[icebear]

Another link in the MQA chain which doesn't make any sense to me ...
They claim to correct any errors of the original ADC and the final DA conversion is following the MQA algorithms and the blue light comes on yeah! now it sounds good!
All the processing of the original recording, the mixing and mastering has been done based on the original recording and now the original recording is getting the MQA improvement... does this automatically require a complete remastering process or can this improvement just be topped over the existing work and it will sound masterly? ).
This seems like the canvas beneath the painting gets a different treatment and now the colors are supposedly coming out brighter and prettier. .

You've guessed right, I didn't figure out how to insert smilies.

 

[gregorio]

All the processing of the original recording, the mixing and mastering has been done based on the original recording and now the original recording is getting the MQA improvement... does this automatically require a complete remastering process or can this improvement just be topped over the existing work and it will sound masterly?

I've mentioned this exact same point several times already in this thread. There are only two possible answers to your question, either:

1. Any particular ADC causes audible artefacts, say filter pre/post ringing or whatever "blurring" is supposed to mean. In which case, as you and I have said, the mixing and mastering has been done based on that and in most cases at least a remaster would be required, if not an entire remix. An exception might be direct to disk recordings (IE. No mixing or mastering) but these are very/extremely rare. Or ...

2. The ADC artefacts ("blurring" or whatever) are not audible and therefore have had no influence on the mixing or mastering processes. In which case, correcting these artefacts would not require a remix or remaster. However, if this is the case, then MQA are making a big deal out of correcting/fixing a problem which is inaudible!

The three fanbois contributing to this thread refuse to acknowledge the actual facts and logic, choosing to either completely ignore these inconvenient facts/logic or responding by quoting (or misquoting) more irrelevant marketing BS. It's this "choosing" which defines them as fanbois!

I prefer many hires recordings to Redbook, not sure if it's simply due to a better master
or processing thereof ...
Most MQA I've listened to definitely sounds better, whether this is due to simply a better processing of the master, a better master or benefits of the MQA process itself doesn't matter to me.

Despite it being explained to you numerous times, in various different threads, you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the ridiculous logical contradiction in your statements. If you do not know and do not care about unrelated factors which affect the determination of what is better or preferable just think of the consequences: Unleaded gas can be demonstrated to be better than premium unleaded, alternative or no medicine is preferable to established medical advice/treatment, not wearing a seatbelt is safer than wearing one, etc. Your logic is "ridiculous" because it's hard to imagine how you've managed to survive in the world if you truly believe what you're saying and apply that logic in the rest of your life. You'd either be dead, bankrupt or both! There is NO correlation between the quality of a master and the quality of a distribution format, if there were then I could put a high quality master into a 16/44.1 container and a low quality version into a hires container and applying your logic could ONLY result in the conclusion that redbook is superior to hires! Using your logic, I could in fact prove the superiority of just about any format over any other: For example it would be easy to prove that 192kbps AAC "definitely sounds better" than SACD, MQA, 32/384 or whatever else exists which is marketed as superior.

You've now backed yourself into such a horrendous logical cul de sac that you've no choice other than to either A. Just completely avoid/ignore this post and effectively admit you're being foolish/fooled and irrational or B. Make yourself look even more foolish or easily fooled by using misdirection or some other ridiculous rationale as an excuse for not applying your stated logic! Which is it going to be?

G

 

[sonitus mirus]

My chips are on choice B.

 

[bigshot]

On a blu-ray forum I frequent, there has been an ongoing argument about which release of Dario Argento's Suspira is the best and most accurate transfer. The ironic thing about it is that many people are arguing that a version that hasn't even been released yet is the best, based solely on the tweets and Facebook posts from the people doing the restoration. They haven't even seen the release, yet they are willing to go to the mat proclaiming that it's the best!

Internet forums tend to breed Brobnigagian arguments about which side of an egg to break it on. I personally can't see why someone would even attempt to defend MQA on technical merits when so little about the technical merits of MQA have been divulged, but clearly some people feel invested in it enough to try. I have no doubt that MQA sounds very good, particularly when they have the ability to remaster to improve the sound quality. But MP3 and AAC can sound very good with a proper remaster too. Remastering quality is what people should be focusing on, not irrelevant technical minutia.

 

[headfry]

On a blu-ray forum I frequent, there has been an ongoing argument about which release of Dario Argento's Suspira is the best and most accurate transfer. The ironic thing about it is that many people are arguing that a version that hasn't even been released yet is the best, based solely on the tweets and Facebook posts from the people doing the restoration. They haven't even seen the release, yet they are willing to go to the mat proclaiming that it's the best!

Internet forums tend to breed Brobnigagian arguments about which side of an egg to break it on. I personally can't see why someone would even attempt to defend MQA on technical merits when so little about the technical merits of MQA have been divulged, but clearly some people feel invested in it enough to try. I have no doubt that MQA sounds very good, particularly when they have the ability to remaster to improve the sound quality. But MP3 and AAC can sound very good with a proper remaster too. Remastering quality is what people should be focusing on, not irrelevant technical minutia.

I have yet to hear an MP3, AAC or FLAC that sounds as good - particularly in naturalness and imaging/soundstage - as many of the Tidal software-decoded Masters I've heard. If it can be done,
let's have it!

 

[castleofargh]

my mum has yet to meet a more amazing, talented, and clever boy than me. does it convince you that I'm the best dude ever? perhaps you're a tiny bit skeptical, to say the least.
welcome to the club.

 

[gregorio]

I have yet to hear an MP3, AAC or FLAC that sounds as good - particularly in naturalness and imaging/soundstage - as many of the Tidal software-decoded Masters I've heard. If it can be done,
let's have it!

I have yet to taste a paper, cardboard or plastic wrapper that tastes as good - particularly in naturalness and flavor/texture - as many of the McDonalds burgers I've eaten. If other burger makers can use the same wrapping, let's have it!

I have yet to see an XviD, H264 or RAW that looks as good - particularly in naturalness and framing/widescreen - as many of the Paramount films in MPEG-2 I've seen. If other films can be encoded in MPEG-2, let's have it!

See, I can play that game too!

G

 

[VNandor]

I have yet to hear an MP3, AAC or FLAC that sounds as good - particularly in naturalness and imaging/soundstage - as many of the Tidal software-decoded Masters I've heard. If it can be done,
let's have it!

It can be easily done. First you have to convert any format you want to test to either AAC or FLAC. Then you have to organize a proper blind test, which can be easily done with foobar's ABX Comparator plugin for example. All that is left now is to try to pass the blind test and fail at it, which would be a very likely case. Blind test is the trick that can make both FLAC and AAC sound just as good as any "hi-res" format.

 

[pinnahertz]

No, it's not easily done at all. The problem is he needs to compare an ACC and FLAC version and an MQA version made from the exact same master. Not going to happen, there's no way to access a master, and no way to play with MQA encoding. You can't trust the MQA versions out there to not have some form of remastering done, so no comparison of the codec alone is possible at this time.

However, comparing an AAC and FLAC to a bit-perfect CD rip is easy. And also silly, as FLAC is lossless and bit-perfect to being with. AAC comparisons are valid so long as there's a brain in use during the process of selecting the encoding bit rates and parameters. Same thing with mp3. Both can sound exactly like lossless, or dreadful, or anywhere inbetween. They are not fixed, generic codecs.

Besides, would it surprise anyone if the ABX process were rejected out of hand? I wouldn't surprise me. I've been defending DBT/ABX for years, some people just won't ever accept the methodology.

 

[old tech]

No, it's not easily done at all. The problem is he needs to compare an ACC and FLAC version and an MQA version made from the exact same master. Not going to happen, there's no way to access a master, and no way to play with MQA encoding. You can't trust the MQA versions out there to not have some form of remastering done, so no comparison of the codec alone is possible at this time.

However, comparing an AAC and FLAC to a bit-perfect CD rip is easy. And also silly, as FLAC is lossless and bit-perfect to being with. AAC comparisons are valid so long as there's a brain in use during the process of selecting the encoding bit rates and parameters. Same thing with mp3. Both can sound exactly like lossless, or dreadful, or anywhere inbetween. They are not fixed, generic codecs.

Besides, would it surprise anyone if the ABX process were rejected out of hand? I wouldn't surprise me. I've been defending DBT/ABX for years, some people just won't ever accept the methodology.

We are not alone in the audio world, the rejection of DBX testing is common among the psuedosciences and with those who hold unshakable beliefs.

When presented with evidence that contradicts prior beliefs people tend to break into either of the two camps - those that revisit their beliefs and those that reject the evidence, preferring to cling on to their beliefs. The stronger the belief, and the more it is tied up with an emotional attachment, the more likely they will fall in the latter camp. Psychology 101.

 

[VNandor]

No, it's not easily done at all. The problem is he needs to compare an ACC and FLAC version and an MQA version made from the exact same master. Not going to happen, there's no way to access a master, and no way to play with MQA encoding. You can't trust the MQA versions out there to not have some form of remastering done, so no comparison of the codec alone is possible at this time.

However, comparing an AAC and FLAC to a bit-perfect CD rip is easy. And also silly, as FLAC is lossless and bit-perfect to being with. AAC comparisons are valid so long as there's a brain in use during the process of selecting the encoding bit rates and parameters. Same thing with mp3. Both can sound exactly like lossless, or dreadful, or anywhere inbetween. They are not fixed, generic codecs.

Besides, would it surprise anyone if the ABX process were rejected out of hand? I wouldn't surprise me. I've been defending DBT/ABX for years, some people just won't ever accept the methodology.

How is it impossible to download a 24bit/192kHz or an MQA file and then convert that version directly to whatever format you want and then comparing them?

 

[pinnahertz]

How is it impossible to download a 24bit/192kHz or an MQA file and then convert that version directly to whatever format you want and then comparing them?

It's not impossible to do that, it's just an invalid comparison. Ask yourself this: Do I know how those files originated?
And the answer is: You don't. And if You Don't, you don't have a valid comparison.

 

[pinnahertz]

Just got this in my inbox:

Questions and Answers (by Mark Waldrep, AIX Records)
Q. What do you think of MQA?

 

[bigshot]

I have yet to hear an MP3, AAC or FLAC that sounds as good - particularly in naturalness and imaging/soundstage - as many of the Tidal software-decoded Masters I've heard.

Do you listen to those other formats often and have a large collection of them to refer to? I only know AAC and the various disc formats, because those are the formats in my library. (I don't do Tidal.) I have yet to find anything on SACD, CD, Blu-ray audio or DVD-A that can't be exactly reproduced with AAC 256 VBR. I've done careful A/B testing on a lot of different types of recordings to make sure of that.

Do you consider MQA to be better than 24/96 or above? Because I have compared that to AAC VBR 256 and it sounds exactly the same. So I'm assuming that if MQA sounds better than AAC, it must also sound better than high bitrate audio. Is that correct?

I do know of a format that greatly exceeds the perceived sound quality of Redbook audio though. That is multichannel audio. If you want significant improvements in soundstage imaging and naturalness, that will likely make much more of a difference than MQA. Do you have a multichannel system?

 

[bigshot]

It's not impossible to do that, it's just an invalid comparison. Ask yourself this: Do I know how those files originated?
And the answer is: You don't. And if You Don't, you don't have a valid comparison.

You could capture the output of Tidal to 16/44.1 and convert it to various formats and compare back to the original stream, couldn't you? It would be clunky but possible. I doubt it would reveal any difference in sound quality though.