[pinnahertz]

It's like being under a Danish bridge: full of trolls.

But then you probably see me the same way...

Actually, no. But we do disagree on some very fundamental points.

Not on ALL recordings. Music was recorded before digital. But it does raise issues.

Also your square wave point is not adding to the discussion. If all we have is the analogue master before digital the PCM and the MQA will have the same problems.

My point is that their claim "MQA captures 100% of the original studio performance." is a bold-faced lie. Can't be done if the original recording was on analog tape because it has temporal blurring too, and a whole list of other issues that cannot be corrected. And temporal blurring, if it actually is audible (and there's no proof of that) cannot be corrected without intimate knowledge of the entire chain, not just the first ADC. And that information, with very few exceptions, does not exist.

Marketing has always lied. Get over it. "Perfect sound forever". We discussed that before. Forever is BS. Here we want the science, so lets delve into that.

Yes, marketing BS is thick, and we need science. I'd love to delve into that. I don't think that's possible because the actual testing that needs to be done can't be done. If you eliminate all the MQA marketing BS and stick to the remaining MQA "science", we don't have anything to talk about.

True. Argued to death and neither of us are proved right. But you are still arguing, like me. So what's your point?

Back at ya. The pro-MQA viewpoint comes up, the anti-MQA viewpoint is likely to follow.

 

[jagwap]

Actually, no. But we do disagree on some very fundamental points.

My point is that their claim "MQA captures 100% of the original studio performance." is a bold-faced lie. Can't be done if the original recording was on analog tape because it has temporal blurring too, and a whole list of other issues that cannot be corrected. And temporal blurring, if it actually is audible (and there's no proof of that) cannot be corrected without intimate knowledge of the entire chain, not just the first ADC. And that information, with very few exceptions, does not exist.

Yes, marketing BS is thick, and we need science. I'd love to delve into that. I don't think that's possible because the actual testing that needs to be done can't be done. If you eliminate all the MQA marketing BS and stick to the remaining MQA "science", we don't have anything to talk about.
Back at ya. The pro-MQA viewpoint comes up, the anti-MQA viewpoint is likely to follow.

Yes, but when I arrived on this thread the pro MQA side was less represented, and those that tried were beaten senseless and insulted.

 

[Strangelove424]

1. No one is saying that. Not sure why you are. Can you enlighen us?

2.Not according to MQA. They are stating that the ADC and DAC is not as good at representing the analogue as it could be, so this "true" you are defining as the digital master is not their definition. There are many other processes they cannot improve but they are trying for this one.

Not their view I think.

1. MQA is not saying that because MQA is not really saying anything because it's all proprietary shell games. Bigshot's deductive logic for Fagan's digitally captured album is tight. Either the MQA version sounds the same as any other, or if it sounds different it was somehow molested by MQA. If MQA is molesting masters, then they are doing so at their own studio, and without artist supervision. Your response to bigshot's deductive logic:

"Your opinion and you are entitled to it. But there is no eveidence either way yet.
I'm just stating what I understand to be their position and what I think that may mean as a counter point"

No contest.

2. MQA can claim anything. Those aren't falsifiable claims. MQA is using fear mongering of digital to market their format. The Fagan CD points out all the flaws in logic because of the digital format it was originally recorded in. You can't escape the logic on that one. If the Fagan MQA version sounds better to you something must have been tampered with, or else its placebo effect.

3. Nobody knows exactly what their view is because it's a media conglomerate whose intentions are in the shadows. But here's some tidbits of their marketing, straight from their site:

- "MP3 files deliver just 10% of the original studio recording. MQA captures 100% of the performance." Digital fear mongering

- "MQA authentically reproduces the sound of the studio master, allowing you to step into the magic of the original performance." Shouldn't the studio master sound like the studio master? The original performance is the original performance, why do I need MQA to unveil it to me?

- "I HAVE SPENT MANY HOURS WITH BOB, LISTENING TO ORIGINAL RECORDINGS AND BEING CONSTANTLY AMAZED BY THE INCREDIBLE SENSE OF SPACE AND CLARITY BROUGHT BY MQA." Again, why do they market MQA as revealing something that wasn't there originally?

- "MQA WILL BE THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY, IN THE HISTORY OF RECORDED MUSIC, TO DIRECTLY LINK THE MUSIC LISTENER TO THE MASTERING STUDIO; REVOLUTIONIZING MY JOB AND ITS IMPORTANCE" C'mon really?

Have you guys ever seen their site? Just being there for 5 minutes made me lose a few brain cells.

Check out this beauty:

"MQA vs AIR"

The vision behind MQA is to do no more damage to sound than travelling a short distance through air. By being able to resolve two sounds 8us apart – 15 times better than 192kHz – that vision has been realised. See how it compares below

Say what? What do 5, 10, and 20 even represent? They don't even label their graph. My head is spinning from the nonsense.

 

[jagwap]

1. MQA is not saying that because MQA is not really saying anything because it's all proprietary shell games. Bigshot's deductive logic for Fagan's digitally captured album is tight. Either the MQA version sounds the same as any other, or if it sounds different it was somehow molested by MQA. If MQA is molesting masters, then they are doing so at their own studio, and without artist supervision. Your response to bigshot's deductive logic:

"Your opinion and you are entitled to it. But there is no eveidence either way yet.
I'm just stating what I understand to be their position and what I think that may mean as a counter point"

No contest.

I agree, you are not arguing this well

2. MQA can claim anything. Those aren't falsifiable claims. MQA is using fear mongering of digital to market their format. The Fagan CD points out all the flaws in logic because of the digital format it was originally recorded in. You can't escape the logic on that one. If the Fagan MQA version sounds better to you something must have been tampered with, or else its placebo effect.

I stated that my be the case that something else is at work.

3. Nobody knows exactly what their view is because it's a media conglomerate whose intentions are in the shadows. But here's some tidbits of their marketing, straight from their site:

- "MP3 files deliver just 10% of the original studio recording. MQA captures 100% of the performance." Digital fear mongering

Agreed. Nonsense based on the amount of data not the amount of audio information thrown away. A bad statement which they should have learnt from listing to the reactions to Neil Young's attempts to pursuad people mp3 is bad. I have a feeling Neil Young got this from his meetings with Meridian before launching Pono. I suspect he was hoping Pono would include MQA but it didn't happen.

- "MQA authentically reproduces the sound of the studio master, allowing you to step into the magic of the original performance." Shouldn't the studio master sound like the studio master? The original performance is the original performance, why do I need MQA to unveil it to me?

The studio master should sound like the original performance. Of course is doesn't completely even if it is just a microphone into an ADC, as nothing is perfect. MQA thinks it has found one area they can improve if they can control part of the decoding to allow pre encoding to correct it.

- "I HAVE SPENT MANY HOURS WITH BOB, LISTENING TO ORIGINAL RECORDINGS AND BEING CONSTANTLY AMAZED BY THE INCREDIBLE SENSE OF SPACE AND CLARITY BROUGHT BY MQA." Again, why do they market MQA as revealing something that wasn't there originally?

Your assumption. The earth turned out not to be flat after all.

- "MQA WILL BE THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY, IN THE HISTORY OF RECORDED MUSIC, TO DIRECTLY LINK THE MUSIC LISTENER TO THE MASTERING STUDIO; REVOLUTIONIZING MY JOB AND ITS IMPORTANCE" C'mon really?

Yeh, OK, that's over the top.

Have you guys ever seen their site? Just being there for 5 minutes made me lose a few brain cells.

Check out this beauty:

"MQA vs AIR"

The vision behind MQA is to do no more damage to sound than travelling a short distance through air. By being able to resolve two sounds 8us apart – 15 times better than 192kHz – that vision has been realised. See how it compares below

Say what?

Now look at the curves showing 48, 96, 192kHz on that effect. They show more of this blurring than 5m of air. If it matters, then MQA has a point. If it doesn't then it's BS. But just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.

Sorry. People hear are so dismissive here I think it's rubbing off on me. I've got luddite juice in me.

 

[Strangelove424]

I agree, you are not arguing this well

Huh, agree with what? I think I'm arguing just fine. You're giving me the Pee Wee Herman rebuttal. "I know you are, but what am I" That's sophomoric.

I stated that my be the case that something else is at work.

Ah, the mystery meat. So it might be the case that bass and treble are boosted by 1db on all MQA tracks? It might be the case that each has added reverb? Tons of filtering? When things are proprietary and secretive, neutrality cannot be guaranteed. No thanks, I'll stick with kosher.

Agreed. Nonsense based on the amount of data not the amount of audio information thrown away. A bad statement which they should have learnt from listing to the reactions to Neil Young's attempts to pursuad people mp3 is bad. I have a feeling Neil Young got this from his meetings with Meridian before launching Pono. I suspect he was hoping Pono would include MQA but it didn't happen.

Well, I wish you could step back to see the fear mongering they have cast upon digital as a whole, not just mp3. If you asked me to pick between a analogue tape master stored in a vault for 30 years, or a digitally encoded copy sitting on a server for 30 years, I'd pick the digital copy each and every time. Unlike tape, there are no digital "preservationists", no sticky shed or soft binder syndrome, no need for temperature and humidity controlled vaults, and no generation loss from transfer. Why on earth anyone would trust an aged tape copy over a digital copy is completely beyond me. Whatever minor errors there would be in digital are nothing compared to the disastrous effect time has on tape (or most analogue formats for that matter). The vilification of digital is unfair, and is always followed up by a sales pitch.

The studio master should sound like the original performance. Of course is doesn't completely even if it is just a microphone into an ADC, as nothing is perfect. MQA thinks it has found one area they can improve if they can control part of the decoding to allow pre encoding to correct it.

Lots of empty claims that somehow MQA has revolutionized digital storage. Yet no proof, or falsifiability either. What does pre encoding even mean? When it's all said and done, the burden to provide is on MQA, they are the ones making the claims. This burden of proof thing is an aspect totally lost on MQA or its defenders. Why should I accept anything without verification? Why does MQA deserve people's money without showing it?

Your assumption. The earth turned out not to be flat after all.

I have no idea what you mean by that precisely. However, I do find irony in the comparison of yourself to the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, or Ptolemy, because the people who argued that the earth is round at least showed up with some proof. "Cause it is" never silenced the flat earthers and "cause it is" won't satisfy audio rationalists either.

Now look at the curves showing 48, 96, 192kHz on that effect. They show more of this blurring than 5m of air. If it matters, then MQA has a point. If it doesn't then it's BS. But just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.

Those curves have nothing to do with frequency rate. Nothing on that graph is labelled as such. Looks like you don't understand it either. But it's still wrong. The 5, 10, and 20, as far as I can tell are "air with distances". And right next to the those distances are plots for "MQA". So I guess MQA is a distance of air? I am 'MQA' tall. My speakers are 'MQA' apart. That senseless graph is just as befuddling to you as it is to me, and you know it.

If anyone can make rational sense out of that graph and explain it to me scientifically, I will chop off my ear Van Gogh style and send it to you as a trophy.

Sorry. People hear are so dismissive here I think it's rubbing off on me. I've got luddite juice in me.

We're not being dismissive for sport. I have spent a lot of my life devoting myself to music, and trying to understand it, and when a company like MQA comes along, I get upset because for the purpose of profiteering it is undermining music itself, and undermining years of devotion and study millions of people have poured into it. They come along, make empty claims, and then try to cajole the entire market to capture, edit, and distribute using their proprietary codec. For someone emotionally invested in this artform, it is infuriating. It's downright dastardly.

 

[jagwap]

Huh, agree with what? I think I'm arguing just fine. You're giving me the Pee Wee Herman rebuttal. "I know you are, but what am I" That's sophomoric.

Well your "No contest" set the tone.

Ah, the mystery meat. So it might be the case that bass and treble are boosted by 1db on all MQA tracks? It might be the case that each has added reverb? Tons of filtering? When things are proprietary and secretive, neutrality cannot be guaranteed. No thanks, I'll stick with kosher.

It may be, but I feel confident MQA is not an EQ trick. It's not their style. It's not BBE or any of that stuff. It is trying to get the best version of the music, encode it better with the knowledge of how the decoder works too. Again, I am not saying it works or it doesn't, but trying to explain what you appear to want to ignore.

Well, I wish you could step back to see the fear mongering they have cast upon digital as a whole, not just mp3. If you asked me to pick between a analogue tape master stored in a vault for 30 years, or a digitally encoded copy sitting on a server for 30 years, I'd pick the digital copy each and every time. Unlike tape, there are no digital "preservationists", no sticky shed or soft binder syndrome, no need for temperature and humidity controlled vaults, and no generation loss from transfer. Why on earth anyone would trust an aged tape copy over a digital copy is completely beyond me. Whatever minor errors there would be in digital are nothing compared to the disastrous effect time has on tape (or most analogue formats for that matter). The vilification of digital is unfair, and is always followed up by a sales pitch.

I agreed the marketing is over the top. I've been in meetings with incompetent marketing people and it makes my blood boil. I have now finally worked with competent marketing people but it has been the minority unfortunately. The problem usually is they end up believing their own BS.

Lots of empty claims that somehow MQA has revolutionized digital storage. Yet no proof, or falsifiability either. What does pre encoding even mean? When it's all said and done, the burden to provide is on MQA, they are the ones making the claims. This burden of proof thing is an aspect totally lost on MQA or its defenders. Why should I accept anything without verification? Why does MQA deserve people's money without showing it?

They have replied several times to all this, but it was never enough (see all the pages in the link below). Probably as they were answering to the public and we want more detail. Also there is plenty of secrecy in this industry when it comes the ultimate details of how you do something you feel is better than the others. As to patents, while they are supposed to reveal the tech in an idea to promote the sharing of ideas, while protecting the intellectual property for 20 years, these days it is more about the protection, while obscuring the real idea by burying it in the description that protects it.

I have no idea what you mean by that precisely. However, I do find irony in the comparison of yourself to the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, or Ptolemy, because the people who argued that the earth is round at least showed up with some proof. "Cause it is" never silenced the flat earthers and "cause it is" won't satisfy audio rationalists either.

I meant you are assuming there is nothing to reveal. That everything is already perfect with no chance of improvement. I am open to the idea we don't know everything yet. MQA have explained what they are trying to set out to do, and here there is a lot of "Can't be done", Doesn't make a difference", "They are lairs", "Made up". I see that as having your head in the sand, fingers in the ears "La-la-la not listening"

Those curves have nothing to do with frequency rate. Nothing on that graph is labelled as such. Looks like you don't understand it either. But it's still wrong. The 5, 10, and 20, as far as I can tell are "air with distances". And right next to the those distances are plots for "MQA". So I guess MQA is a distance of air? I am 'MQA' tall. My speakers are 'MQA' apart. That senseless graph is just as befuddling to you as it is to me, and you know it.

If anyone can make rational sense out of that graph and explain it to me scientifically, I will chop off my ear Van Gogh style and send it to you as a trophy.

Try the graph I was talking about. I had difficulty linking it as I was on my phone:
https://www.stereophile.com/images/816mqafeature.MQAfig10.jpg
https://www.stereophile.com/images/816mqafeature.MQAfig11.jpg
From https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers-some-real-world-comparisons

They are trying to show that 48kHz and 192kHz is not as good as MQA in this respect, or 5m of air. Is this necessary? I can't say. They think so. You are entitled to believe not. I will wait and see. Until the proof comes, either way, fine.

I won't hold my breath for an ear.

We're not being dismissive for sport. I have spent a lot of my life devoting myself to music, and trying to understand it, and when a company like MQA comes along, I get upset because for the purpose of profiteering it is undermining music itself, and undermining years of devotion and study millions of people have poured into it. They come along, make empty claims, and then try to cajole the entire market to capture, edit, and distribute using their proprietary codec. For someone emotionally invested in this art form, it is infuriating. It's downright dastardly.

It feels like some here are being dismissive for sport. I came here with good intentions of putting the other side, but then I met this lot and it rubbed off. Hence my comment about Luddite juice. I have also spent my career and spare time working in audio. But so have the guys behind MQA. I don't work for, with or near them, but I have watch these guys at Meridian and I've never seen them produce anything that wasn't genuinely intended to advance the art of audio. Also Peter Craven the same, from his work at B&W with Micheal Gerzon (sad loss) and since. Look those guys up. They are audio heavyweights.

 

[Niouke]

this graph is hilarious, the way I read it MQA soundwaves beat the speed of sound

 

[jagwap]

this graph is hilarious, the way I read it MQA soundwaves beat the speed of sound

Electricity is faster than sound.

 

[gregorio]

The studio master should sound like the original performance..

That of course is nonsense! You'd have a studio master with a typical duration of a week (or several). You listen to say the drums, then wait a day to hear the lead vocals, then wait another day or so for the guitars to be performed, then another day for the backing vocals, another day for say keyboards, a day or two for some overdubs, perc, etc. Is that really what you think a studio master should sound like, because THAT IS as much of an "original performance" as ever existed? The "de-blurring" claims require a fair bit of knowledge/understanding to realise they're nonsense but going on about the "original performance" is also nonsense, because there was NO original performance! What's shocking is not that MQA think that audiophiles are so ignorant of the basics of recording workflows that they won't realise it's nonsense, what's shocking is that they're right, many audiophiles apparently really are that ignorant!

BTW, I'm not just talking about modern digital recording workflows, the workflow I generalised above is pretty much what the Beatles were doing in the mid 1960's and Phil Spector was doing something similar with his "wall of sound" technique from the late 1950's. By the time we get to the 1970's, we have 8 and then 24 track recorders making this type of recording workflow completely standard for just about ALL rock/popular music genres..This isn't rocket science, just very simple history which is well documented on the net, for those who can be bothered to look. Spending numerous hours thinking of responses to counter the "nay-sayers" appears to be a valid use of time but spending a few minutes researching some actual facts, not so much!

G

 

[pinnahertz]

Yes, but when I arrived on this thread the pro MQA side was less represented, and those that tried were beaten senseless and insulted.

Huh. Imagine that. Wonder why that would be,

The studio master should sound like the original performance. Of course is doesn't completely even if it is just a microphone into an ADC, as nothing is perfect.

But this is actually the problem: no master sounds anything like the original performance because it isn't possible, or even intended. That's not what recording/reproducing audio does. The recording/reproduction process strives to achieve a representation of the original that enables the listener to suspend disbelief well enough for the recording to be entertaining, because the reproducing system lacks any ability to reconstruct the original event (or even one similar). Often that representation is of something that never existed as a performance event at all. So it's not possible for any master to sound like the original performance, and that's not what is being attempted. Stating that a post-process can recreate something that goes beyond the abilities of any sound reproducing system is clearly bollox.

MQA thinks it has found one area they can improve if they can control part of the decoding to allow pre encoding to correct it.

Well, I don't know what MQA "thinks", but that's what they are selling. Perhaps they can do that to a small extent under certain very specific conditions. We still are asking if what they are doing is audible...at all...beyond just the claims...and then it would be nice to know the limitations.

Now look at the curves showing 48, 96, 192kHz on that effect. They show more of this blurring than 5m of air. If it matters, then MQA has a point. If it doesn't then it's BS.

Too bad they didn't include analog recording in the graph. Or speakers...any speakers. Or rooms (with air in them). All of which show far more of this "blurring" than any digital system, yet aren't being considered. Sort of like saying how much better your vision is when you clean your glasses, but you're looking through a dirty window out into dense fog.

But just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.

That one made me smile. Agreed!

 

[L8MDL]

 

[jagwap]

Good point well made...

 

[bigshot]

Because the DAC also apparently has time smearingb and pre-compensating in the digital file before playback allows phase free correction as I described above.

Where in the process did the time smearing occur? The only analogue to digital conversion that took place on The Nightfly was at the input stage of the microphones when it was being recorded. Every mike and every patch in from instruments would have its own individual time smear. They would stack up. After that analogue to digital conversion, the signal went through innumerable alterations in the process of mixing and mastering. I don't see how smearing could possibly be undone that far downstream. It would be baked in by then.

I'm also interested in what release of Donald Fagan's The Nightfly you were comparing it to and noticing an improvement? The CD? The SACD? They both sound exactly the same (with the exception of the multichannel mix which definitely sounds better.) I don't think this particular album has ever been remastered. It's always sounded fantastic. The Nightfly is one of the best sounding albums of all time. It is proof that you don't need high bitrates and high sampling rates to sound good. Format doesn't matter. It sounds good on SACD, it sounds good on CD, if you record it to a good quality cassette tape, it still sounds good. Recording and engineering are what make good sound, not big numbers and magic mojo filters.

The Nightfly has no super audible frequency content, no possibility of correction of time smearing, no need to authenticate because the master has always been the master on this album. What is MQA doing here? Zilch, zip, nada. If you're hearing a difference, you should go back and do a careful comparison, because it seems like you have expectation bias coloring your judgement.

Honestly, I don't see you as a troll. I see you as someone who has made up his mind about an issue and you'll stick to your guns even if it's clear that the facts aren't on your side. That isn't uncommon in this day and age. All I ask is that you listen to my arguments and understand them. Think for yourself and figure it out and answer without leaning on sales pitch.

 

[jagwap]

Where in the process did the time smearing occur? The only analogue to digital conversion that took place on The Nightfly was at the input stage of the microphones when it was being recorded. Every mike and every patch in from instruments would have its own individual time smear. They would stack up. After that analogue to digital conversion, the signal went through innumerable alterations in the process of mixing and mastering. I don't see how smearing could possibly be undone that far downstream. It would be baked in by then.

DACs do it too according to Meridian (and others). They have been correcting that stuff for years. They were the first to do apodizing filters I believe, and Peter Craven wrote the paper on it. One of the problems is that apodizing needs a slow roll off filter and this causes a droop in the HF which has always concerned me about the technique. I think the later paper by Peter Craven explaining that to fix that you need to pre-correct the filtering then apodizing does not need the roll off in the pass band. This is what I suspect they are up to here.

I'm also interested in what release of Donald Fagan's The Nightfly you were comparing it to and noticing an improvement? The CD? The SACD? They both sound exactly the same (with the exception of the multichannel mix which definitely sounds better.) I don't think this particular album has ever been remastered.

Sorry, it has: The "Cheap Xmas" collection on HDTracks is obviously a compressed hot mix. I actually bought it. Really annoying.

It's always sounded fantastic. The Nightfly is one of the best sounding albums of all time. It is proof that you don't need high bitrates and high sampling rates to sound good. Format doesn't matter. It sounds good on SACD, it sounds good on CD, if you record it to a good quality cassette tape, it still sounds good. Recording and engineering are what make good sound, not big numbers and magic mojo filters.

Agreed. It is one of the audiophile favourites I still enjoy and don't want to play to death as a test track.

The Nightfly has no super audible frequency content, no possibility of correction of time smearing, no need to authenticate because the master has always been the master on this album. What is MQA doing here? Zilch, zip, nada. If you're hearing a difference, you should go back and do a careful comparison, because it seems like you have expectation bias coloring your judgement.

Hmmm. I will, because I am interested to nail this down, but as you can see, there are other masters, and the claim of time smear is in the DAC and the ADC. So you seem to have made some assumptions too, to fit your bias...

Honestly, I don't see you as a troll. I see you as someone who has made up his mind about an issue and you'll stick to your guns even if it's clear that the facts aren't on your side. That isn't uncommon in this day and age. All I ask is that you listen to my arguments and understand them. Think for yourself and figure it out and answer without leaning on sales pitch.

Cheers. I haven't made my mind up about MQA. But I have made my mind up not to assume it is just marketing hype.

 

[TheTrace]

Only the majority of it.