Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
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?"
 

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
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
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.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.  

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
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
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
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

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...