advertisement


MQA part the 3rd - t't't'timing...

Like Dolby Atmos, MQA is a proprietary process. To have music released in either format, you have to pay them money (with exception of upcoming musicians' platform offered by Tidal). The final product is clearly marked with MQA or Atmos logos. No camo is used to hide content. Apple certainly showcases Atmos as the "best sound available."
My CD player plays MQA data without knowing that it is actually not CD audio. How it is not camo? It does not tell, wait, wait, wait, I am not CD audio, I am something else. As I wrote earlier, I bought a CD disc from Amazon without knowledge that it is actually MQA CD disc. And there is no way without special procedures to tell what actually is on particular CD? MQA material or standard CD material. Somebody will forget to put a label on package or put a wrong label on package and that is all what I can know about this disc as end user. How it is not camo?
 
My CD player plays MQA data without knowing that it is actually not CD audio. How it is not camo? It does not tell, wait, wait, wait, I am not CD audio, I am something else. As I wrote earlier, I bought a CD disc from Amazon without knowledge that it is actually MQA CD disc. And there is no way without special procedures to tell what actually is on particular CD? MQA material or standard CD material. Somebody will forget to put a label on package or put a wrong label on package and that is all what I can know about this disc as end user. How it is not camo?
Look for words "MQA" on the box and on the CD label. If you see that, it's a pretty good chance the CD is MQA encoded.
 
Pleased to report that I've had a reply from 2L. And that they say the MQA versions of their files are created by feeding the DXD (as given on their site) directly to their MQA encoder. So we can assume any alterations we may find are due to the MQA encode-decode if we keep the later part of a system 'common mode'. That's helpful as it means we can use that to explore further at some point. :)
Thank you.

Much shade and suspicion thrown at 2L over the last 5 years, with the simple truth only an email away.

The truth was always obvious, given the very structure of their "workbench."
 
Well, at the time I had a number of conversations with people involved with developing DSD for SACD which *did* include that issue. This was early on when despite having started to release SACDs and players they were still altering the modulator and demodulator designs as they found problems. As IIRC Lipshitz pointed out at the time DSD has some inherent 'semi-chaotic' problems like the risk of lockup of idlers.

However in some ways the 'master provenance' issue was different when the *source recording* was being made in DSD. Once that's done you get the result warts-n-all if you used a poor choice of modulator.

(N.B. For DSD the terms 'modulator' and 'demodulator' were used in place of ADC and DAC.)
My point is there was never vitriolic and angry attacks on SACD, as we see today with MQA.
 
Look for words "MQA" on the box and on the CD label. If you see that, it's a pretty good chance the CD is MQA encoded.

However experience of HDCDs that are NOT labelled as HDCD indicates that we can expect 'Audio CDs' to appear which are MQA encoded but NOT labelled as such.

Indeed, from experience with HDCD we can also expect Audio CDs to appear that have beem MQA encoded and then "reprocessed" WITHOUT that being taken into account. i.e. treated by someone doing a new release as plain LPCM. Thus becoming an almost-MQA disc that can't be MQA decoded. Fortunately, I suspect that will do less 'harm' than when this happened with HDCDs.

So the converse of your statement may not always return TRUE, and even those who have an MQA player/DAC may not be able to detect this.
 
My point is there was never vitriolic and angry attacks on SACD, as we see today with MQA.

Actually, as I've explained earlier, a number of people DID criticise 'SACD' because of problems inherent in the DSD it uses. Just that most of them were skilled audio engineers whose work appeared in places like the JAES, not in consumer mags.
 
Look for words "MQA" on the box and on the CD label. If you see that, it's a pretty good chance the CD is MQA encoded.
https://www.amazon.de/dp/B01D8QBNLM/?tag=pinkfishmed08-21
Where do you see mention of MQA on cd label or description?
Or maybe someone will put MQA label on disc to charge more. Or opposite. I have no way to know, I can only trust what is written. And as russian you should know that you cannot trust to everything what is written on firewood shed.
 
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
The truth was always obvious, given the very structure of their "workbench."

Alas, taking the "obvious" for granted doesn't always return TRUE. Otherwise we'd still be assuming that the Sun goes around the Earth. 8-]

That said, there is still a 'flat earth' society...
 
I've got to ask, just as examples:
- SACD is still here
- Dolby has made a business model for decades about proprietary file formats

So why are you guys NOT up in arms in this forum on the subject?
Why single out MQA and ignore some of the other potential elephants in the room?
You've raised so much noise, that it's basically impossible to DISCUSS any potential sonic preferences with the incessant and seemingly targeted "musings".

It really makes no sense chaps, not unless you have a toe in the game...
 
Actually, as I've explained earlier, a number of people DID criticise 'SACD' because of problems inherent in the DSD it uses. Just that most of them were skilled audio engineers whose work appeared in places like the JAES, not in consumer mags.
Jim, you surely understand the difference between polite academic criticism and what happens with MQA today.

An interesting question is why.
 
https://www.amazon.de/dp/B01D8QBNLM/?tag=pinkfishmed08-21
Where do you see mention of MQA on cd label or description?
Or maybe someone will put MQA label on disc to charge more. Or opposite. I have no way to know, I can only trust what is written. And as russian you should know that you cannot trust to everything what is written on firewood shed.
It says it's Hybrid SACD. I only buy them because I have SACD player - would not if I didn't.

Don't buy discs that don't show you the back of the case - where all the logos are. That's how I buy MQA CDs and HDCDs (which I want).
 
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
Alas, taking the "obvious" for granted doesn't always return TRUE. Otherwise we'd still be assuming that the Sun goes around the Earth. 8-]

That said, there is still a 'flat earth' society...
I have to gently remind you that you only contacted 2L after months of cojoling from me, and over 5 years since the files were made publically available by 2L and MQA.

So welcome to the world outside the "Flat Earth MQA Society," as it were.
 
SACD exists as the best quality physical media, an improvement over what was available otherwise.
Dolby processes exist as an improvement in general over what else was in existence to cover the same requirements (i.e. noise reduction, digital surround formats).
Is MQA an improvement over what is currently available?
 
Edited for the hell of it.

So ... allowing MQA to wield its magic will be like pissing upstream from where you usually get your clean drinking water. You may like the taste better - but the source will be tainted.
 
It says it's Hybrid SACD. I only buy them because I have SACD player - would not if I didn't.

Don't buy discs that don't show you the back of the case - where all the logos are. That's how I buy MQA CDs and HDCDs (which I want).
I have SACD player. Yes, Hybrid SACD. So, you have SACD layer and CD layer - that is how hybrid sacd was for a long time. Not sacd layer and mqa layer.
Problem is that with MQA and CD you can mix them how you like and want and nobody will not know which is which if you will not tell them. Is it normal?? Every other format has clear difference in format, it will not play on cd player or it will show that it is not cd, mp3 for example. Ok, except of hdcd discs.
 
I have SACD player. Yes, Hybrid SACD. So, you have SACD layer and CD layer - that is how hybrid sacd was for a long time. Not sacd layer and mqa layer.
Problem is that with MQA and CD you can mix them how you like and want and nobody will not know which is which if you will not tell them. Is it normal?? Every other format has clear difference in format, it will not play on cd player or it will show that it is not cd, mp3 for example. Ok, except of hdcd discs.
If you are already playing the SACD layer, what does it matter what the CD layer is? I would just ignore it.

And like I said, if the presence of MQA bothers you, insist on seeing the back of the case.
 
Last edited:
Edited for the hell of it.

So ... allowing MQA to wield its magic will be like pissing upstream from where you usually get your clean drinking water. You may like the taste better - but the source will be tainted.
This, @Jim Audiomisc , is what happens on all MQA threads.

A little different from AES publications.
 


advertisement


Back
Top