MQA may not be all that's claimed

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 6407 times.

witchdoctor

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #20 on: 21 Jan 2017, 11:07 pm »
But are they wrong? What bothers me is the part about the source 24bit file not being preserved...

Don't believe them or me, just do your own blind listening test like I posted and let your ears be your guide.

wushuliu

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #21 on: 21 Jan 2017, 11:26 pm »
Don't believe them or me, just do your own blind listening test like I posted and let your ears be your guide.

But that's not the same thing. It could very well *sound* better because of the processing, but if what's coming out isn't the same as what went in then it shouldn't be considered lossless or higher fidelity, just another high quality albeit lossy option with its own secret sauce.

But there's no way to know exactly what the chain is for Tidal tracks anyway, cause they aren't transparent about it. So using Tidal as the reference point for MQA is just problematic period.

witchdoctor

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #22 on: 22 Jan 2017, 12:06 am »
But that's not the same thing. It could very well *sound* better because of the processing, but if what's coming out isn't the same as what went in then it shouldn't be considered lossless or higher fidelity, just another high quality albeit lossy option with its own secret sauce.

But there's no way to know exactly what the chain is for Tidal tracks anyway, cause they aren't transparent about it. So using Tidal as the reference point for MQA is just problematic period.

Think for a minute, all you can hope for is to reproduce what the engineer captured in the mix right?
Watch these engineers discuss MQA if you don't want to trust your own ears:

https://youtu.be/5U-D_4DK6to

 

witchdoctor

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #23 on: 22 Jan 2017, 12:19 am »
Look at this statement from that article-

UNPROVEN CLAIMS

It is curious that most of the claimed sonic advantages of these formats have never been proven.


All you need to do is "prove" it to yourself. Try the blind A/B comparison I posted in this thread. That the collective idiots at Benchmark didn't do this themselves is either because they are too dumb to figure it out, too biased to tell the truth, or too scared that if they told you how to compare for yourself in a blind listening test in just 15 minutes like I did it would reduce their profits. Pick any of the above excuses for the hack job article it still comes out as propaganda. PS Audio is spewing the same venom for the same reasons IMO.
If you want to disagree please at least do a blind listening test before hitting the send button.

werd

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #24 on: 22 Jan 2017, 02:18 am »
What a bunch of propaganda from a self serving manufacturer. Of course the fact that I don't need to buy a dac to get MQA never occurred to them right?
If anyone needs to prove the benefit to themselves open tidal. Pick a Masters version of an album and load it into a new playlist. Take the Hifi version of the same album and load it into the same playlist. Hit shuffle, and then play. Close your eyes and see how many times in a row you can pick the MQA version. The upgrade is obvious to my ears, and I didn't even have to buy a thing.

I have been trying to do that. Look at Blood Swear and Tears, Spinning Wheel track. There is the regular release and there is a Remastered release. Are you telling me that MQA is only the Remastered Release?

witchdoctor

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #25 on: 22 Jan 2017, 03:07 am »
I have been trying to do that. Look at Blood Swear and Tears, Spinning Wheel track. There is the regular release and there is a Remastered release. Are you telling me that MQA is only the Remastered Release?

I am sharing how to do a blind listening test comparing a Hifi version with a Masters version in Tidal. I am not comparing any other formats. I couldn't find BST in Tidal but here is an example using the Doors. Create a new playlist, add both albums and hit shuffle, then play.

Masters version-

#NowPlaying "L.A. Woman" by The Doors in @TIDALHiFi tidal.com/album/68710999

HIFI version

#NowPlaying "L.A. Woman" by The Doors in @TIDALHiFi tidal.com/album/19373759


wushuliu

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #26 on: 22 Jan 2017, 04:43 am »
Think for a minute, all you can hope for is to reproduce what the engineer captured in the mix right?
Watch these engineers discuss MQA if you don't want to trust your own ears:

https://youtu.be/5U-D_4DK6to

1. The video discusses authentication, so are we supposed to listen to MQA tracks with the assurance that ALL tracks have been approved by the artist?

2. Authentication is not related to the lossless vs lossy. In fact the most revealing part of the video was the japanese engineer. If you notice he was the most specific and referred to MQA as being the best BALANCE for streaming. I thought MQA was supposed to be lossless? If they are openly marketing as a lossy advanced compression format I have no problem but that does not seem to be the case.

3. Blind testing or non-blind testing is irrelevant to how MQA processes the music. I can process an audio file all by myself with my own dithering and you might like it better than the original but doesn't mean it's 'master quality'.

In fact the more I research MQA the more confused I am as to what they are doing.

jhm731

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #27 on: 22 Jan 2017, 04:56 am »


In fact the more I research MQA the more confused I am as to what they are doing.
+1

witchdoctor

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #28 on: 22 Jan 2017, 10:47 am »
1. The video discusses authentication, so are we supposed to listen to MQA tracks with the assurance that ALL tracks have been approved by the artist?

2. Authentication is not related to the lossless vs lossy. In fact the most revealing part of the video was the japanese engineer. If you notice he was the most specific and referred to MQA as being the best BALANCE for streaming. I thought MQA was supposed to be lossless? If they are openly marketing as a lossy advanced compression format I have no problem but that does not seem to be the case.

3. Blind testing or non-blind testing is irrelevant to how MQA processes the music. I can process an audio file all by myself with my own dithering and you might like it better than the original but doesn't mean it's 'master quality'.

In fact the more I research MQA the more confused I am as to what they are doing.

I can see that you are confused. I don't think you will find what you seek posting in a chat room. I suggest a good pair of headphones or speakers and possibly a glass of wine and the remote control to your system may help.

witchdoctor

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #29 on: 22 Jan 2017, 10:50 am »
bump

witchdoctor

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #30 on: 22 Jan 2017, 01:51 pm »
Steve, you are a smart guy. Please take some time when you have it, try the blind listening test and post your thoughts. There can be no right or wrong, this is just subjective opinion. Like I said, don't believe me, don't believe the article, just believe your ears.

rbbert

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #31 on: 22 Jan 2017, 02:38 pm »
In fact the more I research MQA the more confused I am as to what they are doing.

Trying to find a new revenue stream for Meridian and the major record labels?

witchdoctor

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #32 on: 22 Jan 2017, 03:00 pm »
Trying to find a new revenue stream for Meridian and the major record labels?

or

Trying to bring back lost customers who are sick of the ongoing degradation of audio. We have descended from a "golden age" of analog master recordings being created with tube based gear (some of which still sells for $$$$ today) and then distributed in vinyl to compressed digital recordings mastered on a laptop with Pro Tools and being streamed in 128 kb via earbuds on an iPhone.
« Last Edit: 22 Jan 2017, 10:44 pm by witchdoctor »

wushuliu

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #33 on: 22 Jan 2017, 03:11 pm »
I can see that you are confused. I don't think you will find what you seek posting in a chat room. I suggest a good pair of headphones or speakers and possibly a glass of wine and the remote control to your system may help.

Lol!

rbbert

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #34 on: 22 Jan 2017, 05:00 pm »
or

Trying to bring back lost customers who are sick of the ongoing degradation of audio. We have descended from a "golden age" of analog master recordings being created with tube based gear (some of which still sells for $$$$ today) and then distributed in vinyl to compressed digital recordings mastered on a laptop with Pro Tools and being streamed in 96KB via earbuds on an iPhone.

Hmm. This is not totally compatible with the fact that many of the MQA recordings on Tidal are from the latest, over-compressed peak-limited masterings of any given album.  Note that I said many, not all, in anticipation of the likelihood that you will soon post a couple of ones that aren't  :wink:

witchdoctor

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #35 on: 22 Jan 2017, 05:11 pm »
Hmm. This is not totally compatible with the fact that many of the MQA recordings on Tidal are from the latest, over-compressed peak-limited masterings of any given album.  Note that I said many, not all, in anticipation of the likelihood that you will soon post a couple of ones that aren't  :wink:

Well there are good masters and bad masters. There are tracks I like and tracks I don't like, regardless of the master. Here is a playlist of around 2000 master tracks. I put it on shuffle and kicked back. Every time I hear a track that is a WOW I favorite it. I am listening to music I haven't heard in a while, finding artists or genres I may not be familiar with, and of course finding examples of some bad masters. All in all I think it a great way to listen AND I didn't have to buy 2000 downloads to find out what I preferred:

#NowPlaying the playlist "MQA Masters" in @TIDALHiFi tidal.com/playlist/2b8c4ae7-692a-43b1-abee-2f8eaef41af0

witchdoctor

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #36 on: 22 Jan 2017, 05:19 pm »
BTW, you make a good point about the current state of recording. It makes you wonder why we should spend all this $$$$ on hardware and such when ultimately the root of the problem isn't in the gear, it's in the source. If any new tech such as MQA leads to a better source in the future maybe we don't have to spend so much on hardware to get good SQ,

witchdoctor

Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #37 on: 22 Jan 2017, 10:04 pm »
Nice tracks

#NowPlaying "Fascination (2016 Remastered Version)" by David Bowie in @TIDALHiFi tidal.com/track/68648794

#NowPlaying "Soul Seranade" by Aretha Franklin in @TIDALHiFi tidal.com/track/68694276

Nice album

#NowPlaying "Private Dancer" by Tina Turner in @TIDALHiFi tidal.com/album/68729527

ALRAINBOW

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 57
Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #38 on: 21 Feb 2017, 05:01 pm »
I tried MQA a few times with the Manhattan dac with he1000 phones it's nice
And yes it is above cd quality too so as for streaming it's free and worthwhile to use
As I have tidal. Glad they did it.
On my home rig it matters too it's not as good as a sacd rip or a shm disk
But it's free
I will nkt go buy a MQA dac.  Just so you know any maker who wants there dac to play MQA must give them all info of the workings of there machines so many makers will not do this.

AJinFLA

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 992
  • Soundfield Audio Loudspeakers
    • Soundfield Audio
Re: MQA may not be all that's claimed
« Reply #39 on: 21 Feb 2017, 05:48 pm »
"An astonishingly short two years after writing that, I can report that digital audio has taken a significant step forward in its inexorable march toward superiority over analog. The development to which I refer is called High Definition (HDCD)."

" But, as you might also expect, the 24/192 two-channel (DVD-A) tracks sounded by far the best, and quite significantly so. Everything at 48kHz and below sounded pleasant if not terribly detailed, but when shifting into high gear at 88.2kHz, the resolution became transparent enough to hear the warts in the recording, and even perhaps the limitations of the hardware. And it sounded more liquid, as did all the high-resolution formats."

"Every Stereophile writer who has auditioned DSD under critical conditions—Robert Harley, Peter van Willenswaard, Jonathan Scull, and me—has found it both very much better than 16/44k1 CD and much closer to the analog experience."

"As compelling as the untreated hi-res file sounded, I literally laughed at the difference when the MQA version began. Not only did it feel as though a veil had been lifted, with far more color to the sound, but instruments also possessed more body. With more meat on dem bones, I also noticed less of a digital edge on the violin. I've heard Hahn in concert several times, and this was the closest to real I've ever heard her violin sound on recording."

Borrowed from elsewhere with edits...but you get the gist. :wink:
BTW, I thought remasters were supposed to sound different. Otherwise why bother? Especially with a nice dose of HF aliasing distortion spicing up the meal. Just the way the arti$t$ intended! Yummy!

cheers,

AJ