|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.198.63.158
In Reply to: RE: MQA questions posted by tubby2 on January 16, 2016 at 12:53:44
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
Follow Ups:
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
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: