[gregorio]

1: That would be unfortunate. Then the commercial pressures that lead to the loudness war and other unfortunate re-masters still exist, and the artist will not get a say.
2: That is usually true, but going back in the mists of time, it isn't 100% the case. "A Kind of Blue"?
3: I'm not sure that was his point, and I'll leave him to reply.
4: At worst maybe, but at best? You never consider that side. If he is a fanboy (and the bias that implies) you appear to be an anti-fanboy. I am not a fanboy, and am usually very cynical. However you are so cynical, I find myself cynical of your cynicism.

1. The artist/s may get some say in the final master of the initial release. This has little to do with the loudness wars though as that is often perpetuated by the artists themselves!
2. Why is "A kind of Blue" an exception? There have been quite a few remastered versions of it and some of them obviously without consulting Miles Davis as they were made after his death. They are still authenticated masters though, they were made by mastering engineers at the behest of the copyright holder (Columbia Records I believe).
4. At best: MQA makes tons of money and reinvests it all in new artists, higher quality recordings, etc. Why would they though? MQA is not a charity, they have nothing to gain, there's no financial incentive and no precedent for that ever having occurred! And, why would any record label go along with it if that were MQA's plan and if it were their plan then why haven't they mentioned it? It is not cynical to believe that a for profit company is driven by making a profit, I would call that realistic rather than cynical!

G

 

[jagwap]

1. The artist/s may get some say in the final master of the initial release. This has little to do with the loudness wars though as that is often perpetuated by the artists themselves!
2. Why is "A kind of Blue" an exception? There have been quite a few remastered versions of it and some of them obviously without consulting Miles Davis as they were made after his death. They are still authenticated masters though, they were made by mastering engineers at the behest of the copyright holder (Columbia Records I believe).
4. At best: MQA makes tons of money and reinvests it all in new artists, higher quality recordings, etc. Why would they though? MQA is not a charity, they have nothing to gain, there's no financial incentive and no precedent for that ever having occurred! And, why would any record label go along with it if that were MQA's plan and if it were their plan then why haven't they mentioned it? It is not cynical to believe that a for profit company is driven by making a profit, I would call that realistic rather than cynical!

G

1: Indeed, that is my point. We seem to agree. It must be a sign of the oncoming apocalypse, or maybe an accident on your part. I'm saying that's a bad thing. Perhaps you weren't.
2: The story goes: On a Kind of Blue when the recording was made it was not unusual to run two decks simultaneously (funds allowing) as they were not all that reliable in those "golden times of analogue". Fans were speculating for years why the weird and wonder Mr. Davis played one side speeded up. There are various versions of the story, but it seems this is the one I'd heard the most often: https://www.analogplanet.com/content/mo-fis-kob-kind-blah
4: MQA can make more money for the artists is it encourages people to listen to their tracks more often on Tidal and Deezer. I know that isn't much in the current structure, but they pay more than Apple, Spotify and Youtube. However no one says they should not get paid for their work if it is used, and they need it to get used more too. Dolby gets paid for their HD encodes on Bluray, but they offer nothing technical above lossless 7.1 192/24b that is native to Bluray (and encoded by MLP: Meridian Lossless Packing, sold to Dolby). That could be a bigger rip off? But Dolby give a lot of free studio support to the movie business (along with donating their theatre to the oscars etc.) so shall we start a thread against Dolby? No, I don't think so. I've worked with them and they are on the whole trying to increase the state of the industry, while getting paid huge wedges of cash. Do you work for free?

 

[gregorio]

1: Indeed, that is my point. We seem to agree. It must be a sign of the oncoming apocalypse, or maybe an accident on your part. I'm saying that's a bad thing. Perhaps you weren't.
2: The story goes: On a Kind of Blue when the recording was made it was not unusual to run two decks simultaneously (funds allowing) as they were not all that reliable in those "golden times of analogue". Fans were speculating for years why the weird and wonder Mr. Davis played one side speeded up. There are various versions of the story, but it seems this is the one I'd heard the most often: https://www.analogplanet.com/content/mo-fis-kob-kind-blah
4: MQA can make more money for the artists is it encourages people to listen to their tracks more often on Tidal and Deezer.
[4a] Dolby gets paid for their HD encodes on Bluray, but they offer nothing technical above lossless 7.1 192/24b that is native to Bluray.
[4b] But Dolby give a lot of free studio support to the movie business (along with donating their theatre to the oscars etc.)
[4c] so shall we start a thread against Dolby? ...

1. Huh? How is the artist "having a say" going to combat the loudness war?
2. I don't see how any of that supports your argument. The speeded-up version and the slower version would BOTH qualify as master authenticated as far as MQA is concerned!
4. Why would MQA encourage more people to listen than if say FLAC was used instead, which is after all higher quality than MQA? AND, flac would not cost the artist anything whereas MQA requires purchase of a license to encode, the studios have to purchase MQA equipment and distributors have to pay to distribute MQA, the licensing and additional studio fees will be passed on to the artists. So how exactly does MQA make money for the artists rather than costing them money?
4a. Of course they do, they offer compressed audio and therefore more space for the video and btw, film sound tracks are not made in 192/24b! Dolby audio is a consumer standard and that's because they led the technology to fit multichannel audio on to various formats, there were initially no other options for surround on film, then 5.1 on film and then consumer distribution of digital video. This is completely different to MQA, where there are already better, free options which have been available for years.
4b. I know of no examples of Dolby giving anything for free, except when it's in their best interests. For example, I guarantee that in the contract they have with the Oscars, it is required that Dolby gets it's logo displayed prominently, considering the number of people worldwide who watch the Oscars, that's some pretty hefty advertising they're getting in return!
4c. Sure and we certainly wouldn't be the first!! They ran a virtual monopoly in the days of 35mm film, a position they were not adverse to abusing and yes, I've worked with Dolby too, starting in the mid 1990's and continuing today.

G

 

[jagwap]

1. Huh? How is the artist "having a say" going to combat the loudness war?
2. I don't see how any of that supports your argument. The speeded-up version and the slower version would BOTH qualify as master authenticated as far as MQA is concerned!
4. Why would MQA encourage more people to listen than if say FLAC was used instead, which is after all higher quality than MQA? AND, flac would not cost the artist anything whereas MQA requires purchase of a license to encode, the studios have to purchase MQA equipment and distributors have to pay to distribute MQA, the licensing and additional studio fees will be passed on to the artists. So how exactly does MQA make money for the artists rather than costing them money?
4a. Of course they do, they offer compressed audio and therefore more space for the video and btw, film sound tracks are not made in 192/24b! Dolby audio is a consumer standard and that's because they led the technology to fit multichannel audio on to various formats, there were initially no other options for surround on film, then 5.1 on film and then consumer distribution of digital video. This is completely different to MQA, where there are already better, free options which have been available for years.
4b. I know of no examples of Dolby giving anything for free, except when it's in their best interests. For example, I guarantee that in the contract they have with the Oscars, it is required that Dolby gets it's logo displayed prominently, considering the number of people worldwide who watch the Oscars, that's some pretty hefty advertising they're getting in return!
4c. Sure and we certainly wouldn't be the first!! They ran a virtual monopoly in the days of 35mm film, a position they were not adverse to abusing and yes, I've worked with Dolby too, starting in the mid 1990's and continuing today.

G

1: Because an artist who knows his own work, then hears the nasty compressed version on the re-released version is unlikely to approve it if they have the influence to do so. Of course not everyone is equal when it comes to musical and recording skill. Some people think the compressed one is usually better. Please keep them away from the controls. They are usually wrong.

2: They could be, but something like this is more likely to be caught if someone with skill and knowledge re-checks it. Again, an ideal world, but the wrong one was out there for around 25 years.

To the above two points, many artists really care how their work sounds and do not have the power to stop the muppets ruining it. IF MQA can help this, even a little, that I commend. Judging by the listening I've done, most of the MQA releases are better versions of the other remasters that exist. Now that makes sense. If you are a record label re-releasing your back catalogue on an audiophile geared format, it makes sense you release something decent to spur on the masses.

4: Dolby true HD can be lossless. Bluray can output up to 192kHz/24b 7.1 ch. I've decoded my fair share of that stuff: AC3, ES (edit: I meant EX), Atmos...
Dolby have kitted out the big players with Atmos encoding and a support engineer for free.

 

[bigshot]

That's why I said I wanted to see some reporting on it so that I get a better sense of how the process actually works (though I doubt that a receptionist is making that decision).

Not a receptionist. A secretary at the print and tape vault. When you order up a master, it gets pulled from a vault by a person who is basically the one who keeps a database of the elements and knows where each one is on the shelf. There are companies whose job it is to run copyright clearances and distribute masters for large record labels. They're the ones who would "authenticate" a master for distribution. But that doesn't mean anything. Every master that gets pulled goes through their hands. And every master that they are distributing has been approved for distribution by the rights owner.

What is the "authentic master"? Is it the original master tape from the session? Is it the best sounding master? Those might be two entirely different things. Which mix is it? Which mastering? First release? Most recent remastering? Best sounding remastering? Authentic according to who? The print and tape vault? The musician who performed the music? Some executive with a big fat cigar sitting behind a desk? "Authentic" is a very imprecise way of describing the best sounding master. Imprecise to the point of being meaningless.

I produced a rock video once. The artist's publishing sent me an ADAT of the song. It was authentic because the publishing company sent it to us to make the video. When we finished the video, the publishing company told us they had another master they wanted us to use because they were releasing the song again as a special single. When we got the new ADAT it was in a quite different tempo. It didn't line up with our video. So we told them the problem and they said to go ahead and use the first version they sent us. Was that the authentic version and the one with the different tempo was the fake one? Or was it the other way around? The one we used was released first. But it wasn't the one released on the special single.

1: Because an artist who knows his own work, then hears the nasty compressed version on the re-released version is unlikely to approve it if they have the influence to do so.

Tell that to Jimmy Page! Every time he remasters the Led Zeppelin catalog it sounds worse!

 

[gregorio]

1: Because an artist who knows his own work, then hears the nasty compressed version on the re-released version is unlikely to approve it if they have the influence to do so.

2: They could be, but something like this is more likely to be caught if someone with skill and knowledge re-checks it. Again, an ideal world, but the wrong one was out there for around 25 years.

[1a] To the above two points, many artists really care how their work sounds .... [1b] IF MQA can help this, even a little, that I commend.
[1c] Judging by the listening I've done, most of the MQA releases are better versions of the other remasters that exist. Now that makes sense. [1d] If you are a record label re-releasing your back catalogue on an audiophile geared format, it makes sense you release something decent to spur on the masses.

4: Dolby true HD can be lossless.

1. You are just completely making that up! What typically happens is that the artist says that they don't want their track/s to be over-compressed but the priority is that the tracks can't be quieter than everyone else's. Result, over-compression!! The artists are generally at least as responsible for the loudness wars as the record companies and for the last 15 years or so most of the over compression has been done in the mix well before a mastering engineer gets anywhere near it!

2. Both versions were made (authenticated) by mastering engineers employed by the copyright holder (the record label) and then authorized for release by the record company. How would MQA have made any difference, both are authenticated masters!

1a. Yes, artists do care how their work sounds and they do not want it to sound quieter than everyone elses!!! 1b. And how exactly do you think can MQA help with this?
1c. MQA do not make any masters or remasters, they make audio encoding software! All the versions they have put out are existing masters. 1d. Exactly, they are re-releasing their back catalogue, not making a new catalogue with new masters!

4. So can FLAC, and it's free!!! BTW, AC3 (Dolby digital) is free to encode and distribute, the end user pays a license fee to Dolby to decode it. MQA charges a license fee to encode, a fee to distribute and another one to decode.

G

 

[gregorio]

Double post

 

[jagwap]

Not a receptionist. A secretary at the print and tape vault. When you order up a master, it gets pulled from a vault by a person who is basically the one who keeps a database of the elements and knows where each one is on the shelf. There are companies whose job it is to run copyright clearances and distribute masters for large record labels. They're the ones who would "authenticate" a master for distribution. But that doesn't mean anything. Every master that gets pulled goes through their hands. And every master that they are distributing has been approved for distribution by the rights owner.

What is the "authentic master"? Is it the original master tape from the session? Is it the best sounding master? Those might be two entirely different things. Which mix is it? Which mastering? First release? Most recent remastering? Best sounding remastering? Authentic according to who? The print and tape vault? The musician who performed the music? Some executive with a big fat cigar sitting behind a desk? "Authentic" is a very imprecise way of describing the best sounding master. Imprecise to the point of being meaningless.

Very true. Too vague for me too. But also how does the secretary at the tape vault add all that compression? She doesn't. It is some other talentless twit who does that. For MQA we only have the the results so far, and they are still anecdotal and subjective. They are promising though so I am going to wait and see, rather than write it off before it was released like most here. It MQA is getting the one from the secretary who gets the earliest released version (at the right speed) before the deaf ejits got their fat fingers on it, then usually the older albums will be better.

Tell that to Jimmy Page! Every time he remasters the Led Zeppelin catalog it sounds worse!

Also when Fripp (brilliant, but no top end to his hearing any more) when he did Gabriel's remasters, and that was before the loudness wars really set in.

We all have examples. But when it goes the other way, isn't it a delight? When you hear it like you remember it, but better (because it's a better master, or the same but it's better equipment), it is like coming home. I have had a few moments like that recently, with MQA on Tidal. It's a small percentage compared to the last few years as I track down the best version of each piece, but it is promising.

Also people keep saying that bandwidth isn't an issue so what is the purpose of all the folding. I get drop-outs at work on Tidal, and that is with a reasonable bandwidth for my part of the world (China, on a good VPN).

So what do we have: better masters (potentially, and I think likely) on a decent format (how decent is being debated, but good enough right?)

 

[jagwap]

1. You are just completely making that up! What typically happens is that the artist says that they don't want their track/s to be over-compressed but the priority is that the tracks can't be quieter than everyone else's. Result, over-compression!! The artists are generally at least as responsible for the loudness wars as the record companies and for the last 15 years or so most of the over compression has been done in the mix well before a mastering engineer gets anywhere near it!

2. Both versions were made (authenticated) by mastering engineers employed by the copyright holder (the record label) and then authorized for release by the record company. How would MQA have made any difference, both are authenticated masters!

1a. Yes, artists do care how their work sounds and they do not want it to sound quieter than everyone elses!!! 1b. And how exactly do you think can MQA help with this?
1c. MQA do not make any masters or remasters, they make audio encoding software! All the versions they have put out are existing masters. 1d. Exactly, they are re-releasing their back catalogue, not making a new catalogue with new masters!

I'm seeing plenty of examples in the other direction. E.G.: Rage Against the Machine, done well originally by Bob Ludwiq, re-mastered by Rick Rubin into trash. It was so badly received that when Steve Hoffman did it properly the band is allowing him to re-master the back catalogue it seems. There are others. Sure Metallica supported the original album that started all this publicly, but others seem to have had enough. Many of the worst culprits have better versions on Tidal. Not so much Apple and Spotify.

The re-release of albums on a new format is a financial windfall for the labels. So now that auto levelling is making the compressed albums sound the same level but worse, previous re-releases have not been well received, and MQA is making a big deal of the master quality, maybe they have (sensibly) decided to stop treating like half deaf undiscriminating idiots and give us better material.

4. So can FLAC, and it's free!!! BTW, AC3 (Dolby digital) is free to encode and distribute, the end user pays a license fee to Dolby to decode it. MQA charges a license fee to encode, a fee to distribute and another one to decode.

G

I doubt they charge much to Warner and the others per album, other they wouldn't bite. Tidal will be giving a tiny amount per track played, but more plays and everyone is happy.

Do you know their charges and the structure of it?

 

[gregorio]

[1] I'm seeing plenty of examples in the other direction. E.G.: Rage Against the Machine, done well originally by Bob Ludwiq, re-mastered by Rick Rubin into trash.
[2] The re-release of albums on a new format is a financial windfall for the labels.
[3] So now that auto levelling is making the compressed albums sound the same level but worse, previous re-releases have not been well received,
[4] and MQA is making a big deal of the master quality, maybe they have (sensibly) decided to stop treating like half deaf undiscriminating idiots and give us better material.
[5] I doubt they charge much to Warner and the others per album, other they wouldn't bite. Tidal will be giving a tiny amount per track played, but more plays and everyone is happy. Do you know their charges and the structure of it?

1. If there were enough examples in the other direction then there wouldn't be a loudness war, would there?
2. Almost certainly, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.
3. Yes, but that has nothing to do with MQA.
4. No, it's not! MQA does not make masters, it only makes software to encode masters which already exist. Exactly the same could be accomplished with flac and for free!
5. I do not know what they are charging or plan to charge, except that the encoding equipment will have to be purchased by the recording studios and mastering studios and a license fee paid for encoding, those charges will ultimately fall on the artist to pay. So no, everyone will NOT be happy, particularly the artists.

But also how does the secretary at the tape vault add all that compression? She doesn't. It is some other talentless twit who does that.

In most modern genres of music, that talent-less twit you're referring to is probably the artist! Don't forget, it was those who apply the final compression (the mastering engineers) who raised the whole issue of the loudness wars well over 25 years ago and have been trying to combat it ever since. It's the artists and record labels who are to blame!

G

 

[bigshot]

So what do we have: better masters (potentially, and I think likely) on a decent format (how decent is being debated, but good enough right?)

I don't see any evidence that MQA is any different than the iTunes store. AAC 256 VBR is audibly transparent. Apple uses authentic masters provided to them by record labels. The only difference is that Apple was smart enough to abandon DRM and proprietary file formats. If they hadn't, the iTunes store would never have become as widely used as it is now. MQA is pointless. The proprietary nature of MQA is the deal breaker. That's what people should be focusing on, not unsubstantiated claims about sound quality.

 

[jagwap]

1. If there were enough examples in the other direction then there wouldn't be a loudness war, would there?
2. Almost certainly, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.
3. Yes, but that has nothing to do with MQA.
4. No, it's not! MQA does not make masters, it only makes software to encode masters which already exist. Exactly the same could be accomplished with flac and for free!
5. I do not know what they are charging or plan to charge, except that the encoding equipment will have to be purchased by the recording studios and mastering studios and a license fee paid for encoding, those charges will ultimately fall on the artist to pay. So no, everyone will NOT be happy, particularly the artists.



In most modern genres of music, that talent-less twit you're referring to is probably the artist! Don't forget, it was those who apply the final compression (the mastering engineers) who raised the whole issue of the loudness wars well over 25 years ago and have been trying to combat it ever since. It's the artists and record labels who are to blame!

G

1: This is a recent thing, although I am looking for it, so not necessarily a balanced view. I hope it is coming. But the cynic in me suspects we'll get screwed again.
2: Yes. We are starting to agree. Doesn't this worry you? It doesn't seem to be your favourite position.
3: I didn't say it did. See point 4. MQA is the opportunity.
4: That's not my point. The "they" in my point is the music labels.
5: If you don't know the structure, then that is your speculation, and you shouldn't state it as fact. Isn't likely that is Warner, as an example, as an early adopter, get a great deal on the encoding equipment and the licence fee. Sure in the end the artist and public pay. But you know that CD licensing paid for Philips entire Eindhoven R&D for 20 years? Everything: shavers, toothbrushes, TVs. It wasn't free.

I deliberately discussed the re-master releases for this reason. Modern genres are likely influenced by what they grew up with, which is the compress garbage they were influenced by, made by the muppets re-mastering it. Break the loop and then it can be a creative decision instead of radio-play

 

[jagwap]

I don't see any evidence that MQA is any different than the iTunes store. AAC 256 VBR is audibly transparent. Apple uses authentic masters provided to them by record labels. The only difference is that Apple was smart enough to abandon DRM and proprietary file formats. If they hadn't, the iTunes store would never have become as widely used as it is now. MQA is pointless. The proprietary nature of MQA is the deal breaker. That's what people should be focusing on, not unsubstantiated claims about sound quality.

No, Apple uses "mastered for iTunes", which is new versions of the masters to work better with their lossy format... It allowed the loudness wars in again, but not so extreme.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...unes-matter-to-music-ars-puts-it-to-the-test/
https://9to5mac.com/2012/02/28/mast...red-for-itunes-doesnt-sound-closer-to-the-cd/
These were not favourable.

AAC belongs to Via corp, and you have to pay them for it if you make a device that decodes it: http://www.via-corp.com/us/en/licensing/aac/licensefees.html

 

[Strangelove424]

4: At worst maybe, but at best? You never consider that side. If he is a fanboy (and the bias that implies) you appear to be an anti-fanboy. I am not a fanboy, and am usually very cynical. However you are so cynical, I find myself cynical of your cynicism.

Oh, Gregorio can be a cynical grouch, with a fuzzy sense of manners, but his alarm is well founded in this situation.

MQA is pointless. The proprietary nature of MQA is the deal breaker. That's what people should be focusing on, not unsubstantiated claims about sound quality.

Precisely, this is not a typical "we can't hear a difference" argument. It's far more dangerous than that. It's a format that is economically and technologically destructive for music makers. If no one here can convince you of that, allow Linn of UK the opportunity to do it: https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music

AAC belongs to Via corp, and you have to pay them for it if you make a device that decodes it: http://www.via-corp.com/us/en/licensing/aac/licensefees.html

Well, it's handy to mention AAC (an apple-only distribution standard, a company notorious for "walled gardens") while forgetting that all other streaming networks and online stores use open standards like ogg vorbis, mp3, WAV, or FLAC. CD rose to prominence being a PCM format, it would not have succeeded otherwise. And all of the storage and archival formats for music production have hitherto been PCM (wav/aiff) too, for equally as logical and pragmatic reasons. Proprietary codecs in the pockets of media conglomerates are the exception, not the rule.

 

[bigshot]

No, Apple uses "mastered for iTunes", which is new versions of the masters to work better with their lossy format.

That is exactly the same as saying "Authenticated by MQA". It's just a way of saying "new and improved". AAC used to be proprietary. It's open source now, as is ALAC. Most streaming is AAC.