[cjl]

 
Lighten up a little. Just to clarify: "the money for nothing" refers not to the MQA technology but rather the fact MQA is completely unnecessary,as in there will NEVER be a double blind test that proves that an MQA sounds BETTER (not different, BETTER) than a standard flac file made from a 16bit/44.1kHz (CD quality) file. So it truly will money for nothing for MQA/Meridian.

Hell, I'd settle for different. That would at least show that it's doing something audible.

 

[ralphp@optonline]

 
Hell, I'd settle for different. That would at least show that it's doing something audible.

Which is exactly why I used the word "better" since it appears that MQA does do some sort of signal processing, aka equalization, and that would mean that MQA files should/would sound "different". But, and this is a very, very BIG BUT, different does not EQUAL better.

 

[watchnerd]

 
Hell, I'd settle for different. That would at least show that it's doing something audible.

 
Based on the spectrals I've seen, I don't doubt that it's doing something potentially audible.
 
However one could argue that what it does isn't true to the recording.

 

[Gringo]

Based on the spectrals I've seen, I don't doubt that it's doing something potentially audible.

However one could argue that what it does isn't true to the recording.

Very big If, but if any technology/artist improves upon the original recording I s that a bad thing? I am not, repeat not claiming MQA does so, but simply posing the question. Before anyone gets too upset, I am fully aware that subjectivity can have a crucial impact here.

 

[watchnerd]

Very big If, but if any technology/artist improves upon the original recording I s that a bad thing? I am not, repeat not claiming MQA does so, but simply posing the question. Before anyone gets too upset, I am fully aware that subjectivity can have a crucial impact here.

 
As long as we acknowledge that "improve" can mean "changing reproduction via signal processing to make it sound different", then it's no better or worse than using EQ, DSP IIR filters, or room correction.
 
Personally, though, I'd rather have such decisions made as part of the playback system, as opposed to be embedded directly into the recording.  Especially if it's done ex post facto without input from the original recording engineers.

 

[ralphp@optonline]

Very big If, but if any technology/artist improves upon the original recording I s that a bad thing? I am not, repeat not claiming MQA does so, but simply posing the question. Before anyone gets too upset, I am fully aware that subjectivity can have a crucial impact here.

 
 

   
As long as we acknowledge that "improve" can mean "changing reproduction via signal processing to make it sound different", then it's no better or worse than using EQ, DSP IIR filters, or room correction.
 
Personally, though, I'd rather have such decisions made as part of the playback system, as opposed to be embedded directly into the recording.  Especially if it's done ex post facto without input from the original recording engineers.

I think that a little clarification is in order.
 
What exactly is an "original recording"?
 
First let's state that we are talking about electronically reproduced audio and not Edison's original acoustic wax cylinders. Okay what is a recording? Simply put it an timed electrical signal produced by a microphone which converts the sound waves, aka air pressure variations, into an analogous electrical signal. In the case of a digital recording the electrical signal is converted into a digital signal.
 
Once the electrical or digital signal is created there are no more voices or instruments "there" since "there" is just an electrical signal. A wire carrying this signal doesn't "know" the signal is an audio recording, to the wire it is just an electrical signal just like any other electrical signal.
 
And once this the recording is made is no way to "improve" the sounds recorded on the signal. All that is possible is for the signal to be processed. The signal can be amplified, it can be filtered, only parts of the signal can be amplified (which is what an equalizer does) but the original electrical signal produced by the microphone will always be the "best" possible signal. Anyone who states otherwise is simply misinformed.
 
And so I agree with watchnerd - other than the processing which is done by the original recording engineers all other post recording processing should be at the discretion of the listener.
 
All of the above explains why I have always insisted that MQA, with respect to its ability to "improve the original recording", is nothing more than a fancy equalizer.

 

[groovyd]

snake oil

 

[gregorio]

  And once this the recording is made is no way to "improve" the sounds recorded on the signal. All that is possible is for the signal to be processed. The signal can be amplified, it can be filtered, only parts of the signal can be amplified (which is what an equalizer does) but the original electrical signal produced by the microphone will always be the "best" possible signal. Anyone who states otherwise is simply misinformed.

 
So, virtually all the record labels, recording studios, mastering studios, professional mix and mastering engineers and producers of commercial audio recordings for about the last half century are "simply misinformed"?
 

  ...other than the processing which is done by the original recording engineers all other post recording processing should be at the discretion of the listener.

 
Recording engineers rarely, if ever, add any processing. Have you ever heard raw, unedited, unmixed, recorded tracks?
 
G

 

[ralphp@optonline]

   
So, virtually all the record labels, recording studios, mastering studios, professional mix and mastering engineers and producers of commercial audio recordings for about the last half century are "simply misinformed"?
 
 
Recording engineers rarely, if ever, add any processing. Have you ever heard raw, unedited, unmixed, recorded tracks?
 
G

The key words being "unmixed" and "tracks" because once the tracks are mixed down to two stereo tracks there is no way to unmix them. So one either has separate tracks or a mixed down stereo recording. By the way, I suggest that you speak with some recording engineers and ask them just ow much one can edit a recorded track - other than applying some equalization the track can not be changed.

 

[gregorio]

  The key words being "unmixed" and "tracks" because once the tracks are mixed down to two stereo tracks there is no way to unmix them.

 
You seem to be getting confused with recording and mixing and not taking account of mastering at all! When one records "the original electrical signal produced by the microphone", one has a track. These recorded tracks can be mono or stereo (or even in surround) and are edited, mixed and processed in potentially a virtually infinite number of different ways. When mixing is complete, the final mix is sent to a mastering engineer who will apply a further round of processing and NOT just EQ and amplification! This editing and mixing always occurs and mastering is standard procedure for commercial releases and this is because that "original electrical signal produced by the mic" is virtually never "the best"!
 

  By the way, I suggest that you speak with some recording engineers and ask them just ow much one can edit a recorded track - other than applying some equalization the track can not be changed.

 
It's really not at all wise to include the line "Anyone who states otherwise is simply misinformed" when making statements on a subject you obviously don't know much about. And just so we're clear here, are you really telling a highly experienced professional recording and mastering engineer to go and talk to a recording engineer?!
 
G

 

[ralphp@optonline]

   
You seem to be getting confused with recording and mixing and not taking account of mastering at all! When one records "the original electrical signal produced by the microphone", one has a track. These recorded tracks can be mono or stereo (or even in surround) and are edited, mixed and processed in potentially a virtually infinite number of different ways. When mixing is complete, the final mix is sent to a mastering engineer who will apply a further round of processing and NOT just EQ and amplification! This editing and mixing always occurs and mastering is standard procedure for commercial releases and this is because that "original electrical signal produced by the mic" is virtually never "the best"!
 
 
It's really not at all wise to include the line "Anyone who states otherwise is simply misinformed" when making statements on a subject you obviously don't know much about. And just so we're clear here, are you really telling a highly experienced professional recording and mastering engineer to go and talk to a recording engineer?!
 
G

First things STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS, please. There is no need for them since I believe this is just simple misunderstanding of what I'm trying to say, probably because I'm not expressing myself correctly. So let me try again.
 
The point I'm trying to make is that MQA is claiming to somehow fix existing, fully mixed and mastered recordings and my point is that the only to fix existing fully mixed and mastered recordings is via some form of equalization, regardless of the fancy name one gives that equalization. It is not more complicated than that.
 
So for example I listen to lots and lots of jazz, some of new and some old. On the old recordings, say a Charlie Parker recording from the late 1940s, recorded in mono. And say the recording features the great drummer Max Roach. Well guess what back in the early 1940s only about 50% or so of the super dynamic sound of Max Roach playing the drums was captured on the original recording - there is almost no high end and very little impact. The only way to "fix" these shortcoming is by equalization. So one tries to boost the high end but that just means that the existing tape hiss is boosted along with Max's cymbals. And all the power of Roach's drumming, which needs sharp and forceful transients is also lost.
 
So in addition to equalization being the only real tool available, equalization does have limits.
 
What has always struck me as odd is that although the high end audio press and many audiophiles claim that complete and total fidelity to the original recording is the goal, they are somehow willing to overlook equalization as long one calls it by a new name.

 

[Baxide]

The more I read up on this MQA, the more I come to the conclusion that it is very similar to stereo transmission on FM. On FM you have the pilot tone that determines if you got a strong enough signal to decode as stereo, or not. That in turn gives you a wider audio spectrum signal. But the catch is the claim that the extra info is somehow folded on top of the normal signal does raises one serious question: if the bandwidth wasn't there to transmit the high resolution data in its full glory, where does the extra bandwidth suddenly appear from to have the extra data superimposed on the other bit of data? If you need a decoder just to extract that info, you might as well have streamed the unprocessed audio in the first place. There won't be any adverse effect on the sound, except in countries with a poor internet bandwidth.

 

[ralphp@optonline]

  .....except in countries with a poor internet bandwidth.

Or slow cellular data networks.

 

[gregorio]

 
First things STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS, please.

 
What? Attacking others and then shouting "stop the personal attacks" when they respond in kind, just inflames the situation even more. If you don't want people to respond in kind then it's really very simple, don't attack others in the first place!
 

  I believe this is just simple misunderstanding of what I'm trying to say, probably because I'm not expressing myself correctly. So let me try again.

 
Either you have failed again to express yourself correctly or you are expressing yourself clearly but are yourself "misinformed".
 

So for example I listen to lots and lots of jazz, some of new and some old. On the old recordings, say a Charlie Parker recording from the late 1940s, recorded in mono. And say the recording features the great drummer Max Roach. Well guess what back in the early 1940s only about 50% or so of the super dynamic sound of Max Roach playing the drums was captured on the original recording - there is almost no high end and very little impact. The only way to "fix" these shortcoming is by equalization.

 
No it is not, you are "misinformed"! Commonly in these types of situations, not only is EQ not "the only way to fix this shortcoming", it is sometimes no way to fix this shortcoming! EQ effectively works on the same principle as multiplication, if there's no signal in the desired band, no amount of EQ will help. 5 x 0 = 0, 10000 x 0 is still zero! Either no fix is possible or some process/es other than EQ would be required, the use of an Aural Exciter for example. And, Aural Excitement was included in the very first (semi) automatic mastering processor 20 years ago.
 

The point I'm trying to make is that MQA is claiming to somehow fix existing, fully mixed and mastered recordings and my point is that the only to fix existing fully mixed and mastered recordings is via some form of equalization ...

 
No it is not! You should apply your advice to yourself and go and talk to a recording/mastering engineer, although you are "talking" with one now and it doesn't seem to be making any difference! There are many potential processes besides just EQ which MQA could be applying. In fact, it's pretty inconceivable that MQA is only applying EQ because even the first mastering specific processor 20 years ago was capable of far more than just EQ! In addition to EQ and the aforementioned Aural Exciterment, MQA could potentially employ any or all of the following; compressing, expanding, companding (and multi-band versions of all these), shuffling, bass excitement, dynamic noise reduction, transient shaping, plus a few others and, it could be applying them in L/R or M/S.
 
G

 

[Baxide]

   
What? Attacking others and then shouting "stop the personal attacks" when they respond in kind, just inflames the situation even more. If you don't want people to respond in kind then it's really very simple, don't attack others in the first place!
 
 
If the truth may be told, you do approach others on the forum as if they are of a lesser intelligence than you, who must then be taught a lesson by you. But you do not seem to notice the offence that it causes. I have already started to avoid interacting with any topic where you are actively involved in. There was another poster on here who exhibited the same kind of exhibitionist approach towards other forum posters. Luckily he got banned eventually. It was around the same time that I think that you joined up. Just saying.