Guest Eggcup The Daft Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 I see that we can now test this for ourselves. Test tracks available from 2L, and recent Meridian DACs are equipped. I'll wait for now.
Guest Eggcup The Daft Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 Are you referring to the retrospective removal of the ADC's pre/post-ringing here? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk No, I expect, shall we say, "other processing" to happen in the remastering. The loudness wars haven't completely stopped and the preparation of MQA streaming files, at least, could be an occasion for them to restart in earnest. If they can properly remove ADC pre-ringing that's not a bad thing. But why not do that earlier in the process, especially before mixing in multitrack recording, if it can be done?
New Sensations Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) No, I expect, shall we say, "other processing" to happen in the remastering. The loudness wars haven't completely stopped and the preparation of MQA streaming files, at least, could be an occasion for them to restart in earnest. If they can properly remove ADC pre-ringing that's not a bad thing. But why not do that earlier in the process, especially before mixing in multitrack recording, if it can be done? The way I understand it is this:1) new music can be encoded to MQA and signed as such in the studio. This digital signature is what causes an LED to illuminate on the end user's DAC. 2) then there's music already recorded, mastered and converted to digital. Let's call this the world's existing music archive. This can be processed by the MQA algorithm and the filter ringing removed retrospectively. When the DAC sees this kind of MQA it will change to a diff colour to 1). MQA is a digital encoding mechanism and takes place post-mastering so I'm not sure where remastering fits into all of this? Can you explain? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited February 3, 2016 by J_o_h_n
Guest Eggcup The Daft Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 The way I understand it is this: 1) new music can be encoded to MQA and signed as such in the studio. This digital signature is what causes an LED to illuminate on the end user's DAC. 2) then there's music already recorded, mastered and converted to digital. Let's call this the world's existing music archive. This can be processed by the MQA algorithm and the filter ringing removed retrospectively. When the DAC sees this kind of MQA it will change to a diff colour to 1). MQA is a digital encoding mechanism and takes place post-mastering so I'm not sure where remastering fits into all of this? Can you explain? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Cynically, I expect the worst from the music industry. You could say that "the master is processed by a downsampling algorithm to 16/44.1 and written to a CD master". If that was all that happened, we'd have properly dynamic CDs and not the compressed sound we get far too often. There's no NEED to do anything else when preparing the MQA encoded file either. I just expect that this stage will in practice be treated by any major company producing MQA encoded music to treat it in the same way as preparing a CD: especially if preparing a file for streaming, where the same pressures still apply that gave us the loudness wars. The point about this scenario, of course, is that we may all hear wonderful "straight" MQA encoded files, give it the stamp of approval, and then the crap happens. At the last show I went to in the UK before moving to Australia, I heard a fantastic demonstration of Radio 3 on DAB (note, not even DAB+) that many attendees raved about. We all know how THAT turned out.
New Sensations Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) I'm still a little confused by what you're saying. Your fears are based upon what might happen in the future to mastering quality? The mastering, arguably part of the artistic process, happens *before* MQA encoding. In other words, we need to remove mastering quality from the MQA conversation because the two are in no way related (well, kinda). The major point is that the master is made by the engineer and only once finalised does it see MQA encoding/signing. The point of signing is not to speak to the quality of the master (hot or not) but that the master is the one approved by the studio. Once encoded, any disturbances to the MQA file ruin the possibility of authentication on the downstream DAC and the LED won't light up. At least, that's how I understand it after CES and then a 2 hour follow up phone call with Bob Stuart. MQA is complicated and multi-faceted. Happy to be corrected on any or all that I've written so far. Edited February 3, 2016 by J_o_h_n
alistairm Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 It's curious that a hardware manufacturer rather than a major content creator or streaming platform is attempting to create a new format. We will see, but any organisation involved in trying to make sure high res audio survives and thrives in a world of streaming gets the big thumbs up from me. 4
metal beat Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 This is the same Bob Stuart that pit all his eggs into DVD Audio and his own MLP - Meridian Lossless Packing as part of the DVD audio standard in the early 90's. A raging success in the high rez fight vs SACD. Is MQA a new recycled better version of the successful (not) MLP?
New Sensations Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 It's curious that a hardware manufacturer rather than a major content creator or streaming platform is attempting to create a new format. We will see, but any organisation involved in trying to make sure high res audio survives and thrives in a world of streaming gets the big thumbs up from me. MQA is a separate company to Meridian and yes curious until you realise that MQA have formed a strong alliance with Tidal behind (and a little in front of) the scenes. I've witnessed a couple MQA + Tidal streaming demos now so it looks like much of the infrastructure might be already in place. We just gotta wait for Tidal to work out licensing agreements with rights holders before they flip the switch. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1
New Sensations Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 Is MQA a new recycled better version of the successful (not) MLP? Probably a question best asked of Bob Stuart over on the CA thread that I linked to in post #3. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LHC Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) This is the same Bob Stuart that pit all his eggs into DVD Audio and his own MLP - Meridian Lossless Packing as part of the DVD audio standard in the early 90's. A raging success in the high rez fight vs SACD. Is MQA a new recycled better version of the successful (not) MLP? Michael Fremer is sold on MQA. Here are some quotes from his Youtube channel: "CD is a problematic format under the best conditions and the filters have long been an issue in the time domain. MQA is a dramatic development." "MQA looks at the A/D filter used to produce the original recording and it corrects the time domain errors. The results are dramatic not subtle. " "MQA has the potential to improve the sound of two generation's worth of digital recordings and A/D conversions at least. You have to hear it...." "the only thing I've ever heard that significantly helps a CD is MQA, which roots out the problem where it began, in the original A/D conversion." These are only his quotes and opinion, but he has heard MQA I understand. This is quite convincing endorsement given Fremer is very anti-digital audio in general. Edited February 3, 2016 by LHC
New Sensations Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 Michael Fremer is sold on MQA. Here are some quotes from his Youtube channel: "CD is a problematic format under the best conditions and the filters have long been an issue in the time domain. MQA is a dramatic development." "MQA looks at the A/D filter used to produce the original recording and it corrects the time domain errors. The results are dramatic not subtle. " "MQA has the potential to improve the sound of two generation's worth of digital recordings and A/D conversions at least. You have to hear it...." "the only thing I've ever heard that significantly helps a CD is MQA, which roots out the problem where it began, in the original A/D conversion." These are only his quotes and opinion, but he has heard MQA I understand. This is quite convincing endorsement given Fremer is very anti-digital audio in general. Fremer is very interested in digital. Very. Why? Probably because a lot of what he covers on the vinyl reissue front starts with a digital master: Roxy Music box, Beatles Stereo box, new Rolling Stones reissues, Peter Gabriel 2x45rpm reissues, Bowie 5 years box. Kinda ironic, hey. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1
Martykt Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 The question I have is a broader one. Why do people feel the need to downplay any attempt to improve digital music formats? Why exactly does the OP have to don his "flame proof underwear" to bring up a topic of higher resolution digital ?? Even Tidal got completely trashed for even suggesting the idea of streaming in an obscenely over the top 44.1 khz !! Despite whether we may have questions about the technical side of these formats isn't it a good thing that the industry is trying to improve the quality of our music? Surely even if the format only offers small improvement to our music (and hopefully it will be more improvement than less) isn't it beneficial that these formats will promote better quality of music rather than dodgy MP3 which hopefully will lead to better recording practices? Okay sure DVD-Audio may have failed and who knows the fate of MQA at this stage but shouldn't we be thankful to people like Bob Stuart for actually trying to improve our music quality? 6
New Sensations Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 The question I have is a broader one. Why do people feel the need to downplay any attempt to improve digital music formats? Why exactly does the OP have to don his "flame proof underwear" to bring up a topic of higher resolution digital ?? y? That's the million dollar question isn't it? I suspect it's because some folk want to be part of the conversation whether they've heard the item in question or not. In the latter case, as with MQA as of this very moment, very few have heard it, even fewer have been privy to A/B comparisons, yet the theorising on why MQA will or won't work continues. And in the absence of direct experience it remains exactly that: theorising. You only have to look at the MQA at CES thread over at CA to see how easy it is for some to go off half cocked with only part of the story under their belt but a gun full of opinions, ready to fire at a moment's notice. Questions about industry take up and the how it will sound are all valid - and for me the two burning issues - but only time will tell us how MQA will sound and if engineers choose to implement it at the DAC and studio level. I guess exercising patience isn't as fun for some as shooting from the hip with little more than speculation. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1
Guest Eggcup The Daft Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 This is the same Bob Stuart that pit all his eggs into DVD Audio and his own MLP - Meridian Lossless Packing as part of the DVD audio standard in the early 90's. A raging success in the high rez fight vs SACD. Is MQA a new recycled better version of the successful (not) MLP? MLP is what it says - lossless packaging. Every Bluray disk containing Dolby TrueHD audio is actually using MLP - hardly unsuccessful. MQA is radically different. I'm still a little confused by what you're saying. Your fears are based upon what might happen in the future to mastering quality? The mastering, arguably part of the artistic process, happens *before* MQA encoding. In other words, we need to remove mastering quality from the MQA conversation because the two are in no way related (well, kinda). The major point is that the master is made by the engineer and only once finalised does it see MQA encoding/signing. The point of signing is not to speak to the quality of the master (hot or not) but that the master is the one approved by the studio. Once encoded, any disturbances to the MQA file ruin the possibility of authentication on the downstream DAC and the LED won't light up. At least, that's how I understand it after CES and then a 2 hour follow up phone call with Bob Stuart. MQA is complicated and multi-faceted. Happy to be corrected on any or all that I've written so far. The process of making a lousy CD normally starts with a good master. Modern CDs are not direct representations of the studio master, any more than LPs were ever direct representations of the master tape. In both cases, someone has taken the studio master and prepared something different. Like those processes, the audio "bad guys" that produced the loudness war CDs will almost certainly be in charge of the MQA processing. It's not the MQA encoding I don't trust in this regard. My concern is that other changes will happen between the good studio master and applying the final MQA encoding, exactly as with those bad CDs. There's nothing to stop someone applying Death Magnetic levels of compression to the studio master before applying the codec to that compressed file, is there? And the MQA LED still comes on, right? You are absolutely right about the technical process. But can MQA fix record industry culture?
New Sensations Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 MLP is what it says - lossless packaging. Every Bluray disk containing Dolby TrueHD audio is actually using MLP - hardly unsuccessful. MQA is radically different. The process of making a lousy CD normally starts with a good master. Modern CDs are not direct representations of the studio master, any more than LPs were ever direct representations of the master tape. In both cases, someone has taken the studio master and prepared something different. Like those processes, the audio "bad guys" that produced the loudness war CDs will almost certainly be in charge of the MQA processing. It's not the MQA encoding I don't trust in this regard. My concern is that other changes will happen between the good studio master and applying the final MQA encoding, exactly as with those bad CDs. There's nothing to stop someone applying Death Magnetic levels of compression to the studio master before applying the codec to that compressed file, is there? And the MQA LED still comes on, right? You are absolutely right about the technical process. But can MQA fix record industry culture? That's right. MQA won't change a mastering engineers wont to dynamically compress (or not) but neither does MQA claim to suggest it will. And you're right, mastering quality will still have the largest audible effect on the source. What it does claim to do is to guarantee end to end security of provenance: for example, that a 24/192 isn't a direct upsample of a 24/44.1. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LHC Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 The process of making a lousy CD normally starts with a good master. Modern CDs are not direct representations of the studio master, any more than LPs were ever direct representations of the master tape. In both cases, someone has taken the studio master and prepared something different. Like those processes, the audio "bad guys" that produced the loudness war CDs will almost certainly be in charge of the MQA processing. It's not the MQA encoding I don't trust in this regard. My concern is that other changes will happen between the good studio master and applying the final MQA encoding, exactly as with those bad CDs. There's nothing to stop someone applying Death Magnetic levels of compression to the studio master before applying the codec to that compressed file, is there? And the MQA LED still comes on, right? You are absolutely right about the technical process. But can MQA fix record industry culture? I don't follow your logic here. Yes, everything you said can indeed happen, but there is good reason to think it probably won't. Recall one of the reason why SACD/DSD/hi-res audio can sound great is because the recording engineers took better care in the studio to produce a higher quality master from the recording. This is one key reason people put forward as to why high resolution can sound better than the redbook CD issue. The recod industry culture is fixed in this context. Now if you apply the same logic to MQA it is clear the reason for quality mastering remains the same. Of course anyone could apply crazy compression like you say. But if this didn't happen for SACD/hi-res, then it probably won't happen to MQA as well.
Guest rmpfyf Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 Why do people feel the need to downplay any attempt to improve digital music formats? Because of statements like this: "CD is a problematic format under the best conditions and the filters have long been an issue in the time domain. MQA is a dramatic development." "MQA looks at the A/D filter used to produce the original recording and it corrects the time domain errors. The results are dramatic not subtle. " "MQA has the potential to improve the sound of two generation's worth of digital recordings and A/D conversions at least. You have to hear it...." "the only thing I've ever heard that significantly helps a CD is MQA, which roots out the problem where it began, in the original A/D conversion." These sound like knowledgeable, authoritative statements. They're actually motherhood statements borne of a given perspective that don't make much technical sense - and at best just start a flame war. That they're used as an absolute creates skepticism. (@@LHC - the above isn't directed at you personally).
LHC Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 Because of statements like this: These sound like knowledgeable, authoritative statements. They're actually motherhood statements borne of a given perspective that don't make much technical sense - and at best just start a flame war. That they're used as an absolute creates skepticism. (@@LHC - the above isn't directed at you personally). That is cool, , they ain't my opinion. But I guess my attempt to highlight a point by using double negative is falling 'flat'. 1
Guest Bonobo Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 "CD is a problematic format under the best conditions and the filters have long been an issue in the time domain. MQA is a dramatic development." They are saying filtering can be fixed without going for a new format. If that is true, then something suss is going on. It shouldn't be too hard to decide without silly. isn't it a good thing that the industry is trying to improve the quality of our music? What if they isn't. direct upsample of a 24/44.1 Why is upsample bad? My DAC upsamplen everything to much higher.
LHC Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 Here is Bob Stuart 'theorising' why MQA sounds natural in his own words
Guest Bonobo Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 You are absolutely right about the technical process I don't understand. I would want to have new better music, but what is a thing that MQA can do, that cannot be done without it? Except, I understand that it compress [with loss] larger audio files, down into cd quality audio package..... but what else?
LHC Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 I see that we can now test this for ourselves. Test tracks available from 2L, and recent Meridian DACs are equipped. I'll wait for now. The supplementary notes to the 2L test is even more interesting. http://www.2l.no/hires/documentation/2L-MQA_Comparisons.pdf Morten Lindberg of 2L claimed that when decoded using Meridian Prime the MQA track sounded even better than the original master (in DXD)!
Guest Bonobo Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 Here is Bob Stuart 'theorising' why MQA sounds natural in his own words This picture he posts makes no sense (when compared to knowledge on what audio does). Whatever he is saying, he need to make a better picture .... otherwise nobody can be really convinced.
Guest Bonobo Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 Why does noisefloor db in 16bit rise when above the 15000 frequency? (but original not) .... and why is '16 reference dithered' and CD frequencies going higher than 22050. Even if there is the reason, they should know people will be confused as say something. why?
LHC Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) This picture he posts makes no sense (when compared to knowledge on what audio does). Whatever he is saying, he need to make a better picture .... otherwise nobody can be really convinced. I agree, we need better explanations. Here is a description of how they applied MQA to 'white-glove' an old digital recording from 1993. http://www.2l.no/pages/album/120.html (I too think there is too much marketing speak here) Edited February 3, 2016 by LHC
Recommended Posts