQA promise for me.

Link to comment
What pass am I giving to content providers? A pass that they can produce any product they want? If yes, sign me up 100% for this all day long. I don't want to be told what product I can sell. I vote with my dollars and my opinions that I prefer better dynamic range

 

Here you're making an implicit distinction between you as audio forum owner/operator and you as a media consumer. With all due respect, I can't see how you can make that distinction without being somewhat disingenuous yourself.

Link to comment
This is a complete red herring. HDTracks suffered from some negative publicity when some of their content was found to be upsampled Redbook by the record labels themselves. They now test for this when new content arrives.

 

MQA explicitly uses the word "Quality" in their acronym. If you're saying that "Master Quality" doesn't imply what any reasonable audiophile would characterize as "quality", then that pretty much sums up the vacuousness of the MQA promise for me.

 

Maybe I can shed a little light on this. Almost all online stores offering high resolution downloads still sell upsampled content. Test all they want, if the label says this is our master version of the file, it's what they will sell. If a label says oops we made a mistake, that's another story. It's no different than the days of physical SACD and DVD-A, with the exception that physical stores have never lost reputation points for ignoring the issue.

 

Mastering engineers will often process a 44.1 file through an analog console and capture it at 96 kHz. I've asked mastering engineers why they do this and I've been told by Grammy winners that they like the sound better. Technically this is an upsampled album. The sound has changed by processing it through the console and the product is different than the 44.1 version. Sure, it could be made as a 44.1 version rather than high resolution version, but that's a business decision. We can elect to purchase it or not.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Maybe I can shed a little light on this. Almost all online stores offering high resolution downloads still sell upsampled content. Test all they want, if the label says this is our master version of the file, it's what they will sell. If a label says oops we made a mistake, that's another story. It's no different than the days of physical SACD and DVD-A, with the exception that physical stores have never lost reputation points for ignoring the issue.

 

Mastering engineers will often process a 44.1 file through an analog console and capture it at 96 kHz. I've asked mastering engineers why they do this and I've been told by Grammy winners that they like the sound better. Technically this is an upsampled album. The sound has changed by processing it through the console and the product is different than the 44.1 version. Sure, it could be made as a 44.1 version rather than high resolution version, but that's a business decision. We can elect to purchase it or not.

 

So what is MQA protecting us from again? If someone downstream does the upsampling, it's fraud, but if the label does it, it's art?

Link to comment
Here you're making an implicit distinction between you as audio forum owner/operator and you as a media consumer. With all due respect, I can't see how you can make that distinction without being somewhat disingenuous yourself.

 

Good subject. It's a balance. On one hand I want what I want as a consumer and on the other hand I want to deliver information without a bias.

 

I've been hard on producers in the past (link) but have more recently stopped myself from similar posts and comments. I may provide the information for others to make their own educated decisions or I may provide my opinion that I'd rather see something different, but striking a balance is hard. I'm also a human being who has flaws and screws up and changes his mind etc...

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
So what is MQA protecting us from again? If someone downstream does the upsampling, it's fraud, but if the label does it, it's art?

 

Absolutely, but not exactly how you said it. Sounds bad, but it's the truth. Fortunately, we can all vote with out dollars and opinions.

 

A mastering engineer produces a product that's signed-off on. Someone downstream produces a product that hasn't been signed-off on. From a content owner perspective, would you be happy with either option? From a consumer perspective would you be happy with either option? Both can give drastically different results.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Good subject. It's a balance. On one hand I want what I want as a consumer and on the other hand I want to deliver information without a bias.

 

I've been hard on producers in the past (link) but have more recently stopped myself from similar posts and comments. I may provide the information for others to make their own educated decisions or I may provide my opinion that I'd rather see something different, but striking a balance is hard. I'm also a human being who has flaws and screws up and changes his mind etc...

 

Thanks for this. Call me quixotic if you will, but if you truly are a "torch bearer" for audiophilia, you have a duty to always denounce industry practices that are antithetical to high quality sound.

 

I also understand that your value as a source of information plummets if you lose access to your sources. I'm well aware of the consequences of "access journalism". But your MQA "reporting" has morphed into advocacy in the last 72 hours or so IMHO.

 

Perhaps it's naive to expect a little more transparency with regards to motives. Your shift from seemingly neutral to pro-MQA could be a figment of my imagination. I hope so.

Link to comment
MQA has zero to do with dynamic range compression. Trying to loop it into the same bucket is either disingenuous or shows a lack of understanding.

 

I don't agree; MQA ltd has everything to do with that, because they allow it under (or in) their product.

 

All what theoretically can be the case to their benefit (of the doubt), is that they didn't know; However, now the Warner etc. contracts have been signed for whatever huge $ and now it is too late.

Missed opportunity. And if not that, then maybe you tell what MQA is here for. I remain positive ...

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
I don't agree; MQA ltd has everything to do with that, because they allow it under (or in) their product.

 

All what theoretically can be the case to their benefit (of the doubt), is that they didn't know; However, now the Warner etc. contracts have been signed for whatever huge $ and now it is too late.

Missed opportunity. And if not that, then maybe you tell what MQA is here for. I remain positive ...

 

Using your logic, FLAC has everything to do with dynamic range compression because "it" allows it.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Thanks for this. Call me quixotic if you will, but if you truly are a "torch bearer" for audiophilia, you have a duty to always denounce industry practices that are antithetical to high quality sound.

 

I also understand that your value as a source of information plummets if you lose access to your sources. I'm well aware of the consequences of "access journalism". But your MQA "reporting" has morphed into advocacy in the last 72 hours or so IMHO.

 

Perhaps it's naive to expect a little more transparency with regards to motives. Your shift from seemingly neutral to pro-MQA could be a figment of my imagination. I hope so.

 

Hi Samuel - Feedback noted with thanks.

 

Two things with respect to my coverage of MQA.

 

1. The talk on the forum has been so heavy-handed against MQA with all kinds of correct and incorrect factual and emotional arguments, that I feel obligated to argue the other side. Education comes from understanding both sides. I hope that people seeking information can read about both sides and learn something. It's not my intention to fight for MQA. That would be a bad business decision for me.

 

 

2. I started the MQA DRM thread today in an effort to get more information out there. I have no clue where that thread will end up, good, bad or indifferent. My access to MQA information isn't so important to me that I would seek to harm the CA community. I want all the information to be accessible.

 

 

My motives are always about seeking more information. I also appreciate when people view my posts as something different and make me aware.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...