CES 2017: MQA announces TIDAL Masters, and more

[JeremyLaurenson]

   
You can download samples in MQA from 2L's High Res Test Bench, which also offers the same music in other formats and resolutions for comparison:

http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html?

However, you need an MQA capable DAC to be able to take full advantage of the MQA files.

Yup - got an Onkyo DP-X1 - its a DAP, not DAC do I can only test files.

 

[canthearyou]

I hear an improvement when I listen to Masters tracks on Tidal. I'm already paying for Tidal. Not much I can bitch about I guess.

 

[JeremyLaurenson]

 
​If it is encoded into a CD I buy and the manufacturer/record company had to license this dross, I had to pay for some thing I will NEVER use.  I do not enjoy being made to pay for some thing that again, I will NEVER use.  I consider it a principal, not a beef.  For example,  I do not force my beliefs upon others, especially by making them pay for them even if they do not believe in them.
 
Meridian wants this to happen.  They want money in the form of licensing, etc. for a service/software/ripoff that we never asked for and they seek to get it in what ever method they can employ.    Animal Farm.  No thank you!
 
Thanks!
 
ORT

Ill bet nobody wanted casettes or CDs either, especially since they had to switch players.... and Casettes were NOT s step up in quality.
 
I don't see a single album for sale yet using MQA, so I'm not sure your cost concerns are in any way founded yet.
 
Once its mainstream it makes no sense to produce both MQA and "Regular", and I suspect consumers will not be ok with any added cost (for which the alternate is free)
 
 
I think the rub is that right now the labels have to put work into several formats, which costs money and time, or prevents some music from being released in "hires" formats.
If this format is good enough with removed bits for the average consumer AND successfully unfolds to something we are more happy with you're likely to see more "higher res" music produced in the first place. I expect "higher res" and much lower prices. This, I am happy with.
 
I suspect the single workflow vs multiple will negate any crazy cost implications you're expecting... or people just won't buy it and continue to stream ****ty music.
 
This line may be an epic fail in hindsight, but: I would think the folks signing up with MQA are being very careful not to get bitten, either directly or indirectly via upset consumers. They've seen plenty of these horror movies before. I don't expect a big jump in prices, I expect more to be released, and I expect that this entire thing is about allowing them to exert control of the outlets (ala Tidal etc) this time around

 

[noplsestar]

What I don't understand: some of you were writing about remastered albums. Can you please tell me how that should work without "really" remastering it? Let's say Bob Ludwig has mastered an album a few years ago, let's say "morning phase" from "beck". And I purchased the album in 24/96. and let's say this year tidal (or another company) says: now you can download or stream it in MQA quality. What does that mean? Was it "remastered"? But by whom? By Bob Ludwig? I guess not!! So who would do it then? Or does this "remastered" only mean, that the original master tapes of Bob Ludwig were freshely converted into digital data? I think we should be more careful if we talk about remastered tapes. Because mastering an album is adding a typical sound to the mixed album. It's not just a button that says "mastering" and everything is ready. I also don't think Beck would authorize anything that alteres the sound. He had something in mind when asking Mr. Ludwig to master his album. So can anyone please tell me what MQA remastering is meant to be in difference to the "real" mastering?

 

[bigro]

What I don't understand: some of you were writing about remastered albums. Can you please tell me how that should work without "really" remastering it? Let's say Bob Ludwig has mastered an album a few years ago, let's say "morning phase" from "beck". And I purchased the album in 24/96. and let's say this year tidal (or another company) says: now you can download or stream it in MQA quality. What does that mean? Was it "remastered"? But by whom? By Bob Ludwig? I guess not!! So who would do it then? Or does this "remastered" only mean, that the original master tapes of Bob Ludwig were freshely converted into digital data? I think we should be more careful if we talk about remastered tapes. Because mastering an album is adding a typical sound to the mixed album. It's not just a button that says "mastering" and everything is ready. I also don't think Beck would authorize anything that alteres the sound. He had something in mind when asking Mr. Ludwig to master his album. So can anyone please tell me what MQA remastering is meant to be in difference to the "real" mastering?

Good question. I suspect its all software, Running it through a some sort of DSP is not "remastering"

 

[noplsestar]

Good question. I suspect its all software, Running it through a some sort of DSP is not "remastering"

Exactly! So as I see it the MQA procedure more resembles something like "mastered for iTunes" which also doesn't mean, that the album was remastered but the original master file was only computed in a specific manner. So I guess if Beck's album will be available in MQA, it means nothing else than that: Bob Ludwig's mastering file is being processed or rendered or you name it for MQA. And that means that the quality if the product I'm buying (in comparison to the "old" 24/96 file) could be "better" indeed BUT it means Beck's Album was NOT remastered. So I guess there should be a new wording for that procedure so that we don't mess around with our imprecise labeling, because if we would continue to call it "remastering" we would insult all the engineers that are really mastering or remastering old tapes (such as the remastered Beatles albums etc. which was a "real" remastering by the people involved in the original recordings etc.)

 

[RichardTownsend]

Hi ORT,

I think MQA are genuinely motivated by improving audio. Bob Stuart has achieved his financial success with Meridian. He would now like to change the audio landscape, I think.

Vinyl has survived 30 years of digital audio. If there's demand for non MQA material, then that will survive too. As bandwidths increase over the next years, standard PCM will be economic to stream everywhere and if people want it, that will happen.

I think streaming will become the norm and those that stream are to some extent protected against changes to formats. I've been signed up to Tidal now for a couple of months and I don't envisage buying much if any material in future. There's no extra cost in getting MQA for me.

The MQA license fees are low and give record companies the ability to reduce the number of formats they produce because a single MQA file can be decoded differently depending on the maximum resolution of the player. That reduces production costs. I don't know how the two stack up against each other but I suspect this is one reason MQA is attractive to record companies, along with authentication of the approved master and allowing them to keep their actual masters to themselves.

My own listening tests indicate that I can't reliably tell the difference between MQA and standard 24/96 versions of the same material, so I'm personally happy there doesn't seem to be a penalty. Plus where I am I'm currently limited to 100GB per month, so I'm very happy I can stream 24/96 quality material at 24/48 bandwidths.

Best,

Rich

 

[L8MDL]

You're dreaming if you believe Tidal will not raise prices when their MQA demo mode runs out.

 

[RichardTownsend]

I think there are different ways in which audio is 'remastered' for MQA.

Analog masters for which there is no hires digital master would have to go through a new A to D involving MQA processing.

Hi res digital masters would have to go through an MQA encoding process. This can be done by taking into account the characteristics of the original digital encoder, if known.

In the studio, the mastering engineer can optimise each type of output that MQA can deliver. What this optimising involves I don't know, unfortunately, beyond shaping the noise profile.

Neither of these would count as traditional remastering. I doubt that traditional remastering is done that often in encoding MQA as this is a significant undertaking and would likely involve going back to a multitrack master.

I'm not a professional mastering engineer so don't treat this as gospel.

 

[RichardTownsend]

L8MDL,

Evidence?

 

[mirekti]

For those who still don't get this right this video should be able to get you to the point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_wxRGiBoJg
PS There is also part 2.

 

[erich6]

I think there are different ways in which audio is 'remastered' for MQA.

Analog masters for which there is no hires digital master would have to go through a new A to D involving MQA processing.

Hi res digital masters would have to go through an MQA encoding process. This can be done by taking into account the characteristics of the original digital encoder, if known.

In the studio, the mastering engineer can optimise each type of output that MQA can deliver. What this optimising involves I don't know, unfortunately, beyond shaping the noise profile.

Neither of these would count as traditional remastering. I doubt that traditional remastering is done that often in encoding MQA as this is a significant undertaking and would likely involve going back to a multitrack master.

I'm not a professional mastering engineer so don't treat this as gospel.

​This is consistent with what I've read.  My understanding is most MQA releases so far are going back to an existing master and going through the encoding process.  It's only "remastered" if the studio mix they are going to is a remaster from a previous release (for example, Steven Wilsons' remasters of Jethro Tull albums). 
 
MQA is also supposed to provide standards for analog-digital conversion equipment so studios could go back to original analog recordings and make a new master specifically for MQA release.  This isn't a new concept...Steven Wilson went back to original analog recordings for his remasters of Yes albums.  That said, I don't think this has happened for MQA yet. 

 

[erich6]

 
​If it is encoded into a CD I buy and the manufacturer/record company had to license this dross, I had to pay for some thing I will NEVER use.  I do not enjoy being made to pay for some thing that again, I will NEVER use.  I consider it a principal, not a beef.  For example,  I do not force my beliefs upon others, especially by making them pay for them even if they do not believe in them.
 
Meridian wants this to happen.  They want money in the form of licensing, etc. for a service/software/ripoff that we never asked for and they seek to get it in what ever method they can employ.    Animal Farm.  No thank you!
 
Thanks!
 
ORT

 
You have a valid point if MQA becomes ubiquitous and you have no choice but to pay for music that was encoded with it.  I seriously doubt that will happen, but if it does, it will be no different than the fact most music is released through studios and distributors--nobody consciously wants to pay for that (the ideal is getting the music directly from the artist) but in the end the industry exists because there are benefits to scale and production you get from studios.  Maybe in the future with more technology diffusion independent artists will finally disrupt the industry and get to your ideal of getting music directly from them.
 
Please understand that your view, while admirably idealistic, requires a wholesale change to the music industry...a revolt indeed. Unfortunately, until the alternative model you seek shows it's better value, or the current one shows itself to be horribly overpriced, I don't think it will happen.

 

[erich6]

   
I think the rub is that right now the labels have to put work into several formats, which costs money and time, or prevents some music from being released in "hires" formats.
If this format is good enough with removed bits for the average consumer AND successfully unfolds to something we are more happy with you're likely to see more "higher res" music produced in the first place. I expect "higher res" and much lower prices. This, I am happy with.
 
I suspect the single workflow vs multiple will negate any crazy cost implications you're expecting... or people just won't buy it and continue to stream ****ty music.
 
This line may be an epic fail in hindsight, but: I would think the folks signing up with MQA are being very careful not to get bitten, either directly or indirectly via upset consumers. They've seen plenty of these horror movies before. I don't expect a big jump in prices, I expect more to be released, and I expect that this entire thing is about allowing them to exert control of the outlets (ala Tidal etc) this time around

​You make some very interesting points here...I hadn't thought about how MQA might simplify the overall cost of production by having a single scheme to publish music across various formats and distribution channels.  Maybe wishful thinking, but if it pans out, then the cost of MQA will never be something consumers will have to shoulder with the exception of buying an MQA DAC if they really want one (with software decoding this is truly a "luxury" and not a "need" in my opinion).

 

[erich6]

   
Sure, but what are the sources?  It's all speculation.  No offense to anyone, but I'd like to hear a plain and simple answer to that question from the horse's mouth (reckon that'd be Bob).  If anyone has a link to a quote from him answering that question, please do post.

Go to this link:
 
See the following Q&A (among others): http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/694-comprehensive-q-mqa-s-bob-stuart/
 

 
Q16. My understanding is MQA is supposed to be "end to end", therefore:

• Will there be separate analogue and digital masters? In other words, with many analogue (vinyl)
  recordings starting off as digital masters what will be the extent of MQA in the analogue signal chain?
• My understanding of the MQA process is that when the files are encoded, corrections are made for "damage" done by the original ADC.
• Again, with the intent that MQA will be present in the very beginning of the signal chain, are the psychoacoustic issues being talked about for digital in the analogue domain also? Why or why not?

A16.

• Generally there is only one core source of the truth in the studio, the final mix, which can then be mastered to a number of requirements, e.g. as second generation for CD, MFIT, HDTracks, Blu-ray, vinyl, etc. If a new recording is being mastered from digital to vinyl MQA is ideally involved in the capture, mastering and playback to the cutting lathe.
• For new recordings or special re-issues, where possible we fingerprint the system and converters used. This can be done for tracks or for mixes. Deblurring the source is invariably right.
• Generally we are trying to drill back to the sound that was heard and approved in the original mix/master, so it isn’t appropriate to compensate for microphones or earlier analogue components unless it is a new recording and the recording engineer specifically wants to do that.
  There are also times where addressing the fact that all we have is 2nd or 3rd-generation analogue tape is worthwhile but that’s too complex a topic for this Q&A.

 
Q30. Can we be assured we get the best masters? (Whatever best is).

A30. MQA Studio could create a tension in the market that may ensure it happens more often than not. Only the labels can decide to make the effort or choice to ensure. Many labels have this already sorted, others appreciate the encouragement.


Q31. What is the value for the record companies to encode millions of old files? (If they will do).

A31. We can’t answer that, other than to say that for most labels, back-catalogue is more than 60% of their revenue.

 
Also, check their website for professionals which has other descriptions of the mastering/distribution process: http://www.mqa.co.uk/professional/for-content-producers