MQA Software / Hardware Decode Etc... Questions

[Samuel T Cogley]

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

 

This is a very weak equivalence. FLAC does not claim to have anything to do with quality. MQA explicitly does.

[The Computer Audiophile]

This is a very weak equivalence. FLAC does not claim to have anything to do with quality. MQA explicitly does.

 

I hear you. To most people on Earth, dynamically compressed files sound better. Thus have better quality :~)

[mjb]

This is a very weak equivalence. FLAC does not claim to have anything to do with quality. MQA explicitly does.

FLAC doesn't need to, it's "lossless", whats goes in comes out. With MQA, its marketing double speak.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I hear you. To most people on Earth, dynamically compressed files sound better. Thus have better quality :~)

 

Thus, MQA is for the non-audiophile masses. Do we agree on that?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Thus, MQA is for the non-audiophile masses. Do we agree on that?

 

I agree it's for the masses, but I don't think that excludes it also being for audiophiles. Perhaps MQA is bringing better sound quality, like we are all used to, to the masses.

[jmudrick]

Thus, MQA is for the non-audiophile masses. Do we agree on that?

MQA is about delivering better than Redbook/320 sounding music in a package more easily streamed than typically available high resolution audio. People who don't care about quality will neither be buying MQA files or paying 19.99 to Tidal for a Hi-fi subscription. Distribution of physical product to a handful of audiophiles who poo poo streaming probably isn't a huge consideration.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Samuel T Cogley]

I agree it's for the masses, but I don't think that excludes it also being for audiophiles. Perhaps MQA is bringing better sound quality, like we are all used to, to the masses.

 

As you stated up the thread, the "quality" aspect is more like "louder is better". MQA is a willing co-conspirator in the Loudness Wars.

[The Computer Audiophile]

As you stated up the thread, the "quality" aspect is more like "louder is better". MQA is a willing co-conspirator in the Loudness Wars.

 

So are you if you've ever purchased an album with less dynamic range than a previous version. God forbid anyone like the newest version.

[mansr]

MQA is about delivering better than Redbook/320 sounding music in a package more easily streamed than typically available high resolution audio.

 

This claim doesn't stand up to technical scrutiny.

[The Computer Audiophile]

This claim doesn't stand up to technical scrutiny.

 

Your claim doesn't stand up to any ABX listening test. You raise issues that don't matter. Just because it can be measured doesn't mean it matters.

[jmudrick]

This claim doesn't stand up to technical scrutiny.

I said better sounding, not measured and typically available not best possible in terms of hi rez distribution. On both counts I see no evidence that MQA fails but quite a bit that it succeeds.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Samuel T Cogley]

So are you if you've ever purchased an album with less dynamic range than a previous version. God forbid anyone like the newest version.

 

But I get a pass if HDTracks doesn't give me a way to determine dynamic range before purchasing. There's a reason they obfuscate that information.

 

As I said in a different thread, I generally like the latest Led Zeppelin remasters, but they are peak limited compared to the vaunted Diament masters. On the other hand, the Talking Heads titles in the MQA dump are unlistenable to me.

[mansr]

Your claim doesn't stand up to any ABX listening test. You raise issues that don't matter. Just because it can be measured doesn't mean it matters.

 

I was thinking of Miska's test where he showed that FLAC compresses better when the quality is reduced to MQA level. No listening test is required to compare the sizes of two files.

[mansr]

But I get a pass if HDTracks doesn't give me a way to determine dynamic range before purchasing. There's a reason they obfuscate that information.

 

As I said in a different thread, I generally like the latest Led Zeppelin remasters, but they are peak limited compared to the vaunted Diament masters. On the other hand, the Talking Heads titles in the MQA dump are unlistenable to me.

 

For classics I usually hunt down an original CD release (or occasionally a known good remaster). Content originally recorded to tape in the 60s or 70s doesn't benefit from high-res anyway.

[Abtr]

MQA is about delivering better than Redbook/320 sounding music in a package more easily streamed than typically available high resolution audio. People who don't care about quality will neither be buying MQA files or paying 19.99 to Tidal for a Hi-fi subscription. Distribution of physical product to a handful of audiophiles who poo poo streaming probably isn't a huge consideration.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

+1

 

Exactly. And I would be willing to pay quite a bit more if all MQA from Tidal would be the best available audiophile sound quality and not (mostly) compressed remastered versions of the originals. (Note that this is a problem also with much of the regular non-MQA content of Tidal.) Many of my original CDs sound better than the available Tidal (MQA) versions..

[Samuel T Cogley]

For classics I usually hunt down an original CD release (or occasionally a known good remaster). Content originally recorded to tape in the 60s or 70s doesn't benefit from high-res anyway.

 

While admittedly peak limited, I found the fairly recent remasters of the Blue Oyster Cult catalog (on CD) to be very enjoyable. The benefits of hi-rez as an end-user format are debatable, but that's a huge can of worms and we don't want to go there in this thread. I certainly downrez HDTracks downloads for different uses.

 

I do captures of out of print vinyl to digital at home. This is probably not what you mean, but my results are always better when I capture at 96k vs 48k. I always finish in Redbook as it is most portable and can be transcoded to lossy for DAPs. I tried filling my DAPs with hi-rez, and it was nothing more than a waste of storage space.

 

Some original CD issues sound dull and lifeless. There are a few examples where the original issues are still the best available, but I don't follow this as a rule.

[mansr]

While admittedly peak limited, I found the fairly recent remasters of the Blue Oyster Cult catalog (on CD) to be very enjoyable. The benefits of hi-rez as an end-user format are debatable, but that's a huge can of worms and we don't want to go there in this thread. I certainly downrez HDTracks downloads for different uses.

 

I do captures of out of print vinyl to digital at home. This is probably not what you mean, but my results are always better when I capture at 96k vs 48k. I always finish in Redbook as it is most portable and can be transcoded to lossy for DAPs. I tried filling my DAPs with hi-rez, and it was nothing more than a waste of storage space.

 

Some original CD issues sound dull and lifeless. There are a few examples where the original issues are still the best available, but I don't follow this as a rule.

I suppose I should have said I research which releases are good and try to find one of them. More often than not, this is the original. Remasters by MoFi or Audio Fidelity are the usual exceptions.

 

As for capturing vinyl (or any analogue source), I wouldn't use anything less than 96/24. Not because the content requires it, but to be sure of some headroom. That doesn't mean paying a premium for a high-res download of similar content is worth the expense.

[Jud]

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.

 

 

 

HDTracks was found to be using upsampled RedBook *by the labels*? The same labels that supply the files? That would *instantly* cut off a vendor for performing any unauthorized operations on the files *they* own and supply in violation of contract?

 

Where did you learn this?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[mansr]

HDTracks was found to be using upsampled RedBook *by the labels*? The same labels that supply the files? That would *instantly* cut off a vendor for performing any unauthorized operations on the files *they* own and supply in violation of contract?

 

You got it backwards. HDtracks were found to be selling upsampled redbook supplied by the labels.

[Samuel T Cogley]

HDTracks was found to be using upsampled RedBook *by the labels*? The same labels that supply the files? That would *instantly* cut off a vendor for performing any unauthorized operations on the files *they* own and supply in violation of contract?

 

Where did you learn this?

 

Wish I could find the URL. I read this in an interview with Chesky (maybe Stereophile?). He said essentially that after they discovered this, they began testing all the content they receive to ensure it's really sourced from hi-rez captures.

 

Good luck "cutting off" one of the major labels!

 

EDIT: Look here:

 

About two years ago we were sent a few files from a label that were represented as being 24/96 and they were not. They didn't get it. Look, Reference Recordings gets it. Water Lilly gets it. But some people still don't get it. So now we have three outside sources testing everything before we release it on HDtracks to make sure it is what its claimed to be. These are mastering studios who are spending their time listening to and testing things for us using equipment that's much better than something like Audacity.

[Jud]

Wish I could find the URL. I read this in an interview with Chesky (maybe Stereophile?). He said essentially that after they discovered this, they began testing all the content they receive to ensure it's really sourced from hi-rez captures.

 

Good luck "cutting off" one of the major labels!

 

EDIT: Look here:

 

Exactly as I thought and mansr said: HDTracks found *the labels* were providing upsampled RedBook, not the other way around. (And by the way, I find the notion of HDTracks learning about this to their surprise and only then having the idea that they should test files to be very amusing.)

 

Edit: OK, I now understand what you meant by "found to be upsampled RedBook by the labels themselves." You meant "found to be RedBook *upsampled by the labels themselves*."

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[mansr]

Exactly as I thought and mansr said: HDTracks found *the labels* were providing upsampled RedBook, not the other way around. (And by the way, I find the notion of HDTracks learning about this to their surprise and only then having the idea that they should test files to be very amusing.)

 

Edit: OK, I now understand what you meant by "found to be upsampled RedBook by the labels themselves." You meant "found to be RedBook *upsampled by the labels themselves*."

 

And the labels are doing it again with MQA. Case in point, Madonna's Like a Virgin. The difference with MQA is that distributors like HDtracks can no longer verify what they've been given (with officially sanctioned means). All we have is the word of the labels, and as we've seen that isn't worth much.

 

Btw, if someone provides me a short sample (10 seconds will do) of the MQA version of that Madonna album, I can tell what resolution it claims to originate from. Might be interesting.

[jmudrick]

And the labels are doing it again with MQA. Case in point, Madonna's Like a Virgin. The difference with MQA is that distributors like HDtracks can no longer verify what they've been given (with officially sanctioned means). All we have is the word of the labels, and as we've seen that isn't worth much.

 

Btw, if someone provides me a short sample (10 seconds will do) of the MQA version of that Madonna album, I can tell what resolution it claims to originate from. Might be interesting.

I would not hold up HD Tracks however as any kind of positive example , they were only dragged kicking and screaming by frustrated consumers into verifying product provided by the labels. I'll give MQA et al a little time to sort things out before passing judgement.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[mansr]

I would not hold up HD Tracks however as any kind of positive example , they were only dragged kicking and screaming by frustrating consumers into verifying product provided by the labels. I'll give MQA et al a little time to sort things out before passing judgement.

 

They may have been reluctant, but at least they could do it. With MQA that isn't even an option.

[jmudrick]

They may have been reluctant, but at least they could do it. With MQA that isn't even an option.

Help me out , why couldn't MQA be pressed to provide that?

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk