|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.229.123.230
If we take it for granted that using MQA sounds better and that their algorithms as implemented in some form of DSP actually works, why is it necessary to implement the algorithms in a manufacturers hardware.
There seems two parts to MQA. The first is that Meridian seems to be claiming correction algorithms for errors as "authenticated" back to the source up to and including the A/D converters. In the studio there are countless microphones and/or other sources that can be independently controlled on a multiplicity of channels as deliberately changed by a sound engineer for frequency response and/or time domain on any channel.
A recording being "authenticated" back to the source seems can only be possible if studios (or Meridian) measures all errors on all channels back to the source as thereupon trusted "authenticated". To even suggest that this is going to be measured by studios seems so impossible as being a hoax.
What seems more likely is that Meridian did extensive psycho-acoustic testing and came up with one or more universal algorithm as independent of suggested authentication . When their light turns on as being "authenticated" all that seems would happen is a universal algorithm becomes activated as resulting in better sound. I am not disputing that the result could be great in relation to some reference.
The question is why not implement the MQA algorithm upstream in the data stream or in a CD. In other words why does a manufacturer need to create an MQA compatible player. The only reason seems that Meridian can't nearly profit by it if the algorithms are implemented in the CD's and come from royalties on the sale of MQA recorded material
The second aspect of MQA seems of some further DSP implementation to measure, "authenticate" and then correct for errors in a manufacturers player. The implication is that Meridian has a DSP implementation that cannot be accidentally improved upon by a manufacturer having intimate knowledge of their own equipment.
Why not give us a download or CD with the algorithm already implemented in it as being "authenticated". What stops Meridian from doing that. Further, if an MQA encoded CD can play "poor" 44.1KHz on a normal player how much poorer can it be if it was pre-encoded with MQA.
Follow Ups:
I thought everything was resolved with 16bit/44.1kHz. :-)
It got more perfect
Alan
It still is perfect.
Nt
.., is the apparent cost-to-benefit ratio (for me) that materializes (within a reasonable amount of time) after a new product is introduced. I could care less about "how" as long as prices seem low enough and benefits seem high enough.
Give it some time, I say.
I could care less about "how" as long as prices seem low enough and benefits seem high enough.
you mean the exact opposite - you couldn't care less , but I agree.
It will take time and a proven track record to establish the value of a new format - lossy at that - requiring new DACs or for a few, new firmware to replace the current formats we already have.
The marketing videos confused me more than anything. The paper lays it all out. It is essentially a lossy (perceptual coding) downsampling/upsampling process. Given a hi-rez master file (note the requirement that it be an integer multiple of 44.1) a custom lossy downsampling algo can be applied with metadata instructions for reconstructive upsampling residing in the bit space previously occupied by info removed by the perceptual coder. They recommend a custom algo for each individual track which presumably can contain corrections for encoding A/D and decoding D/A.Actually pretty interesting from a purely academic standpoint.
Of course it comes down to this: Will an MQA 44.1 stream sound any better than a native 44.1 stream (or even a simple downsampled 192-> 44.1 stream)? I guess more importantly, will the reconstructed upsampled stream sound better than the native 44.1 stream? And will the reconstructed hi-rez stream be comparable to the raw hi-rez stream?
Highly debatable is probably the politically correct answer to all of these questions.
Actually sounds a lot like HDCD on computing power steroids.
Edits: 01/17/16
Yeah, that's what the audio world is looking for.
Doesn't it seem to you that no matter what is done in any algorithm to any rez that it still comes down to putting out MQA to a 44.1KHz DAC at 16 bit as claimed will work. There is no mention of deteriorated performance for using more advanced DACS.
I was thinking that they can create MQA encoded CD's as ready for normal players and still license MQA players to function with high rez DAC's and profiling the manufactures hardware.
In that way sales of MQA CD's and streaming would increase dramatically as everyone has the hardware to use it currently. Who is going to buy MQA now?
> I was thinking that they can create MQA encoded CD's as ready for normal
> players and still license MQA players to function with high rez DAC's and
> profiling the manufactures hardware.
CDs are limited to a 16-bit word length; for hi-rez data MQA requires a
24-bit wrapper.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Thanks John,
Sure. Though they could equally have said hi-rez data MQA requires a 32-bit wrapper.
MQA streaming is at a point in the middle of completing a Digital Signal Processing (DSP) event. The 24-bit data being sent can be required of seeding the DSP decoding side to achieve an accurate 16-bit outcome that is reader for a DAC.
My thinking is that the DSP process can be completed at the source using whatever bit depth is warranted and send it out. Remember that Meridian is suggesting that the artifacts they have done years of psycho-acoustic testing on is supposedly well above 16-bit resolution.
> The 24-bit data being sent can be required of seeding the DSP decoding
> side to achieve an accurate 16-bit outcome that is reader for a DAC.
Even if the 16-bit version could include enough of the MQA metadata to be
useful, you are overlooking the huge benefit to the record industry of
having a single inventory: a 24-bit lossless file that unpacks to be
24-bit/high sample-rate audio with an MQA-enabled DAC but also plays as
16-bit/base-band audio data on legacy DACs.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Another point that I would like to make is that if all else can remain the same, in that hi-rez can be implemented anyway, the consumer base for downloading decoded MQA files can expand quickly and drastically if it can work on existing equipment. This also represents royalties for Meridian.
The immediacy of getting this into the marketplace can fuel the technology getting into the recording process as well. The more music that is available and accumulated by the consumer the more MQA hardware makes sense to purchase. Otherwise it may die on the vine.
Will MQA work with DSP, either a software or a hardware DSP solution.
Edits: 01/19/16
DSP stands for a Digital Signal Processor. A "profiler" is a dedicated DSP implementation already done in hardware. However to be small and cheap the current MQA implementation can be limited of functionality as prohibiting the seeding I am suggesting.
Changes depend upon the nature of the MQA implementation. It may be that the MQA implementation was done in some form of Flash Programmable Gate Array (FPGA's) as therefore permitting a software fix. The worst case scenario is to redo the chip.
As Mr. Atkinson pointed out there is good reason to maintain singular hi-rez files. In thinking about that, nothing stops the streaming service from using some full blown Digital Signal Processor (seeded under licence)to manipulate the files and perhaps put two versions on their site. This allows MQA to work under the current implementation.
I guess for me it will be a wait and see process for MQA.
> Will MQA work with DSP, either a software or a hardware DSP solution.It should, as long as the writer of the code has paid the appropriate
license fee to MQA.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 01/19/16
There you have it. A tax on an in invention that will cost far more than the savings from sending a small number of bits over the internet. Absurd.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
> > It should, as long as the writer of the code has paid the appropriate
> > license fee to MQA.
>
> There you have it. A tax on an in invention that will cost far more than
> the savings from sending a small number of bits over the internet. Absurd.
I really don't get your sense of entitlement, that you appear to believe
that you are entitled to use for free technology that a team of engineers
has spent years developing. Every time someone plays an MP3, the
Fraunhofer Institute has received 2 royalty fees, one for the encoded
file and one for the player. Every time someone plays a DVD, a host of
patent owners have each received a royalty for the video encoder and
another from the manufacturer of the player. Yet you complain that the
developers of MQA _shouldn't_ so benefit.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
This booklet makes the case for why intellectual property is bad.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
> This booklet makes the case for why intellectual property is bad.
Tell me what you do for a living and try to explain why you shouldn't do
it for free.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Kinsella completely ignores the concept of fair use which arose specifically in light of the arguments he makes. IP law has evolved to enforce distribution rights not usage rights.
He uses as an example patenting a drilling technique. I can certainly drill my own land using the patented technique. What I can't do is start a business drilling other people's land using the technique.
He also uses books as an example. I can copy a book limitlessly for my own use as long as I don't distribute the copies.
In case you didn't know it, there are lots of people who have done well developing open source software. The best example is Linus Torvalds. In the music world there are bands that have done well while not using copyright, e.g. The Grateful Dead.
There is nothing unique in MQA to justify special treatment, compared to, say, FLAC, which has always been free and open. But yes, a lot of money may be necessary to pay for advertising and publicity, etc... if one goes the proprietary route.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
> > Tell me what you do for a living and try to explain why you shouldn't do
> > it for free.
>
> In case you didn't know it, there are lots of people who have done well
> developing open source software. he best example is Linus Torvalds. In
> the music world there are bands that have done well while not using
> copyright, e.g. The Grateful Dead.
So what. Torvalds get royalties from distributors like Red Hat and from
those who embed Linux in their products. The Grateful Dead were the
highest-paid touring band in the US for many years, so their attitude to
copyright was an adjunct to their primary source of income.
So please answer my question. You don't work for nothing; why should
the engineers at MQA?
> There is nothing unique in MQA to justify special treatment, compared
> to, say, FLAC...
You obviously haven't read the papers on MQA. Get back to me when you
have.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
To answer your question, I am retired. Some of the work that I did in the past involved what were volunteer efforts developing and publishing computer network protocols, including the original standardized version of Ethernet. This technology was freely licensed by Digital, Intel and Xerox. After leaving Digital (in 1994) I worked as an consultant/expert in computer networking and helped to educate people on networking technology (and also in some cases to help defend them against unwarranted patent lawsuits).
Josh Coalson was the original developer of FLAC, an open source project. Why do you think he made his CODEC free and open source? Why do you think that Bob Stewart should get more?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
People develop tech R&D to make money, then they become philanthropists and give stuff away. Not the other way around:)
13DoW
The benefits you describe seem immutably necessary. However, if the file sent can play on 16-bit/base-band on legacy DACS it doesn't stop another file that equally works on 16-bit/base-band to function with the same benefits to unpack of 24-bit/high sample-rate audio. The only difference would be that the seeds to the DSP in the MQA-enabled DAC would need to be changed to reflect this.
A few facts...
MQA is not Meridian, MQA is a separate company.
MQA is an end-to-end technology. The company claims that they correct for imperfections introduced by the A/D conversion process as well as the D/A conversion process. In order to accomplish this, they have created what I'd call profiles for specific A/D and D/A devices. The idea being, in my words, every A/D converter and DAC imparts its own imperfect sonic fingerprint, which MQA removes. This corrective process is obviously dependent on knowing the specific A/D and D/A device you are dealing with. The MQA proof of concept demos I heard at CES were done with MQA-enabled DACs.
"Authenticated" means a file has gone through the above scenario -- the encode process and decode process -- from end to end.
Michael Lavorgna
Editor, AudioStream.com
A hair-splitting distinction.
"Developed by Meridian, MQA is a breakthrough technology to reverse the trend, in which sound quality has been continually sacrificed for convenience."
Link below:
What is the relevance? Of course MQA was developed by *people* like Bob Stuart who is associated with both companies. Again, so what? It is a) no secret and b) irrelevant to the efficacy of the MQA technology.If you feel there is a relevant point to be made of these simple, obvious facts, make it.
Michael Lavorgna
Editor, AudioStream.com
Edits: 01/17/16
My point exactly and YOU made the point, not me!
Thanks Michael.
Bob Stuart seems a good guy and I wish him all the best, but I doubt he can engage like a philanthropist having investors capitalization.
I understand that Master Quality Authenticated (MQA) is stated as an end to end technology. However it seems two parts connected in a series string.The A/D side being MQA encoded after the A/D conversion and the D/A side being encoded prior to D/A conversion. MQA profiling sits between these two.
Let's consider that A/D side MQA profiling has merit. Meridian is suggesting that 44.1KHz/48KHz being streamed into an MQA device in hardware can be profiled out to a 44.1KHz/48KHz DAC and achieve that merit. This indicates that the bandwidth required to stream non-profiled MQA is the same as if streaming already profiled MQA. In other words there is no bandwidth advantage for streaming a profile "ready" MQA file vs. streaming an already profiled MQA file.
On the D/A side manufacturers have control over their hardware. If their hardware is time aligned in accordance with maximum allowable limits as tested by Meridian then what is MQA going to do for manufacturers except be turned off. If Meridian is adding dither or other unrelated artifacts to the D/A side this can also be incorporated in the profiled CD or in streaming.
Implementing MQA on the D/A side seems much more difficult as seeming requiring predictions about the manufacturers equipment. It seems far from simplistic as to identify a manufacturers DAC chip. The question becomes as to how are they are coming up with a profile? What testing hardware was used to implant the DAC chip for testing? How does their testing hardware relate to a manufacturers implementation.
Ultimately there are countless exotic players created by manufacturers that have dealt with all aspects of implementing a DAC chip. It is hard to imagine that a profiling algorithm on the D/A side as dealing with the hardware (as opposed to simply adding dithering or other artifacts) can do anything reliable, predictable and/or significant.
My question remains as to why we need MQA hardware implementations giving arguably excellent results if profiling can be done in the CD or by streaming to an existing DAC. The only thing I see is to get a return on capitalization. Return on investment isn't unfair or any suggestion of wrongdoing. It just means that the consumer has to buy an MQA ready player instead of just an MQA profiled CD or stream.
The problem is that there is no standard for playback filtering. This means that there is no way to guarantee that the listener gets the same signal as was sent to the monitoring amplifiers in the mastering studio and approved by the producer(s) and artist(s). This problem is not solved by knowing what A/D is used to produce the master. What matters is the DAC that was used to play this master and have the producers and artists sign off on it. Furthermore, most new recordings are actually tracked and mixed at high sampling rates where filtering is not such an issue. There may be multiple ADC's or (or software converters) in the signal path. The mastering engineer may deliberately chose or adjust the conversions to get the sound he wants.
Trade show demos are not suitable for evaluating new formats. They are nothing but a marketing side-show. The claim that MQA can improve the sound of existing digital recordings requires independent evaluation of the process under controlled conditions using music source files chosen by the testers. If is very easy to "rig" a demo, especially if there are multiple users and the operation of "group think".
If MQA were open and came with a complete specification and source code for encoders and decoders, then it would be possible to evaluate this system fairly. This is not what was done or appears to be done. A good model of this process would be the FLAC CODEC.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
MQA provides a software 'preview' tool to people like Morten Lindberg of 2L with a number of profiles. These profiles will give them an idea of how their MQA encoded files will sound through various MQA decoders. MQA decoding is only available, at present, on MQA-enabled DACs.
Trade show demos are one of the things I write about as part of my CES show coverage. They are what they are. What I have said is the MQA demos, which were presented as proof of concept, were convincing. If you take issue with that characterization, fine. Calling me a shill, is not fine.
The demos I heard in the MQA room were through headphones and in a room with one other listener who did not say a word.
In the end, and in my opinion, the only valid way to determine the efficacy of any technology to do with hi-fi is by listening to music through it in one's own system, over time. Questions of people's motive, whether or not they strike someone as being a 'nice guy', etc are irrelevant distractions brought about by a lack of real information and/or direct experience with a given technology.
Michael Lavorgna
Editor, AudioStream.com
nt
... Tony Lauck seems to imply as much, but then says that Lavorgna has misunderstood his meaning.
I never accused you of being a "shill". A shill is someone who is paid to deliver a sales message while appearing to be independent. Reviewers are obviously not independent sources of information, being dependent on the manufacturers for information and access, without which they can not ply their trade.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"In this thread, your posts are confirming the stereotype of all audio reviewers with the (R) logo as shills for manufacturers. Anyone with the slightest clue can distinguish facts from marketing literature."
Oh please Tony. Stop with the bullshit.
As I just posted, and as you would have known if you'd read my show report, I spoke to a recording engineer, Peter McGrath, at length, about his experiences with MQA. I included quotes from my conversation with Peter in my MQA coverage because they relevant, independent, and come from someone who is in a position to offer the most informed comments on MQA before and after.
Michael Lavorgna
Editor, AudioStream.com
nt
All of these people are in the business of trying to sell me stuff. I have no reason to believe they are independent. They all stand to benefit if a new format can be foisted off on the audio marketplace.
If Stewart were truly interested in furthering the art of audio, he would simply release a specification and open source code for MQA, just as was done with FLAC. Then, and only then, would I believe that his primary goal was to improve the state of the art and not the state of his bank account. I don't hold it against him that he doesn't do it, but conclude that he's just another smart engineer out to try to make a buck by disrupting the industry.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
The 2L MQA recordings will be available through Tidal. The idea that people make things and try to sell them doesn't cause me to be paranoid, Tony.Cheers,
Michael Lavorgna
Editor, AudioStream.com
Edits: 01/17/16
And when I stream these 2L recordings from Tidal how will I decode them. This is the problem. Just spent $2400 on a new wonderful dac. Unless the decoding occurs in Tidal or there is an inexpensive decoder this format is dead to me and many others. I do not see MQA making any headway until this decoding issue is solved
Alan
While all of the demos at CES used MQA-enabled DACs, software-enabled decoders are in the works. However, software encoders will still need to know what DAC they are talking to in order to provide the full MQA, end-to-end, technology solution.
Of course no one has to buy into MQA. At present there's no reason to rush into something that is in its infancy. As with anything do to with hi-fi and listening to music, I'd wait until I could listen for myself before deciding if its worth it or not.
Michael Lavorgna
Editor, AudioStream.com
I totally agree with waiting for a while as things sort themselves out. The problem is MQA is being hyped so strongly before it is really market ready. When Tidal or Classicsonline have 1000's of titles encoded and there is available software decoders it will have a chance. I think discussions like this are harmful to MQA. By the way having spent many years on the asylum I have learned a lot from Tony and strongly believe his point of view on the MQA rollout.
Alan
Seeing as the OP suggested MQA could be a "hoax", I think it's gone pretty well ;-)
Cheers,
Michael Lavorgna
Editor, AudioStream.com
The only "hoax" part is that it can automatically make up for deficiencies in recordings. However, the fact that it is being promoted as doing this is enough for me to dismiss its promoters as scammers, especially those who know enough not to fool themselves, you know, people who are Fellow of the AES.
As an effective way to squeeze more subjective quality into a 44/24 container I have no problem, except that there is no point in doing this because bits are cheap these days. The only possible case where bandwidth is scarce today is for streaming applications, and most people who stream music do so as background music, rather than critical listening and there is no need for extra resolution in the first place. Ten years ago, or so, when Stewart came up with his ideas for this style of perceptual compression bandwidth was much more costly and there might have been some economic benefit from this technology. That day is long past.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
JPlay?
Could be. ;-)
I don't believe that the majority of asylum inmates feel MQA is a hoax. It seems the questions are basically how well it actually works and the implementation of trying it
Alan
And I heard one of Bob Stuart's talks at RMAF last year.Lots of problems described. Lots of discussion about how great things sounded when said problems were solved. Lots of talk about MQA fixing said problems but not really how this will all work. Hardware? Software?
Or even exactly what MQA end to end actually entails. Recording? Transcribing? What about MY end? DAC? Software?That said, there were a fair number of credible folks who have direct experience with whatever MQA is who think it great.
We'll just have to wait and see, I guess.
In the mean time, if we post enough about it here, maybe Tony's head will finally explode! =:-0
Edits: 01/17/16
At present, the only way to decode an MQA file is with an MQA-enabled DAC. I'm not in a position to argue the merits of this approach, it is simply the way it is. Based on listening to three MQA DACs with MQA encoded music at CES proved very convincing as proof of concept. One of these demos involved a comparison between an MQA encoded/decoded file and the same file without MQA decoding using the Mytek Brooklyn DAC and there were clear and obvious improvements with the MQA decoded version. At least according to my ears.
Another MQA demo at CES used the Bluesound Vault 2 as decoder and MQA capabilities were implemented in that device through a firmware upgrade. My point being, MQA does not always require purchasing new gear. Of course no one is being forced to buy in.
If we couple this convincing proof of concept with the fact that MQA is working with Tidal to deliver MQA streaming, I do not see anything to complain or worry about.
Michael Lavorgna
Editor, AudioStream.com
"My point being, MQA does not always require purchasing new gear." Of course it does. I have a brand new Audio-GD Master7 and I stream Tidal to it. I do I decode MQA files from Tidal? There are many audiophiles like me and this question must be answered with no added expence or MQA is dead for many audiophiles. In all the conversation going on here there is no answer at least for now to this question. I know it is early in the MQA game but the rollout is not being handled very well
Alan
These people are trying to turn audio into the same DRM'd mess that video has become. No thanks!
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
As I mentioned, one of the demos at CES used the Bluesound Vault 2 where MQA was added as a firmware upgrade. This option also applies to other existing DACs. So not everyone will have to buy a new DAC.
But I completely get your point. Unless there is a compelling reason, there's no reason to spend money. We are not at the point, yet, where this compelling argument exists. First off, there's no MQA content available and software-based decoders are still in the works and may not work with every DAC, as far as I understand things.
The problem I'm seeing here is due to people like me writing about our experiences with MQA at CES and readers getting excited over the prospect of improved playback. As I've said, the demos I heard were proof of concept and compelling but things certainly need to develop in order for MQA to become something people will consider buying into or not.
We shall see.
Michael Lavorgna
Editor, AudioStream.com
A well reasoned post. Thanks Michael. A problem with the asylum is good manners seem to disappear in a lot of discussions. I am sorry if you took any of my posts as an attack on you. I did not mean to do so
Alan
I'm not optimistic..... I've seen such "breakthroughs" in DSP come and go..... With no true tangible benefits. If anything, most of the tangible changes have been for the worse.
The other issue is that the mixes themselves have been so overprocessed, I'm not sure if an "end-to-end" technology could even fix or reverse it..... (I don't think the "end-to-end" applies to how the mixes themselves are created. But I could be wrong here.) If the technology does work, it might just make the overprocessing more apparent.
(I find overprocessed music to be less tolerable when played back at higher resolutions/higher fidelity. I think this in turn has fooled consumers into thinking MP3 is a technological advancement relative to CD.)
I think the only true breakthrough in the music industry would be a movement to get overprocessing out of music productions. No advanced record/playback technology will get off the ground if most of the music has excessive compression, Auto-Tune, or other processing that "optimizes" music for the mainstream pop/culture.
The relevant information coming out of CES is directly related to the tangible benefits of MQA. Namely, the demos were very convincing in that they very clearly showed the benefits of the MQA encode/decode process -- music sounded much better. Couple that with smaller streaming file sizes and you've got a very compelling story, imo.
Michael Lavorgna
Editor, AudioStream.com
I too wonder about the commercial value of MQA, just as I wonder about the commercial value of ANYTHING having to do with perfectionist audio.And if anyone imagines that flooding the market with better recordings will drastically change people's listening habits then I'd say that they are being extremely optimistic, to say the least. Today's people are unlike the droves of children depicted in "The Pied Piper of Hamelin". The children of today are not so easily led away from town by audiophile-quality sonics.
So, I seriously doubt that Bob Stuart expects that MQA (or any other thing associated with perfectionist audio) will significantly alter the listening habits of very large numbers of people. I'm guessing that Stuart marches to the beat of a different drummer and is happy to cater to those who do likewise, while reaping relatively modest profits.
Nothing wrong here, it's just the way it is. Or so I imagine.
Edits: 01/17/16 01/17/16
"MQA is a separate company". Bollocks.MQA technology was 100% developed by Meridian and Bob Stuart is the face of it. Any hair splitting is you trying to look smart.
It states right on Meridians home page as follows:
"London, 4th December 7.30pm GMT - Bob Stuart, founder of Meridian Audio, launched MQA (Master Quality Authenticated), a revolutionary British technology, which is poised to change the way people enjoy music all over the world. The launch, hosted in The Shard, was attended by key music industry executives, artists and commentators.
Developed by Meridian, MQA is a breakthrough technology to reverse the trend, in which sound quality has been continually sacrificed for convenience. Vital elements of our music have been thrown away to fit thousands of songs into a pocket or millions in a cloud. With MQA there is no sacrifice; it brings us right back to the enthralling sound of live music. MQA captures and preserves nuances and vital information that current music files obscure or discard, but in a file that is small and convenient to download or stream."
Edits: 01/16/16
What part of word fact is unclear to you? MQA is a separate company.The relevance of this fact is it dispels the silly notion that MQA is just an excuse to sell Meridian product.
Michael Lavorgna
Editor, AudioStream.com
Edits: 01/16/16 01/16/16
Disingenuous nonsense.
On the contrary, facts are about as genuine as it gets.
Michael Lavorgna
Editor, AudioStream.com
Edits: 01/16/16
Just because it is a separate company does not mean it is not connected to Meridian. It could be separate because if it fails it will not take down Meridian. It could be because of tax reasons. It is no coincidence that the first piece of hardware with a built in MQA converter is the Meridian explorer II. MQA was developed by Meridia and promoted by Meridian. Nobody believes that Meridian isn't calling the shots
Alan
MQA is not a promotional arm of Meridian. If that were the case, they would not have split off MQA, and they certainly would not have made the MQA technology available to other companies.
But...what does any of this have to do with anything of relevance?
Michael Lavorgna
Editor, AudioStream.com
In this thread, your posts are confirming the stereotype of all audio reviewers with the (R) logo as shills for manufacturers. Anyone with the slightest clue can distinguish facts from marketing literature.The most likely reasons why MQA was spun off as a separate company concern the marketing and licensing of a proprietary technology that Meridian is peddling. The last thing in the world that high end audio needs is a new proprietary format. This is the real issue around MQA, but I do not expect industry connected "reviewers" to raise this issue.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Edits: 01/17/16
Well Tony, I'm not interested in arguing with silly paranoia.
Cheers,
Michael Lavorgna
Editor, AudioStream.com
I'm not interested in arguing with silly paranoia.
Or facts.
nt
Sorry if I can't answer some of your questions.But I will provide my rather dark view.
This is one of the most ballsy attempts by a hardware manufacturer, in conjunction with media retailers, to profit on air. I have read and watched every single MQQ demo on the web and it is total mumbo jumbo.
Meridian has a distinct history of producing, in the past, interesting products, that were ultimately commercial disasters. Hence the need to be acquired by investment groups and to receive big cash infusions from family members.
Ask yourself why Neil Young walked away from Meridian during the development of Pono. He would have rather had a gun to his head than explain MQQ to people, when it was hard enough to explain highrez.
As John Darko says, MQA is the new DSD. Which is the other big humiliating failure of the high end. They figured they could get people to run out and buy new DACs in droves for fear of missing out on that big DSD revolution that never happened and never will. Now instead of DSD Ready stamped on the front panel, MQA Ready will be the new substitute.
Reviewers have shamelessly joined in the cheer leading. A bunch of 70 year old men declaring they have never heard a piano hang in space as precisely. LOL.
This time I don't think the community is going to bend over and spread their cheeks as wide.
Edits: 01/16/16
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
It seems like MQA is a brand new lossless compression algorithm, just like FLAC or Apple Lossless..... I'd wonder where the difference lies..... Maybe better optimized for streaming.
No, you understand incorrectly. MQA is not lossless. It is a lossy system. However, the "loss" starts from a higher than CD resolution. The claim is to get all of the "audible" benefits of true high resolution audio while using only slightly more bandwidth an a basic CD.
Of course, all digital formats are "lossy" when compared against an original analog signal. A FLAC version of a WAV file may losslessly reproduce WAV file, but neither version can represent the analog original perfectly.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
a solution to a problem that will disappear over time as bandwidths increase around the globe. Why bother getting involved with yet another proprietary format, of questionable advantage?
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
MQA is a 21st century Dynagroove. (I guess this dates me.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Thanks Isaak. What I am trying to suggest is that every existing cd player would already be MQA ready if the streaming source was already decoded with the MQA standard prior to streaming.
You may remember that MQA decoded files on an MQA ready player were stated to work even on 44.1KHz DACs. If that is true then the MQA files don't require increased bandwidth for encoding or decoding according to MQA standards.
But Meridian is claiming the tremendous advantage to diminish bandwidth as specific to streaming. Of course this is true, however it doesn't matter if these files are encoded or decoded prior to streaming.The bandwidth would both be low.
Bear in mind that I am not arguing the possibilities of MQA, only that it seems totally unnecessary to create any MQA ready devices if we can purchase MQA "authenticated", encoded and decoded CD's, or as available by streaming.
Understood.
The bottom line for me is it is another entity trying to get between you and your music.
File this under "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks". :)
Sure. I don't really care what they do and don't care to compare it.
Give me an MQA treated recordings that can be played back on my player. If they are trying to sell MQA recordings it seems likely they will try to do an excellent job despite MQA.
I'm with my buddy below. I have been watching basketball all day and NFL Playoff game and you come up with this?. Do another hot of Acid and get back with us. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Will
That was easy, but I was looking to engage with someone that has some further insight into Master Quality Authenticated.
Have a nice day.
jm
n
The word used was "hoax", not "fraud". These words have different meaning, at least in my dictionary. As I understand it, a "hoax" doesn't become a "fraud" until the mark who watched the shell game bits and shells out cash to play the game. I agree with the poster, but his use of "hoax" was a bit up front. I would have called it a typical "sales demonstration". These demonstrations are almost universally rigged by the promoters and this is not unique to the audio industry.
MQA is a CODEC. The proper way to evaluate this is by independent users, especially audiophiles and mastering engineers, to have hands on access to the encoders and decoders so that they can do comparisons of before and after sound quality on material that they chose, not material that can be artificially rigged to make the CODEC sound good. (If my goal were to show that MP3 320 Kb "improved" the sound of CD recordings on my playback system I am pretty confident that I could do so by careful selection of recorded material. Such a successful demonstration would not in any way show that MP3 is better than CD quality, just that I was skillful at rigging a demo. It is not uncommon that MP3 sound clips on download web sites create an impression of good sound that is not realized after purchasing the actual recording.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
One of the demos in the MQA room used recordings by Peter McGrath. I spoke to Peter, at length, about his experiences with MQA. So the notion that the CES demos were all rigged, is pure nonsense.
If you also take into account the fact that Morten Lindberg of 2L has approved and converted all of his recordings to MQA, you'll have another real example of someone who is in the best position to A/B the MQA process.
Michael Lavorgna
Editor, AudioStream.com
But I think we need to know exactly what the 2 gents said and to distinguish between their facts and their opinions. Your first-para conclusion is not obvious.
Your 2d para -- forgive me if I am wrong -- seems a bit lke "oath-helping".
Jeremy
If Morton Lindberg were to decode his MQA recordings back to a high res format (e.g. DXD) and make available the original master vs. the decoded conversion, then there would be a start, but it still would not be convincing unless I could use my own selection of recordings.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Of course Tony. The CES demos of MQA, MQA, and 2Ls involvement obviously had nothing to do with convincing *you*.
Morten has made the MQA encoded version of some of his recordings available on the 2L site.
Michael Lavorgna
Editor, AudioStream.com
Michael:
Your first para is opaque -- is it meant to be an insinuation?
Re your 2d para, thanks.
Jeremy
The 2L site has encoded MQA files, not decoded MQA files. As such, it is impossible to properly evaluate the MQA system. The two files I checked play back as 44/24 files. The original masters are DXD encoded and these are available for download.
It is not possible to test the MQA process without purchasing a new DAC. Surprise!
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
n
Dome DACs will offer MQA as a firmware upgrade.
You do realize that buying things is a choice.
Michael Lavorgna
Editor, AudioStream.com
n
Fooling people into buying things they wouldn't otherwise buy is also a choice. If one does this, one may be a fool, a hoaxer, a scammer, a shill or a fraudster, depending on circumstances.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Proprietary at that.
n
Ohh, scary.But of course you, Tony, will not be fooled because you know better. So you are just looking out for the less fortunate and the less intelligent here on AA and protecting them from what they want.
And you do this free of charge.
Bravo.
Michael Lavorgna
Editor, AudioStream.com
Edits: 01/17/16
n
Asking for a friend.
Thx 4 askin'. Not yet.
Stalwart Jeremy
Point taken. I apologize for that.
Since leaving Stereophile I have signed so many NDAs I wake up at 3:00 AM thinking I have joined the CIA...
So, I can't sort out the public from the private in many respects.
But, as far as I know from public information, the reconstructive aspect of the remastering ignores everything before the input of the analog-to-digital converter, and concentrates on the adverse effects of the anti-aliasing filters and the internal clocks.
Given that especially at the beginning, there was a finite and knowable number of analog to digital converters (the first one I saw was Sony's PCM-F1, and I bet it had the lion's share of the early business), that is a manageable workload.
I was a Bob Ludwig client from 1991, and it was a big deal to use an Apogee UV 22,--and I am sure there are examples available to examine. And then each step after that.
Sorry for my exasperated reply. But on these boards I have been called a fraud (subsequently retracted by the accuser) and it is no fun.
My guess is that Bob Stewart is either rich enough or it doesn't matter, and that at this stage of the game he is not going to bullshit anybody over money.
And yes, I am proud to consider myself his friend.
jm
jm
n
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: