advertisement


MQA - interesting interview with mastering engineer Brian Lucey

A

AndyU

pfm Member
“It’s definitely a lossy codec, that was clear. And like Mastered for iTunes or any reduction scheme the losses are in critically important areas”

“MQA brightens the high-mids in the Mid section while thinning the low-mids on the Sides. There’s also some harmonic distortion which some people could find pleasing, If I want that distortion in the master I would’ve put it there in the first place. The results of MQA I would call fatal to the source material even as they are very subtle.”

“MQA has been targeting the weakest players in our world, the audiophiles. And they’re targeting those most dependent on pimping new tech, the audiophile press.”

“I’m most concerned about the bogus claims that MQA is fixing approved masters.”

http://fairhedon.com/2017/11/05/an-interview-with-mastering-engineer-brian-lucey/
 
I've tried to compare MQA files played with no unfolding on Linn DS player against first unfolds done through Audirvana, Roon . Best IMO was without unfolding , sounded more natural also Audirvana and Roon seem to unfold completely different sampling and bit depth rates on some tracks , at least it displayed differently what goes to the player , obviously no DSP , upsampling , etc.. has been applied .
It might be completely different story when all 3 unfolds executed on a proper MQA streamer .
 
Is it even working as a business model? I'd guess that anyone who was going to buy it to it would have done so by now (listeners and manufacturers)? And it's hardly taken over.
 
It has taken over in the way that many new (an old) albums on Tidal can only be found in the "Master" quality now. No choice to go CD quality. And where I live (Denmark) there's no Qobuz (nor Amazon HD) available so Tidal is the only hi-rez streaming option available.
 
slawekt said:
I've tried to compare MQA files played with no unfolding on Linn DS player against first unfolds done through Audirvana, Roon . Best IMO was without unfolding , sounded more natural also Audirvana and Roon seem to unfold completely different sampling and bit depth rates on some tracks , at least it displayed differently what goes to the player , obviously no DSP , upsampling , etc.. has been applied .
It might be completely different story when all 3 unfolds executed on a proper MQA streamer .
Click to expand...

Alas, the basic snag with that approach is similar to the one with 'HDCD'. The changes made to stash away MQA into what would otherwise be LPCM means what you try to render it as plain LPCM, this has been tampered with. So you aren't comparing with a 'pure' LPCM version. Hence even when someone *does* decide MQA unpacking 'sounds better' than not unpacking it, the reason might be that the MQA harms the LPCM replay.
 
krenzler said:
It has taken over in the way that many new (an old) albums on Tidal can only be found in the "Master" quality now. No choice to go CD quality. And where I live (Denmark) there's no Qobuz (nor Amazon HD) available so Tidal is the only hi-rez streaming option available.
Click to expand...
That was an issue for me as I prefer to choose what I play and how I play it. It felt imposed.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Alas, the basic snag with that approach is similar to the one with 'HDCD'. The changes made to stash away MQA into what would otherwise be LPCM means what you try to render it as plain LPCM, this has been tampered with. So you aren't comparing with a 'pure' LPCM version. Hence even when someone *does* decide MQA unpacking 'sounds better' than not unpacking it, the reason might be that the MQA harms the LPCM replay.
Click to expand...
It's exactly what I was saying , "tempered" file sounds better when played as is without unfolding (but I have no option to do complete unfold) not a comparison between PCM and MQA
 
Never noticed a difference with MQA, not that I could be bothered to do any serious testing. If something requires lots of testing I order to discern it’s effect, it is by definition not very important. So many other factors are way more important to how the music actually sounds in my room.
 
Del monaco said:
That was an issue for me as I prefer to choose what I play and how I play it. It felt imposed.
Click to expand...
You're correct and I fully agree but it don't change the fact that MQA slowly is gaining some parts of the market and quite few companies have signed to it , Tidal is a good example . If you decide to stream CD quality files there isn't many options I'm afraid ,Qobuz is not a giant on streaming market and might be forced to sign for , also audiofools are very tiny percentage of streaming industry , most listen on Iphones and integrated music systems where sound quality don't really matter .
I'm afraid we might be forced into MQA as the only available option , lossy but close to PCM
 
Del monaco said:
At the moment Qobuz has three did distinct advantages. It is better vfm, it integrates with Roon and I prefer it’s presentation.
Click to expand...
In my case Tidal has better library and it does integrate with Roon also I prefer all "your mixes" , radio stations , etc.. but MQA stuff is a bit let say unnerving
 
I’m more of a classical/jazz fan so Qobuz suits me better. I really only began to use Tidal because it was the first to have integration with Roon. I have left Roon now and was intending to go back to it again at some point. However I am enjoying the LMS/PiCorePlayer with Material Skin so much I’m losing interest. They’ve also begun to integrate Services into your local library as Roon do so it’s very useable. Also, they’ve just released a new firmware for Squeezebox products, which is remarkable in itself.
 
trouble with Qobuz is it don't exist in many countries like stated above Denmark, Portugal and many others , I use both and agree Qobuz is superior when it comes to quality but in my case streaming is a secondary source and very often I use playlists created by Tidal , its where Qobuz looses for me .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top