 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
94.11.43.206
Them's fighting words...
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Follow Ups:
I first heard about MQA like...two months ago or something. I watched the video Meridian put together for it.
I was right with the guy about why they needed to do it; then he lost me as soon as he said how they did it.
This is just yet another proprietary solution to a problem that may or may not exist for most people. I'm not fully buying in to the pseudo-SBA they're trying to pull anyway.
If I want high-resolution; I'll just get high resolution. My bandwidth and storage space gives me zero reason to use something like this. But more importantly; I don't have the ability to play around with it. It's either built in to software modules (Tidal) or in to hardware. If I can't do actual comparisons on my PC...where I can take my existing HD content, encode it to MQA, then decode it for analysis in my DAW...nope. I will just assume it doesn't work and is bogus.
I think the problem is even worse than that.... Digitization has corrupted music as we once knew it, and such rehashing of "technology" only convolutes it further.....
People ask me why I still listen to "old fashioned CDs".... My answer is that although it's digitized, it's usually first-generation digitization. At a resolution not too high to fatigue the listener, nor too low to lose too much between the bits....
Another thing is that engineers don't realize that newfangled "technologies" further corrupt the music. It's as if they stopped listening and just believe the sales pitches associated with them. I mean, I'm hearing too many remastered recordings with garbled highs, strange artifacts, and Auto-Tune. (I then point out what I think is obvious, and people then get upset. It's like being upset over someone pointing out the Emperor is wearing no clothes.)
These new "technologies" make the music sound "different", but almost never better. (I think too many of us hear "different", and presume it's "better".) Each copy that goes further from the original session just loses more of the music.
I agree with the Linn article in most part.
I am convinced by the outcome that most of the people doing the mixing have no idea what live, unamplified music sounds like. All they know is electronic effects. It is very possible that this is what the public wants too. However, I think when people hear a good recording, they will know it. There just are not many examples in newer music.
Dave
I assume you guys are talking about Pop Music.
The latest ECM and SF Sym recordings are amazing.
Among others.
I do listen to classical, but mostly older recordings. Do you mean ECM Records and San Fransisco Symphony?
Dave.
I only read your post to confirm you'd mention Auto-Tune.
Tell me the name of ONE Jazz or Classical recording that uses it.
I've heard the Glyph-effect when it's on Max on Hip-Hop, but it's for the effect, not for tuning.
"Tell me the name of ONE Jazz or Classical recording that uses it."
Better linking to examples than just telling......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJUQD6Rr2M8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ4uarjLsKg
I'm not 100% sure if it was bernie grundman or Bob Katz but in an interview he said almost every file he gets for mastering is using Autotune. A lot of studios don't even tell the artist they are using it.
He was talking mainly about pop music. I here it all the time. There is a slight graniness on vocals. I bet on the recent terrible sounding Grammys autotune was used on all vocals
Alan
"A lot of studios don't even tell the artist they are using (Auto-Tune)."
They believe nobody will notice its use..... But I hear it in too many remastered recordings of classic albums/performers, let alone too many recent albums.
. . . years ago, I was accompanying a cellist for a recording (for her college admissions) at Fantasy Studios in Berkeley (they were also doing the mastering for an Indiana Jones soundtrack at that time), and I asked the engineer recording us if autotune was ever used in classical recordings. His answer was, not surprisingly, "No!".
"...I asked the engineer recording us if autotune was ever used in classical recordings. His answer was, not surprisingly, 'No!'"
He personally may have never done so, but to say it has never been done once in an entire industry is ignorantly presumptive. Not to mention patently wrong.
I never said that autotune was used on classical recordings
Alan
I still see MQA as a solution to a problem that does not exist. Streaming bandwidth these days is sufficiently high to not require an MQA compressed stream. Additionally, I have no intentions of repurchasing in MQA the content that I already own. I might play with it, as I did with DSD downloads, but other than curiosity I don't see a need.
It's hard enough dealing with vinyl, CDs and tape. I'm not averse to new formats but I don't think - at least for me - 'this is it'. I don't find the rationale sufficiently compelling to make the substantial tangential investment (again) when there are so many other ways of addressing high quality, distributed digital audio.
Frankly, I'm more concerned about having new music and new performances of existing music in sufficient quantity.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
If you are already streaming from Tidal there is no additional investment to get most of the effect of MQA. I like it because some of the albums I really like have never sounded better. A good example is Fleetwood Macs Rumers. Really supperb sound even without outboard decoding.
Alan
Don't take this too personally, but Rooomoors is among the most overly hyped, overly played pieces of pop garbage to ever be recorded. Not exactly the music to judge the quality of a new playback system by. Reminds me of walking into Deja Vu Audio at least ten years ago and some milk-fed veal rich kid was auditioning mega-buck equipment with Pink Floyd's The Wall with the volume over 110dB.
To each their own, but I suggest you stick to Sir Simon for critically judgements.
A good example is Fleetwood Macs Rumers.
Rumors from 1977? Yeah, I remember that from my teen years. Your profile says you enjoy classical and film scores.
What is available today in either of those genres?
I've recently enjoyed the soundtracks from Interstellar and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Can you access or download either of them? Or, is it only forty year old content that is available?
Rumours is Fleetwood Mac's most successful release; along with winning the Grammy Award for Album of the Year in 1978, the album has sold over 45 million copies worldwide, making it one of the best-selling albums of all time. Never said I use Rumours to judge equipment with. I said it is a good example of a MQA encoded release
Alan
In classical there are MQA albums by
Herbert Von Karajan
Kronos Quartet
Itzhak Perlman
Sir Simon Rattle
Vasily Petrenko
MQA film music
Max Richter
When Sony and UMG start getting MQA downloaded to title there will be a lot more classical and film music
In non MQA files on Tidal there are tons of classical and film music
By the way Intersteller is a great score and on Tidal at 16/44 it sounds spectacular
Alan
In classical there are MQA albums by...
I read the earlier post about the list of titles .
I've looked at 2L, Onkyo Music, and High Res Audio for downloads. Rather slim pickings. Nothing available that I already have (or want).
By the way Intersteller is a great score and on Tidal at 16/44 it sounds spectacular
I enjoy my 24/44 version, too. :)
"But with the MQA approach, we have the worst kind of middleman: solving a problem that has already been, or could be, solved by free and open alternatives... "
If you agree that the problem of implementing (rendering?) high resolution files via a standard resolution medium " has already been, or could be, solved by free and open alternatives" then please let us into the secret of how it has been solved already or how it could be done.
Actually the wording "has already been" in conjunction with " or could be" indicates that the person at Linn doesn't actually have a clue. I mean you wouldn't write " manned flight has already been or could be solved" would you? If it has been solved then it has been solved.
Also, if it is solved by other means then why aren't Linn doing it themselves instead of charging inflated premium rates for anything above CD resolution with the concomitant long download times ? Do you not imagine that Linn might actually have an economic dog in the fight and that their real motives in this are not simply for the general benefit of mankind ?
I find the concept of "lossy high resolution" an oxymoron. :)
In today's computer world, data storage and bandwidth are largely irrelevant - unless you listen exclusively to streamed internet content.
Building a "better MP3" has zero value for me if I have to replace the entire digital playback system.
" unless you listen exclusively to streamed internet content."
Which is exactly what MQA is about. If you only listen to silver disc or even hi-rez downloads then it is not relevant. That is until those media disappear over the coming years (look at the sales figures).
As for the lossiness it basically appears to lose data in the LSB of a 24 bit file. Is there any musically relevant information in that LSB? Remember that we are talking of possible musical information at -144dBfs. Analogies with MP3 are not really useful it seems to me.
As I have pointed out you do not have to replace any of your digital playback system components unless you want to replay streamed original files of resolutions in excess of 24/96. Even if you try to replay a streamed MQA file of 24/192 resolution without an MQA decoding DAC you still get 24/96 ( OK, effectively 23/96).
Your argument about data rate, bandwidth etc. being irrelevant in todays computer world is not correct in terms of file distribution via the internet unless time and data charges are of no significance. Virtually all of us will be getting our new music in a few years time only via the internet in one form or another. I see no developments anywhere to suggest otherwise.
Which is exactly what MQA is about. If you only listen to silver disc or even hi-rez downloads then it is not relevant.
I don't have the "renters" mentality since I prefer to spend far less over time for my needs.
our argument about data rate, bandwidth etc. being irrelevant in todays computer world is not correct in terms of file distribution via the internet unless time and data charges are of no significance.
It really is of no significance to me. My internet service provides a terabyte of data per month. Time? A high resolution takes maybe three minutes to download. Versus say half an hour to drive to a store and pick up media? Are you serious?
Virtually all of us will be getting our new music in a few years time only via the internet in one form or another.
Amen! I'd love to be able to download any content and not have to purchase the media and rip it myself!
Which begs the question, if it could be solved, then why yet hasn't it been?
_
Ken Newton
24/96 FLAC streams at around 2-2.5 Mb/s, which is comparable to high quality 1080p video. Given the millions and millions of people who stream HD video every day, high res streaming via FLAC cannot possibly be an undue burden on the internet. That is why it is a solution in search of a problem.
Thank you, Dave - interesting to know these numbers, and this is a useful reference. While, by and large, bandwidth keeps increasing (and costing less, just like disc space), I do feel like bandwidth may be groaning ...
AT&T wants my mobile plan, by default, to begin using their "streamsaver" feature - which dumbs down hi-res video to a lesser resolution. (Yes, you can shut this feature off.) Additionally, a number of my friends who stream hi-res video *do* complain of frequent drop-outs & freezes, etc. Ok, yeah, perhaps you gotta just pay for more bandwidth, but at least one of these people already has a monster bandwidth plan.
To me "video-hiccups" are annoying but dealable as long as they are not too bad. But in the audio realm ... personally, I can't stand "audio-hiccups," it just destroys the listening pleasure for me. So, I want *flawless* (or pretty darn close) audio streaming. Enabling hi-res with less bandwidth can certainly help with this.
MQA also promises "temporal de-blurring." I haven't heard it. But I have read many of the technical papers. I can believe this is a real feature. Though, yes, the proof must be in the pudding. We'll see.
In any event, I'm very happy to see hi-res music streaming. I confess I love Tidal; and Tidal Masters (as much as I've listened) sounds outstanding to me. Up to this point in my listening-life, I've wanted to own everything I like - whether LP, CD, SACD, or hi-res digital file -- and sometimes multiple copies in different formats (I'm not alone, here, you know who you are ;-) But I just *can't* keep it up! I'm out of space - and out of time - and out of the energy to corral it all together. And my music "likes" keep expanding ... ! It gets to the point where, if the quality is good enough (and for me, Tidal Masters seems pretty much there), I'm willing to "rent" my content. Of course, I still have a lot of homework to encode, for convenience, the physical media that I already have. And, I still buy some things that I *really* love - the need to *possess* is a strong obsession!
AT&T wants my mobile plan, by default, to begin using their "streamsaver" feature - which dumbs down hi-res video to a lesser resolution.
I'm also an AT&T mobile customer, but choose to watch hi-res video on either a 65" or 42" monitor at home with broadband access where such considerations are rendered moot since I get a terabyte of bandwidth per month. Do you watch video on your phone?
Of course, I still have a lot of homework to encode, for convenience, the physical media that I already have.
For those of us who have already ripped our entire audio and video collections, I find that to be the best answer! I can stream all the content that interests me across multiple audio and video systems.
I suspect that a key technical objective of MQA is being overlooked by some. From what I've gleaned, MQA sets a requirement and specification for a transient optimized chain - recording through playback. Such a requirement could absolutely be delivered via other high sample rate formats, however, there is no standard requirement. Transient optimization (minimizing transient blurring) is the primary performance objective of MQA.
_
Ken Newton
Edits: 02/17/17 02/17/17 02/17/17
MQA is currently being used as a compressed audio format to stream Warner titles that were previously mastered for a hi-res PCM release e.g. DVD-A or download. Universal is said to follow.
For existing recordings, MQA have claimed that if the ADC is known, its identity or characteristics can be encoded, and then the decoder can utilize that information to select a reconstruction filter. I guess you would have to assume the same ADC is used for all the tracks of a multi-track recording. But I haven't seen them discuss the details of this process publicly or give examples, so I don't know what to think about its potential benefits, if any. Also, given how quickly Warner encoded their catalog, I think there is a very high probability that the encoding was generic.
Those are just practical issues though. My real complaint about MQA is theoretical. In their AES paper, Stuart and Craven proposed a Gaussian as an ideal system impulse response. In image processing, a Gaussian filter is also known as a blur filter or unsharpen filter. It is used to reduce sharpness or to artistically blur images. It will have the same result on a music waveform, smoothing over transients and blunting attack. How is that transient optimized? In the paper, Stuart & Craven note their ideal is equivalent to "only" 30m of air. Why is 30 meters ideal and not zero meters? From an engineer's POV, their idea just seems dumb.
Dave:Gaussian filters provides smooth rather than abrupt transitions, both in the frequency and the time domains. It provides a ripple free frequency response, while simultaneously exhibiting an aperiodic (non-ringing) impulse response. It's the aperiodic impulse response that MQA apparently values.
I'm not as familiar with image processing applications, and unsure this is directly comparable to pixel smoothing within an image. Possibly, image processing utilizes Gaussian filters for their natural Guassian shaped frequency domain properties, while MQA utilizes them for their natural Gaussian shaped time domain properties mentioned above.
The narrow channel bandwidth relative to the information bandwidth of CD necessitates the well known SINC function brickwall bandlimiting anti-alias and anti-image filters associated with it. It seems to me that MQA uses a much wider channel bandwidth, not for any musically significant ultrasonic content, but to enable utilization of relatively slow sloped aperiodic filters, such as the Gaussian, without incurring aliasing.
As for the audibility of MQA's time domain optimization, that's the key question for we audiophiles. MQA's strategy seems to be to offer performance benefits to music consumers so that they pull the format, while offering distribution management and cost savings to the music industry so that they push the format. If MQA delivers the promise of a compellingly better sounding digital listening experience combined with lower vendor cost, it has a chance of success. The key words are: compellingly better. Of course, fear of a new format, some of it rational, some of it irrational, is also playing it's usual and expected role.
_
Ken Newton
Edits: 02/20/17 02/20/17 02/20/17 02/20/17
Have you heard MQA? Just asking
Alan
So far, I have listened to a handful of Warner's MQA releases on Tidal using the Tidal app's software decoding. I picked ones that I already had on CD and DVD-A or high res download, and where I felt there was a pretty big difference between the CD and DVD-A. Selections were from:
Buena Vista Social Club
Fleetwood Mac Rumours
Yes Close to the Edge
Grateful Dead American Beauty
Phil Collins Face Value
Chris Thile Bach Sonatas
The MQA files sounded a lot like the DVD-A rips/hi-res downloads. I'm pretty sure they were made from the same master files as the DVD-A or download, and not the CD master. I would have to do more careful listening to say whether the MQA files are as good as the DVD-A rips, but they are at least close.
As a compression algorithm, I think MQA is pretty novel, but I don't think it is necessary given the near-ubiquity of high bandwidth broadband connections. Thanks to the demand for streaming HD video, we have the bandwidth we need to stream hi-res audio using a lossless, open standard like FLAC.
As a technology that aims to control the whole end-to-end chain from recording to playback, I think MQA is bad. Digital audio and computer-based audio are thriving because of open standards. MQA is a power grab that would change the landscape into something much more label friendly and not consumer friendly. And on top of that, their choice of system impulse response is just wrong.
What does MQA do that studios who have been recording in high resolution for decades doesn't?
As for me, I won't be junking my current DAC until enough MQA enabled software is available in what titles I listen to - which is not primarily "classic rock" from the WB catalog.
Here's my view of what MQA offers of value - via the below URL.http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-source/295397-mqa-5.html#post4970237
_
Ken Newton
Edits: 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17
it's like The Emperor's New Clothes given the dearth of available content.
That doesn't seem an apt analogy. All successful new technologies weren't widely adopted, until they were. New things have to crawl before they walk. The commercial success of MQA will likely depend on just two factors. Whether it results in compellingly increased consumer sales (due to greater convenience or greater listening satisfaction), and/or whether it compellingly lowers industry distribution cost.
_
Ken Newton
Edits: 02/16/17
Success will depend on whether or not the masses perceive the "new" as a meaningful improvement over the current version.
Vinyl to CD
VHS to DVD
Cassette to MP3
Tube to Flat Screen
All succeeded because the masses could immediately grasp the difference, and felt that the difference was a meaningful improvement.
CD to DVDa or SACD
Flat Screen to 3D
Were incremental improvements that appealed to a small segment of the market. And failed.
Jury is still out on MP3 or CD to HiRez. So far the masses are barely aware of the availability of HiRez and so far are satisfied by no more than CD quality.
Unless the masses come to believe that MQA is a meaningful improvement it is doomed to fail on merit- unless it is force fed to us.
My opinion is MQA is designed to impose industry control over streaming by imposing a new level of licensing fees to be paid before a streaming service can become involved. Streaming services and digital distribution companies control flow of music. The industry did not like it when Apple iTunes become so successful that Apple could dictate terms to the industry -and- impose Apple specific restrictions on ownership and playback. MQA is an attempt at an end run around Apple and anyone with similar intent.
As for me, I am a "buy it, I own it" consumer who takes a very dim view of having to pay a fee to access what I have purchased. And I HATE the migration from single purchase to ongoing subscription models.
The commercial success of MQA will likely depend on just two factors.
Greater convenience? Than exactly what?
Lower distribution cost? A two minute download vs a three minute download?
I'm not holding my breath. :)
In my view, the main performamce goal, by far, of MQA is to establish a transient optimized standard from recording through playback. This is all predicated on their conclusion that transient blurring is the greatest remaining hurdle to realizing non-fatiguing digital sound. While such transient optimization is certainly technically possibly via other high sample rate formats, there is no set requirement and specification for that. MQA sets such a requirement and specification.I'm not familiar with the details of the music industry's cost structure, however, I do know that the cost of managing distribution isn't simply that of inventory storage cost, but also includes inventory managment and sales management cost. With MQA, the number of catalog items could be cut in half, or even by two-thirds in some cases, versus having CD resolution and 96kHz resolution and even a 192kHz resolution version. Not to mention the 88.2kHz and the 176.4kHz resolution versions sometimes carried. Resolution meaning; transient resolution.
_
Ken Newton
Edits: 02/16/17 02/16/17 02/16/17
With MQA, the number of catalog items could be cut in half, or even by two-thirds in some cases, versus having CD resolution and 96kHz resolution and even a 192kHz resolution version.
Why do you believe that? Do you understand that MQA is a 24 bit format? It certainly could not replace the 16 bit Redbook version.
It would be yet another 24 bit format - this time requiring all *new* hardware to exploit!
MQA can also be encoded to fit a 16-bit Redbook container for distribution via CD, while still holding high-rez information, and is not restricted to 24-bits. The technical consequence is increased quantization noise.
_
Ken Newton
Edits: 02/16/17
1. The full deal lossy encoded and unfolded in 24 bits (sounds like a Waffle House hash brown order)
2. A halfway lossy encoded 24 bit approach
3. A dumbed down 16 bit lossy version with additional noise
Yeah, that third flavor surely must sound better than Redbook.
Sounds simple to me! :)
Why is this such a big deal? If you don't like or want MQA then ignore it. Like DSD, I ignore it because It does not give me any real improvement in sound but does require me to pay a premium
Alan
First, its all about streaming. Then it will "simply the catalog". Then it can be delivered on a CD.
You're one of the few buying this concept. How's the oldies rock and blues content working for you?
Look, just because you disagree with certain answers/assessments doesn't render them BS. Perhaps, you disagree due to your own personal bias and not because of the answers themselves, who knows. At any rate, baselessly insulting characterizations are not appreciated.
_
Ken Newton
Edits: 02/16/17
Are you kidding?
Look, just because you disagree with certain answers/assessments doesn't render them BS. .
Sorry, but I pay attention to what others post. Let's review some of what you've said:
With MQA, the number of catalog items could be cut in half, or even by two-thirds in some cases... .
As we've seen, that speculation has no basis in fact. Next!
You opined that MQA might provide:
...compellingly increased consumer sales (due to greater convenience or greater listening satisfaction), and/or whether it compellingly lowers industry distribution cost.
When I challenged the notion of "convenience" and "lower cost", you folded. Obviously since neither applies in today's world of inexpensive internet bandwidth cost.
I've observed that there is an utter dearth of downloadable titles. When I've challenged PAR with that reality, he retracted. "That takes further time"
We'll wait!
I've observed based upon an in depth analysis of another poster that the 500 odd titles available on Tidal are largely classic rock and soul/blues.
Do you have any data that refutes any of those facts?
Also, would you care to share with us your top 3 MQA titles? What content justified the additional cost to use one of few MQA compatible DACs?
You've fully revealed your irrational hostility toward this subject. Thank you, as I now know not to waste any more of my time attempting to have a rational discussion with you.
_
Ken Newton
Edits: 02/16/17
Pardon if you confuse discussing facts "hostile". BTW, earlier you opined:
Then it can be delivered on a CD.
That was my conjecture at one point as well, but was corrected by John Marks on that point.
In a Bob Stewart interview he said it can be put on a CD
Alan
"It is practical to make MQA CDs which are 100% backward compatible, sound great as a Redbook CD and decode to much more."
"Practical" from exactly who's standpoint? Even Stuart told John Atkinson "that would depend upon the level of the recording's analog noise floor ".
Even the MQA website promotes only streaming or downloading.
Maybe we'll see brand new and improved CDs in time, right? Just what Millennials are looking for. :)
CDS are doomed
Alan
Your evident prejudice and hostility toward a subject about which you are so obviously ignorant is quite astounding. Be aware, that the more you write the more you reveal your ignorance. No, I'm not going to spend the time necessary to educate you. You're not seeking to learn, you're seeking to defend your preconceptions.For the record, I've not advocated for MQA. I've merely attempted to also discuss some of it's potential advantages. I'm only an audio hobbyist with some technical education. I have no agenda, pro or con, regarding MQA aside from an general audiophile interest in obtaining better subjective digital replay. I've not yet heard MQA, and so, have not formed any opinion on the sound offered.
_
Ken Newton
Edits: 02/17/17 02/17/17 02/17/17 02/17/17 02/17/17
which you are so obviously ignorant is quite astounding
over your past seven posts, you've failed to demonstrate anything that I've said that is incorrect. OTOH, we both shared the same misconception about the ability to use the CD format. :)
but have no agenda, pro or con, regarding MQA.
Nor do I. Just the facts, M'am!
...over your past seven posts, you've failed to demonstrate anything that I've said that is incorrect. OTOH, we both shared the same misconception about the ability to use the CD.That makes a good example for me to use. You misunderstood what Marks wrote, probably because you are predisposed to misunderstanding it. An legacy CD player cannot DECODE MQA in to it's high resolution versions, but CAN still play an MQA encoded track as Redbook PCM. The undecoded MQA specific content simply acts as strong dither. This ability is fundamental to MQA, which is something so basic that the fact you don't know it helps reveal your ignorance about MQA. While ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, hostile belligerent ignorance is.
_
Ken Newton
Edits: 02/17/17 02/17/17
but CAN still play an MQA encoded track as Redbook PCM.
Then it's no longer MQA!!! Why would anyone press a CD with content that is never playable? Is that what you want folks to believe? Really?
This ability is fundamental to MQA, which is something so basic that the fact you don't know it helps reveal your ignorance about MQA
Your ability to demonstrate that anything I've said is incorrect remains zero.
Do you have difficulty discussing facts?
I knew I shouldn't have attempted to help you understand any of this. My own fault for trying.
_
Ken Newton
I learned from my days in IT: Never be an early adopter!
Dave
what we find is vaporware . The Emperor truly is naked.
Allegedly, the entire Warner Brothers catalog is MQA enabled. It's just that you can't buy it anywhere. Oh.
This is like a Kickstarter project. :)
First, if MQA does not sound noticeably superior to standard lossless 16/44 or higher recordings then what is the point? Storage and bandwidth for audiophile are not really an issue. I have been listening to MQA Tidal (with a high end but not an MQA enabled DAC) and some recordings sound great, some sound bad so overall I am somewhat ambivalent as to the value of any sonic improvements. Call it a tie.Secondly, I have an inherent dislike of any proprietary product that will capture entire music catalogues. I don't like all my eggs in one basket. Negative.
Thirdly, as I understand MQA, it is lossy in some sense although the parts that are lost can be easily be argued to be sonically invisible. Negative.
Finally, the MQA chain could be used as some form of DRM if desired. Not saying it will but it certainly has the ability built in. Negative.
So overall, I don't see this as some revolutionary advance and it possibly could become a big pain in the ass. I would be perfectly happy with well recorded lossless 24/96 or higher PCM.
Edits: 02/16/17 02/16/17
I would be perfectly happy with well recorded lossless 24/96 or higher PCM.
The technical (if not new revenue generation) challenge was solved long ago.
LOL! Yes, software is particularly notorious in that regard.
I've always loved the old software vendor joke; "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"
_
Ken Newton
" What does MQA do that studios who have been recording in high resolution for decades doesn't?"It seems from this question that you don't actually understand what MQA is. The answer is nothing regarding recording, in respect of which they offer no claims as it is not a recording medium. They do, however, offer a novel implementation of the distribution of high resolution PCM files.
BTW you don't actually need MQA enabled hardware to appreciate some of the benefits of MQA (in fact the greater part). If anyone wants to go further for " full effect" then that is up to them. Nothing becomes redundant. Keep your DAC and still have fun with MQA with streamed files up to 24/96 resolution ( assuming that your DAC accepts this data rate - I would be surprised if it doesn't).
Edits: 02/15/17
when available content reaches 0.01% of the musical catalog (~40,000 titles)
There was an earlier post about what's available on Tidal - pretty slim pickings indeed - and I noticed that Iron Butterfly was on the list, but not "In A Gadda Da Vida". Are you kidding me?
Honestly, I don't spend much time listening to classic rock any more even though I grew up with it. Got some ELP? Renaissance? Genesis?
As far as I am aware from various sources the entire Warners catalogue has been MQA encoded and Sony and UMG estimate that their entire catalogues will be MQA encoded by Spring. Note: entire catalogues.
Of course the encoding does not equal supply to to Tidal and loading onto their servers. That takes further time.
direct me to where the entire WB catalog is available in downloadable form.
I'll ask the same question about Universal in a few months.
I have already partially provided the answer to your quesion " Of course the encoding does not equal supply to to Tidal and loading onto their servers. That takes further time." But it is, of course, not downloadable. You are introducing something that I have not suggested in any way and you are then asking me to justify it (this is what is called a "man of straw" argument). As I have kept on repeating, MQA is fundamentally about streaming and the distribution of high-rez files via this medium.
You are introducing something that I have not suggested in any wayFine. So the *entire* catalog is encoded somewhere but totally inaccessible. That's totally useless.
As I have kept on repeating, MQA is fundamentally about streaming and the distribution of high-rez files via this medium.
That's not at all the impression I've gotten from your contributions to this thread. What do we find?
charging inflated premium rates for anything above CD resolution with the concomitant long download times ?...
They do, however, offer a novel implementation of the distribution of high resolution PCM files.
As for me, I regularly download true high resolution files from hdtracks.com in a couple of minutes. And?
Only now do you acknowledge that this is all about streamed content over the internet.
If you only listen to silver disc or even hi-rez downloads then it is not relevant.
Exactly my point. I have no intention of *renting* my music indefinitely. That is a revenue model, not a high resolution music model.
Virtually all of us will be getting our new music in a few years time only via the internet in one form or another.
I count on that! Downloading content once and not being forced to pay for it each and every month. Each and every month. I am a collector of music, not shiny plastic discs in a box. Do you perpetually lease your vehicles? I don't. Do you rent your living space every month? I don't.
As was reported in the original text, MQA is all about revenue generation, not high resolution music.
Edits: 02/15/17
Can't help thinking MQA's window of opportunity is limited. And certainly dwindling, albeit slowly. Essentially, a clever bit of 'non-DRM' DRM.However, I think it is building in format obsolescence in ways (IT) we may regret in the future, rather like HDCD (nice as that was - but where is it now?).
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Edits: 02/16/17
" HDCD (nice as that was - but where is it now?)."
The answer as best as I can recall is that it is with Microsoft who bought Pacific Microsonics and then just warehoused the technology.
I like your analogy and just as HDCDs can still be played on standard CD players ( albeit without the additional information being extracted), MQA files can still be played on non-MQA equipment.
Will MQA succeed? I have expressed my doubts before and am happy to repeat them. In fact I think that their chance of success is now even less than two years ago. I just do not think that hi-rez streaming will ever reach a tipping point with subscriber numbers so as to become economically viable. And no hi-rez streaming = no MQA.
All very sad as I love my Qobuz subscription ( a new desktop player available from today with advantages including what is apparently a revised sound engine with JAS approval - I will install it tomorrow).
The damn MQA thing is so confusing that my head hurts. Now I have a perspective of the business side of the venture - regardless of Linn's motivations.
The unknown produces anxiety. My take is that MQA will be seen as a plus by high end consumers so long as it results in an significantly audible improvement in perceived sound quality over other digital. The consumer fear is that it will increase music purchase cost without an audible increase in performance.
Industry will see MQA as a plus if it results in either higher sales of music, and/or lower distribution cost.
_
Ken Newton
Nothing at all then akin to Linn's position through the 1970s to 1990s that using any turntable except an LP12 was inferior and where they ensured that dealers would only sell the turntable with Linn's approved amp brand (during the 70's to early 80's Naim only if you wanted an LP12).
No land grabbing there then.A completely vacuous argument no better than arguing that Dolby surround is harmful to movies and DVDs. It just seems that they don't fancy paying the licensing fees. Oh, and they have possibly tumbled to the potential that they won't be able to continue to sell their ludicrously overpriced Studio Masters. I can't see anything else of substance there. After all you can replay an MQA encoded recording without any decoder or any investment in the process quite satisfactorily while still getting the benefit of the deblurring process if not the rest. And if a record label doesn't want to go with MQA they don't become technically redundant overnight, nor does anyones' legacy audio collection.
One thing I can guarantee; if MQA is successful then Linn will be using it. Remember that Linn wouldn't ever make CD players for a similar set of convoluted reasons. That was until they made CD players!
Linn is a company with more bollocks than Battersea Dogs Home.
Edits: 02/14/17 02/14/17
Good comments on Linn. But that still doesn't change the fact that MQA is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
PAR, good comment, especially with the Linn historical context added.
_
Ken Newton
Edits: 02/14/17
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
