Popular Post firedog Posted October 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 20, 2018 8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: That's still good revenue: 200,000 x $20 per month x 12 months = $48mm in revenue per year. And that's one streaming service. What happens if Apple gets in and sells a million people on $15 a month for 12 months? Maybe for a few dollars more, some will want better quality 16/44? And you are a business consultant in your day job? Gross income. And how much of that depends on MQA? Possibly very little. Lots people signed up for tidal hi-fi tier before it included MQA. It isn't clear how many customers are there solely because of MQA. I imagine most of those users are there for the CD quality stream, and not the MQA. That's the real uptick in SQ for most people (as opposed to the mp3 available from the big boys). The number of MQA DACs in the wild is vanishingly small in the big picture. Only inside the bubble of audiophile forums and press is it even an idea/issue. 4est, Sonic77, esldude and 2 others 2 2 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted October 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 20, 2018 4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: I keep asking myself what’s in it for Lee to continue to be proven wrong but keep coming back again and again. I’m totally cool if people like MQA and support it and want to factually discuss it, but this is on a whole different level. In all other things in life it would be a no-brainer, follow the money. I feel like we’re going to have to ask for tax returns from people who continually do the work of MQA ltd here on CA. Notice how Lee totally changes his pro MQA arguments over time? He used to talk a lot about the SQ superiority and the technical superiority. Now that those arguments have been shown to be bunk, he mostly talks about how MQA is "good for the industry" (my paraphrase). He's moving very close the the Jim Austin argument, which boils down to "whatever is good for the big record labels is good for consumers" - even if it clearly isn't good for consumers. I'm not saying that to claim either are paid shills. It's just an industry-centric outlook on life. Teresa, esldude, 4est and 7 others 6 3 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Popular Post semente Posted October 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 20, 2018 49 minutes ago, firedog said: Notice how Lee totally changes his pro MQA arguments over time? He used to talk a lot about the SQ superiority and the technical superiority. Now that those arguments have been shown to be bunk, he mostly talks about how MQA is "good for the industry" (my paraphrase). He's moving very close the the Jim Austin argument, which boils down to "whatever is good for the big record labels is good for consumers" - even if it clearly isn't good for consumers. I'm not saying that to claim either are paid shills. It's just an industry-centric outlook on life. esldude, jabbr and MikeyFresh 2 1 "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
Popular Post Miska Posted October 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 20, 2018 6 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: 2. There is generally only one ADC needed post-mixing board so you correct that ADC and you are at the point the artist/producer wanted. How about the case where the mixing board is digital? The ADC's used for the actual recording of the tracks doesn't matter? How about the case where there are no ADC's at all, or just for the vocals in the mix? Like is the case for most of modern pop-music. The Computer Audiophile, MrMoM, esldude and 4 others 6 1 Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Popular Post Miska Posted October 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 20, 2018 1 hour ago, firedog said: The number of MQA DACs in the wild is vanishingly small in the big picture. Only inside the bubble of audiophile forums and press is it even an idea/issue. I would say most likely the most used MQA decoder is the software one... And certainly that is the best way if you really really need to use MQA. Because then you can at least avoid those horribly bad leaky upsampling filters MQA uses at DAC side. Sonic77, FredericV and esldude 1 2 Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Popular Post Miska Posted October 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 20, 2018 4 hours ago, MikeyFresh said: Of course it is, how convenient for Lee to leave out all mention of the unadulterated 24/192 download of this 50th Anniversary reissue. As usual, you can either buy the MQA version for extra money, or get the 192k or 96k version for cheaper: https://www.highresaudio.com/en/album/view/64dk73/the-doors-waiting-for-the-sun-50th-anniversary-deluxe-remastered-edition Ralf11, MikeyFresh, esldude and 1 other 2 1 1 Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Popular Post Shadders Posted October 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 20, 2018 10 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: As for music in its purist form, Stuart and team are trying to correct for timing issues in ADCs post-mixing board. Isn't that an approach for getting closer to what happened in the studio? Hi, Please see : https://www.xivero.com/blog/hypothesis-paper-to-support-a-deeper-technical-analysis-of-mqa-by-mqa-limited/ There are no timing issues. If you read the paper referenced, it shows the proof that MQA is a scam. Your previous mistake on the CD format indicates that your technical ability is approaching nil. If this is the case, and you are in agreement, can you reply stating that you have very little technical understanding. Thanks. This will help people rephrase their arguments in a specific way for you to understand. Regards, Shadders. TeflonScoundrel, Sonic77, MrMoM and 1 other 2 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post esldude Posted October 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 20, 2018 3 hours ago, MikeyFresh said: Thats right, all part of an elaborate attempt at bait & switch. Yes, this is Lee's infamous encoder in the cloud, allowing anonymous label staff to hamburger batch process at lowest cost/highest speed. Beware that Warner catalog on Master Quality Adulterated, it did not receive the white glove treatment at all... artist/engineer/producer were not involved, there is no "authentication" of any kind, unless you mean DRM. Don't be so pessimistic. We're just waiting for MQA version 2. Also known as MQA-Ai. MQA-Ai will use an artificial intelligence so that Warner can process like 500 million tracks a month using MQA, but done as if it was hand curated by individual mixing and mastering people. Then we'll get MQA-Ai Ultra. This will allow an artificial version of any artist, recording engineer, mixer or mastering person. Results can even be signed off on by the original artist via the AI version of that artist including artists who have expired. It will be totally automated from start to finish. Totally awesome. And improve every aspect of the recording. And yet while being awesomely superior to the original versions it still won't give us the straight copy of the family jewels. And it won't be DRM. Awesomeness piled up awesomeness. Awesomeness operating at multiple levels in multiple dimensions beyond the abilities of actual humans to have ever accomplished anyway. Heck, it could be so good, that is only warranted once our smartphones can do a fully actualized AI of the owner who can then listen to this awesomeness via an equally awesome AI version of themselves. We'll all be out of the loop as it will be as intended end to end so tightly bound up you aren't even going to actually let real living breathing humans listen to the result. mansr, askat1988, Shadorne and 3 others 3 1 2 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Popular Post Currawong Posted October 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 20, 2018 This forum needs a "funny" up-vote option. ? james45974, The Computer Audiophile, Hugo9000 and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment
mcgillroy Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 7 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: Not true. The artist is more concerned with the live event in the studio more often than the end product. MQA is getting closer to the live event and, thus the artist's intentions. Hey Lee - ever heard of multitracking?! It’s been around for a while, utilized in 99% of cases when recording classical music too. “Live-event” in the studio. Lol. You are living either in a different decade or in a fantasy world. Most likely both. MikeyFresh 1 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted October 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 20, 2018 9 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: the timing issues inherent in the ADC What are those, exactly? crenca, MikeyFresh and sarvsa 1 2 Link to comment
FredericV Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 33 minutes ago, mcgillroy said: Hey Lee - ever heard of multitracking?! It’s been around for a while, utilized in 99% of cases when recording classical music too. “Live-event” in the studio. Lol. You are living either in a different decade or in a fantasy world. Most likely both. For LeeS, about 12 bits sampled (72dB of range, see the Bob Carver article why this must be sufficient according to LeeS understanding of diffing) at 32 Khz (he won't hear 16 Khz at his age) is probably enough ...."You are removing stuff that's not audible .... if it's inaudible do we care?" MikeyFresh 1 Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
John_Atkinson Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 7 hours ago, Currawong said: Would you consider making the originals and MQA versions available to the public to listen to and examine? Sorry, but no. The MQA versions were provided under the condition that I would not share them without permission. The originals you can purchase, of course. But as Chris Connaker appears to have the same files, perhaps he would be amenable to your request. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Link to comment
Miska Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 7 hours ago, Currawong said: They were white-glove-treated recordings weren't they? Which means MQA could have done anything to them and it has nothing to do with the whole MQA ecosystem, but someone would have mastered them by hand. You can get some of the "white glove treated" MQA's and the DXD originals from here: http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html Plus I believe similar combinations from highresaudio.com, they don't have as much MQA, but when they do I believe many of those are fresh manually made ones. MikeyFresh 1 Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Popular Post semente Posted October 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 20, 2018 21 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: Sorry, but no. The MQA versions were provided under the condition that I would not share them without permission. The originals you can purchase, of course. But as Chris Connaker appears to have the same files, perhaps he would be amenable to your request. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Would you be so kind as to suject them to a thorough analysis for us? Sonic77, mcgillroy and MikeyFresh 2 1 "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
Popular Post Shadders Posted October 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 20, 2018 Hi, I propose that we ask Brian Lucey to return, to discuss with the "proponents of MQA" the benefits of MQA, and its claimed authentication. Amongst other things. There is one proviso - that NO ONE discusses the loudness wars or compression. MQA only. ? Regards, Shadders. MikeyFresh and Kyhl 1 1 Link to comment
psjug Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 12 minutes ago, Miska said: You can get some of the "white glove treated" MQA's and the DXD originals from here: http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html Plus I believe similar combinations from highresaudio.com, they don't have as much MQA, but when they do I believe many of those are fresh manually made ones. But the question was about the demonstration MQAs that were used and created such a positive initial splash for MQA in the press, and which Bob Carver says had crossover cancellation. The demonstration files are not available to the public. crenca 1 Link to comment
miguelito Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 9 hours ago, Jud said: Well look, I’m up for the Lennon and Beatles remasters. And I’d be up for MQA if it gave a clearer window into the original. But I’ve never heard an MQA track sound clearer than the hi res or RedBook version. I do have one example and just that one example: Amy Winehouse’s “Back to Black” where they clearly remastered from the original (or applied a declipper filter). The original is truly butchered in the final production. MikeyFresh 1 NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul system pics Link to comment
Popular Post Miska Posted October 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 20, 2018 5 minutes ago, psjug said: But the question was about the demonstration MQAs that were used and created such a positive initial splash for MQA in the press, and which Bob Carver says had crossover cancellation. The demonstration files are not available to the public. I wonder what is point of having demonstration files no ordinary people are allowed to possess? It just stinks to high heaven and we can safely ignore anybody's listening results of unobtainamium. Such don't have any practical relevance. It's like saying "we would need to kill you after you've heard it". That sounds more like they sound so horribly bad that nobody is allowed to have those, than they would sound so great that nobody is allowed to have those. The Computer Audiophile, sarvsa, MikeyFresh and 6 others 4 5 Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted October 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 20, 2018 9 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: Not true. The artist is more concerned with the live event in the studio more often than the end product. MQA is getting closer to the live event and, thus the artist's intentions. Keep digging lee. mcgillroy, MikeyFresh, Sonic77 and 2 others 1 3 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
psjug Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said: Sorry, but no. The MQA versions were provided under the condition that I would not share them without permission. The originals you can purchase, of course. But as Chris Connaker appears to have the same files, perhaps he would be amenable to your request. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Would it be a violation to give us a short L and R difference file? Link to comment
Popular Post John_Atkinson Posted October 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 20, 2018 15 minutes ago, psjug said: Would it be a violation to give us a short L and R difference file? I have prepared difference files for 3 original PCM files, chosen at random. Next will be to prepare difference files for the decoded MQA versions, but that won't be until next week as I am fully occupied finalizing the January issue of the magazine right now. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Teresa and Currawong 2 Link to comment
Shadorne Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 10 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: Most studio sessions I have been to, the artists listen to what is coming out of the mixing board (sometimes there is not even mixing) amplified. So all MQA is doing is fixing that ADC-DAC two step that happens in ADC conversion and DAC playback. One example would be Telarc recordings they do of the Atlanta Symphony. Spano listens to either headphones or monitors, usually the latter. He cares about the performance of the musicians. He relies on the engineer and producer to bring it all together. Telarc used ATC monitors. They were Michael Bishop’s preferred way to monitor. He had a mobile set. Unfortunately I thought they closed shop. Link to comment
Shadorne Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 11 hours ago, Jud said: Well look, I’m up for the Lennon and Beatles remasters. And I’d be up for MQA if it gave a clearer window into the original. But I’ve never heard an MQA track sound clearer than the hi res or RedBook version. At least you have excellent ears and a fairly phase coherent setup. MQA wouldn’t have got nearly this far if most people were like you. Link to comment
Popular Post jabbr Posted October 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 20, 2018 10 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: So all MQA is doing is fixing that ADC-DAC two step that happens in ADC conversion and DAC playback. The story that you are trying to tell is that there exists some sort of ADC-DAC “two step” that needs to be corrected together. When the ADC has “smear” that could be corrected if the studio/mastering desired. The corrected recording can be delivered using eg 24/192 or DSD256 (or anything really). Similarly the end user’s DAC could be corrected with similar filtering ... do “audiophile” DACs need such correction? wgscott and Shadders 2 Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now