MQA and the Sponsor Wars

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Subjectivity does not equate to trolling. 

 

I agree.

 

Perhaps a better word would be been guessing.

 

For example, he asked why some "audio journalists" and record labels support MQA?

 

We have discussed these issues ad nauseam and the bottom line is no one really knows. 

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

In a degraded mode, but yes, it will play.

The format has provisions for much more severe degradation than in currently distributed content.

[kumakuma]

8 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Wow, talk about cynical. Wow again, subjective opinions now equate with trolling in your mind. I do get that these are touchy subjects which is why I stated people may be exhausted by them. As I said I haven't been involved in the multiple MQA looooong threads. I apologized in advance about that, asking for contributions if anyone could be bothered. Well, thanks for yours, not!

 

I'm sorry if I jumped down your throat. Your post felt very much like one of witchdoctor's faux sincere posts.

 

If you want to find out more about what MQA really is, I'd recommend mansr's thread:

 

 

The bottom line for me is that the closed nature of this format and the potential it has for locking down what we can do with our music makes it a no-brainer for me.

[Samuel T Cogley]

8 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I agree.

 

Perhaps a better word would be been guessing.

 

For example, he asked why some "audio journalists" and record labels support MQA?

 

We have discussed these issues ad nauseam and the bottom line is no one really knows. 

 

I respectfully disagree.  It's all about "access journalism" and manufacturers feeling like it's in their interests to have a relationship with influencers and journalists.  The playing field is not level, and the manufacturers have all the balls.  There are influencers and journalists that do audio as their day job.  If the manufacturers think you're going to "speak truth to power", they'll never want to speak to you.

 

MQA is marketing themselves as the DRM of hirez streaming (file download purchases are in decline).  They're trying to position themselves to get paid at every step, from the recording studio to the smartphone or home streamer.  I think the "audiophile media" just wants to focus on the "sounds great" and downplay how much of a "land grab" MQA is.

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I respectfully disagree.  It's all about "access journalism" and manufacturers feeling like it's in their interests to have a relationship with influencers and journalists.  The playing field is not level, and the manufacturers have all the balls.  There are influencers and journalists that do audio as their day job.  If the manufacturers think you're going to "speak truth to power", they'll never want to speak to you.

 

MQA is marketing themselves as the DRM of hirez streaming (file download purchases are in decline).  They're trying to position themselves to get paid at every step, from the recording studio to the smartphone or home streamer.

 

I'm in agreement with you on both points.

 

My point was that there is no one here who can say for sure why many of the mainstream audio journalists support MQA.

 

In other words, any answer, including yours, that we come up with will be pure supposition.

[Special Snowflake]

How much is the adoption of MQA actually going to increase the cost of high end audio to the end users? Even if it sounds worse, does it have the benefit of reducing piracy which results in lost money to the musicians? 

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Special Snowflake said:

How much is the adoption of MQA actually going to increase the cost of high end audio to the end users?

Those who know aren't allowed to say. I've heard talk of a $200k entry fee plus royalties for equipment manufacturers. For early adopters most of this is being waived. This is a common strategy to entice adoption: if you wait, and the thing becomes a must-have, you'll have to pay much more. Of course, nobody knows what they'll actually charge once the full pricing kicks in.

 

6 minutes ago, Special Snowflake said:

Even if it sounds worse, does it have the benefit of reducing piracy which results in lost money to the musicians? 

Most piracy is by people who wouldn't pay for the content anyway. The actual lost sales are far smaller than the music industry would have you believe.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Thanks @mansr , @Samuel T Cogley, @kumakuma

 

Thanks for the link mansr, i will have a look.

everything said makes sense to me as plausible opinions (whether right or wrong).

My interests in MQA are purely selfish - I see it as a potentially disruptive influence for audiophiles who would rather see existing technology improved in SQ (without other agenda - and sales increasing in line with inherent value). Imagine what vinyl might have sounded like by now if CD never came along?

[Special Snowflake]

17 minutes ago, mansr said:

Those who know aren't allowed to say. I've heard talk of a $200k entry fee plus royalties for equipment manufacturers. For early adopters most of this is being waived. This is a common strategy to entice adoption: if you wait, and the thing becomes a must-have, you'll have to pay much more. Of course, nobody knows what they'll actually charge once the full pricing kicks in.

 

Most piracy is by people who wouldn't pay for the content anyway. The actual lost sales are far smaller than the music industry would have you believe.

So in the end only the “Walmart’s” and “Amazon’s” of  the industry who don’t give a crap about quality will be able to even work in the industry unless they payoff uncle Bob. Sounds like the rest of the world’s industries. Not surprising. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

23 minutes ago, mansr said:

Most piracy is by people who wouldn't pay for the content anyway. The actual lost sales are far smaller than the music industry would have you believe.

 

I think this is very likely true. I think it also very likely true that any protection will get hacked and pirated. The snare here is the hardware component. As far as I understand it, that really is a software issue and not a true hardware specific thing, so that too will be hacked. My point is not about the ethics of piracy, but the likelihood that piracy will continue.

 

I really wonder whether MQA will die a natural death like HDCD - I think my old CD player has this little light that comes on when playing a HDCD encoded cd. In the meantime these diversions breathe some interest and life into the audio world and generates a lot of forum threads.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Thanks @mansr , @Samuel T Cogley, @kumakuma

 

Thanks for the link mansr, i will have a look.

everything said makes sense to me as plausible opinions (whether right or wrong).

My interests in MQA are purely selfish - I see it as a potentially disruptive influence for audiophiles who would rather see existing technology improved in SQ (without other agenda - and sales increasing in line with inherent value). Imagine what vinyl might have sounded like by now if CD never came along?

 

How do you get past vinyl production issues? When I needed good vinyl it took 10 people searching for good pressings to get my reference albums. This was from 1973 to 1988 when I was moonlighting as a consultant in the broadcast industry mainly radio. 

 

And I've said this earlier but you missed it. One of my mentors was James Russell who invented some of the technology for the CD because of the limitations vinyl. 

 

And I also said earlier that variable filters were a better way to go in DACs. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

How do you get past vinyl production issues? When I needed good vinyl it took 10 people searching for good pressings to get my reference albums. This was from 1973 to 1988 when I was moonlighting as a consultant in the broadcast industry mainly radio. 

 

Thats the point. Nobody has been trying (as) much since the 80's to improve vinyl.

 

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

And I've said this earlier but you missed it. One of my mentors was James Russell who invented some of the technology for the CD because of the limitations vinyl. 

 

"CD perfect sound forever" never was realized for me. Those decades improving digital playback could have been spent on analogue playback. I am not claiming we would be in a better place, just that it wouldn't surprise me

 

 

[mansr]

9 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Imagine what vinyl might have sounded like by now if CD never came along?

Vinyl has inherent physical limitations that impossible to overcome. Let's take frequency response. At the high end, one limiting factor is the size of the stylus relative to the linear track velocity. To increase the upper frequency limit, you'd need to either make the stylus smaller, which would increase surface noise, or make the disc bigger, which would be unpractical. Meanwhile, at the low end of the spectrum, too much bass will send the pickup flying unless the tracking force is increased, but that causes excessive wear and other problems. And that's just the start of it.

 

Vinyl didn't stop being developed because the CD was invented. The CD was invented because vinyl had reached its limits. And because lasers were suddenly cheap.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

29 minutes ago, mansr said:

Vinyl has inherent physical limitations that impossible to overcome. Let's take frequency response. At the high end, one limiting factor is the size of the stylus relative to the linear track velocity. To increase the upper frequency limit, you'd need to either make the stylus smaller, which would increase surface noise, or make the disc bigger, which would be unpractical. Meanwhile, at the low end of the spectrum, too much bass will send the pickup flying unless the tracking force is increased, but that causes excessive wear and other problems. And that's just the start of it.

 

Vinyl didn't stop being developed because the CD was invented. The CD was invented because vinyl had reached its limits. And because lasers were suddenly cheap.

 

For all CD's technical superiority I was not a fan until I first heard Mark Levinson reference products doing digital in the 90's.My jaw dropped and then the rest of me followed suit when I heard the price.

 

Yet, until relatively recent times, it was a complement to say a digital system sounded more "analog". There was just something about the digital upper mids and lower treble that gave it away for me, until recent years.

 

I am sure you are right that vinyl had reached its use by date. In retrospect it does now seem archaic to have an Edison type spike scratching across a hard surface in order to produce sound.

[FredericV]

12 hours ago, mansr said:

The format has provisions for much more severe degradation than in currently distributed content.

 

Crippleware is not tolerated. This is why it must die, and why we oppose this messed up DRM infected format:
 

 

[Rt66indierock]

14 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Thats the point. Nobody has been trying (as) much since the 80's to improve vinyl.

 

 

"CD perfect sound forever" never was realized for me. Those decades improving digital playback could have been spent on analogue playback. I am not claiming we would be in a better place, just that it wouldn't surprise me

 

 

 

Still to many limitations with analogue. Another mentor Rodger Nichols could spot the differences in an analogue master after two hours. In my youth with the training I had I could spot differences after two days. Those little electrons are going to be moving around and there is nothing you to stop them.

 

I think part of your problem is execution. I had a client in the early nineties who made movie soundtracks. One time he mastered a short clip (about 15 minutes) for a movie theater, a car and my listening room. All sounded great in their proper environment. They didn't sound nearly as good in the other two environments. Again this was discussed earlier.  

[Ralf11]

Vinyl may have inherent neuro-pschyological advantages.

 

The need to futz with it before having it play, may increase frontal lobe activity related to delayed gratification.  When the music does come out, finally, that might increase the gratification.  We could test this by sticking people's heads in fMRI machines, just like scientists have done with dogs, pigeons, primates, and elephants.

 

The findings show marked individual variation in both brain activity in that region and in behavioral tests.

 

This might also relate to the Japanese guy in that other thread who has to move his couch around before listening.

 

maybe neurosci knows something about this?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Vinyl may have inherent neuro-pschyological advantages.

 

The need to futz with it before having it play, may increase frontal lobe activity related to delayed gratification.  When the music does come out, finally, that might increase the gratification.  We could test this by sticking people's heads in fMRI machines, just like scientists have done with dogs, pigeons, primates, and elephants.

 

The findings show marked individual variation in both brain activity in that region and in behavioral tests.

 

This might also relate to the Japanese guy in that other thread who has to move his couch around before listening.

 

maybe neurosci knows something about this?

 

Long story short, a great many areas of the brain are involved in music perception, the various inter-relationship between sounds/pattern recognition/language etc, assigning meaning, evaluative interpretation and affective components etc etc. The frontal lobe, as it is with most other processes has a hand in it.

 

A fascinating point re language - while there are obvious parallels between music and language (comprehension/expression), they are not localized to the same brain areas.People with strokes can loose language but still sing (which I have seen). You can loose ability to write music specifically etc

 

You can think of the frontal lobes as the over all governor or controller impacting on most other functions, I suppose like the Hypothalamus-Pituitary axis in the brain governs the hormonal system. You do however see specific behaviours resulting from focal frontal lobe lesions such as impersistence/lack of initiation as well as the the opposite of impulsivity. The classic things are more along the lines of disinhibition and personality change.

 

It is very much involved in planning and organizational functions and its recruitment in fussing over setting up a tonearm and turntable is likely. There are likely a lot of preparatory activities we do to get ready for whatever specific activity. Have you ever watched tennis players (amateurs mainly) that do a 'little dance' before they serve? I fancy they are lining up all the motor sequencing events flowing down from frontal lobes through other cortices to cerebellum and brainstem.

 

having said all that, fiddling with the tonearm setup before playing music is probably more a psychological ritual but in any event maybe still influences the experience and enhances pleasure to some degree.

[Ralf11]

I heard that the Executive Function was really a Hamiltonian.

[filhodoassis]

On 29/10/2017 at 3:30 PM, Miska said:

 

Yeah, I have the Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 Digital. And I use it exclusively in DSD512 mode. Because it performs best in that way. Objectively measured, no hands-waving.

 

Miska, seens you already had quite some time listening, and did some measurements with the Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 Digital. 
How did it compares with the IFI iDSD micro BL in sound quality, playing DSD256 or DSD512 native/upsampled files?
I think, after following your postings here, that you are one of the most qualified guys, to give us this kind of information.
Thanks a lot for everything.