|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.16.123.185
There is a post on the Super Best Audio Friends forum where someone was comparing MQA files to 44/16 files, both streamed by Tidal. She was shocked at how big the difference was and loaded them into Audiacity and found that they came from two completely different masters:1) The MQA file had 4 to 5 dB greater dynamic range.
2) The MQA file is roughly 6 dB louder (the post shows results with a linear scale, so it is difficult to judge precisely).
3) The MQA file had treble frequencies above 5kHz attenuated by 3dB to 6dB, depending on frequency.It seems to me that this type of blatantly misleading "comparison" MQA is making available on Tidal should be the subject of a free and open press, rather than just repeating MQA's talking points and taking MQA's advice to simply "listen".
One can easily deduce that Tidal's Redbook files likely came from the CD master, whereas the MQA file likely used the HDTracks 192/24 remaster at:
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=prince&album=princeOne would need to do a spectral analysis on the HDTracks version to know whether the re-EQ was done by Prince (before his death he apparently re-mastered much of his early work), or if MQA performed the re-EQ. In the first case, MQA's deception would be cause for great concern - their files apparently won't sound better if they don't use a better master. In the second case it would be a far more egregious case of deliberate deception by MQA.
Edits: 10/06/17Follow Ups:
John, would you mind sharing with us one of your potential "birthing of a new world" experiences that's a bit more on a lower shelf so all us can better understand where you're coming from?
1. How about sharing with us your experience with the Vandersteen Model 7A speakes at CES 2014 I think it was, where you called that presentation at that exhibit among other things, musically perfect...., across the board? No leading questions, just sharing with us that obviously unforgettable experience and why you considered it, musically perfect..., across the board.
2. Also, if indeed the 7A's were musically perfect, how does MQA (a birth of a new world) fit into an already perfect equation? Is there such a thing as better than perfect?
3. Which in your opinion is superior, a musically perfect presentation or a presentation equating to the birth of a new world? What does musically perfect mean to you? What does a birth of a new world mean to you?
4. The speakers are but one part of the playback vineyard and the MQA format being of another part of that vineyard with I assume little to no potential for overlapping the roles/responsibilities of these two disparate parts of the vineyard. That said, can you explain how one technology type in one part of the vineyard (a speaker or a high-rez recording) can fully correct and/or compensate for the potentially very serious shortcomings in all other parts of that vineyard? Or even in one other part of the vineyard?
5. We know nobody ever "hears" a component or speaker as thought it were isolated. We really only hear nothing less than the sum of all parts of the vineyard. How is it you were able to so confidently attribute that "musically perfect...., across the board" level of musicality to just the 7A speakers and nothing else?
6. In the Sept '09 issue of Stereophile, you discussed comparing the sound of a live piano to that of a recorded piano and you stated something to the effect that it was obvious much of the live music wasn't making it to the recording. Paraphrased. Have either the Vandersteen 7A's or MQA caused you to rescind that 2009 comment?
7. Speaking of pianos. It is understood by some (and I agree) that the piano seems to be the most difficult instrument to accurately reproduce in a playback system. Are you implying now that with either the 7A's or MQA we now have the technology / products available to us to hear a piano via a playback system that includes the 7A's or MQA that is identical or near identical to a live piano?
one web 'reviewer' has not only not done this in a vigorous manner but has been praising the virtues of MQA over red book for many months.
Meridian has a great deal of expertise in digital manipulation for 'a better sound'. How much MQA files are a product of remastering or a product of the MQA process alone is anyone's guess until carefully organised comparisons can be made.
For what it is worth, I listened to the 2L DXD files versus the MQA files and did not think the latter worth pursuing by buying a high quality MQA dac.
Charles;
I am sure I am speaking for many of us when I say that your writing is incredible in many respects. All in good ways. Keep making life uncomfortable for those who turn a blind eye to the opportunists in this industry. That said, name an industry that is any different. Medical devices and pharma? Ha! How about the automotive industry; not the minor cavils of cheating on emissions but knowingly putting lives at risk with vulnerable exploding gas tanks or roll-over prone wheelbases. Or how about the housing industry with corners cut in every location a naive buyer wouldn't notice.
So yes, this hits home for you and I because as an artisan builder, someone is shitting in your house and that same someone is farting in my face as an end-consumer. Keep on fighting and I and many like me will keep on reading and smiling and laughing.
Edits: 10/22/17
You are correct on all counts as we've already been in a land of lawlessness for decades. Lawlessness occurs when a people, including their governments, over time become morally bankrupt. This is the age we live in.But it's one thing to look back in time past and say that was a fraud and that was a fraud, etc. But it's a far tougher pill to swallow when the fraud is occuring right here right now in our very faces in plain view.
And every single day well-intentioned people continue chasing down rabbit holes performing their research (or in some cases their reading) trying to determine if there's any meat and potatoes to this MQA crap, that's just one more day Stuart and MQA are able to establish a firmer foothold in the music industry.
IOW, by the time most are able to determine any substance to MQA (there isn't), Stuart would have already made his final payment on the private island he purchased from his royalty revenues collected from around the world.
MQA is a wholesale sellout gentleman and some of those responsible are within spitting distance.
Edits: 10/23/17
Thanks very much for the kind words. I think that what you are describing about other industries is happening to high-end - and it didn't used to be that way. It seems that all industries are headed to the sole goal of "making money". I don't know about Fender, but I've been reading about Gibson, and how Henry Juszkiewicz has just about run that company in the ground. When I go to YouTube there are videos of people opening up brand new Gibson guitars with significant defects - the quality is just gone.
I'd hate to see audio end up in the same place with video and all of these industries that are just in it for the money. Once a company goes public, it is a virtual death sentence. Just look what happened to Levinson after Harman bought them out. The one and only reason that they were being revived was because Nissan signed an absurdly long-term deal with Harman for their car audio. Over half of Harman's revenue comes from car audio.
Did you hear that now that Samsung has bought Harman they have shut down AKG completely? All of the best engineers left to start a new microphone/headphone company called Vienna Acoustics. Luckily Sennheiser is still privately owned - third generation brothers now run the company. It's a crazy world.
Apparently MQA changes the sound of the master, at least according to this video from Steve Guttenberg.
When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it. ~ Bernard Bailey
I am in the "anti-MQA" camp for most of the reasons presented by Charles Hansen and RGA but I will say that I have fairly fond memories of the Meridian 508-20 CD player from back in the day, regardless of the opamps used in the output stage.
Edits: 10/18/17
"..... I will say that I have fairly fond memories of the Meridian 508-20 CD player from back in the day, regardless of the opamps used in the output stage."
Same here. I owned the Meridian 508-20 and still regret selling it, opamps and all. I wish I could find another.
Would anyone buying a $219 Sony Walkman embedded with MQA really care?
Bob Stuart already got what he wanted from the audio mags.
Think vinyl.
In light of this MQA controversy, for those who think MQA is much less than Bob Stuart and others claim, I'd appreciate hearing their thoughts of Robert Harley's (TAS mag) early review of MQA where Harley said things like:
- "The sound of MQA, reproduced through a pair of Meridian DSP7200 loudspeakers, was simply stunning in every way."
- "I heard a wide range of music, from full-scale orchestral to voices to a very quiet piece by the Modern Jazz Quartet from the 1950s. I can still vividly recall the delicacy, ease, and resolution of the cymbals in the MJQ piece."
- "I was also struck by the precision of their placement and how they appeared to float in the air against a completely silent background."
- "The treble was totally unlike any other digital I'd heard, completely free from the metallic hardness and artifacts we assume are part-and-parcel of digital audio."
- "Instrumental timbres were so naturally rendered to be almost eerie in their realism."
- "Voices had a stunning palpability and immediacy that were all the more realistic for their compact image size and the sense that they were surrounded by a natural acoustic."
- "It's interesting that, as I recall the experience, my sonic impressions were so striking that they are still vivid nearly a year later—yet I can't remember any other demo I heard at the show."
Some questions might include:
1. What does this say about Harley's listening skills?
2. What does this say about Harley the man?
3. What does this say about The Absolute Sound mag for which Harley is editor-in-chief?
4. What does this say for the leadership of the high-end audio sector?
because we really don't know what he was listening to.
Good point. I'm reminded of the old adage, "it's tough to make Jell-O stick to the wall."
Even so,
1. Was Harley the only one who heard this demo at that show? A demo so extraordinary that he can't even remember any other demo at that show?
2. If you take MQA out of the equation, doesn't there still seem to be a good dose of potential hyperbola in Harley's comments, a supposedly seasoned listener with a sound engineering background.
3. He is also the editor of an Audiophile magazine so it all balances out.
He is not a reviewer.
"The most significant audio technology of my lifetime"
- Robert Harley Master Quality Authenticated (MQA): The View From 30,000 Feet
"In almost 40 years of attending audio press events, only rarely have I come away feeling that I was present at the birth of a new world."
- John Atkinson I've Heard the Future of Streaming: Meridian's MQA
Well said, DAP.
I'm reminded of Atkinson's visit to the Vandersteen room at CES 2014 (I think) where he claimed the Vandy 7A's were, "Musically perfect..., across the board."
And that was without MQA !!! :)
Vandersteen even used that quote as an endorsement in his ads. For about 9 months and then the endorsement magically disappeared.
Anybody seeing a pattern here?
Re: "Anybody seeing a pattern here?"
I'm sure you will be pleased to know that on the 8 page tri-fold MQA brochure that I picked up at RMAF 2017, one page had only one quote on it, the following John Atkinson quote: "In almost 40 years of attending audio press events, only rarely have I come away feeling that I was present at the birth of a new world." with the following attribution: STEREOPHILE.
What were the other times you felt you were at the birth of a new world?
Thanks,
Daniel
> What were the other times you felt you were at the birth of a new world?
The 2 other times were mentioned in the article of mine that was linked to
earlier in the thread. Rather than repeat myself on this forum, I prefer
that you read the original text.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
If MQA is successful, audio will be distributed and rented in the same way that video is distributed and rented.Look at what happened with video - they made it so that only giant mega-corporations could compete - Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, Pioneer, Denon, because the up-front licensing fees for DVD were $150,000 with an annual renewal of $50,000, plus a 4% royalty on the entire unit. Four percent of a $200 DVD player was almost tolerable, but on a true high-end player, most of the money goes into the power supplies, the higher-quality parts, the elaborate analog and video circuitry, the clocks, the chassis - all things that have nothing to do with the patented technology that is being licensed. The royalty alone would cost as much as a high-quality chassis. It simply was unworkable for small, innovative manufacturers.
A handful of companies (Theta, Muse, Ayre) made "pirate" DVD players by purchasing a completely finished, fully-licensed and royalty-paid player at wholesale from Pioneer (or in one case Panasonic) and then "modifying" it to one degree or another. (As far as I know, Ayre was the only one of these companies to literally re-build the unit from the ground up. See link below.) The problem with that approach is that the Japanese giants "churn" their product line every year or two, and there is no stable platform to base a high-end player on. (This is what killed high-end CD transports in the early 2000's - nobody sold transports except Philips, and they changed models every year with no support - eg, replacement lasers - for previous models.)
This "pirate" practice reached its nadir when Lexicon (a division of Harman and sister company to Levinson at the time, and who had DVD licenses but not Blu-ray licenses) released its Blu-ray player. It sold for $3000 and it turned out that it was literally a $500 Oppo stuck inside another fancy box. They didn't even bother to take the parts out of the Oppo box - even the Oppo chassis went right in. The *only* thing that changed was the logo on the start-up splash screen.
This is one of the main reasons that people think the high end is a rip-off and a joke - in many cases it is.
Did the print magazines publish any of this?
If MQA succeeds, it will turn audio into the same exact thing. I've heard rumors that the MQA up-front licensing fee is $200,000 but that they will "waive" it for the "early adopters". The royalty rate is supposed to be a percentage of the cost of the product, but I've heard they are making special deals with the "early adopters" - only a buck-two-ninety-eight. What they probably want is a few percent of the wholesale cost of the product. If it goes mainstream, a few percent of all cell phone sales could add up to some *really* big bucks. Someone has to pay for Bob's mansion.
And that is the world that Bob lives in now. MQA is financed by the Rupert family of South Africa. Multi-billionaires that made fortunes by killing people with cigarettes. The elder Rupert (now deceased) invented the "king-size" cigarette, the "menthol" cigarette, and many other lovely things. One of the sons of big Daddy Rupert runs Reinet Investments, owners of both MQA and Meridian.
So if you want to see our "hobby" turned into a giant parasitic industry controlled by licensing organizations (like the video industry is - HDMI, Dolby, and DTS set all the standards and mandate changes every couple of years to create product "churn"), go ahead and support MQA and Bob Stuart and the greedy Rupert family of billionaires.
As I said, I would rather dig ditches.
Edits: 10/20/17 10/20/17
> This "pirate" practice reached its nadir when Lexicon...released its Blu-ray
> player. It sold for $3000 and it turned out that it was literally a $500
> Oppo stuck inside another fancy box. They didn't even bother to take the
> parts out of the Oppo box - even the Oppo chassis went right in. The *only*
> thing that changed was the logo on the start-up splash screen.
>
> Did the print magazines publish any of this?
Stereophile did, Charley. Don't know if the other titles did.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> > Stereophile did, Charley. < <
Yep, buried in the middle of a column that is so irrelevant that it was reduced to every other month. That gives you (in the words of one Richard Milhaus Nixon) "plausible deniability".
It deserved its own article or at the very least the feature of an As We See It. But no - just protect the advertisers and the industry's insanely cynical practices.
In the old days Stereophile would devote entire articles to things like the Tice clock and green CD paint pens. But once the magazine went monthly it needs to talk about something - anything - every single month, whether or not it is worthy of mention. The only way to do that is to be "corporate friendly", not reader friendly.
The other change that going monthly made was the sheer amount of work involved in putting the magazine together, every month - on time - month after month after month after month for over 20 years. Yet the show must go on, and standards slip. The revenue must come from advertisers as there aren't enough people willing to pay for subscriptions. Staff is cut to the bone, especially after Larry sold the magazine to even more predatory capitalists than he was. Many reviews are farmed out to those with dubious qualifications, and the increasing number of ones that you do get short shrift, as you are overloaded with other work.
Once upon a time "As We See It" was reserved for your personal viewpoint as editor and leader of the magazine. Now it is given to anybody with a half-assed viewpoint on some random topic as you no longer have time to write it.
How can you justify giving every single review of Levinson equipment to Larry Greenhill, a Levinson zealot? In his latest review of a Levinson amp he only compared it to two other amplifiers - one a 15 year old Levinson amp and the other a 30 year old Levinson amp. What does that tell the reader about anything? I would bet that if he replaced the worn-out electrolytic capacitors in the ancient Levinson products that they would sound much closer to the current design. Yet he gave it a "Class A" rating, apparently without having any idea of what other products in the market sound like.
You do the best you can under increasingly shitty circumstances. I have no idea how you manage the insane work load. I've said many times that you are likely the hardest working man in the industry. But to what end? What is your legacy? Are you really doing justice to the ideals set forth by JGH? Or even Harry Pearson (hypocritical as they often were)?
Is the high-end industry better or worse off because of Stereophile? Is it part of the problem or part of the solution? Is there some other way you could make a living in the industry that would have a more positive impact than building up job security under the profit-based machinations of your corporate overlords?
You can do better - *far* better than the trite pablum you have been forced to create, month after month after month so that someone higher up the food chain can profit off of your hard work.
The best thing about Sterophile is that you've kept it away from the pay-for-play policies of the absolutely corrupt competitor, The Absolute Sound. But if the best thing you can say is "at least we are not blatantly corrupt", that is a long, long fall from the days that Stereophile was a true independent voice under JGH.
I no longer read Stereophile except at airport and rail station stores.
And Audiostream is something else. They give 'Greatest Bits' awards on the basis of one person listening assessments and are even used in England where they advertise the 'Award' as testimonies to buy.
Nothing more entertaining than seeing Atkinson and Austin continuing to bury their reputation via MQA. Atkinson keeps sidestepping the relevant issues raised all the while Austin falls back to mention his physics Ph.D.
Which is an argument only for one thing: if he indeed has a physics Ph.D and is unable to grok MQA from the info available in late 2017 he probably should go back to school.
So let's take these two guys as an example and have a look at the repercussions of MQA on the audiophile press. I posted this elsewhere before but it's worth reposting here too (slightly edited):
There's a funny & interesting gap between front-page and back-page news on MQA: all the informed discussion and statements by industry-insiders take place in forums like this one.
Audio-phile press front-page its either Hooray-MQA or silence.
Where do I have to go to find a list of the dozen or so manufactures having expressed concern about MQA?
Where do I find the opinions by reputable studio and mastering engineers on the format?
Where do I get any idea about the licensing-regiment in question?
Where do I learn about the filter-palette evidently implemented in MQA?
The real accomplishment of MQA marketing so far is to keep that information below a certain threshold. A threshold editors like Atkinson control.
Neither the print nor the online audiophile-press had enough balls to publish a mere synopsis of the debate so far.
Not to mention an interview with one of the many reputable & vocal critics of the format.
Or god beware ask a lawyer or IP-scholar able to provide a view-point on the DRM and licensing-regime inherent to MQA?
Perhaps hear a smaller music-labels opinion what they think about MQA strengthening majors control over distribution?!
If the physics are so hard just get your next colleges physics or EE prof on the phone and ask them about MQAs claims on the sampling theorem.
There is so much to be done the audiophile press fails to do. Given that MQA is the best click-bait in audiophile-town I seriously don't understand why that traffic get's pissed away.
But more importantly this failure by editors contributes to the careful reputation management MQA-marketing has achieved: frame MQA-critque as suspect and untrustworthy cause its all happening in the murky parts of the internet. Stereophiles and TAS interests align nicely with MQA here - to them netzines and fora are a threat.
At the same time this dynamic has produced an interesting collateral of the whole MQA story:
both the marketers at MQA as well as the established audio-press have miscalculated and underestimated their audience.
Their skill-set over almost two full decades was honed by selling cables and other tweaks. Lot's of clicks and good ad-money in these and not least no realistic way to "objectively" assess the effects of such products.
Digital audio is different though. Turns out it was naive to think MQA would be just another tweak, good click-bait and an easy sell. Add hyperbolic marketing and all to obvious DRM-aspect and you suddenly have a technically capable, critical audience from across the globe breathing down your neck.
May Mr. Atkinson cry as much as he wants about forum-anonymity, with his unabashed endorsement of MQA he himself lured a competent peer-review fact-checking crowd into his backyard that won't go away easily.
MQA might stay or go, but it's the online audio-press that benefited most from this episode. The behaviour of Atkinson and Austin continues to inflate their significance: what they paint as the murky backyards eventually might become the main thing and then the MQA-episode will deserve a good chunk of the credit for it.
> In the old days Stereophile would devote entire articles to things like the
> Tice clock and green CD paint pens. But once the magazine went monthly it
> needs to talk about something - anything - every single month, whether or
> not it is worthy of mention.I think we are talking past each other Charley, so I will just refer to
factual corrections. I don't think it appropriate to discuss your opinions
of me or what I do.> Yep, buried in the middle of a column that is so irrelevant that it was
> reduced to every other month.Not true. "Music in the Round" started off quarterly, then was increased to
bi-monthly. Yes, we did publish a few full reviews of surround components,
but my focus for Stereophile was always on two-channel, This was why Gordon
Holt resigned in 1999; he was dissatisfied with this strategy, thinking we
should stop reviewing anything but surround components. He went to TAS to
contribute a column on surround but was fired after, IIRC, 6 months.> The revenue must come from advertisers as there aren't enough people
> willing to pay for subscriptions.I have written many time that any magazine's revenue is primarily derived
from advertisers. Doesn't mean they get a seat at the table. And please
note that Stereophile's circulation has been stable at around 72,000 for
15 years or so. As long as I have that many subscribers, I can continue to
remain immune from pressure from advertisers.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 10/22/17
Did you forget about the "Intelligent Chip"? JA seemed thrilled to publish that, if I correctly recall our interaction. I seem to recall that you, on the other hand, weren't too happy when--long after Stereophile went monthly--I called the "Intelligent chip" "obvious snake oil". Back then you were busy telling us all that we should trust our ears. So now you're the snake-oil police?
1) You point to an article from 12 years ago. It is clear to me that the overall quality of Stereophile has declined in those 12 years.
2) To draw a false equivalency between MQA and the Intelligent Chip is beyond ludicrous - except for the fact that the explanations for both defy reasonable logic.
But the fact is that nobody forced anybody to buy the IC, and it had no impact on anything else in the listener's system, nor the way that music is distributed and purchased.
MQA, on the other hand, if successful will lead to total corporate control over the way that music is distributed and rented. There is absolutely nothing to stop the greedy record labels from discontinuing the sale of all digital music - physical formats or downloads - once they are making enough money from renting.
Once they are only renting digital files, there is nothing to stop them from continually raising prices and continually adding more and more restrictions on how the music may be played, and on which devices - all of which is built in to MQA.
Look before you leap, lest you end up permanently damaged - like my friend who dove into an empty swimming pool head first.
--up to a point. I'm not worried about embarrassing myself. But I don't feel good about these debates, for a lot of reasons. The main reason is that they put me in a position of defending MQA, when it's my job to be objective about it. Henceforth, when I feel like I have something useful to say, I'll write it in the magazine.
Respectfully,
Jim
Yep, buried in the middle of a column that is so irrelevant that it was reduced to every other month.
You got it wrong. It was never monthly but began as a quarterly and was later increased to occurring every two months. Doing it monthly would mean more work than a supposedly retired should undertake.
> > You got it wrong. It was never monthly but began as a quarterly and was later increased to occurring every two months. < <
You got me there.
Doesn't change the fact that Stereophile briefly covered surround-sound components in their main reviews. Readers complained bitterly that they did not want that stuff in the magazine. The compromise was reached to relegate all surround-related stuff to s separate column that most readers skip completely.
For one reason, very few people give a damn about surround sound. For another reason not many view your reviews as particularly insightful. Your most recent column found that the Playback Designs new DACs sounded perhaps slightly better than, what - a Japanese receiver? I don't think there are thousands of readers waiting two months to find out what your opinion is on the latest surround-sound equipment. Instead it more likely a case of needing enough editorial pages to meet the desired advertising pages to editorial pages ratio.
At that time 2001 - 2005 era, Stereophile and The Absolute Sound were doing their reasonable best to promote surround-sound talking about how much better it was and how much more potential it had over 2-channel.
We must remind ourselves these are mainstream "high-end" audio publications and the mainstream (the majority) that follow them rarely cares about performance because the vast majority of the mainstream including its leaders couldn't punch their way out of a musical bag if their lives depended on it.
No. As usual, the mainstream audience gave surround-sound a 5 second thought and considered it logical i.e. more speakers implies more sound and more sound implies improved quality of sound. Just as I suspect many give MQA a 5 second thought and if they can only see that little green light turn on, then they can rest assured they are hearing Master Quality Authentication.
The publications were trying to create a need by steering the mainstream market toward surround-sound because that would have generated a need for more cables, more wires, more amplifiers, muti-channel preamps, sources, etc, etc.
In other words, more products and more products implies more and bigger manufacturers, more products implies more confusion which in turn implies more reviews, more reviews impies a greater dependency on experts and more business, more business implies more revenue, and more revenue implies a more lofty / secure lifestyle.
The mainstreamers tried to latch on to surround-sound but couldn't so the mags slowly wound it down and it eventually disappeared when nobody was looking. Just like the mainstreamers are trying to latch onto MQA but again they're finding it's just soap bubbles. You pop a soap bubble and there's nothing there.
As usual mainstream leaders always, always care about quantity over quality and of course the end justifies the means.
I suspect much like they've tried to do with MQA. But in the case of MQA, it seems to be more of a wholesale sell-out which to me implies external motivation. As usual with mainstream, the sound / performance actually has very little to do with anything.
What's the difference between MQA and surround-sound? I'm guessing not much.
Aw, c'mon, Charlie. Quit beatin' around the bush, and tell us what you really think.
:)
Yes. Look it up.
nt
Stereophile didn't break that story about oppo and luxicon, but they certainly acknowledged it.kals lexicon review discussion
(I can't seem to find a link to Kal's review itself.)
TAS too (somewhat more feebly)
first listen lexicon bd 30 universal blu ray player
Edits: 10/20/17 10/20/17
> > Stereophile didn't break that story about oppo and luxicon, but they certainly acknowledged it. < <
All of Kal's "Music In The Round" columns are on the Stereophile website. It turns out that he did mention it - buried in the middle of his March 2010 column that is typically only read by those with an interest in surround sound. See link below for the full article that was printed.
It is completely unclear if the article posted on the TAS website was ever committed to print, or how prominent it was.
Way to go, access journalism!
... "Did the print magazines publish any of this?" My response is "Yes" and, in addition to the reference you provided, here are three additional references to my in-print discussion of the general issue. The use of purchased or OEM products as the basis of significantly modified (as with the Ayre), barely modified or unmodified (save for the front panel) players was not a secret.
https://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround/305mitr
https://www.stereophile.com/hirezplayers/105mccormack/index.html
https://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-43-cambridge-amp-mediatek
nt
(nt)
nt
Does the Audiophile press have enough intellectual curiosity in regards to MQA?
"A recent book by veteran TV journalist Ian Leslie, Curiosity: The Desire to Know and Why Your Future Depends On It, argues that people with high "need for cognition," or NFC, as psychologists say, tend to be smarter, more creative, and more successful than their less curious cohorts. Leslie quotes the comedian Stephen Fry saying, "The only reason people do not know much is because they do not care much. They are incurious. Incuriosity is the oddest and most foolish failing there is" (p. xxiii). In journalism, curiosity is essential. Show me a good journalist, and I'll show you a person with high NFC. "Curiosity killed the cat; lack of curiosity killed the reporter," said one newswriter (Reimold, p. 12). Every day, journalists driven by simple yet irrepressible curiosity turn up stories that are informative, valuable, and usually entertaining. "Unabashed, persistent curiosity is the wellspring of great journalism," said New York Times reporter Binyamin Appelbaum. "Look for the things you don't understand, and keep asking questions until you do" (Gammon, 2011). Journalism theorists such as Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel argue that high need for cognition among journalists is not only preferable, but critical: A dedication to pursue the news without fear or favor "speaks to an independence of spirit and an open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity that helps the journalist see beyond his or her own class or economic status, race, ethnicity, religion, gender or ego" (American Press Institute, 2014)."
quoted from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/virtue-in-the-media-world/201412/why-is-curiosity-critical-in-good-journalism-just-ask
I have a high need for cognition.
My perception is that there are people on both sides of the MQA issue who are inadequately curious. Then again, it's a pretty serious learning curve. This stuff isn't simple.
jca
If you believe that there are two sides to the MQA discussion, why is Stereophile only covering one of them?Thanks,
Daniel
Edits: 10/20/17
Not for me to say. I will say that I'm confident that whatever I write about MQA, if it's well written and well argued, JA will publish it.
Does he agree that "If MQA is successful, audio will be distributed and rented in the same way that video is distributed and rented"? That MQA royalties will become "unworkable" for "small, innovative manufacturers"? Does he see this as a problem?Daniel
Edits: 10/20/17
> Does he agree that "If MQA is successful, audio will be distributed and
> rented in the same way that video is distributed and rented"?The move toward renting rather than owning music is already well underway,
regardless of anything MQA does or does not.> That MQA royalties will become "unworkable" for "small, innovative
> manufacturers"? Does he see this as a problem?So far, no-one I spoken to has been aware of the MQA royalties or has been
willing to tell me, presumably because of NDAs. But as long as the unprocessed
original PCM files are available for download or streaming, I don't see this
as a major issue.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 10/21/17
> The move toward renting rather than owning music is already well
> underway, regardless of anything MQA does or does not.MQA adds this: that to play along, Charles has to put an idiot light on his dacs, and no doubt pay handsomely for the privilege.
> But as long as the unprocessed original PCM files are available for
> download or streaming, I don't see this as a major issue.241 years ago, Adam Smith made some prescient comments about Meridian/MQA, and backers thereof, in The Wealth of Nations:
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
Monopolization of the distribution of music that extends down to the kind of devices it can be played on is a bad thing.
Daniel
Edits: 10/23/17 10/23/17 10/23/17
> > "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." < <Yes. As in this private (by invitation only) Facebook group whose purpose is to promote MQA and includes Bob Stuart, Morten Lindberg (2L), Mike Jbara (left Warner's to join MQA as CEO), Steven Stone (TAS), Pål Bråtelund (Tidal CTO), Hans Beekhuyzen (Dutch reviewer), Frank Vermeylen (MSB Technologies), Guido Tent (Tentlabs), Jamie Howarth (Plangent Processes), Michael Bovaird (Florida retailer and runs " The Audio Shark" website), Lee Scoggins (reviewer for Part-Time Audiophile), Jan de Jeu (Dutch reviewer), Rene van Es (Dutch reviewer), Theo Wubbolts (former Dutch reviewer, now a distributor), Bjorn Mattijsen (Dutch retailer), Garmt Vanderzel (Dutch retailer), Ferry Kremers(Dutch retailer), Peter Chattelin(Dutch retailer), Charles Rievone (Philippines retailer), Hessel Veldmen (Dutch retailer), Jaap Veenstra (Dutch retailer), Jan Hart (AudioQuest NL), Rudo Meijer (Dutch retailer), Robert Nauta (Dutch retailer), Bert Oling (Dutch audio researcher), Ferry Kremers (Dutch retailer), Johan Groenestege (Dutch retailer), Bjorn Mateijsen (Dutch retailer), Ronald Hartjes (Dutch retailer), Peter Chattelin (Dutch retailer). and many more names I do not recognize.
The entire group is administrated by Peter Veth, who posts constantly and super-enthusiastically (shills) in many of the online forums (see Computer Audiophile and Digital Audio Review as two examples in English) whenever MQA is mentioned, yet denies any affiliation whatsoever with MQA - more lies from those in and around MQA.
Edits: 10/24/17
Portraying MQA as a high-rez format allowing us to hear for the first time true Master Quality Authentication is even worse.
But it's very important to remember that this could only happen because high-end audio remains very much near its infancy with regard to performance. That's why it was so easy for them to fool the masses with their convoluted BS. Because on paper it sounded pretty good.
Doesn't mcuh matter now as that horse is already outta the barn.
> > as long as the unprocessed
original PCM files are available for download or streaming, I don't see this
as a major issue < <
Sure, John. No need to worry.
After all, in 1989 when there were dozens of record labels (and not just 3), they managed to collude and simultaneously pull the plug on all LP production - despite it being a full 1/3 of all sales in the US. Cassette was 1/3 (as people could listen to it both in the car and at home - car CD players were still outrageously expensive and prone to skipping over even expansion joints), only 1/3 of consumers had spent the then $300 minimum for a CD player, and 1/3 still loved their vinyl, with the great sound and the big photos and liner notes on the sleeves.
Did the record labels care what the consumer wanted? Hell no! There wss more profit in CDs, so that's all they offered. If you didn't like it, you didn't have a choice.
Here we are nearly 30 years later, and you expect us to believe that the 3 remaining record labels are *more* altruistic and consumer friendly than they were then? Keep smoking whatever it is that's in your pipe, as you are completely deluded. Just as you are deluded if you think that the Rupert family of South Africa that made their billions by killing people with cigarettes, and are backing Bob Stuart are just a nice bunch of friendly folks, trying to bring the best sound to the people out of the kindness of their hearts.
Bob suckered them into buying Meridian nearly a decade ago, with visions of selling audio equipment to the "luxury" consumer. It has been a flop and continued to lose money. They are much like the Mafia and getting impatient for some profit back. If MQA doesn't pay off - big time - Bob Stuart is not going to be in a very good place. He's already used up all the favors of his wife's billion-dollar trust fund, and he is rapidly running out of options. He is likely extremely desperate, as he has become very accustomed to living in mansions. He bet the farm on DVD-A being successful and now is looking for something that will make money. He hasn't been able to do so selling mediocre sounding equipment from Meridian, using the same op-amps as a the sub-$1000 British equipment. Consumers aren't completely stupid.
How common are NDAs with similar technologies?
I'm certain that both editors would like to produce a good magazine, and also that both editors make compromises with the industry to keep going. I can't imagine that running an audio magazine in the current climate is an easy thing to do.
It's not fair to elevate one and vilify the other, as some here are wont to do.
Daniel
You seem to be going a little fickle here.It makes little sense to call Harley and Atkinson Tweedle dee and Tweedle dum in one post and then claim with certainty they have no ill-intent, want to produce good magazines, and empathize with their tough jobs. And then admonish those being supposedly unfair toward one over the other.
That makes no sense.
Is one worse than the other? IMO, yes, but I see both as absolutely detrimental to the high-end audio sector.
IMO, we'll probably never fully realize the extent of harm they've induced on this industry, it's potential for growth as well as its potential for performance.
And you yourself just gave but one excellent example by listing us their endorements for MQA.
Moreover, I've not seen any villifying here - yet anyway. What I have seen are high-end audio enthusiasts angered and disappointed about a several things. And rightfully so.
Edits: 10/17/17 10/17/17
Atkinson on the left, Harley on the right?
on the far left, 4everyoung???
Edits: 10/16/17 10/17/17
Or, said another way...
He edits a audiophile magazine. :-)
nt
but did suffer such B$.
Nt
Tru-dat! Unfortunately he is not the only one - just the largest and most visible of them.
As far as I can tell, there is no mention of the audio mags' endorsements on the MQA site at all. But perhaps it's not that surprising. The audio mag photos don't fit the theme of youth and beauty. And the comic vocabulary - jaws drop, socks fly - doesn't fit the refined sensibilities of the site.Daniel
Edits: 10/13/17 10/13/17 10/13/17 10/13/17
There's a link to Harley's entire article in the last issue of TAS.
(You can sign up for the MQA newsletter on the MQA site.)
Yes, but what the MQA newsletter doesn't tell you is once TAS posted the article on line, it drew 10x to 20x more comments than typical articles and that 99% were negative comments.
But then considering Meridian has been one of the leaders in digital technology for the past 40 years, maybe Bob Stuart didn't really need their help.
why did the spend SO much time and money wining and dining and go to such lengths to impress the audiophile press?
I have more thoughts on who the 'winners' and 'losers' are likely to be and one possible 'winner', should the DRM issue in MQA be effectively implemented, might be the recording industry as a whole.
> > Meridian has been one of the leaders in digital technology for the past 40 years < <
Huh? In the first place, CD is only 35 years old - in Japan only. It wasn't released to the rest of the world until 34 years ago. Clearly your timeline is off. In the second place, what specifically has Meridian ever done to make them "one of the leaders in digital technology"?
"Meridian Lossless Packing, also known as Packed PCM (PPCM),[citation needed] is a lossless compression technique for compressing PCM audio data developed by Meridian Audio, Ltd. MLP is the standard lossless compression method for DVD-Audio content (often advertised with the Advanced Resolution logo) and typically provides about 1.5:1 compression on most music material. All DVD-Audio players are equipped with MLP decoding, while its use on the discs themselves is at their producers' discretion.
Dolby TrueHD, used in Blu-ray and HD DVD, employs MLP, but compared with DVD-Audio, adds higher bit rates, 8 full-range channels, extensive metadata, and custom speaker placements (as specified by SMPTE)."
from wiki
> > MLP is the standard lossless compression method for DVD-Audio content < <
Yes, it seems that is Bob Stuart's goal - to be in the position of a Dolby, where he makes money forever and ever based on licensing and royalties. If DVD-Audio hadn't been a total flop, he might have had something there. But when you start to think about it, why in the world doesn't everyone just use FLAC?
The answer is obviously "politics" - aka "money". If you ever actually had a DVD-Audio player, you will realize that almost NONE of them referred to the audio track as using "MLP" ("Meridian Lossless Packing"). All of the Japanese majors behind the DVD-Audio format (led by Toshiba and including almost every Japanese major manufacturer except Sony) referred to the audio as "PPCM" for "Packed Pulse Code Modulation". They flat-out refused to put an advertisement for a pesky little British company on the front of their products. The only money that Meridian ended up making money with MLP was by selling it to Dolby - who re-branded it as Dolby Tru-HD, and part of the bargain was that Dolby ended up with digital engineer Rhonda Wilson, who was the person that actually developed MLP - Bob Stuart had nothing to do with the technical end of it. Just the politics of getting it accepted as the default format for DVD-Audio.
The cost of entry for DVD (Audio or Video) was hideously outrageous - about $150,000 of up-front licensing fees and $50,000 annual maintenance, PLUS a royalty on each unit sold. The politics were such that all of the true high-end companies of the day (eg, Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, Rowland Research, Convergent Audio Technologies, Jadis, Classe - when Dave Reich designed their class-A amplifiers, and even down to "mid-fi" companies like NAD and Adcom) were virtually locked out, and only the largest of corporations could afford to be fully licensed. In the high-end arena, it was only Harman (Harman-Kardon, Levinson, Madrigal), Meridian, and I think maybe Arcam that ever jumped through all of the hoops to be licensed.
It was one of the things that actually put an end to a lot of true high-end companies, as before DVD nobody took the sound quality of any of the Japanese giants seriously. But when the only choices came from the Japanese giants, people thought "it must be good enough" and now every garage in China is making "high-end" audio equipment. Look at the recent thread in the Amplifier forum about Emotiva - everybody agrees it sounds amazing for the money, but it is not really special or anything to write home about or aspire to own or truly "high-end". Just something that gets the job done when cash is very tight. (See link below)
When everybody is using the same exact chips in the same exact way, why should it sound any different or better? That was the problem that Levinson had with their preamps 15 or 20 years ago. You could buy an Adcom preamp with the same exact op-amps as a Levinson that cost 10x the price. The main difference was the chassis, connectors, and power supply. But the Adcom was considered "mid-fi" because of its price, while the Levinson was considered "high end" because of its price. This was the beginning of the end for much of true high-end audio.
High end shouldn't be about price, it should be about doing something new and innovative that advances the art and allows for better sound quality than others have never achieved before. Much of that has been lost over the last 20 years.
Just look at the analog circuitry in any piece of Meridian kit. They still use the 30 year old Signetics 5534 op-amp they've been using since they were founded. To Meridian, analog is already perfect - kind of like Julian Hirsch's mind frame. I'm surprised they are making a big deal about their digital filters for MQA, as there is nothing measurable about them that is better except when prodded with signals which shouldn't be encoded in a digital file in the first place. I would expect that kind of thinking to end up in the same dead-end as Julian Hirsch, where the *only* thing that matters any more is the loudspeaker and possibly the room acoustics.
Strictly my opinion. YMMV.
Watch out for those Chinese garages. Recall the start-ups in American garages now that are now $billion companies. Think the Chinese can't do it too?
> Just look at the analog circuitry in any piece of Meridian kit. They still
> use the 30 year old Signetics 5534 op-amp they've been using since they
> were founded.
At the risk of trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs, Meridian aren't
alone in still using this chip. It can be found in products from LFD, Musical
Fidelity, Cyrus, and HRT, as well as Meridian. I was told that this is because,
when properly used, this op-amp can drive low-impedance loads with very
low static distortion. Of course, this begs the question of whether an
integrated circuit op-amp, which relies on a high amount of negative
feedback to work, is a justifiable choice to use in a high-end audio circuit.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
In your review of the $23,000 Meredian Audio Ultra DAC D/A processor you don't, so far as I can tell, discuss details of the analog stage. What you write on the subject is, "The output stage incorporates 'Hierarchical Converter technology [by MQA],' which Meridian says employs 'multiple converters to increase temporal resolution while also reducing noise and quantization errors.'" When I read this, which must be Meridian ad copy, I must admit I had no idea what it meant.
Just a simple question on topic, though, does it use the Signetics 5534 op-amp?
> > Of course, this begs the question of whether an
integrated circuit op-amp, which relies on a high amount of negative
feedback to work, is a justifiable choice to use in a high-end audio circuit. < <
What exactly would be "high-end" about this design approach? Fancier chassis? Precious metal plating on visible parts?
When you can get the same exact technology for $49 from China, why would anybody in their right minds pay more?
As Stehno pointed out, the fact that the magazines have promulgated this crap as "high end" has done more to damage the industry than almost anything else - the only thing that comes close is their glorification of stupidly-priced equipment which they rave about, apparently because "it must be good or else they couldn't charge so much".
As I've said before, it all started when the magazines went monthly. They had to have something new to write about every single month, whether it deserved comment or not.
Actually Charles, I was implying a far more damaging message than that.Your interpretation of my prior message was merely one of the effects but my implication was intended to be about a far more damaging cause.
Maybe we should be thankful for the introduction of MQA. Maybe the high-end sector needed a hoax and fraud of this magnitude to finally have enough ammo to expose just how perverted and distorted and empty the leaders of high-end audio have been over the years. How empty they've been with little or no real expertise at least when it comes to real performance and real levels of musicality from a playback perspective. I'm sure many of us know at least a few reviewers who couldn't punch their way out of a musical bag if their lives depended on it.
But ultimately, it's the mainstream high-end enthusiasts to blame because of their inability or lack of desire to discern what they hear and subsequently what they read. Which is really the only way to protect ourselves from the charlatans. But we've made ourselves easy prey for them. As a result, instead of them leading us down a path toward far greater performance potential, they led us down the money path. That is, money for them. Yes, trying to play both sides of the fence is a tough job. And requires about 10 times more energy too - for them and for those trying to follow them.
But this charade of theirs has gone on far too long and it's time some of us started calling a spade a spade.
FWIW, back in 2014 and 2015 I've posted numerous comments in this and other forums warning people of this MQA fraud initiated by Meridian and Stuart and propagated by Harley and Atkinson and a small host of others. There I explained in hopefully just enough detail how MQA or any high-rez format for that matter could never produce the outlandish and absurd performance results they were claiming. But ultimately because I know for a fact Stuart and co. weren't even barking up the right technology tree to achieve that kind of performance impact. And no I've never listened to an MQA recording nor do I have to. Besides, if I did, I'm sure it would just piss me off to no end.
Besides the MQA horse already let out of the barn, the other thing I find so regrettable is that some good-natured well-intended enthusiasts and professionals alike have spent / wasted so much of their precious time dissecting MQA to look for the meat and potatoes. Well, that and the fact that Stuart and co. are already making money on their fraud and potentially further destroying an industry while others are chasing their tails around the mulberry bush.
From a performance perspective, Meridian was never more than a middle-of-the-road mfg'er and Stuart is nothing more than a charlatan and MQA is snake oil. And because they used "performance" i.e. Master Quality Authentication as their primary selling feature to dup the masses that makes Meridian, Stuart, and MQA a fraud. Plain and simple.
And that obviously doesn't speak well for anybody who either unknowingly or intentionally propegated that fraud.
On another note, I've read a number of your posts here regarding this subject matter and I'm thankful and I commend your willing to sacrifice your good standing in high-end audio in order to expose what you know can't be right. That says much about your character as a man and as a mfg'er. Thank you.
Edits: 10/19/17
Beliefs based on "authority" rarely turn out to be rewarding as beliefs based on experience.
"this begs the question of whether an integrated circuit op-amp, which relies on a high amount of negative feedback to work, is a justifiable choice to use in a high-end audio circuit."
I can't say for certain, but I bet I can guess Charlie's answer to that particular question. ;-)
Meridian was founded 40 years ago (1977) and manufactured their first CD player in 1983, 34 years ago.
If you'd like an answer to the rest of your post, you'll have to give me some time. I'm watching the Packer/Vikings game today.
Wikipedia is an interesting animal. I think the key information concerning the company comes from this section:
"2006 saw the retirement of both Sales & Marketing Director Colin Aldridge and Managing Director Douglas Watson, long-term employees of the company. Robert Haefling, previous MD of Faroudja, was brought in as acting Managing Director and given a mandate to find external investment for the brand. Despite Meridian's excellent reputation within the audiophile community, the company was only modestly profitable and many major investments (e.g. the move to the new premises previously occupied by the ill-fated Tag McLaren brand) were predominately funded by the Taylor family - Bob Stuart's family-in-law (who had originally founded the Boston Globe newspaper).
"In 2007 just under 50% of the company's shareholding was sold to the Muse Group, a consortium of the Swiss-based luxury goods group Richemont and U.S. film company New Regency. Muse is now a majority shareholder and is 100 percent owned by Reinet Investments, a sister company of Richemont.[4][5] Robert Haefling departed soon after and was replaced by Tim Ireland, the previous COO of Mission Loudspeakers. Following the acquisition, and perhaps under the influence of Muse and Richemont, Meridian began to reposition itself as more of a luxury goods manufacturer and opened a series of flagship stores. Performance suffered and almost 20% of the company's workforce was laid off in late 2008. The decade since has seen many changes in the board of directors and business profitability has remained modest compared with the ambitions of the company when it was acquired by Muse. Ironically, the majority of the company's revenue now comes not from hi-fi products but from the contract to supply Jaguar Land Rover with audio systems for its vehicles (these systems are actually manufactured in China by a contract partner rather than by Meridian in the UK) and MQA - Bob Stuart's audio file compression technology."
It doesn't take a lot of insight to read between the lines and see the desperation to make some money - hence the big push for MQA.
the Wikipedia author had an agenda.
Anyway, I found myself thinking: How do they know this stuff? Is this info about a private company --like where the revenue comes from--part of the public record? That's an honest question.
The original author includes the following background in the Talk section:"I've expanded the entry for this technology based primarily on the Audio Engineering Society paper(s)[1] and writeup on the subject by John Atkinson in Stereophile magazine's online edition in late 2014.[2] There are currently few other sources with anything more than marketing information on the topic, so my additions don't include any non-independently-verifiable content. Disclosure: I am a former employee of Meridian Audio Ltd and currently act as a consultant to the company. I have attempted to make my contributions as neutral as possible but I welcome edits and updates that further ensure that this is the case."
Regarding how do they know this stuff, have you checked the citations to the third party sources in the article ? Statements made without third party sources would not likely stay up very long.
Daniel
Edits: 10/16/17 10/16/17 10/16/17 10/16/17 10/16/17
I only read the comments in the AA post; I didn't click on the link. It's those comments in particular that did--and still do--strike me as less than neutral. In particular, describing MQA as "Bob Stuart's audio file compression technology" editorializes--or, alternatively, it may just be poorly informed. Maybe the Wikipedia author doesn't know that MQA is/claims to be far more than a compression technology.
Also odd (to me) is the claim that MQA is a major revenue source for "the company"--is that Meridian or the investor? Does Meridian, or the Muse Group, have an ownership stake in MQA? I'm of course aware that there's a connection between the two companies--Stuart--but Meridian (or Muse group, whichever was meant) would not get credit for MQA revenues unless there was a formal relationship.
I have now checked the citations. I even found the Variety article; the link is broken in the Wikipedia article. But no source is mentioned for the claims about revenues--so that must be "inside information"--hence no way for neutral parties to corroborate.
Best,
Jim
I could be wrong, but I thought British companies were required by law to disclose financial information. Or so I was told.
unlike their counterparts here.
Don't recall what they are now as it's been a long time since I worked in Europe.
Please see the link below, courtesy of Her Majesty, The Queen:
What a terrible day. Our whole state needs a hug.
bigshow
"What a terrible day. Our whole state needs a hug."
Yup :-(
I'm not too smart and I am no expert but if MQA is so revolutionary and so much better than Red Book shouldn't it be very clear that it is better, you know, Knock Your Socks Off clear? Otherwise it's just another way to sell the same catalog to the same people all over again. It is clear that 4K is better than HD and HD was way better than SD but is MQA as obvious? I don't think so. Perhaps you have better hearing or are more perceptive than I am. But maybe not.
When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it. ~ Bernard Bailey
Edits: 10/10/17
SACD/CD, CD/any Hi-Res, DSD/PCM.
I suppose those formats are all Frauds too.
mp3 is the only safe bet.
My dear, what a wonderful conspiracy you create in your head. Are you Alex Jones?
When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it. ~ Bernard Bailey
Edits: 10/13/17
nt
Did I tell you I hate this forum software? Yes I misread his post. My apologies to all.
When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it. ~ Bernard Bailey
(nt)
Hi,You are right -- if the improvement is so dramatic, as some have written, it should be a night-and-day difference and there should be absolutely no fear of comparisons, blind or sighted.
But it really doesn't seem to be like that, does it? There seems to be tremendous fear when it comes to doing proper comparisons.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
Edits: 10/10/17
Link below - I wouldn't touch MQA with a barge pole.
~!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
Thus the death of SACD and DVD-A and the irrelevance of BR Audio.
When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it. ~ Bernard Bailey
Neither would I.
But I am kinda' surprised that it's taking people so long to discover that MQA, at least from a performance perspective, was a fraud from day one.
For at least several reasons:
1. It's simply impossible for any format to perform even remotely close to the promises of MQA by Stuart and co. This is guaranteed and entirely provable.
2. It should have been easy to tell from Stuart's early interviews with TAS and other rags 3 or 4 years ago that he was contradicting himself routinely while trying to convince the reader that MQA was to be all things to all people, especially from a performance perspective.
3. It should have been easy to tell by Robert Harley's outlandish feedback 3 years ago on what he heard with MQA recordings that it was nothing more than propaganda and super hyperbolic at that.
Having never listened to an MQA recording, 3 years ago I posted numerous comments in this forum and in others essentially stating that MQA was nothing more than a coup by a few industry insiders to simplify inventories and distribution by consolidating to a single format for all while also injecting new monies into the music industry and especially into Meridian / Bob Stuart's pocket. And I stated precisely why MQA could do no such things from a performance perspective.
MQA wouldn't have been a fraud except that they used "performance" as MQA's primary selling feature (Master Quality Authentication). And since so many have untrained ears, as we can now see it was rather easy for them to achieve their goals.
Near as I can tell, MQA was going to happen regardless of whether the tiny high-end audio sector bought into it or not. But for the high-end sector to believe they knew all they needed was one or two endorsements from the likes of Harley, Atkinson, etc, and then they could tell the entire world that even the high-end audio sector was behind MQA.
In fact, I would not be surprised in the least if we'll eventually discover MQA-formatted recordings have compromised, limtied and/or harmed performance today and potentially for the foreseeable future. But again, the good news for Meridan, MQA, Stuart, Harley, etc. is, most will never know or even care.
Just one more reason why those participating in "high-end" audio really need to focus on training their ears as MQA is far from the being the first hoax played on the industry, though I've little doubt it is quite possibly the greatest hoax.
Near as I can tell, regardless of musicality, quackery, snake oil, etc, the music industry had already determined MQA was going forward whether the high-end audio sector bought off on it or not. I wouldn't be surprised if one day we find out that the music industry approached Bob Stuart to "make it happen" instead of Stuart approaching them.
It's just a shame that it seems high-end audio enthusiasts make it all too easy for the charlatans to have their way. IOW, MQA could have been stopped dead in its tracks. But since high-end audio remains very much in its infancy from a performance perspective and human nature being what it is, who really knows much of anything and who really cares?
Oh, well. At least we went to the moon. :)
that NEXT incredible release of DSOTM or KOB or Bach's Cello Suites because
THERE MUST BE MORE THERE.
And with streaming now the NEW NEXT BIG THING you can't blame them too
much for buying into unrealistic promises of EVEN BETTER (now in a new format).
New/improved Tide.
Been a LONG time since we went to the moon.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
There is also some of this in the LP remasters...
But they are all looking for the BIG ONE, the same huge moneymaker that was CD bonanza of re-releasing all the back catalog all over again.
the sixty-fourth remaster of DSOTM! :)
Tom
Hopefully?
Maybe?
Dig up a previously unreleased (bonus) track and re-master, re-release it?
MQA the sucker! THAT'S the answer!
One million... wow, even one million copies would be nice....
Ohhh... then The Eagles Greatest Hits.
Rumours...
CH covered it well...
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
I swear I have re-bought every Bob Dylan release at least six times.
Original LP back in the day
Replacing them all when lost
Buying them on CD
Buying more of the CD with add ons
buying remastered CDs
Buying them in Mono. (CD and LP)
Buying MoFI LPs
LOL
Then like my Jazz collection. Having a thousand CDs which are just duplicates of LPs I also own..
Ditto Rock music.
Interestingly I have almost no dups of LP and CD in my Classical collections.
The rebuy was the main reason I never went for BluRay.. or SACD.
and, IMO worthy of the loving detail applied to it.***
Miles Davis too.
Pink Floyd much less worthy but an endless cash cow for those involved.
Live Grateful Dead.
You'll see the same for Radiohead in the future.
Surprising the Beatles' catalog hasn't been quite so... ransacked. At least officially.
I'm sure MQA would kill for any of those artists' license rights.
*** The Dylan SACD are sooooo fine. Why stop now?
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
... while laughing all the way to the bank with everybody's money?
C'mon. Have we become so lawless that we no longer bat an eye when we're being defrauded?
And yes, there's lots more there. But the problem must first be sufficiently identified before it can be resolved. And you ain't gonna find one lick of it in MQA-formatted recordings.
Nothing really that new about the concept except given the incredibly FAST way things
move these daze technically (and the amount of people reached simultaneously) the hoodwinkers
can take a LOT of folk's (fool's?) money to the bank quickly and efficiently before anyone really
figures out what is going on.
The banker's don't mind.
Be a while till the dust settles re MQA and in the meantime some people will have more
$ and some less.
Plus we have the "if you haven't heard it...." argument/defense.
That keeps the controversy and cash flow going into overtime.
How many people are already investing in MQA playback who will/won't hear a difference?
Is it an improved difference, less of a difference or only a difference?
And, maybe it's system dependent (the great equalizer in the audiophile lexicon)?
Are there money back guarantees?
Besides, listening to music as an audiophile is a hobby right?
It's only disposable income being spent.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Besides, we ALREADY have perfect sound forever.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Both Waldrep and Lucey are on record as passionate opponents of MQA. Would you take that deal?
It seems to me if the technology was worth jack squat someone making lots of money on it would be able to come to an event and demonstrate and explain why MQA is superior - and it SHOULD be able to withstand scrutiny.Listening tests describing a technological improvement can't be an improvement solely relying on superior masters. This is glorified compression decompression system - if you want a better master buy a better master. And there are many masters of the same albums as I mentioned below.
Now even if Mark Waldrep is a well known basher of this technology so what? No skeptics allowed at the table?
It is pretty evident that the MQA shills don't want people to walk away from a debate finding out the emperor has no clothes.
I mean not showing up to defend the supposedly superior sound sure adds to the skepticism.
Mark notes "It seems MQA is fine with one-sided presentations and photo ops .../... Apparently, some in their camp don't believe that their message can survive critical analysis and open debate."
Edits: 10/08/17
is, and has long been, that some of the criticisms of MQA are facile--not that MQA is ultimately a good thing. As to that, we'll see how things shake out. I've never met Bob Stuart although I've talked to him on several occasions. I know him mainly by reputation. As such, I hardly recognize the 2-bit used-car hustler he's often portrayed as on various forums. Talking to him about his ideas and reading various MQA source materials--patent applications in particular--makes the harshest MQA critiques ring hollow. Whether it's a good idea or not is debatable, but there's obviously a lot of thought behind it.If I were them, I would not be responding to initiatives like the one described here; to do so would be foolish from a marketing standpoint and there are better ways to achieve the same thing. I would however be doing more to establish MQA as technically sound and as a superior distribution format. They can do that on their own terms, but they need to make a better case than they've made so far, IMO. They owe that much to the community. They can start by providing evidence that they really are improving impulse response. Then maybe they can submit a journal article, for peer-review, that documents listening tests that establish the audibility of MQA, and listener preference.
I'm going to reiterate a point I made earlier--then I'm signing off from this discussion. MQA is playing by rules long established in the world of high-end audio--rules many people have been happy with up to now. Forget about understanding the technology, forget about rigorous listening tests, forget about proving anything--just trust your ears! No one ever demonstrated rigorously that minimum-phase filters were even audibly different, let alone superior; I've searched the literature and only found one inconclusive online test (was that Mark Waldrep who did that? Can't remember.) But there's a story there--a just-so story, meaning that it sounds nice and seems sensible but doesn't really prove anything; look up "ad hoc fallacy." Many high-end companies have enjoyed and profited from this relaxed approach to rigor. MQA has embraced it--although it seems to me they've actually gone beyond what most companies do. Anyway, they've embraced that very same just-so story, the one about the unnaturalness of preringing and the superiority of minimum phase filters--and taken (at least) one more giant step in the same direction. Now they're under attack by a crowd that includes people who were fine with this general approach up to now. "Trust your ears" was fine when it was their technology that was on sale; it's not so nice now that it's a competing technology. (To be fair, MQA has also has critics who support rigorous testing and who are not members of the "trust your ears" camp.)
That's all for now.
Jim
Edits: 10/08/17
is, and has long been, that some of the criticisms of MQA are facile--not that MQA is ultimately a good thing. As to that, we'll see how things shake out. I've never met Bob Stuart although I've talked to him on several occasions. I know him mainly by reputation. As such, I hardly recognize the 2-bit used-car hustler he's often portrayed as on various forums. Talking to him about his ideas and reading various MQA source materials--patent applications in particular--makes the harshest MQA critiques ring hollow. Whether it's a good idea or not is debatable, but there's obviously a lot of thought behind it.
If you read the patent, you should have been immediately suspicious of MQA marketing claims. The patent clearly shows that MQA preserves at most 17 bits of resolution in the LF (audio band) and 7 bits of resolution in the HF (ultrasonic band). Stuart's rebuttal to this was basically "we don't do what the patent shows."
Unfortunately, the patent application is the only clear technical explanation that I've seen come out of Stuart & co. So if that isn't representative of MQA, it's left to the armchair analysts to poke around with it and see if they can figure out how it really performs.
> > The patent clearly shows that MQA preserves at most 17 bits of resolution in the LF (audio band) and 7 bits of resolution in the HF (ultrasonic band). Stuart's rebuttal to this was basically "we don't do what the patent shows." < <
Here we have a difference of perspective. Yes, this is a point of confusion, for me and likely for others. I don't understand it. Elsewhere, Stuart has made specific, testable claims to the contrary. (However, I've never heard him say "we don't do what the patent shows." Is it online? Can you point me to it?)
On the one hand, I think this sort of intense critical scrutiny is healthy. Keep it up. I intend to, as time allows. On the other hand, I think there is an important difference between me and MQA's most intense critics: Apparently I'm more trusting of people and lest trusting of my own technical insight. I don't believe that stuff like the linked-to plot is fictitious. There's no evidence in Stuart's history of that sort of craven dishonesty. To fake something like that would require extraordinary audacity. Plus, Stuart has provided a brief, vague explanation--I think that's what it is--on the Q&A on the Stereophile website, in that same Q&A--read especially that last paragraph, after the bulleted list. (Go back a page from Sidebar. 3):
> >
With a decoder, in general, the MQA system can reach either:
In excess of either 23-bit dynamic range capability for 1x 24-bit original, or
15.93-bit dynamic range capability for 1x 16-bit original, or
In any case 3-6 bits below the content noise in the audio band, or
24 bits in pure lossless mode, and
In all cases MQA's noisefloor is stable throughout a song or work.
See the Table in MQA Hierarchy earlier.
A crucial thing to understand is that in the majority of MQA files, the signaling noise is reversibly and losslessly removable. It is at the 16th bit primarily for backward compatibility (eg, CD, Airplay, automotive and other 16-bit restrictions in the 'last mile.' The real noise in the recording cannot be seen by normal FFT analysis.
< <
I've got to sign out of this conversation. It's taking too much of my time.
Best,
Jim
If not, as of now do you plan on buying one?
I own a Meridian Explorer 2. I've borrowed a Mytek Brooklyn. I own a PS Audio DirectStream DAC with a Bridge 2 renderer, an add-in card in the DirectStream. For months PS Audio has been promising to decode MQA in the renderer--not the DAC itself--when MQA files are delivered from Roon. Apparently the Bridge 2 can already decode MQA from Tidal delivered via a special app (mConnect?). But that's awkward--I use Roon--so I haven't tried it. I'm hopeful that PS Audio will get this done soon. We'll see. Anyway, once they do, I'll own two.
jca
nt
Should I be worried? :-)
I think I get what you are saying but I'm not sure MQA is the same thing.
For instance I think SET and HE is vastly better sounding that SS amplifier and LE speakers that I've ever heard and I've heard a LOT.
The evidence in terms of measurements sure isn't on my side so I have to use the ole "trust your ears" argument. But these are end of the chain playback systems.
MQA is marketing drivel. The trust your ears argument would be fine if you could actually listen to the same recording.
If you take a CD player from Rotel and a CD player from Audio Note and you play the same CD in both players and play at the same volume and you can't see the players - then you can "trust your ears" because everything is on an even playing field - Hi-Fi Choice magazine does this. But even if you're not a big blind listening supporter at least you are comparing the same album and the same master.
But if you compare a vastly superior master in an inferior player and a poor master in a superior player - then your ears are deceiving you and you can't "trust your ears" because you are not comparing apples to apples.
I have no issue with MQA except that a company is touting a superior sounding technology and so how do you know the technology is better or they have merely used a different master or just boosted (like HDCD) the dB level of a given recording to "trick" the ears.
And the ramifications seem larger because it is not just one manufacturer but something that affects many other manufacturers who feel obliged to switch to MQA or else go out of business because if their DAC doesn't have the latest thing it won't sell.
Then everything becomes a homogenized sounding mess - see the recording industry where there are some fairly talented or at least unique singers where the corporations takes them and sticks them in the autotune machine such that everything sounds the same.
I think Americans need to get better internet service - I pay $50 a month in Hong Kong and I can download a gigabyte per second. Umm this is supposedly third world China. Maybe don't let your carriers get away with crap then you don't have to be worrying about every little bit and byte and forcing you to get into these compression schemes in the first place. Another issue.
I'll just repeat what I've said several times: MQA never suggested, as far as I know, that comparing a random CD-res file with a random MQA file was a valid comparison. It obviously isn't. They never said it is. That's not on them.
Best,
Jim
Well, Jim, that is by far the worst piece of writing I've ever seen from you. Everything from incomprehensible sentence structures to logical fallacies to contradicting the conclusions of your boss (editor) without explanation. And then to top it off, defending MQA, who are cheating by using completely different master files for people to "trust their ears" when doing listening comparisons.
I could go into far more detail, but since you'r already stated you won't respond, what would be the point?
Jim states a position that you disagree with so you insult his writing style and claim that positive MQA press is all a conspiracy. You still have a little way to go, Isaak stated that Bob Stuart is a crook whereas you have only implied it.
The provenance and remastering of recordings has been a grey area for decades now. There really isn't anything new to see here.
Regards
13DoW
Don't get what you mean by that. If a recording has been REmastered and is different from the original release it is normally stated by whoever is releasing the remastered product. Exactly *who* remastered it is often also listed on cd booklets.
If you've read all or most of Charles' posts about MQA do you disagree with his substantive points? If so, which ones?
you sure don't see "Master Quality Authenticated" stamped on them.
A sufficient and succinct provenance is usually provided.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Charles, I'm sorry to have disappointed you. I'll take the time to respond to just one thing you wrote:
> > to contradicting the conclusions of your boss (editor) without explanation. < <
I've never felt any pressure toward conformity from JA--never felt obligated to share his opinions or embrace a certain company line.
Respectfully,
Jim
> I've never felt any pressure toward conformity from JA--never felt
> obligated to share his opinions or embrace a certain company line.
For the record, I never tell my writers what to write, only that their
opinions be as clearly and unambiguously expressed as possible. Even
when those opinions are not the same as mine.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> > I've never felt any pressure toward conformity from JA < <
Hmm. Sure didn't seem to stop you from leaping to his defense with many, many posts (while he remained silent).
I wasn't aware of it. Was JA even mentioned in this thread before now?[Edit: I'm a little confused as to how I could be defending my boss even while "contradicting the conclusions of your boss (editor) without explanation." Isn't that contradictory?]
If I'd thought I was defending JA, I probably would have remained quiet, since that's not my place. The ideas expressed here are my own. I speak only for myself.
Jim
Edits: 10/08/17
It's quite obvious that is precisely what you are doing - defending Stereophile's utter lack of any type of critical investigation as to how MQA works and what they are actually doing to the files.
If you say that it is your idea to do so by coming up with complex mental gymnastics by arguing what a "master" is, I will take your word for that. It doesn't change the fact that you are defending Stereophile's mistakes in not looking out for their reader's interests by even mentioning (let alone questioning) MQA's deceptive practices.
"It doesn't change the fact that you are defending Stereophile's mistakes in not looking out for their reader's interests by even mentioning (let alone questioning) MQA's deceptive practices."
+1
If Mr. Austin would spend half the energy finding excuses for the holes in MQAs marketing fluff on asking questions about its merits the debate would be in a different place.
But Stereophile bet the farm on MQA and a good part of the readers turned out to be more competent than they thought.
This is one of the major fallouts of the MQA-episode and it already hurt Stereophile and will continue to do so longer term.
They are starting to notice though and I bet that within 4 months time a "critical" article on MQA will appear in ST.
> > One can easily deduce that Tidal's Redbook files likely came from the CD master, whereas the MQA file likely used the HDTracks 192/24 remaster at:
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=prince&album=prince < <
Missed this the first time. In a published interview, Stuart said that as a matter of policy, WMG has for years been transferring its analog tape at 192/24, and that in the majority of cases, for those recordings these would be the source of MQA files.
MQA, of course, has no say in deciding what sources Tidal uses for their 44.1/16-equivalent files.
Jim
So MQA sounds better because the 'labels' (in this case WMG) are willing to allow TIDAL to stream music using BETTER source material as long as it's 'encoded' with MQA?
But it's not because MQA in this use-case is protecting the 'labels' 'better source material' with DRM?
Of course it's not!
simply means use the best master .
Then, require the added expense of "licensed" otherwise superfluous filter circuitry in order to *fully appreciate* it. :)
... MQA has convinced the major labels that their system works in their interest. If this little bit of "DRM", if that's what it is, is all it took to unlock the vaults, then I'm all for it.
Best,
jim
For many years now, WMG and others have been releasing hi-res for sale on download sites such as HDTracks, unencumbered by DRM. My biggest concern about MQA is the potential for that source of hi-res to dry up.
If MQA proves to be a/the more profitable avenue that would really limit the market for Hi Res - it'd all likely stream into MQA.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
> > If this little bit of "DRM", if that's what it is, is all it took to unlock the vaults, then I'm all for it. < <
Be careful what you wish for. If MQA is widely adopted, I can assure you that "this little bit of DRM" will grow to unrecognizable proportions.
As publicly held companies, the legal mandate of the record labels is to maximize their profits. Look what they did with vinyl in 1989 - at that time there were dozens of independent record labels. And even though LP constuted 1/3 of all sales (cassette was 1/3 and CD was also 1/3), they were able to do an under-the-table collusion to pull the plug on LP. All vinyl was gone. The only reason they are reintroducing it now is because people will pay $30 a pop and it is "pirate-proof".
It'n not hard to see that if MQA ever becomes established that the labels will drop both high-res *and* CD, both of which can be pirated. In that scenario you will not only need to replace your hardware with MQA-compatible equipment, but they will stop selling discs altogether and only allow streaming (renting). There will be no limits to the prices they charge, and there will be no limits to how much undecoded MQA files are degraded. Just look at the MQA patent applications to understand their true intentions.
If they did it all at once, it would be instantly rejected by everybody. But if they sneak it in, piece-by-piece (first under the guise of "improved sound quality for no increase in your rental fees"), they can slowly screw the consumer once it is established.
No more CD's ripping and re-selling on the internet. No more downloads with file sharing to all of your friends.
The current situation has gotta be driving the label's nuts. No wonder MQA seems to be swimming upstream with so little push-back.
> > That's what I'd do if I were in the 'label's' position.... < <
You and the labels are just like a dog licking up the food they barfed up. The reason they are in their current position is their own damn fault.
When CD came out, they got fat and lazy and forgot how to do their job. The job of a record label is to discover, develop, and promote new talent. But when CD came out, they found it far more profitable to simply re-release their back-catalog in the new format at 8x the profit margin and with zero expense for A&R, studio time, promotion, or anything at all.
Now they have no A&R departments, not studios, no promotional departments, and no good new music.
Next they allowed Apple to sell every song on an album separately for 1/12 the price of the entire album. Customers weren't stupid and just bought the best one or two songs - which is all of the good ones most albums had due to the poor quality of the producers left.
They are completely to blame for the mess they made, and now they want to change the rules and force you to pay for their own greedy mistakes. And you think that's just great. I think think they deserve all the vomit they are licking up.
"The reason they are in their current position is their own damn fault."
"They are completely to blame for the mess they made."
I'm not sure if you are referring to their mess, or the mess that is the record business today. At the risk of diverting this thread even further, while I agree the record companies morphed from being run by (as opposed to owned by) individuals who cared about good music to the bean counters, the major record company owners (bean counters) were always greedy.
Unfortunately, enter the perfect storm. The bean counters certainly took over running the record companies (as opposed to being strictly owners), largely squeezing out the music aficionados from the record companies in the process, but there is more involved.
Back in the day when I was a mere lad, me and my buds would go to the records stores (remember them? Plural) and check out new music. Because, well, music was more than background fodder. And we followed bands and acts for more than one album. Our attention spans lasted more than a year.
But, then again, there was good radio, largely because there was a limit to how many stations a company could own in a given market, which tended to encourage variety on the airwaves. So, we were able to find stations that actually had a decent listenership, and that played music that we liked. You want rock? Check. Want blues? Check. Jazz? Check. Classical? Check. Pop? Check. Soul? Check. Of course, many of the radio stations were owned by music lovers as well. I remember well our local rock radio station, now one of the biggest on the planet, and now owned by the evil radio conglomerate known as J-Cor, Iheartradio, or whatever it is known by now, played rock to pay the bills, but the owner loved classical, so it devoted Sunday mornings to classical music. Think that would happen in this day and age?
Now, some people would call radio a form of marketing. Today? Good luck. If I ever got tired of reading my assigned school literature, or whatever the teachers called it, I could head to the supermarket, and there would be rows of music magazines - all with interviews no doubt set up by those record company marketing departments. Today? Music magazines have almost gone the way of the audio magazines on the news stand.
Again, marketing. Then came along a little marketing gem known as MTV. Talk about record company marketing. You like U2? Think they are a good band? Think you'd know who they were without MTV? Doubtful. Tom Petty, God rest his soul, exploded after MTV played the videos. I remember when Damn the Torpedoes came out. I heard Refugee on the radio. That is what passed for pop music at that time. Today? I don't hear Tom Petty today in pop music. I don't see a mass of younger kids pining for a Tom Petty or a U2.
I don't blame the records companies for that. When I was growing up kids liked Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rush, morphing into Tom Petty, U2 - you get the point.
At the end of the day, if there is a gazzilion dollars to be made from good new music, I think the record companies would mine that gold. Look at country music (just don't listen to it.) Multiple acts sell out multiple, major venues in most cities. Why? Um, a cajillion country music stations pretty much everywhere I try to escape from it. Country bars. Country music channels on television. Country cities.
In other words, marketing outlets. I'd hate to be running a major record company trying to figure out how to market product to fickle listeners with the attention spans of fruit flies, without any real radio, and with nary a magazine on the news stand to advertise product.
So, sure, the record companies have failings to be sure, but there is more to blame than record companies for the current status of the music industry. On the other hand, there are more independent labels in multiple genres today than ever before, who are releasing product that would never have seen the light of day when the big four or five controlled the the music industry. Musicians have to work harder than ever before (think touring and marketing), but they control the fruits of their labor today more than they did in the glory years.
I think the current structure encourages new bands more so than the old structure. I suspect in the olden days of yore bands tried to sell themselves to the major labels, and if the major labels passed them over, they went back to being carpenters, electricians, or audio equipment manufacturers. The labels were the gatekeepers, for both good and bad.
Now, the musicians market themselves, and while in all likelihood they won't hit it big like the olden days, they are more likely to eke out a living playing music. Our little burg has far more small venues for live bands than thirty or forty years ago. So, there are some benefits if you look hard enough.
Where I do think the record companies zigged when they should have zagged was when the internet came into being. CD's were spinning before the internet. And they were selling. And selling a ton of new product from U2. The business was good. Then came the internet, and ruined everyone's life, whether they know it or not. Magazines? Check out the news racks lately? Retail? Go to a mall lately? Records stores? And if Amazon has its way, you won't have a supermarket either.
So, sure, the record companies were very slow to embrace the new technology known as the internet, and instead chose to fight the losing battle. But the internet has gobbled up other business models. So, the record companies started repackaging music, and selling it anew. I suspect because the music they were repackaging was aimed at the demographic who thought the internet was too complicated and mysterious. So, let's sell to people who still actually care about good music, and still hunt down those few remaining record stores. It sure is a hell of a lot easier that trying to figure out what flavor the youth market is chasing this month, and, hell, they'll just grab that one tune they like for free over the net anyway. So why are we going to spend gobs of money developing and marketing good new music when listeners don't want to hear it and don't want to pay for it.
Frankly, when most of the marketing outlets have disappeared, and most youth change their tastes every week, I'm not sure what the records companies could have done to maintain the old model.
Tom
Stop - this is giving me nightmares. 1984 of the music industry.
It's possible.
Most of the MBAs that headed towards the record industry for easy money, sex, drugs, and rock and roll in the 80's?
They should move over to hedge funds or such and let people that ACTUALLY care about music back into the fold.
Luckily we have lots of boutique labels keeping some aspect of it alive and kicking even if the
bulk of the "classic" paradigm music industry have become the worst kind of whores, repacking and
reselling the SOS.
Anyway, a GREAT and concise post. Thank you.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
;-)
... I think it would be interesting if Quobuz or another high-res streaming service were to enter the picture. Competition is healthy. On the other hand, streaming doesn't seem like a profitable business. Unfortunately, like every other industry the Internet has profoundly impacted, it's destroyed one business model without creating a viable new one.
Your dire predictions are so speculative that they're hard to argue with. I won't try. But it seems to me the industry is already in a mess. It's very hard to feel sorry for record companies, but surely the first step toward a healthier industry is for SOMEONE to start making some money again.
jca
Bingo - good call, Ivan!
I've never understood the DRM thing. MQA obviously is not DRM in any pure sense. I don't understand the economics of it, on either side. But it may be that MQA has unlocked the archive.
Most if not all of the MQA titles of new releases via TIDAL are also available for streaming in 'Hi Rez' (24/96 or 24/192) via QOBUZ (in Europe), but only for about 2X the monthly subscription price!
In TIDAL's case, the MQA version of the 'Hi Rez' release can be streamed at no additonal cost (TIDAL and QOBUZ are about same 19 to 20 $/Euro per month) Qobuz Sublime + is about $36+ per month with a year in advance as the only option.
Can't comment on the SQ as I have not yet upgraded my subscription to QOBUZ Sublime+ as yet.
Do have a Meridian Explorer 2 and a subscription to TIDAL and no other dog in the fight.
Unlike Charles. ;-)
I reviewed the Explorer 2. Haven't listened in a while, but I thought it was rather special--although I think I reached the conclusion after the review. Has a lovely smoothness to it.
The prospect of Quobuz coming to the U.S. is fascinating. I'm eager to see whether they would get access to the same "masters". I really have no idea. Like I said, I don't understand the economics.
As for DRM, my understanding is that in a literal sense, it means some specific barrier to distribution. But, while streaming has intrinsic barriers, there's nothing about the MQA format that limits distribution. MQA files could be Napsterized as easily as any. You'd just need an MQA DAC to decode the. And if it's true that access to better masters (and not intrinsic MQA sound quality) is the real value proposition, then the barriers to file sharing are essentially nonexistent. And that is probably why they haven't emphasized access to better masters. Just speculating.
jca
> > You'd just need an MQA DAC to decode them < <
Yes, to date the only DRM that MQA has applied is that one need to purchase new (licensed and royalty-paid) hardware to listen to a dumbed-down version of the original high-res file. (By dumbed-down, I mean that the resolution is reduced from 24 bits to 17, and the frequency response is limited to 48kHz, regardless of the original sampling frequency.) If you don't pay this entry fee, you only get to listen to something that is lower in quality than the Redbook CD (regardless of MQA's marketing claims to the contrary).
Right off the bat, that is the very definition of DRM - one can only access the "full" (dumbed-down high-res) content if the proper people are paid the proper amount of money.
But that is just for now. What is to keep MQA/Tidal from raising the cost in the future? Nothing. Think of all of the things that have been introduced at low or no cost that now cost much, much more. Here are a couple of examples:
1) Debit cards - when they first came out, there were no "transaction fees". The banks were *saving* money by replacing a live human being with a machine that didn't need an office, a salary, a parking spot, nor health and retirement benefits. But once everyone started to use them, they started adding transaction fees (that may be waived in specific circumstances). They also used to work around the world, and one could retrieve cash from a foreign ATM with no surcharge - much more convenient that either paying a percentage at the money exchange or purchasing traveler's checks that also were subject that percentages of currency conversions. But nowadays there is a currency exchange fee added to any foreign transaction.
2) Cable TV - when first introduced, the biggest channels were HBO and Showtime, allowing for people to watch recently-released movies in their home with no commercial interruptions. The cost was perhaps $20 to $30 per month. Now all one can rent are bundled packages filled with useless channels with no meaningful content - and most of these packages are more like $150 per month. And to add insult to injury, now one gets to pay for the "privilege" of being bombarded with advertisements. I hadn't watched any TV for decades until a long hospital stay. I was shocked to have to endure roughly 1/3 of all programming devoted to commercials - 90% coming from three industries - auto insurance, pre-packaged food and restaurants, and prescription medicines.
If you don't think that MQA has similar plans in mind, just read some of the patents they have either applied for or been granted. It is fairly apparent that their end game is to control the distribution of music in the same way that the distribution of movies is currently controlled.
To me this makes no sense, as the two media are consumed in vastly different ways. There are very few films that I want to see more than once, and only a handful that I want to see more than twice. For this reason, the rental model (whether in a theater or in my home) makes a lot of sense. Why would I want to buy something I will only use once or twice in my life? But I've listened to my favorite music many hundreds (if not thousands) of times. Why in the world would I want to rent something that I will use on a frequent (daily, weekly, or monthly) basis? It's just a waste of money. Even though I typically only drive my car a few times a week, it's orders of magnitude cheaper for me to buy it than to rent it (and far, far less expensive than if were to lease it).
I know a lot of music lovers that use Spotify (free or $10/month) to discover new music in a medium quality format. Then when they hear something they really like, they will either purchase it on CD ($2 or $3 used, $9 to $12 new) or on vinyl ($1 to $10 used, $20 to $30 new). In contrast Tidal Hi-Fi is $240 per year. If you listen to that, presumably you are happy with digital. $240 a year will purchase at least 1 used CD per week (50 per year). That is quite a bit of new music to absorb and digest. Once you own the music, they can't raise the rental rates, you can make copies on your hard-drive for ease of use with computer playback programs and any other devices you may own (plus back-up purposes) and you can play it as much as you want, with no fear that the rental company (streaming service) will go out of business.
To accuse MQA of misleading consumers just because their "Master" files coexist with CD files on Tidal seems to me off-base. Did they ever claim that they were using the same master as the CD-quality Tidal files? On the contrary.
MQA is quite open about the fact that they pursue the best quality masters, and that they're often different from the masters used in (eg) CD releases. I consider this a feature, not a bug--and perhaps the best thing about MQA overall, perhaps the most important contributor to improved sound quality--better masters. The emphasis on using the best possible masters was a point of emphasis in a recent interview I did with Stuart--which unfortunately hasn't been published yet (my fault).
I agree that MQA needs to do a better job establishing the value of their format, by being more forthcoming about the technology, releasing the results of any listening tests they may have done, and facilitating quality listening tests by others. I'm less skeptical of the technology than you and others, but I will admit--indeed assert--that the rationale given for the technology so far is far less than rigorous.
In other contexts, you and other important figures have been OK with this--what rigorous results were presented to demonstrate say, the audibility of pre-ringing and the audible advantages of minimum-phase filters?--another technology that could be claimed to be doing harm to the sanctified signal by delaying highs more than lows. The only listening tests I'm aware of that aimed for rigor were at best inconclusive. People were encouraged not to worry about it. "Just listen. Trust your ears."
Now MQA is doing much the same thing, urging people to "trust their ears."
Yes, there is an important difference, for DACs and CD players at least: They're messing with the source data; DACs and CD players weren't doing that. But similar things have been done on the ADC end, and the fact remains that there's a longstanding tradition in this field of not worrying much, publicly at least, about technical rigor. As a result of that, there's no rigorous foundation for very much of audio's conventional wisdom and key assumptions. So why start now?
I think MQA needs to do better. But their approach so far is very much in the established tradition of high-end audio--an approach that's often advocated by many of its most important figures.
Best Regards,
Jim Austin
MQA claims that "MQA delivers studio master quality using no more bandwidth than a CD quality file" and that "MQA authentically reproduces the sound of the studio master."Do you believe that?
Thanks,
Daniel
Edits: 10/10/17
Who is doing what I presume should really be called REmasters? Are they provided by labels/artists to MQA or is MQA making some arrangement whereby they are allowed to REmaster files themselves?
I'm apparently not understanding something and hope you can help educate me.
> > Who is doing what I presume should really be called REmasters? < <
I don't know what to call it. Stuart says that the ideal is UNmastered files--the files the artists would have signed off on in the recording studio. (Often that's not literally possible, but it can nevertheless be a philosophical objective.) Choices surely are made about levels, etc., so maybe it should be called a remaster. These are just words. The point is that they say they're seeking the most authentic document of the original performance--not to copy what's on CD.
I'm just going on what I was told. I can't confirm any of it, except via my observation, same as everyones, that "Master" files often sound very different.
Jim
The "the most authentic document of the original performance" is the final mix, which is obviously then mastered according to the wishes of the artist and/or producer/label. Apparently neither you nor anybody else that I'm aware of ascertained that Meridian/MQA somehow gained access to final mixes, or even more unlikely the unmixed tracks. Has Stuart actually claimed he received unmastered final mixes from artists/labels?To me this all sounds very fishy. Unless MQA is paying labels/artists for access to un-mastered final mixes I don't know how the hell they're coming up with different masters unless they're simply taking the commercially released master and doing further EQ'ing to it. Dunno what the motivation would be for a label/artist to provide those mixes unless there's money in it for them. In theory I guess if a label/artist was unsatisfied with the master they used for commercial release and thought MQA would do a better job at mastering the final mix a second time for a newly mastered 2nd release of the same music.....maybe, but has anybody at MQA or a label/artist said that has occurred?
Philosophical objective? Yeah, that and a Metrocard will get ya on the subway. Of course there may be some things I'm misunderstanding, and I'm trying to keep an open mind about MQA. But like I said, so far, fishy.
Edits: 10/07/17
... that MQA is working directly with all three major record companies, right? They've been working with several small independents, and they're starting work with larger independents.
I got a coupla questions for ya --
If MQA is in fact receiving and altering/mastering/EQ'ing unmastered final mixes received from three major record companies why haven't they and/or the labels simply stated that? If they have its news to me.
If I'm misunderstanding something please explain....If what MQA starts with is unmastered final mixes and they do something different from the original master that everybody else's files are from, do you consider that a valid comparison? I don't see how it wouldn't effectively be a different master.
I think MQA is missing a major opportunity by not emphasizing more the specific provenance of the masters. But Stuart has said more than once that they're seeking the best, most authentic masters they can find. It's not like they're keeping it a secret.
Do I consider it a valid comparison? What is your goal? If you want to evaluate the claimed technical superiority of MQA as an encoding format, visit the 2L workbench and compare MQA with DSD, MQA with DXD--whatever. Identical recordings, same masters, different distribution formats. Fair comparison.
Personally, I'm excited about being able to hear "raw"--my word--versions of albums I've known in other forms. I wish they'd tell us more about what the source was, but if there's a better version and it's being released for the first time, I'm happy.
I don't think MQA gets to pick and choose masters. The label decides what they want to release. MQA just supplies the encoder.
The MQA that's coming out of WMG for streaming on Tidal is almost definitely made from the same common master as their DVD-A and hi-res downloads. I've done some comparisons of my DVD-A rips and HDTracks downloads with captured Tidal streams and they sound more or less the same and their spectral content appears to be the same within the envelops that MQA leaves untouched. I believe Archimago and a few other audio geek bloggers have done the same and posted about the results.
This is a good post, making good points. I'm sure you're right that the record companies decide, or at least have an important say. For important recordings, there could be a conversation.
The first batch of WMG stuff that MQA encoded was, I was told, their "24-bit catalog"--stuff they had already transferred, often from magnetic tape, to 24-bit formats. My understanding was that these would the sources for MQA transfers, unless there was a reason not to use it.
I too have done some comparisons, both by listening and by recording analog output at high resolution and viewing the files and their FFTs. I've found many to be similar enough to assume they were sources from the same master file. I have found exceptions however. Unfortunately, I have access to only a pretty small number of high-res recordings for comparison. Another point is that I believe that many recordings are now available in MQA, especially via Tidal, that are not (yet?) available in DSD or high-res PCM. I could be wrong about this.
A final point: I've had a handful of short conversations with folks at one of the major high-res download services. This one has scruples and obviously cares about provenance--specifically, they want NOT to be selling upsampled CD-res files. These conversations--and subsequent observations by me--have made it clear that things are not always as they appear. One very well-regarded reissue of a classic recording, which, the company has said, was transferred directly from magnetic tape at 24/192, included an obvious (attenuated) mirror image above 22.05kHz. The company labeled this clearly on their website, refused to sell the 192 version--that version is on sale at the other major download site--and put the 96kHz version on sale. Props. Companies were provided to the company by a distributor at 96 and 192. In another case, a whole batch of important major-label classical albums, released at high resolution, included ambiguous wording in the technical information. When I asked about this, the download company's response was that they simply couldn't determine the provenance, and the distributor wasn't saying.
Still, it does seem as though many MQA releases are indeed available as 24/192. I can't afford to investigate how many.
Jim
In case you don't realize it I'm not anti something I haven't heard. But I admit I'm skeptical.
I checked some examples out at that site, but AFAIK the point is hearing MQA via a compatible dac, which I don't have. If I had to go by what I just heard its no big deal.
Dunno what "the best, most authentic masters they can find" means.
Dunno what you're calling "raw" either. IME raw means the unmixed individual tracks - and eq for individual tracks may be added or altered while mixing. Any changes in individual raw tracks from what was used in the original mix/master would by definition result in different sound, and obviously re-mixing would also result in a different sound. Any label could do that (assuming they still have the raw track files) if they thought it'd generate new sales of an old release via advertising a new and of course "better" mix/master......with or without MQA.
Anyway, I'll just have to reserve judgment until I hear the full monty. Thanks for hipping me to that site.
Dunno what "the best, most authentic masters they can find" means.
And the problem is that statement doesn't imply Bob Stuart is doing anything with them - if there is an album and there are four remasters of that album on the market - and lets say one clearly sucks but the other three are all quite good - then who is doing the listening to EVERY remaster of every album ever produced?
It is also quite possible than one album may have three tracks that sound better on one master and the other 7 tracks may sound better on the other master.
HDCD basically added some dB and everyone lost their mind that this was better.
2017 - buy a freaking turntable to get better sound. It's funny because it's true.
By who?This Stuart guy?
He must spend a LOT of time authenticating masters and have
immense talent and confidence in his abilities to discern which is best.
Such a position should not allow for a team of authenticators given
the preciousness of the goal.And what happens when he authenticates the best master for MQA
release only to receive a better master later on? Does he upgrade?They should name it DST: Damn Sisyphean Task.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination"-Michael McClure
Edits: 10/08/17
> > 2017 - buy a freaking turntable to get better sound. It's funny because it's true. < <
It can be true, but not necessarily. The main difference between mastering for vinyl versus digital *used to be* that there were physical limitations to the vinyl medium. Hence bass was almost always mixed to the center (mono) as it would track better on cheap turntables. Dynamics had to be compressed if the playing time per side exceeded 16 or 18 minutes. Groove spacing had to be manually adjusted when loud sections and soft sections alternated to avoid deformation of the soft lacquer that would result in pre-echo or post-echo. The list is nearly endless.
With early digital most of those restrictions went away, allowing for better, more dynamic mastering on digital media. But then a funny thing happened - digital audio in the car. The background noise levels in a car prevent large dynamic contrasts from being usable - quiet passages will be buried under the background noise.
Originally this was handled by radio stations, as that was the major music source for car audio. Now that digital audio can be easily played in cars and other noisy environments, it is almost mandatory for large amounts of dynamic range compression to be used for digital audio. In contrast, vinyl playback is only possible in the home, and usually by a focused listener. Not many people put on vinyl for background music in 2017.
In addition, not many cheap, crappy turntables are being used in 2017. So no when mastering for vinyl, the engineer can be fairly confident that even "entry-level" turntables will track large groove excursions far better than the average turntables of the '60s or '70s. He can also be fairly confident that the listener is planning to play the entire album side while sitting in front of the stereo, and not just as background music while working in the garage with power tools.
The solution is quite simple - just master all digital for the "best" dynamic range that is appropriate for that particular piece of music. Then on car stereos or other devices that may be used in noisy environments, simply add a "dynamic compression" button that the listener can engage when needed.
This is not a new idea. In the early '90s I bought a Miata convertible - noisy with the top up and extremely noisy with the top down. One popular after-market accessory was an inline box with a microphone that would measure the ambient noise and adjust the volume of the audio system to compensate. This is still done in more sophisticated car audio systems, but I don't know if the "feature" (bug?) is defeatable.
That is a great idea for car systems - it reminds me of those home receivers that had loudness buttons or other sound modes - usually I never used any of them - but for background in the garage simply having some sort of booster effects make sense.
If Charles is right in this case, the MQA process has no effect. The quality of the mastering does. Yet MQA is staking its reputation on the process.
I think it was a very fair comment by Charles.
The mastering process matters WAY more.
Many years ago now, Ken Ishiwata (or Marantz fame) sat me down for a demo of three discs with identical tracks -- CD, DVD-Audio, SACD (if I recall correctly). There were small differences between them, but you couldn't really tell which format was which -- or which one was noticeably better. He told me after that they all started with the original source files then optimized to sound best on the respective formats. Ishiwata was then (maybe still is) an SACD proponent -- but his point was the mastering process matters much more.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
In which case THAT master was re-mastered from the original master.
Does that then become the master or was the original master the master?
In which case what happens to the original master?
Is that no longer considered the master?
There can and should be only one master.
Any variation thereof should be considered a remaster, an alternate master or a masterV.____ (fillintheblank).
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Well, that I don't recall and we didn't talk that much about.
I don't know what he did on each disc type, but what I recall that he did tell me what the utmost care was taken to maximize sound quality of each.
Now, when you think about just 16/44.1 compared to 24/96 or 24/192, you're not going to have the exact same masters -- you're best not to truncate 24 bits to 16 bits, but to use dither or whatever. So they're not going to be the same disc format to disc format.
DS
I think there may be some confusion about the meaning of the word "master". Quite understandable because the use isn't consistent. In its purest form, the "master is the the output of the recording studio that gets sent to a mastering engineer. But other people use the word to refer to the output of the mastering studio--vinyl master or iTunes master or whatever.
We'd have to get a commercial recording/mastering engineer on board here, but I don't think it's as simple as that:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_recording
Doug
:-)
Q. Let's talk about the starting point for a remastering job. I think the term "master tape" often gets confused with the actual mastered tape. When remastering, do you create a new mastering instead of the old one, or do you work on top of it?
A "master tape" is the original mix approved for the production of the album, ready to be mastered. A "master take" would be the choice of the sometimes hundreds of mixes that were created and used for mastering the final album. An "EQ master" or "production master" would be the approved mastered files [or tapes] that were used for production.
Hi Jim,
Actually, no one, including you, is that clear on the usage. I agree that "master" gets thrown around like it's one thing, but it's used in the recording industry with a lot of qualifiers -- master tape isn't just master.
For the sake of MQA, I think it's safe to say that whatever you want to call the "master" used, that file should be identical for what was used to create the MQA file and the PCM counterpart it's compared to.
Doug
I've been pretty clear I think that "master" is used in different ways. In fact, in our conversation, Stuart corrected me on this point: I kept pressing for a narrow, specific definition of "master tape" and "master file"--those are the specific phrases I was asking about--and he kept resisting, insisting that usage varies widely. Nevertheless, it was clear enough which master HE was after. He wants to reproduce the output of the recording studio before it is mastered. I'm reminded of a quote from an interview on Tape-Op with Steve Hoffman. I looked it up so that I can provide the quote: "The thing is, it matters not a hill of beans if something is from the original master tapes if it's been destroyed in mastering. That's my soapbox for this year: Why bother to use the original master tapes if the final product sounds nothing like the original master tapes?"
If your goal is to figure out what MQA--the encoding scheme, codec, or whatever--is doing to the sound, then you need to make sure they're from the same masters. Obviously. Of course. At a minimum. Although that does not guarantee that there are not other differences. My point since the beginning of this conversation has been that MQA never claimed that its files were made from the same masters as CD-res Tidal equivalents, so it's silly to blame them for your (generic 'you', not you personally) misunderstanding.
There's only two possibilities -- the raw individual pre-mix tracks or the final mix. Please try to understand this simple concept -- what's given to a mastering engineer is THE FINAL MIX. Wanna call that a different name? It doesn't change what it is, which is THE FINAL MIX. Its not the MASTER that's used to create the records/cd's/files, which is the end result of the work the mastering engineer does. That's why they call them MASTERING engineers.What Hoffman seems to be talking about is the futility he feels when given a shitty MASTER to REmaster, as opposed to a FINAL MIX. Give him a shitty MASTER and he's basically reduced to polishing a turd. Give him a FINAL MIX that hasn't already been EQ'd to death and compressed and he can apply his talents and gadgets and hopefully end up satisfying his clients.
If MQA gets tapes/files that haven't been mixed and/or mastered then isn't it blatantly obvious that they wanna create a *new and different* mix and/or master? So any comparison between MQA's master and any other previous master would be by definition apples/oranges. Might as well have Grundman and Hoffman mix and/or master the same recording and compare them.
I don't get it, and it doesn't seem like you get it either.
Edits: 10/08/17 10/08/17
Which must make the actual rocket scientists confused.
EVERYTHING, every day - it's ALL rocket science.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Hi Jim,
Fair enough. But the POINT of this conversation is not whether people are using the term "master" correctly. I happen to like "source files," probably because of my computer background. That said, it's whether people are doing apples-to-apples comparisons -- and, for the most part, they're not.
Doug
> > But the POINT of this conversation is not whether people are using the term "master" correctly. < <
I'm truly not trying to be argumentative, so I'll write, "not that it matters," because it really doesn't matter. Anyway, it sounds like we were thinking of the conversation in different ways, emphasizing different points. To me, the central question was, "what files is MQA using as a source?" Not that it matters.
I think that's what Charles and I are concerned with, too.
Doug
Or sometimes the master is whatever someone has decided is the master.
"Sometimes the record label does not want to ship the original master tapes to me from their library and insist on sending me a flat digital transfer for me to master from. This removes my ability to choose which different tape electronics and head combinations sound best to my ears, which is a big problem for me. In addition, sometimes not every cut from an album is in proper azimuth, and the label often does not correct for this when making the transfer. An even worse situation is when the label loses the master tapes and only has the commercial CD for me to work from, in which case I have to master on top of what is there. If they over-compressed it originally, there is no way to undo that."
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
> > Or sometimes the master is whatever someone has decided is the master. < <
You're right. As I hope I made clear in the post that raised this issue--and as Ludwig certainly made plain--the word is used in many different ways.
Best Master On Hand (or At even).
With a date. Then that can suffice until the next BMAH surfaces.
Really, the concept is a joke and I'm with Rick about what "master" has
traditionally been.
'Course when us old guys pass, the younger folk can use whatever descriptor/definition
they want.
Oh, wait, they already do!
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
I have always thought of the master as the final mix in any format that is sent out to be duplicated. Anything earlier then that I call work parts
Alan
... to use the word, and to think of it, however you wish.
That's very kind of you
Alan
nt
> > You are free to use the word, and to think of it, however you wish. < <Stormy wrens tugboat running hurling moonbeams Mouse-ka-teer.
There, I've used any word and think of it however I wish. How does that further communications between people?
Without an agreed consensus on the definitions of words, how can there be any real communication? That is why dictionaries exist. That is exactly why MQA's deceptive "marketing" speak is so deceptive. When they use words outside of their conventionally accepted meanings, it allows (and perhaps demands) confusion. So we end up with marketing mumbo-jumbo implanting false ideas into people's heads, hiding the truth of the matter.
For example, instead of calling "aliasing" aliasing, MQA refers to aliasing as "upwards rendering". Pure marketing bullshit designed to mislead. Many, many more examples are found, not only in their public literature, but even in their "peer reviewed" journal publications. (One would think to the shame and embarrassment of the peer reviewers.)
Edits: 10/08/17
If MQA has never claimed that their files are made from the same masters as the CD-res files on Tidal--if in fact they've maintained the opposite--then how can MQA be blamed because a few people who weren't paying attention presumed that they WERE made from the same masters? Surely that's not MQA's fault.
Whether the the MQA process does anything audible is a separate question. Anyone who wants to compare directly can do so via the 2L site and compare against many different formats. To my ear, MQA's effect on sound is much smaller than the effect of using different masters, which sometimes is night and day.
> > To my ear, MQA's effect on sound is much smaller than the effect of using different masters, which sometimes is night and day. < <
That is exactly the point. The Absolute Sound and Stereophile have compared different masters of the recording and attributed the improvements to the MQA process.
In contrast, a "civilian" was able to determine that they came from different masters. Hence my question - why can't the (US print) magazines do the same?
Unfortunately the magazines see themselves as the Cheer Leaders for the industry rather than a source of information for the readers. I'll piss some people off but the writers buddy with the industry insiders and see them as their constituency rather than the people who read the magazines who they never have a beer with except, perhaps at a show. The readers get shortchanged and the writers march in lockstep. Meanwhile the industry sees things like MQA as a way for the industry to grow and pull in younger people.If you have an hour to waste you can watch the presentation on MQA from RMAF.
When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it. ~ Bernard Bailey
Edits: 10/11/17
MQA? Ayre?
Please don't lump Ayre with an organization designed to extract money from the entire playback chain via marketing mumbo-jumbo, deceptive "comparisons", and back-room deals with the labels to sneak in DRM.
I've been studying this. I'd bet I was among the first to recognize the importance of this fact; I've shared this insight with several important folks in the industry, and it seems like it was the first time they'd recognized its importance.
Still, it took me a while--until a few months ago--to recognize what was going on. I've been working on an analytical piece on MQA for months, but I've struggled to form any kind of coherent thesis.
That's it, in a nutshell.
... to your own question. And I triple-dog dare you to share it. :)
One magazine is paid to tell whatever stories their financial supporters (mostly advertisers) write, and the other magazine got suckered by fake demos and refuses to admit to ever making mistakes.
I'll second that! (nt)
If I download the HDTracks 24/192 and down-sample it (somehow?) to 16/44.1 and play it back on the same computer/DAC/Headphone amp I normally use for TIDAL, will it sound like TIDAL's 16/44.1 stream or the MQA stream (as unfolded by the TIDAL app)?
According to MQA, if you download the HD 192/24 track (from which the MQA files was apparently made) the MQA file will sound identical. Please try it and let us know if you agree with MQA's claims. There is no need to downsample the HDTracks file as it is apparently a "fake" high res file, with no content above 24kHz - except for aliasing allowed by leaky filters, either during the original upampling process or MQA's leaky filter used when playing single-rate material.
It's all quite confusing - and apparently deliberately so by design from MQA.
Hi,Not necessarily. Most of the differences you hear will not have anything to do with the resolution or file format -- instead, the masters used.
Doug Schneider
Edits: 10/07/17
In my example above, the same 24/192 'master' is used to encode the MQA file and down-sampled to 16/44.1 for my computer streaming pleasure!
Which is it?
Your statements conflict one another and make this tedious conundrum even more confusing.
Do you do government work per chance?
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Hi Charles,
I believe there are some magazines that have been talking about differing masters for a couple of years now... ;-)
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
Yes, many apologies, I should have included the qulifiers "US print" before magazines.
For those who have not kept up with SoundStage, Doug Schneider has just written his 3rd excellent editorial questioning MQA'a claims. Please see the link below:
nt
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: