[bigshot]

I can't quantify how much is down to the remastering

 
Well, if you are comparing a track that has been remastered in one file format against a track that hasn't in a different file format, it's impossible to say anything one way or the other about the file format. Differences are much more likely to be a result of mastering than file format.
 
My primary interest in streaming is to stream my own library over the internet or my wifi network to my own stereos and devices. If an encoder is not publicly available, this is going to be limited to just buy it now downloads and subscription streaming services. Not much use to those who already have a library of music they want to stream themselves.

 

[Gringo]

Yes, MQA is about going back to the original master tapes. You are quite right about the Red Book thing, what I should have said was that Meridian have been in the forefront to try and improve upon Red Book standards By championing "Noise-shaping which was first proposed by Michael Gerzon and Peter Craven in 1989 [11] and successfully embodied in Meridian’s 618, 518 [12, 22] and also in Sony’s Super Bit Mapping." The quoted extract was from a paper by Meridian's Bob Stewart who is/was, (not sure which), also chairman of Acoustic Renaissance for Audio.

 

[Gringo]

You can comment if a newer format incorporates new patented techniques that result in superior audio quality.

I don't think Meridian are claiming that MQA is going to improve your existing library but smaller file size for future downloads with better sampled quality is.

Everyone will get the benefits from the improved sampling but only those with a MQA enabled equipment get the benefit of the data that has been folded into the area below the noise floor being extracted and played back. The debate as to exactly how much of it can be discerned is another discussion altogether.

Meridian's big claim is based on fairly recent research, which as I understand it is widely excepted, is that timing is a much more important issue than had previously thought to the way the brain perceives and reacts to sound and this is where they have applied their expertise.

Healthy scepticism is good and to be encouraged. I am not an audio techie and I have only made my contributions to the forum because it seemed to me, (rightly or wrongly), that many comments were just simply dismissive of a new technology that I have actually heard and which most consumers will get to benefit once it is widely taken up. Whether it is widely taken up remains to be seen, (the best technology does not always win through, remember Betamax).

In a nutshell, I know my car gives me a much better driving experience than my previous one despite the fact I don't pretend to understand all its workings. I know that what I heard at three different MQA auditions is superior to anything I have heard previously.

 

[Gringo]

Classic, can't handle the message so shoot the messenger.

Have you heard MQA? If you have and think it's all hype, smoke and mirrors that's fine. We are all entitled to our opinion and your opinion is just as valid as mine if you have heard it. I do not in anyway seek to dismiss or belittle you or your opinion.

If you have not heard it, then all I am saying is don't be too quick to dismiss it.

In various posts phrases like money grab seem a little over dismissive. What's wrong with any person/company trying to push the boundaries and make a profit at the same time? If you feel the price being asked is not worth it then that's fine, value is a subjective judgement.

Uncritical praise? Well yes MQA is not the same thing as the actual original performance but as far as I can tell it's closer than anything else I have heard, if you have heard better that's absolutely fine and what is it?

As I said, I have no vested interest, I am not asking you to spend any money, I am not asking you to throw away any of your existing music/equipment, I simply tried to clarify one or two misconceptions and say that you should go and listen for yourself and then dismiss it if you feel it's all rubbish.

 

[bigshot]

Yes, MQA is about going back to the original master tapes. You are quite right about the Red Book thing, what I should have said was that Meridian have been in the forefront to try and improve upon Red Book standards By championing "Noise-shaping

 
There's no audible noise in redbook to shape. Dithering "shapes" inaudible noise I guess.
 
Here is my wish list...
 
Mastering gets better.
All formats are open source- no patented technologies. No DRM. I can encode it, rip it, stream it myself and share it.
File size is smaller for CD quality sound. (Redbook is perfect sound for human beings.)
 
I already have the second two nailed with AAC. All I really care about now is the mastering. If MQA can get better mastering out of the big labels, great. If they make me buy into a proprietary file format to get it, I'm not interested. I'll just wait until the labels decide to release the exact same remaster on CD, which probably won't take too long.
 
The problem is mastering, not the sound quality of the file format.

 

[Gringo]

If MQA does take off, (and yes that is still a big if). You won't have to wait too long for the MQA mastered discs/downloads as there won't be a need for separate quality issues of the same music. One of the big advantages for the producers/streaming/downloading services is that you only need to provide one file. If subscribers buy the app/hardware they can decode the MQA aspect of the file otherwise it plays as an ordinary FLAC file /disc all-be-it with what ever improvements came from the remastering that are not encapsulated within the folding technique. Therefore you get to choose to continue paying the regular price, (no extra cost to your pocket), or opt for the inevitably higher cost MQA decoding app/hardware. This is what I mean by no one looses out.

Recording labels/studios/downloading services and recording artists are not going to simply give it away for free and why should they. Everyone has to make a living and most people involved in the industry are not the fat cats sitting on the top of the pile, I for one don't begrudge session musicians, backing singers, recording engineers etc. and the majority of recording artists a living. For every millionaire superstar there are thousands of very good artists simply trying to get by. You can tell from this that I don't subscribe to the rip for free culture, but hey each to their own.

File format does have an impact on sound quality if it dictates compression or any other restrictions e.g. MP3 and such like.

The forecast is that MQA will only start to become available to the general consumer in the Spring so until then other than going to a Meridian dealer and auditioning to see if I have been talking a load of nonsense, you have to wait, (dealers are now starting to get Demonstration MQA controlers, (DAC/Preamps).

 

[bigshot]

File format does have an impact on sound quality if it dictates compression or any other restrictions e.g. MP3 and such like.

 
One an audio format exceeds the human ability to hear, all formats sound exactly the same-- audibly transparent. I find that MP3 LAME and AAC are perfectly capable of achieving audible transparency. No need for frequencies I can't hear and noise floors lower than I can possibly detect at ear splitting volumes. That stuff makes absolutely zilch difference to music. It's just sales pitch.
 
Better mastering is what is needed, not another proprietary format.

 

[Gringo]

Well we can just agree to disagree on that one.

 

[bigshot]

I've done direct A/B switched, volume matched comparison using excellent equipment and multiple sets of ears. I also set up a listening test with Fraunhofer MP3, LAME MP3 and AAC from 192 to 320 against lossless and have provided the test to dozens of people. No one yet has been able to consistently ID much of anything above 192 Fraunhofer. If you would like to try the test yourself, I would be happy to give you a download link.

 

[Gringo]

Thank you, the link would be good.

Meridian are I think backing your statement about the audible sound quality improvement above 192 being of dubious value and many existing DAC's down sample anything above anyway, (some even lower).

Meridian MQA promotional material asserts that the numbers war is of limited value and that timing is what the industry needs to be focusing on more. This is one of the areas where MQA is claimed to score because it rectifys/compensates for errors in time smearing. This timing thing is where many detractors are going wrong as this is not simply "some fancy new equalisation"

I personally try not to get too hung up on the numbers game because using the analogy, science says bees should not be able to fly but my eyes tell me they do. Everyone is quite right to be sceptical over manufacturers claims, that's why going and using our own ears is the main critical factor. I can claim what ever I like but it is your ears that you are going to believe and that is exactly as it should be.

Maybe I was victim to some sort of David Blane hocus pocus illusion at three different auditions by three different vendors but I am happy to believe my ears because that's what I listen with everyday when I listen to my music.

 

[RRod]

Thank you, the link would be good.

Meridian are I think backing your statement about the audible sound quality improvement above 192 being of dubious value and many existing DAC's down sample anything above anyway, (some even lower).

Meridian MQA promotional material asserts that the numbers war is of limited value and that timing is what the industry needs to be focusing on more. This is one of the areas where MQA is claimed to score because it rectifys/compensates for errors in time smearing. This timing thing is where many detractors are going wrong as this is not simply "some fancy new equalisation"

I personally try not to get too hung up on the numbers game because using the analogy, science says bees should not be able to fly but my eyes tell me they do. Everyone is quite right to be sceptical over manufacturers claims, that's why going and using our own ears is the main critical factor. I can claim what ever I like but it is your ears that you are going to believe and that is exactly as it should be.

Maybe I was victim to some sort of David Blane hocus pocus illusion at three different auditions by three different vendors but I am happy to believe my ears because that's what I listen with everyday when I listen to my music.

 
What exactly is this "time smearing" phenomenon then?

 

[ralphp@optonline]

Thank you, the link would be good.

Meridian are I think backing your statement about the audible sound quality improvement above 192 being of dubious value and many existing DAC's down sample anything above anyway, (some even lower).

Meridian MQA promotional material asserts that the numbers war is of limited value and that timing is what the industry needs to be focusing on more. This is one of the areas where MQA is claimed to score because it rectifys/compensates for errors in time smearing. This timing thing is where many detractors are going wrong as this is not simply "some fancy new equalisation"

I personally try not to get too hung up on the numbers game because using the analogy, science says bees should not be able to fly but my eyes tell me they do. Everyone is quite right to be sceptical over manufacturers claims, that's why going and using our own ears is the main critical factor. I can claim what ever I like but it is your ears that you are going to believe and that is exactly as it should be.

Maybe I was victim to some sort of David Blane hocus pocus illusion at three different auditions by three different vendors but I am happy to believe my ears because that's what I listen with everyday when I listen to my music.

I'm still confused - new masters or existing masters that are MQA processed (whatever that means).
 
If it is new masters, i.e. the existing analog masters converted to digital using the MQA process, then the whole thing will fail since no record company is going to take the time to do this. Plus what about digitally recorded music, especially music recorded in the early days of digital at either 16 or 20 bit. Remember that if the sounds were not captured on the original digital recording than no amount of "processing" is going to "recover" them. Which is why I'm sticking with my theory that the whole MQA thing is nothing more than some form of equalization, until I am proven wrong, which by the way is no going to happen.

 

[Gringo]

1. If it is new masters, i.e. the existing analog masters converted to digital using the MQA process, 2. then the whole thing will fail since no record company is going to take the time to do this. 3. Plus what about digitally recorded music, especially music recorded in the early days of digital at either 16 or 20 bit. Remember that if the sounds were not captured on the original digital recording than no amount of "processing" is going to "recover" them. Which is why I'm sticking with my theory that the whole MQA thing is nothing more than some form of equalization, until I am proven wrong, which by the way is no going to happen.
 
1. Yes MQA involves going back to the original masters so no confusion there.
2. Yes they will, at least one record label has already stated publicly that they have started to use MQA to create completely new samples which will be released latter this year.  Don't underestimate the record labels desire to sell their back catalogue all over again.
3. No one is claiming the information that was not captured in the original recording can be recovered
 
Because studios keep accurate records of the DAC's that were employed in the recording process, errors that these produced can be compensated for, (early digital filters were problematic in some instances).  This means some things that those original DAC's introduced/added can be corrected which is part of the MQA process.
 
I am happy for you to be confident in your theory and assuredness that you will not be proven wrong, all I am doing is trying to clear up some misconceptions. If you wish to dismiss them, then again that's absolutely fine,
 
Happy listining

 

[ralphp@optonline]

Because studios keep accurate records of the DAC's that were employed in the recording process, errors that these produced can be compensated for, (early digital filters were problematic in some instances).  This means some things that those original DAC's introduced/added can be corrected which is part of the MQA process.  
I am happy for you to be confident in your theory and assuredness that you will not be proven wrong, all I am doing is trying to clear up some misconceptions. If you wish to dismiss them, then again that's absolutely fine,
 
Happy listining

The first sentence above is why I am still confused or that you seriously misinformed. Case in point:
 
1) If the original recording is an analog recording and is being remastered then the analog masters are being converted anew to digital so what why would the original DAC even matter.
 
2) If the original recording is an analog recording and the original DAC matters then it is NOT being remastered but only processed, which as I stated previously means EQUALIZATION!
 
3) If the original recording is a digital recording then, as I stated previous, no amount of processing is going to recover the sounds not present on the original recording so that leaves only EQUALIZATION!
 
So please get your facts straightened out before you respond.

 

[Gringo]

As mentioned before, I am no techie so  I have used the words of others who understand the issues much better than I
 
"Brick-wall low-pass digital filters which are applied prior to DACs cause time smearing: Pre- and post- echos. It was the anedotal evidence that higher sampling rates sound better - time smearing is halved for a doubling of sampling frequency - that led to the view that it is the pre-echos which can lead to CD being accused of having a "glassy" or "harsh" sound. Meridian's apodizing filters all but eliminate pre-echos*. The post-echo smearing is no longer linear with frequency (like with the brick-wall filters), but the brain doesn't seem to mind this (echos being completely natural)."
 
and 
 
"In the last decade, there have been tremendous strides taken in psychoacoustics and, importantly, neuroscience (which has informed the psychoacoustics). The short of it is that the industry has been grossly mistaken about the relative importance of the frequency domain vs. the time domain. Yes, there is the anecdotal evidence that higher sample rates are better, but no-one has ever really articulated why (other than the pre- and post-ringing "naturalness" arguments).

The latest findings, grounded in science, are that, when it comes to human hearing, the time domain is up to 5x more important than the frequency domain. If you hear a twig snap in the woods, you know immediately where it is (time domain); you actually “decode” what it was afterwards (frequency domain). This is evolution at work: hearing is the most important sense for survival: it works when your eyes are shut, when you’re not looking in the relevant direction, and in the dark.

The human hearing system is sensitive to about 10 microseconds in time resolution and here’s the kicker: much/most of this resolution is destroyed in anything encoded digitally below a 192kHz sampling rate.

That’s right: 96kHz is NOT enough.

However, is the public about to download or stream 192/24 audio? No, because it’s not *convenient*. How then to provide audio of the highest quality to the masses? The short of it is that Meridian has found a way of folding the time resolution information into a regular PCM file with a lower sample rate (it’s actually hidden below the noise floor). It’s a stroke of genius and means that MQA files appear to anything other than an MQA decoder as a playable PCM file. But an MQA decoder can "unfold" the file to the original sample rate, adding back the time resolution information.

Another crucial learning from neuroscience is that the brain has three times as many nerves sending signals TO the cochlea than sending information FROM the cochlea to the brain. This is a incredible fact; the brain actively switches the ear’s sensitivity (to frequency) depending on the situation (natural sounds, animal sounds, and speech). The encoding algorithm takes into account these different hearing modes (don’t ask me how!) and the "compression" applied to the master file (which can be anything from a (non-ideal) 44.1/16 master up to 8x sample rate) is not lossy in the conventional sense. There is nothing removed from the file that would allow a human being to differentiate between the MQA encoding and the master as heard in the studio. Lossy? No, that would be an extremely unfair and naive description. "Encoded for human hearing" would be more accurate.

So what is MQA? It stands for “Master Quality Authenticated”. Master Quality because it is able to deliver essentially what the recording artist heard in the studio. Authenticated because the audio data are signed (no, not DRM) so that an MQA decoder can verify the authenticity of the MQA file; that it is intact and as intended when it left the studio, having been signed off by the artist and producer."
 
The above may give you some clarification but I guess, (and it's only reasonable and logical ), that you will believe it when you hear it hence so if you get a chance go and have an audition of MQA