 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.88.48.40
I know there is a lot of backlash toward MQA. From what I understand, many record labels are inve$ted in MQA themselves (please correct if I am wrong). So, what if those major labels decided to stop distributing NON MQA hi rez files and only release hi rez MQA versions?
Something to think about
Dale Clark
www.arcpictures.com
Follow Ups:
Well, on some level this is no longer an academic question. Tidal has MQA version of 1) Traveling Wilburys vol1 and 2) MQA version of a 2016 remaster of TW vol1. They only have the original Vol 1 version in non MQA 16/44. So they offer an album in MQA that they do not offer in lossless 16/44.
... the more I think about MQA, the more I'm convinced it's just Stuart's revenge on what happened with MLP.
Edits: 01/21/18
nt
.
...are the companies that were initially on the fence about MQA (like PS Audio) who have now jumped onboard. What have they learned that made them change their mind?
PS Audio was on my short list of DACs to purchase, but I am now having second thoughts. I did try to call PS Audio a few times but was unable to reach anyone.
After discovering the PS Audio forums, I found one titled "MQA Controversy"(41 pages). You may find it interesting.
I got a laugh when I read this post by Paul McGowan dated July 25, 2017:
"I don't have a lot to add to this excellent post, but I do know that when playing MQA files on our DACs there are two states: one is just MQA and the other is MQA with a "." after it. The former is just displaying a straight unfold, the latter supposedly shows the MQA encoding process was end to end, meaning what Jeff refers to as being signed off on.
I don't have much more to offer about how that happens. It's confusing. End to end MQA encoding may just mean they knew what A/D was used and were able to compensate for it all the way through to the DAC. As for artists signing off on it, I can't imagine that literally being true since some of the tracks this is supposedly happening to are from either dead artists or super old guys that wouldn't know one thing from another."
I'm pretty sure I've seen that quote from Paul McGowan before. That's why I was wondering what happened.
Maybe if I just sit back and wait the perfect DAC will find me. I'm getting very tired of the MQA controversy.
Seems that it's mostly laid out there in posts from him re: the Bridge III module currently in development. Best I can tell, Paul hasn't changed his mind about MQA & it's not processed via circuitry in PS Audio DACs but in the Bridge II module supplied by a 3rd party vendor. He didn't send his DACs to MQA for 'certification'. The Bridge II is a plug-in module w/ethernet input where MQA de-coding occurs. When Bridge III arrives, along w/Octave music management software being developed by PS Audio, they will have a proprietary, in-house streaming solution.
I was ready to pull the trigger on a Direct Stream Jr. DAC, but with a lifetime Roon subscription I'm not sure that's how I'll go now...I'd like to see them keep Roon as an option. I'll probably get the DSJ on trial to compare Roon & MQA via the Bridge II and USB inputs to see how they stack up and go from there.
No, I have not checked the PS Audio forum, but apparently should have. Thanks.
If you get a chance to compare Roon vs MQA, I'd love to know your listening impressions.
Hi,
If I were buying a DAC today, MQA compatibility would be low on the list. Ability to play PCM and DSD is far more important to me.
Doug
SoundStage!
certainly YOU should be able to!
That said, I have not been able to squeeze any comments regards MQA from the two audio company heads I have had the pleasure of meeting recently.
Those being Paul McGowan of PSAudio and Richard Schram of ParaSound who flat out admitted that he wouldn't take questions regarding MQA for fear that he would be quoted on the internet!
That would include HERE.
So this 'fear' running through the industry along with the editors of the 'leading' audio magazines having their pictures taken riding on the MQA bandwagon for no reason obvious to those who have 'heard?' the demo's sure doesn't smell good.
This, in the face of rumors that the record labels are jumping in after being told that it's the DRM they have been dreaming of when applied to Hi Rez downloads.
Food for thought:The fact that you cannot get ANY comments regarding MQA is very telling.
No negative comments can easily be explained by an NDA(non disclosure agreement).
NO POSITIVE COMMENTS or no comment period, well that's more telling.
Like I said, food for thought.
"So this 'fear' running through the industry along with the editors of the 'leading' audio magazines having their pictures taken riding on the MQA bandwagon for no reason obvious to those who have 'heard?' the demo's sure doesn't smell good."
This thought once crossed my mind: did the editor's sign an NDA? That would explain a lot. LOL! :)
Edits: 01/20/18
> This thought once crossed my mind: did the editor's sign an NDA?
No.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Your answer may explain even more.
If not you should have been :-)
I'm hoping I can make the show.
Sue
Thank you.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
John,
do you have any idea when Pro-Ject may be sending you a review unit of their new low priced S2 mqa dac? I have one and think its a fantastic sounding DAC for all formats (mqa, pcm, dsd). I even used mine a a pre-amp while my Rogue RP-5 was getting repaired and it did a great job as a pre (digital inputs only--no analog).
I'll be curious how the DAC stands up to pricier options.
Dale Clark
www.arcpictures.com
> do you have any idea when Pro-Ject may be sending you a review unit of
> their new low priced S2 mqa dac?
Jon Iverson has requested a review sample.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Fantastic. Hope he gets one soon.
Dale Clark
www.arcpictures.com
I tried twice to call Paul and phone just rang and rang and rang. I was hoping an answering machine would pick up so I could leave a message but there was nothing.
Based on what we now know about MQA, I would think their direct stream DAC would sound better than MQA.
But if all of the 'audiophile' press, whoever they might be, begin to include negative statements in their reviews such as "but it doesn't support MQA", what's a manufacturer to do?
After seeing the editors of the major audiophile magazines partying on the MQA bandwagon, I don't think it takes much imagination to see how easy it might be for MQA to put pressure on the manufactures to fall in line and join the MQA parade.
Stereophile's review of Ayre Acoustics QX-5 Twenty D/A processor:
Cons: "doesn't offer MQA"
Pros: "Class A+ with a bullet"
Stereophile's review of the Bryston BDA-3 D/A processor:
Cons: "frustrating not to be able to play MQA files
Pros: "the most versatile and best-sounding DAC I've heard in my listening room, Class A+"
Perhaps, in time, they'll discover other cons.
WONDERFULL sounding DACs, but in a nod to his good friend Bob Stuart, no MQA so they get the 'CON'.
Really sad.
Perhaps, in time, they'll discover that MQA is a "con".
"Perhaps, in time, they'll discover that MQA is a 'con'."
According to the late Charles Hansen and other highly respected industry types MQA is the Big Con. ~;)
"There is no MQA decoding [in the Ayre Acoustics QX-5 Twenty D/A processor] as Ayre is still evaluating the codec."
... the exact same OEM streaming board as PS Audio's DirectStream DAC - from ConversDigital
"Convinces Hardened Showgoers" LOL!
In that case, you have the golden opportunity to enjoy 44.1/16 CD's and files using a NOS Dac. There already seems to be a small "cross-over" wave building in that direction.
Edits: 01/16/18
.
Hello,I don't care if MQA sticks around or not. The real issue is what you pointed out -- that it takes the place of real high-res. This is a real danger that audiophiles should be aware of and speaking out against. Why? Here is what we know right now:
-- Despite the ravings of a some reviewers (mainly print-based writers), there haven't been valid listening tests done to-date. Nobody knows really what this really sounds like. In my opinion, a number of writers jumped the gun years ago without due diligence and spread a lot of bad information.
-- Early on, MQA was called "lossless," but, like the bullshit listening tests that were done, we learned that it's not lossless at all -- it's a lossy codec.
-- The fact that it is lossy is a way to "protect" material -- once transcoded, you can't get the original back. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
If MQA becomes just another file format, so be it. But what audiophiles should be vehemently against is MQA becoming THE ONLY format.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
Edits: 01/15/18 01/15/18 01/15/18
"But what audiophiles should be vehemently against is MQA becoming THE ONLY format."
I believe that was one of Charles Hansen's chief concerns.
"But what audiophiles should be vehemently against is MQA becoming THE ONLY format."
This is really the ONLY concern in some ways. I have no problem with MQA if it exists alongside open access to lossless 16/44 and higher. But that rosey scenario does not seem even remotely possible. MQA is designed to replace lossless formats and as a completely proprietary, lossy system it has to be considered DRM IMHO.
Hi,
That was one of his biggest concerns. I know because I talked on the phone often to Charlie about it. He was utterly disgusted with the way the print magazines were carrying on about it without doing their research.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
are there any other manufacturers to step in where Charles left off? Most manufacturers play along because it's easier not to rock the boat and give the consumer what they want whether it is good or not.
The conventional wisdom has it that Meridian colluded with the print mags to thrust MQA onto an unsuspecting public. What little power the mags still had to influence consumers was obliterated when would-be buyers scoffed. Consumers' nonparticipation might be characterized as their "up yours" vote to refrain from repurchasing all their music (yet again) in a new format whose claimed sonic benefits are dubious at best.
Hi,
I have no idea what the various writers'/publications' motivations were, but what seems very obvious to me is that writing about this technology 2-3 years in the way some did -- praising its virtues over anything else out there before -- was naive and, in my opinion, very misleading for readers.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
Pimping new products (whether they're any good or not) is what these glossy print rags have to do in order to please advertisers so they can stay afloat, no matter what lofty goals the apologists claim.
Cheers,
SB
Hi,
New products are what the magazines are generally about -- ours, too -- but the way in which this music format was handled by several was beyond belief as much then as it still is now. One positive thing to come of with this is that their credibility is likely shot with many -- so they'll likely be able to pull the same stunt again, as least soon.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
> One positive thing to come of with this is that their credibility is likely
> shot...Hahahaha....what are you trying to do, Doug? Have us all die laughing!?!
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 01/17/18
Hi John,Laugh all you want -- but remember the saying about those who get the last laugh. I'm also not sure on this forum at least how much support you'll get. Perhaps I'm wrong...
Instead, what I recommend you do is go through my posts and point out where you think I've made an error. Remember, it's well acknowledged now that there have been no valid listen tests done (Bruno Putzeys so wonderfully pointed that out on Facebook a couple of months ago), and it's only this year that McGill will supposedly be doing some (perhaps they are underway, don't know, but certainly not finished). Yet the a portion of the audio press was convinced 2 maybe 3 years ago? Kind of hard to explain that...
Doug
SoundStage!
Edits: 01/17/18 01/17/18
> Laugh all you want -- but remember the saying about those who get the last
> laugh.
Of course, but as you are the publisher of a venture that competes with
those you criticize, I respectfully suggest that your judgments are colored
by some expectation bias, Doug, or perhaps even by wishful thinking. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Actually John, no. Over the years you've liked to bring up the word "competition" on various topics. Somehow that skews your perspective on things. Maybe that's your angle when you approach certain topics, not mine.This is something I simply feel strongly about and where I believe certain writers didn't do their due diligence insofar as checking out what this supposed "technology" is about before getting behind it and endorsing it. I'm not the only one who has brought this up -- Charlie Hansen was, by far, the most vocal about this issue on this forum, but many, many others are, too.
As I mentioned, go through my posts and tell me where I'm in error.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
Edits: 01/18/18 01/18/18
> Over the years you've liked to bring up the word "competition" on various
> topics. Somehow that skews your perspective on things. Maybe that's your
> angle when you approach certain topics, not mine.All I am saying, Doug, is that when you disparage other webzines and
magazines with which you are in competition for both mindshare among
readers and advertising dollars, you are not a disinterested party.
Those who read such postings of yours should keep that in mind.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 01/19/18
Philip K. Dickian/Orwellian.
And VERY scary!
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
What's next, calling Doug a purveyor of "fake news"?
Did JA write anything in this post that isn't perfectly obvious? Is the fact that Schneider is the editor of a publication in the same sector disputable? Surely you can see that there's a clear distinction between stating an obvious fact and claiming "fake news". Here's hoping.
What is it about MQA that makes people irrational?
Maybe you should send Rod an email asking him to explain what my actual position on AA is, since the several times I've done exactly that on this forum obviously hasn't been enough for you to get it. I will happily resign my exalted (B) status any time I'm told it makes me a second class inmate and precludes posting my personal views on this and/or other AA forums -- just as YOU are allowed to do.
Rather than actually addressing the CONTENT of Doug's points, JA chose to imply that Doug is motivated by competition with S'phile. Apparently he thinks we should all blow off Doug's criticism of those who prematurely jumped on the MQA band wagon and chalk it up to competition among hifi editors.
n
aa
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
> > > Apparently he thinks we should all blow off Doug's criticism of those who prematurely jumped on the MQA band wagon and chalk it up to competition among hifi editors.
IMO, Doug Schneider's op-eds on MQA have been the most reasoned and measured among any in the print or on-lines 'zines. What I got from his articles is that MQA has inadequately examined for technical merits, economic pitfalls (eg, increased costs to artists and consumers), and, especially, proper sonic comparisons.
> Rather than actually addressing the CONTENT of Doug's points, JA chose to
> imply that Doug is motivated by competition with S'phile.
With all due respect, you don't appear to have understood what I wrote.
Look, I know you disagree with me about MQA and agree with Doug. But
that is not the point. The fact remains that Doug is not an disinterested party
when he publicly criticizes other publications, whether it be about their
opinions on MQA, as in this instance, or about other issues, which he has
done in the past.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
To be fair you have made many comments about webzines in attempt to make Stereophile look superior. Chinese walls, written codes of ethics, reviewers at webzines hoping to get discounts etc. I don't really have a problem with that but it is the same thing that you are accusing Doug of doing in that he has a dog in the hunt.
And looking from the outside - Doug appears to be looking out for his readers while Stereophile is looking out for the manufacturers - MQA DACs will be sent to Stereophile and NOT to Soundstage - SO Doug being against MQA may hurt his numbers of readership. And his few words on Critics asylum affects what the few dozen people who read it?
Hi John,
Please quit trying to deflect again. You supposedly think because I operate a magazine that my point isn't valid. Come on. I'm actually giving you explicit permission to criticize me -- once again, look at my posts in this thread and tell me where I'm wrong. I can take admitting a mistake if I made it. We all know that McGill is only now starting the only valid MQA listening tests to have ever taken place. I
think we can agree on that (and we don't know the outcome). But please look at this thread and feel free to tell me what I said that's in error. That's really the point, not who owns what magazine.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
> Please quit trying to deflect again.
If you are truly interested in my thoughts on MQA, Doug, everything I have
written on the subject is posted on the Stereophile website.
> You supposedly think because I operate a magazine that my point isn't
> valid.
I haven't expressed anything about the validity of your points. As I have said,
readers should consider your criticisms of me and of others in light of your
position as publishing a competitive venture. Just as they should elsewhere
in this thread, where you offer the opinion that print magazines are having a
hard time. With respect, your opinion on that subject as it applies to audio
magazines rather than general-interest magazines is based not on reality but
on self interest.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> my thoughts on print magazine are hardly just my own. You'd have to have
> your head completely in the sand to not see what's been happening over the
> last 23 years insofar as worldwide information distribution goes and how
> that's affected print, so I can't imagine you're serious.
Of course I am serious, Doug. Perhaps you are not as knowledgeable about
publishing as you believe. 10 years ago, I gave a presentation to our
company's senior management outlining the strategy for how a print magazine
can survive, even thrive, in an Internet-dominated world. (As much as I
loathe the man, Rupert Murdoch a few years later outlined the identical
strategy in an interview.) Stereophile follows what I outlined in that
presentation; its continuing success - mindshare, circulation, revenue -
illustrates the success of that strategy.
As I wrote Doug, so much of what you say in public is self-serving. You
also seem to believe that our ventures are in a zero-sum game, that what
benefits us will detract from you and vice versa. This is incorrect.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Hi,I guess you are...
While you call my ideas "self serving," I'll refer to yours as wishful thinking. But they're also self serving in the same way you imply as you're trying to put on that brave face in a tough publishing climate.
One of my business friends worked for one of the large magazine printers in Canada until several years ago when the business had become so dismal he knew that the writing was on the wall and found a new career. The future, from his point of view, was simply specialty runs, which he wouldn't see enough income from. "Oh, geez, the print magazines are dead, it's just a matter of time until more go," he told me over lunch. He knew because these were his clients -- and they were some of the largest up here (and, yes, many have gone since).
The other day I was talking to a very large non-audio publisher in the United Kingdom (important so you don't think it's one of the UK hi-fi magazines), who echoed the exact same thoughts -- their specialty runs sell in limited quantities, actual books and their magazines keep going down, down, down.
Before he died, another acquaintance of mine who made tens of millions off his magazine empire in the 80s and 90s, saw it lose and lose and lose money from about 2000 on and, shortly after his death, they tried to keep it running, but it was such a money hole the remaining family closed up within months -- buried in debt and not wishing to go further.
Someone just has to look at the demise of some of the most famous titles to know that while you might've made a presentation, presentations don't reflect reality. I read recently that print Playboy will likely close up -- they said the magazine hasn't made money in more than a decade. Rolling Stone barely reaches 60 pages these days. GQ, Details, those magazines, are basically pamphlets on the newsstands. Sad, but true.
When I started in audio, we had three print magazines in Canada and there must've been at least five in the US. What is there now? You and The Absolute Sound. Kids don't read the magazines anymore, and you can hardly find them in the airports (the magazines, I mean, the kids are there). At our Chapters bookstore, they keep taking magazine shelves out -- half of what was there just two years ago. Go find a magazine to buy? Magazine shops don't exist like they used to. If the print-magazine business is booming, why are they gone?
I have no doubt that there are ways to keep a print magazine afloat, but, as I said, show me one that's shown growth over the last 15 years. If you went and tried to pitch a print mag to an investor today, they'd laugh you out of the room.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
Edits: 01/20/18 01/20/18
> While you call my ideas "self serving," I'll refer to yours as wishful
> thinking. But they're also self serving in the same way you imply as
> you're trying to put on that brave face in a tough publishing climate.
My apologies Doug. I just hadn't realized that you know so much more,
both about the print magazine publishing business and about the specifics
of Stereophile's business than I do. I take my hat off to your psychic
powers :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Pickin' and choosin' what's convenient to respond to, especially when faced with the obvious and the answers don't suit you.Have a good day John.
Doug
SoundStage!
Edits: 01/20/18 01/20/18 01/20/18 01/20/18
..is to be more like the online publications :)
I wish TAS would have more content online like Stereophile, especially from the old days.
Interesting. What does being more like an online publication entail?
Doug
SoundStage!
"Interesting. What does being more like an online publication entail?"
A print magazine will never be able to fulfill the need for instant gratification like an online publication. Why do you think both TAS and Stereophile have so much content online now?
Recently, there was an inmate on Critic's corner who inquired if Stereophile would be reviewing the new Kef LS-50W wireless speakers. I believe JA responded that they had requested a review sample. No offense, but who wants to wait 2 months?
I did a search and found a number of online publications had already done reviews. Plus I found a very informative video that answer all my remaining questions. I then found the LS-50W for sale on Amazon and nearly purchased them the same day.
The only thing that stopped me was the $2200 price tag. Money doesn't come so easy these days, so I decided to wait. Considering I am still lusting to see those speakers on my computer desk. I will most likely buy them in the near future and put off buying a DAC for awhile
I did see that Soundstage has a review of the original LS-50, but not the new ones. Need any help over there Doug? :-)
Hi,Interesting points you make. I have had thoughts on how print magazines needed to restructure themselves starting 20+ years ago. Only a handful ever did -- and not in the hi-fi industry. In a nutshell, there are certain advantages the print medium *can* have, which is what must be leveraged.
As far as the LS50W goes, I think we were one of the first, if not the first, North American pub with a review sample. It was written about by Hans Wetzel for our "SoundStage! Access" site last October. It was also one of the Products of the Year for 2017. I've put a link.
Doug
SoundStage!
Edits: 01/23/18
On October 1, 2017 SoundStage! published their review of the KEF LS50W and afaik the 2 big U.S. print mags have yet to publish reviews. Looks like SoundStage! has leveraged it's nimbleness as a web-based online mag as an advantage over the print mags. (On a related topic, I often wonder how and why a mag decides what and when to review in regards to new audio equipment)
As far as a certain advantage of print media, as creatures of tradition and habit, it's nice to relax in your favorite comfy chair in front of the fireplace and read a magazine. I guess one could "virtually" accomplish this by reading your tablet with the sounds of a "virtual fireplace" app playing in the background. :)
Hi,
I guess that's one of the advantages of print -- but that's quickly overcome by tablets and laptops with good touchscreens.
I think there are still other things that can be leveraged -- or done differently.
Doug
SoundStage!
I love Soundstage. The review of the Benchmark amp from a couple years ago is what got me interested in purchasing one. I hope to purchase in the next couple of month.
Dale Clark
www.arcpictures.com
Hi John,I see that you'll partake in a public forum, but you'll pick and choose what's best for you to answer. We'll leave it like that.
Regarding my thoughts on publishing, that's not a subject for this forum, so for the most part I'll leave it alone -- but will say that my thoughts on print magazine are hardly just my own. You'd have to have your head completely in the sand to not see what's been happening over the last 23 years insofar as worldwide information distribution goes and how that's affected print, so I can't imagine you're serious. Someone just has to ask him- or herself this: "Are there any print publications in the world that have had growth over the last 15 years -- or are projected to have growth in the next 15?"
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
Edits: 01/20/18
> > Rather than actually addressing the CONTENT of Doug's points, JA chose to imply that Doug is motivated by competition with S'phile. Apparently he thinks we should all blow off Doug's criticism of those who prematurely jumped on the MQA band wagon and chalk it up to competition among hifi editors. < <
Imagine the audacity of refusing to answer the substance of a post and changing the subject. ;-)
Seriously--I cannot (am not, and would not dream of) speak(ing) for JA, I think it's also clear from what he wrote that JA isn't interested in getting into a substantive debate--but hopes to make sure that intelligent people realize Doug has a horse in the race, too. Seems obvious to me.
It's not that Bored members shouldn't have, or express, opinions. It's that they ought to be measured and thoughtful.
I think that's clear too, but I also think that's unfortunate. The Victorian era economist Alfred Marshall distinguished between "honourable war between modern civilized peoples" and "fierce guerilla war among wild peoples"; surely critics corner can aspire to the former.It also seems to me that JA is being a tad defensive about some of the things that Stereophile has written about MQA, which I think most readers would characterize as promoting and evangelizing MQA, as opposed to covering it. I think that's one of the reasons JA is reticent about answering questions, the other reason, of course, being the phrasing with which a portion of those questions are being asked.
That's just what I think, of course.
Daniel
Edits: 01/19/18 01/19/18
> > I think that's clear too, but I also think that's unfortunate. The Victorian era economist Alfred Marshall distinguished between "honourable war between modern civilized peoples" and "fierce guerilla war among wild peoples"; surely critics corner can aspire to the former. < <
... but surely you would agree that any "war" that takes place here or on any other social medium would--even if Doug and JA were perfect gentlemen--devolve into the latter instead of the former (comment being permitted from all manner of anonymous and pseudonymous folks, who therefore have no real reputations at stake). If such a thing were ever to occur--and I see no reason why it should--I can think of much better venues.
Jim
I'm happy to have a profession that does not require my every shortcoming, perceived or real, to be analyzed and debated on a public forum.Be well,
Daniel
Edits: 01/19/18
.
Hi Jim,
Doug "has a horse in the race." Ok, I admit to owning a magazine. I guess there's my horse. I'm Ok with everyone knowing that -- it's in my signature almost all the time.
Now to the point. Regarding all the past backing of MQA sound quality and certain critics' support, starting almost 3 years ago. Wasn't that all a little premature with what we now know?
Doug
SoundStage!
... and choose not engage in debate on the merits of MQA on an online discussion forum with the editor of a competing publication. My views are apparent, or will become apparent, in the articles I'm writing about MQA.
Best,
Jim
Hi Jim,
This idea of "competing" is rather foolish to me. Back in 2000-2003, say, competition among certain publications was fierce. Ad rates were sky high then, causing manufacturers to pick and choose because they only had so much money to spread around.
Today, there are hardly any print magazines left, but many more webzines. However, ad rates are much lower than they were 15 or so years ago and these days I *NEVER* hear a manufacturer say, "if we deal with you, we won't deal with them," or vice versa. I haven't heard that in years.
Truth be told, the biggest competitor to print and online magazines right now is social media -- people's interests have shifted there, as have budgets. In that vein, I have actually heard companies say that they will advertise there (i.e., social media), but not elsewhere.
So I guess I don't view this like you guys do. I'm an online guy (have been since 1995, when it all started taking off), so my view might be different.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
You referring to magazine editors and writers?
I wonder if one reason Charles Hansen was passionate about the topic is because MQA's filter is not appreciably different than his "listen" filter. But I don't know that he dreamed of making everybody have to use it, enriching himself with royalties and licensing fees.
Wasn't MQA originally sold as a way to stream near-high resolution files? Then, after bandwidth became not much of an issue it became a matter of "better sounding". Outside of TAS and Stereophile, the reports I've read are mixed, at best. Most unwashed masses report results as 1) no difference; 2) better on some tracks, worse on others; or 3) worse on all tracks. I've read only 2-3 reports that were aligned with RH and JA's impressions.
And we're supposed to buy news DACs for this? At elevated prices to give MQA their cut?
I'm guessing I'll be disappointed if I expect your MQA series will address the points raised in Linn Audio's take.
> > I'm guessing I'll be disappointed if I expect your MQA series will address the points raised in Linn Audio's take. < <I've already written about many of those issues; I think that article is due to be published in the March issue.
I'm not convinced that things are better off today (post-Napster) than they were when, circa 1999, the major labels were making record profits from CDs and the shit was about to hit the fan. There is however merit in many criticisms of MQA, and while some of their points are disputable (even outright wrong), they (Linn) have tapped in to some of the key issues.
I think what annoys me most about the MQA debate is the way so many MQA critics ignore the real issues and simply make shit up.
Stay tuned. Keep reading.
Edits: 01/19/18 01/19/18
... Like JA casually slipping in the fake news that MQA files sound "the same as" CDs when played back undecoded (in Feb's "As We See It")?
The only serious objections I've seen to JA's statement are from musicians who insist their stuff sounds better, unencoded, in MQA than on CD.
... that Tony Faulkner picked on the exact same statement I raised about JA's Feb "AWSI" piece.
Karma's a b*tch yes, Jim? :)
meantime, not losing sleep.
jca
...- for someone who can claims to be able to hear _minute_ immeasurable differences (for example, with the Audioquest Jitterbug) to now suddenly NOT be able to hear difference between a Redbook track and it's undecoded MQA counterpart with it's obviously higher noise-floor.
IMHO, there's not much point in debating which sounds better because we know even if they're from the same master, the process by which a Redbook disc was created versus an MQA equivalent of the same album, is quite different. But the differences are obviously both measurable and audible.
I guess we should count ourselves lucky that JA had the presence of mind not parrot Stuart's claim that an undecoded MQA version sounds "better"!! But Stereophile's unobjective bias shines right through I'm afraid.
lossy hi-rez sounds better than redbook!
WTF, Mr. Austin?
.
Who are the "musicians who insist their stuff sounds better, unencoded, in MQA than on CD"?
authorized to reveal that--although it may come out at some point.
Or just above your pay grade?
And why would you "take this one", when you obviously can't?
You certainly aren't doing anyone on your side of the conundrum any favors.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
No, no DNA, but I'd be violating a confidence. I'm sure you'll disbelieve anything that doesn't support your position, but in contrast to a lot of folks, I don't just make stuff up.
jca
one of bemusement, so disbelief doesn't much play into it.
I have absolutely NO INTEREST in MQA as a technology, but most of what I've read about it (not here)
sounds like a bunch of money grubbing BS.
As a music listener/lover it has nothing to offer me.
Any interest in MQA is what I read here, and it really doesn't bode well for the pro MQA folk.
Not at all.
You aren't helping.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
What is it that I should be doing, in your opinion, with respect to MQA, that I'm not doing? Helping it? Harming it?
aa
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
nt
Austin I would have thought the big brain would have directed filing that directly under "Though It - STFU", but whatever the reason for the slippage ... Thanks so much for the good laugh!
"..what annoys me most about the MQA debate is the way so many MQA critics...simply make shit up."
Then I hope that you address the "shit" so many MQA critics make up with your refutations in your series on MQA.
It's a bad idea :-)
You wrote:
> > It's a bad idea. < <
That's a clear statement of a valid opinion. As it reflects personal values and a specific reading of the facts, there's nothing irrational about it.
That is not what I'm talking about.
What would you suggest?
long before there was any rigorous examination of MQA's claims may be viewed as lacking credibility?
Hi,
And that's always been my point. Almost 2 years ago, when I looked at what was being considering listening sessions, I started going, "hold on..." And that's what I started writing about -- and still do. That's why when this came onto Facebook from Bruno Putzeys, last October, I was so relieved because someone with that much credibility was confirming was I was thinking all along -- from Bruno's post:
"Bob Stuart replied that all listening tests so far were working experiences with engineers in their studios but that no scientific listening tests have been done so far. That doesn't surprise any of us cynics but it is an astonishing admission from the man himself. Mhm, I can just see the headlines. 'No Scientific Tests Were Done, Says MQA Founder'."
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
You said you didn't like how JA responded to that statement. So my question is, how do you think he should have responded?tit for tat?: "You're talking about my credibility, what about your credibility, some of the equipment reviews on your site read like promotional pieces to me."
Or perhaps, "You're talking about some MQA questions in two opinion pieces on soundstage, why aren't you using the resources of soundstage to arrive at MQA answers instead?"
Or possibly, "You say in your opinion piece on soundstage that you 'trust John's hearing and believe him to be honest', so how is it that my credibility is suddenly shot?"
It's hard to respond to a statement like that, without coming across as defensive.
Thanks,
Daniel
Edits: 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18
I wouldn't say that JA's credibility is "shot" but it has taken a hit in my book. I have yet to read any explanation whatsoever for why he sent his raw mic tracks and impulse response to MQA. Don't they simply need his final master to produce an MQA version? And did he not give them everything needed to remaster and remix? At best, JA's MQA/PCM comparison of those tracks is not credible whatsoever, IMO, because we have no idea what files JA listened to. Does he?
I don't have an MQA DAC but MQA via Tidal sounds notably worse to me than PCM via JRMC.
As others have written (maybe yourself), no big deal if MQA becomes a niche format. But big problem if it becomes THE format. Meanwhile, we all have to pay more for a new DAC as manufacturers are forced to pay MQA licensing fees whether the customer wants this feature or not.
> I wouldn't say that JA's credibility is "shot" but it has taken a hit
> in my book.
Oh no, say it isn't so!
> At best, JA's MQA/PCM comparison of those tracks is not credible
> whatsoever, IMO, because we have no idea what files JA listened to.
> Does he?
Yup.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
the story behind sending your raw files and impulse response to MQA? Why did they need more than your master? And why are you confident your comparison was against an MQA version of your master?
MQA has repeatedly said that they need to know the "signature" of the ADC used. I remember, for example, the story about the 2L Nielsen album, which they were able to fix because Morten Lindberg (2L's multiple-Grammy-nominated audio engineer) had the digital recorder in the cupboard; they pulled it out and extracted its signature via a test file. With that information, they were able to reverse that ADC's signature. I don't recall what converter JA used (was it the Ayre), but apparently MQA didn't have it in their database yet--not surprising, since, although it's apparently an excellent piece, it's quite recent and not in wide use in professional studios.
I'm here just to answer this question--to spoon-feed you information you could easily have found elsewhere if you had been willing to expend a little energy (don't get used to it). I will not be engaging in petty debates.
"to spoon-feed you information you could easily have found elsewhere"
"if you had been willing to expend a little energy"
"(don't get used to it)"
If it is not apparent to you, your condescension is unnecessary and insulting.
The topic of JA sending his raw files and impulse response to MQA has been brought up here several, if not many, times with, as far as I know, no comment forthcoming from JA. At this time, apparently, this situation has not changed as there is still a non-reponse from JA. Perhaps he thinks, as you appear to from your condescension, that it is beneath him to provide an answer or that the answer is obvious. But, not so fast, as the answer is not so obvious or simple as your theory suggests.
From JA's "Listening to MQA" article on Stereophile.com (link below):
In the text of the article JA wrote:
"I had sent MQA's Bob Stuart the 24/88.2 masters of some of my recordings, for him to produce MQA versions."
In the comments section, Archimago asked:
"Also, can you give us some insight into what is accounted for by the MQA process? For example, when you submitted the hi-res file, what other info about the recording process did the MQA encoder need to perform the DSP magic for time alignment?"
JA responded:
"...to answer your question: As I used 3 pairs of microphones and 2 types of A/D converter to produce the mixdown - see the photos - as well as the mixdown I sent Bob Stuart each of the 3 mike-pair recordings, including an impulse response recording for each, and full details of the mix."
Then, part of Archimago's response:
"Thank you also for the response on what was provided for the MQA encoding of your track. Good to know the kind of complex audio data provided to them. I do wonder though how many studios would be able to provide this level of detail for the encoding process especially for modern multitracked recordings! It would be truly "magic" if MQA can significantly "de-blur" music created without the meticulous information and actual track recordings."
Things to point out:
"the 24/88.2 masters of some of my recordings, for him to produce MQA versions"(per article text) ≠ "as well as the mixdown I sent Bob Stuart each of the 3 mike-pair recordings, including an impulse response recording for each, and full details of the mix"(per comments section).
Besides the temporal "de-blurring", who knows what Bob Stuart and MQA did with the "3 mike-pair recordings"(the raw files) and the "full details of the mix". With the the "3 mike-pair recordings"(the raw files) and the "full details of the mix", MQA could have altered the recording to sound more impressive, in effect, "remastering" the recording. This would no longer represent an apples to MQA apples comparison.
To be kind, based on Bob Stuart's history and MQA's lack of transparency, people have reason to distrust MQA.
As I've said before, this is a discussion forum that JA has decided to participate in. When he continues to refuse to answer a question, rightly or wrongly, people draw a conclusion. Just as if JA participated in a forum discussion panel at an audio show, and sat silent when asked a question, people will draw conclusions. One conclusion, rightly or wrongly, is that he is hiding something. If I were JA, I would answer the question and be done with it.
> > If it is not apparent to you, your condescension is unnecessary and insulting. < <
I would very much regret insulting any person who engages in an intelligent, informed discussion in good faith. But, if people who deserve it find my comments insulting, I'm OK with that.
The point of what I wrote--as should be apparent to any sentient reader, and was surely apparent to you despite your attempts to reframe--is that there's plenty of information available out there for those who do their homework rather than spreading underinformed, unfounded conspiracy theories. If you find that insulting, I'm OK with that.
As for the rest--making it clear, again, that I cannot, do not, and never would presume to speak for JA--if I were in his shoes I'd probably make similar choices. Why debate, on their terms, anonymous (and insulting) conspiracy theorists who don't do their homework?
I'm out.
I see that you made no attempt to deny your condescension.
If you are unaware, condescension is insulting.
Per Vocabulary.com Dictionary:
"Condescension is an insulting way of talking to other people, as if they were stupid or ignorant. Condescension is rude and patronizing. Treating someone with condescension is the opposite of treating them with respect. Condescension is full of arrogant and snooty attitude, and people who practice condescension treat others like inferior idiots."
> > > MQA has repeatedly said that they need to know the "signature" of the ADC used.
I have repeatedly failed to read this detail. Is that what the impulse response is all about? Why do they need the raw files? Is this the process for MQA-ing the back-catalogs? Pretty much everything needed to do a remix and remaster.
> > > I'm here just to answer this question--to spoon-feed you information you could easily have found elsewhere
Thanks for coming down from your Ivory Tower to ejumicate the unwashed masses, professor.
I didn't realize how much I would miss Charles Hansen. He would happily go into the technical weeds without condescension.
nt
"Yup" is easily the most detail he's offered so far.
But who am I to argue if he prefers a lossy format that modifies what's not truncated (and results in more expensive hardware)?
Hi,
I never said his was. There have been other writers who have gone far, far beyond what I'd consider reasonable for a technology for which little information was ever given.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
True but up-thread you wrote:
"Despite the ravings of a some reviewers (mainly print-based writers), there haven't been valid listening tests done to-date."
When I read that I thought first of RH and second of JA so it's on me, not you. Meanwhile, it's becoming predictable that JA will not respond to any queries about the files he sent to MQA. I wonder why that is?
If I were a manufacturer and felt that the editors of Stereophile supported a new format (for no good reason) that forced me to pay a licensing fee to stay in business...
Why would I support that magazine with my ad money???
I have to say I found that "credibility ... shot" comment pompous and condescending. I don't think those are virtues.Daniel
Edits: 01/17/18 01/17/18 01/17/18 01/17/18
That's a fair point.
But do you think a writer describing this as some sort of scientific revolution that many people simply can't understand builds credibility?
Doug
SoundStage!
If the critics in critics corner start focusing on their respective loss of character and credibility, the entire forum will become a comic farce. I doubt if there is any audio publication that lives on advertising that trades entirely for the good of audiophiles, so I imagine that there are stones to throw. Better to focus on written text, and disagreements therewith.Daniel
Edits: 01/19/18
nt
Remember that MQA's Spencer Chrislu stated that MQA's goal is that all digital music will someday be MQA encoded. See link below
Let's hope not.
I believe it's all wishful thinking, as well. I've been involved in IT since the mid-80s and closed, proprietary systems aren't desirable. This doesn't stand much of a chance. Really, the compression format of choice for most is FLAC.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
Hi, Doug,
It seems that if Apple was willing to make ALAC and AIFF open source then if Apple were to "embrace" MQA playback on their music playback systems might they also demand that it not become proprietary? They have a lot of clout and could affect how the MQA is ultimately implemented.
Just thinking out loud. :-)
Regards,
Tom
Hi,
Somehow, I doubt very much that Apple cares about MQA.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
Maybe so, but if it looks like MQA is going mainstream, Apple might want to incorporate MQA into their products to keep all the Apple lovers happy. With Apple's clout a reasonable compromise could be worked out that would benefit everyone, including no proprietary equipment or software requirements and a reasonable licensing agreement. -Tom
Hi,
Does it actually look like MQA is going mainstream? Tidal, which is a fraction of Spotify, has it in a Masters section. That's it. Quboz, also small, streams 24/96 FLAC.
Really, there's nothing mainstream about any of that.
Doug
Tom
But if it did happen, there are other brands of non-Apple software to play 44.1/16 files, assuming that Red Book doesn't take an MQA hit.
Interesting thoughts. We may see a company, like Tidal, go 100% MQA even with their 16/44 tracks.
Dale Clark
www.arcpictures.com
I've been buying hi-res downloads for years, just plain-old hi-res PCM losslessly compressed with FLAC. I can edit the metadata, convert it to another format, compress it to put on my phone or my wife's wireless earbuds, downsample and burn it on a CD, filter or equalize or otherwise process it as I want. And I can play it back on anything digital I've got.
If Warner, Universal, and others stop offering that, I will stop buying their music. Simple as that.
I have no experience with MQA, but I think you can convert the files (except for the MQA metadata) however you like.
You can send your purchased MQA downloads to other people without worrying about copyright protection; if the recipient has MQA-ready equipment, the files can be decoded and listened to just as you heard them on your own MQA setup; if the recipeitn doesn't have MQA, the files can be listened to without the benefit of the MQA "secret sauce." I recently saw an article comparing the situation to sharing HDCD tracks--if you had equipment that could decode HDCD, you got an extra bit or two of resolution; if not, you heard 16/44.1.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes, the MQA-encoded file is playable without MQA decoding. But it's a compromised, less than CD resolution version. The good stuff is locked up.
It is kind of like HDCD, except the benefit from HDCD decoding was never significant, and it didn't do any significant damage to the non-decoded version either.
as does the continued support of the 'Audiophile Press'.Especially as MQA's selling point to equipment manufacturers has always been: "You need to be ready when the major labels issue their music encoded with MQA".
And why would the labels pay good money to MQA to encode their music in a defective lossey CODEC?
DRM is the only logical answer.
At the end of the day, MQA only makes sense as DRM.
Edits: 01/15/18
" And why would the labels pay good money to MQA to encode their music in a defective lossy CODEC?"
Do you think that the three majors (Warners, UMG, Sony) have paid money to MQA?
Each of the three has a share of equity in MQA. It would be very odd indeed if three corporations had decided independently to invest similar sums in a start up within the same short period. It is far more likely that MQA offered them a share of equity for the consideration of them encoding tracks with MQA. Of course as far as I am aware Sony have yet to deliver on this.
The DRM consideration lacks in reality unless you consider that the need to have a device with a decoder in order to hear full MQA equals DRM. If so the LP was a DRM encumbered format - it couldn't be replayed by its predecessor, a 78rpm turntable with the wrong speed and incorrect stylus. Come to think of it by this logic stereo was also a DRM crippled format for those with only a mono player. Other than the need for a decoding device MQA does not prevent copying etc. the normal reason for anti-DRM rants.
Yes, there is a potential problem with record companies only offering MQA encoded repertoire. But as things stand, none are . Furthermore there is a real potential problem with MQA being used as a medium to transfer "masters" between divisions of a given record company even if the subsequently issued recording is not itself so encoded. This will be invisible to the consumer. I posted about this possibility in ( I think) 2015 though nobody seems to have been concerned about the point I was making judging by the, then, zero response.
Aside from my point above, the potential problem is not with DRM but with the concept of a single inventory. Similar to what happened with microgroove, stereo then CD i.e. if you don't have the right equipment, too bad. Same as has always happened throughout the history of recorded sound.
BTW, I consider this years CES to have been a disaster for MQA. There were only announcements of more replay device " partners", some of which were news rehashed from 2017 (e.g. LG). MQA remains with only a single major outlet to consumers for MQA, Tidal streaming. However in regard to the term "major", Tidal itself is a minnow in the world of streaming and has what appears to be severe financial problems if recent press is to be believed. Let's see what MQA come up with for press releases from Munich in May. Without a significant new player on the supply side of things I would start betting on their disappearance from the consumer market in the short term.
The DRM consideration lacks in reality unless you consider that the need to have a device with a decoder in order to hear full MQA equals DRM. If so the LP was a DRM encumbered format - it couldn't be replayed by its predecessor, a 78rpm turntable with the wrong speed and incorrect stylus. Come to think of it by this logic stereo was also a DRM crippled format for those with only a mono player. Other than the need for a decoding device MQA does not prevent copying etc. the normal reason for anti-DRM rants.
They're not comparable because the 78 RPM record was not a proprietary format controlled by one company, and usage of it wasn't technologically locked up using encryption and DRM.
If MQA was just another open format that required new playback equipment to utilize, similar to DoP, people wouldn't have an issue with it. The problem is that it's a proprietary format, and since it's using DRM it falls under the protection of the DMCA (and its European equivalent) which make reverse engineering legally dubious.
I agree about CES. There are always big posters, web pages devoted to all of the MQA partners.The problem is....it's still Tidal, Bluesound, meridian,etc. Oppo is on board through a limited access using the Oppo App. Teac only has it available thru network streaming. Tidal has only limited MQA content compared to all the Hi rez options of Qobuz. Lack of content and few playback devices do not help the situation
Dale Clark
www.arcpictures.com
MQA already uses DRM, just not copy protection.
The optimistic view:
Their pitch to the music labels is that only audiophiles will be interested in MQA because it requires licensed hardware that only audiophiles will buy, and audiophiles are generally not music pirates. So maybe the DRM goes no further.
The pessimistic view:
The DRM in MQA has hooks that can be used to enable more restrictive rights management in the future, once the format has gained significant market share.
Either way, I think there's a good chance that MQA isn't asking for royalties or license fees from the likes of Warner and Universal. You need software/content to sell hardware, and I'll bet they're trying to get lots of content out there quickly and make their money on licensing the decoders.
They are selling it to the labels as DRM. The labels are looking to get back into some was of protecting their Hi Rez masters.
MQA is one way of selling Hi Rez without actually selling Hi Rez.
" They are selling it to the labels as DRM"
Except that they are not. They are selling it as a way of providing hi-rez formats to consumers without needing a clone of the original master. Not the same as DRM in its normal meaning.
BTW, DRM means Digital Rights Management and, for example, most CDs issued over the past decade or two have this. I know, I worked on it. In this case all it means is that each track contains a unique identifier for copyright control purposes. It has no effect on copying nor is it contained within the audio layer. Any complaints?
One other DRM scare dates from a couple of years ago when there were complaints that UMG were watermarking all of their downloaded or streamed files. Well if they are doing this nobody seems to have complained again for the past 23 months!
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
