advertisement


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

gingermrkettle said:
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?
Click to expand...
That's not quite correct.

SACD and DVD-Audio were developed as best possible physical media.

Dolby and DTS are competing formats for cinematic multi-channel audio, though rapidly moving into Atmos/Spatial Audio.

LPCM and MQA are alternative streaming hires and CD formats.

Value proposition of MQA is inherent in its' user base, which has been stable or growing, despite the long running campaign to drive it out of business.
 
Last edited:
gingermrkettle said:
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?
Click to expand...

SACD introduced a non standard file format that was until fairly recently very much tied to proprietary hardware, and almost certainly requires licensing. It also meant re-encoding much of its music selection. Sound a bit like the licensing part of MQA. So where’s the PF thread?

Dolby had since at least the early tape “noise reduction” processes been producing proprietary file formats. Again, where’s the PF threads and “musings” what it’s doing to the original “source” material and how everyone in the chain is having to pay Dolby for licenses.

The utter lack of consistency is just bewildering.

The reality is that we know it “does stuff” and that an MQA file is unlikely to be the same as a CD format file.

Can we please now just discuss the sonic “preferences” without you chaps bombing those threads to death with the usual regurgitations
 
DimitryZ said:
Jim, you surely understand the difference between polite academic criticism and what happens with MQA today.

An interesting question is why.
Click to expand...

My view is that it is for the reasons already repeatedly discussed. i.e. That we might get cases where at least one of the following occurs:

1) The ONLY version (say, on a 'CD') is MQA when the buyer doesn't want that and wants a plain-to-22kHz LPCM Red Book Audio CD.

2) A CD turns out to be MQA encoded by has been 'imrpoved' by an idiot doing a reissue/reversion and has lost the ID pattern, so can't be MQA decoded.

etc.

The point here is choice. Which I'd expect you to support. And - as I've pointed out - the music biz has 'form as long as yer arm' in these respects.
 
DimitryZ said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps in return I can remind you that I tend to do things in my own ways. And a part of that is intitally to investigate the actual items of interest as the basis. I had in mind to contact people when/as it might seem useful. But do one thing at a time. I 'work' for myself, not you or 2L or anyone else here when I decide to investigate something that interests me.

My main intial concerns were:

1) That the effect of MQA encoding on Audio CD might be large enough to significantly degrade *non-MQA replay*. That would be a concern *regardless* of the 'provenance*, etc, of MQA.

2) To explore and understand how it works in practice and cut through the claims made by its inventors, etc, so I could explain it more clearly. Also to assess if there was any real 'need' for it given free open alternative that would save people the costs and bother.

I used the 2L examples as they are very convenient, but I used them 'as given' for the above purposes. I'm afraid it is your invention that this made me a member of your fanciful "Society". I'm just doing what researchers do.

That took a few months.

Having concluded that MQA is "mostly harmless" and probably also "mostly pointless" I'm content to let others make up their own minds, taking into account what I wrote as a part of that. The issue of 'provenance' arose because of the possibility that any 'change' or 'effect' shown up by the 2L examples might be for *non-MQA" reasons.

Given that the effects seem trivially small, I doubt that matters much. But having done the above it made sense to ask about it now we had some info about the actual differences.

So I asked, to check. I have a reply, and that is useful. I see no reason to doubt what I have been told. BUT as usual as an (ex-) academic scientist I have to keep "Take no-one's word for it" in mind as people can be mistaken. But it means that so far as the 2L files are concerned we can now be confident that changes that cause a version to differ from a simple standard downsample of the DXD *are* due to MQA. Thus we can 'assign' any changes that have an impact on MQA and non-MQA playback to MQA and not some other cause.

I am now working on other things. I may well return to this at some point. But if anyone else wants they can try pre-empting what I have in mind. So I can summarise what I'd plan to do next if they want to have a go.

BTW the only 'Societies' I belong to these days are the IEEE, AES, and IoP. :)
 
gingermrkettle said:
SACD exists as the best quality physical media, an improvement over what was available otherwise.
Click to expand...

Actually SACD is a 'sidestep' in terms of physical media. In *physical* engineering terms it would have made sense to put it onto a DVD format. But they added an extra physical optical modulation scheme to ensure people had to buy a special player. i.e. a change made simply for IPR reasons that costs the users extra.
 
DimitryZ said:
This, @Jim Audiomisc , is what happens on all MQA threads.

A little different from AES publications.
Click to expand...

Yes. And similar happens in many topics, not just MQA. However I'm not responsible for what others may say or believe.

However my general conclusion is that MQA isn't worthwhile, but is mostly harmless - with the rider that this 'harmless' conclusion excludes my expectation that the 'music biz' *wil*l screw up some examples - as their track record indicates. The more toys you give them, the more ways they have to screw up their output whilst selling it as a "newer, better version" to the punters.

GO's test got noticed because he advertised it. The open question I still have in mind is: How many examples will arise when someone produces an example that "isn't music" in MQA terms, but gets released and bought anyway? Time will tell, but I doubt the number will be zero.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
My view is that it is for the reasons already repeatedly discussed. i.e. That we might get cases where at least one of the following occurs:

1) The ONLY version (say, on a 'CD') is MQA when the buyer doesn't want that and wants a plain-to-22kHz LPCM Red Book Audio CD.

2) A CD turns out to be MQA encoded by has been 'imrpoved' by an idiot doing a reissue/reversion and has lost the ID pattern, so can't be MQA decoded.

etc.

The point here is choice. Which I'd expect you to support. And - as I've pointed out - the music biz has 'form as long as yer arm' in these respects.
Click to expand...

Jim,
Certainly gets my support.
With storage so cheap nowadays, it really is difficult to justify why customers shouldn’t be given the option.

I think the second point, which you’ve already made is about appropriate labelling. The more we know about the recording, it’s format, the better, regardless of the choice we make in using it
 
On the subject of the concern that the MQA buggered pseudo redbook might make the real redbook unavailable: apart from cockups and mislabelling, I seem to remember that part of the "offer" with MQA was the single inventory item. I can't now remember the references but i don't think this was my imagination. So driving out the echt redbook appeared to be very much part of the plan. Am I having a senior moment?
 
Indeed, single inventory was a sales point from the beginning. Although they never targeted CD with as many words.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Actually SACD is a 'sidestep' in terms of physical media. In *physical* engineering terms it would have made sense to put it onto a DVD format. But they added an extra physical optical modulation scheme to ensure people had to buy a special player. i.e. a change made simply for IPR reasons that costs the users extra.
Click to expand...
I was meaning the upgrade in sonic capability, SACD had the potential for higher bandwidth and dynamic range compared to Red Book and, to labour the same point again, in that case and with the various versions of Dolby Digital there is a consumer value judgement of whether the increased performance justifies the IPR costs. For me subjectively, it does for SACD.

In order to justify any new format with IPR costs, there needs to be a commensurate increase in performance over what is currently in place as without that there is no point.
 
gingermrkettle said:
I was meaning the upgrade in sonic capability, SACD had the potential for higher bandwidth and dynamic range compared to Red Book and, to labour the same point again, in that case and with the various versions of Dolby Digital there is a consumer value judgement of whether the increased performance justifies the IPR costs. For me subjectively, it does for SACD.

In order to justify any new format with IPR costs, there needs to be a commensurate increase in performance over what is currently in place as without that there is no point.
Click to expand...

However the makers could have provided a DVD based high res LPCM to provide the higher resolution. Thus allowing buyers to not pay more for the 'new' IPR or demanding a new physical type of optical reader which rules out standard DVD optical players.

The point of SACD was that the IPR on 'Red Book' was expiring and Philips/Sony wanted a replacement IPR stream. So their decision to choose DSD on a modified DVD system was prompted by that, not by sound quality.

I've managed to buy a few CDs that are accompanies with a 'plain' DATA DVD that holds easily used high rez LPCM files of the music. They sound fine and don't need the user to pay for fancy hardware, etc.
 
adamdea said:
On the subject of the concern that the MQA buggered pseudo redbook might make the real redbook unavailable: apart from cockups and mislabelling, I seem to remember that part of the "offer" with MQA was the single inventory item. I can't now remember the references but i don't think this was my imagination. So driving out the echt redbook appeared to be very much part of the plan. Am I having a senior moment?
Click to expand...
That was always one of the selling points. IIRC it's been covered in some Stereophile article or other. Tidal has already dropped non-MQA versions of many tracks.
 
mansr said:
That was always one of the selling points. IIRC it's been covered in some Stereophile article or other. Tidal has already dropped non-MQA versions of many tracks.
Click to expand...

At least that’s easy to address, ie vote with your wallet and use an alternative supplier
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
SACD introduced a non standard file format that was until fairly recently very much tied to proprietary hardware, and almost certainly requires licensing. It also meant re-encoding much of its music selection. Sound a bit like the licensing part of MQA. So where’s the PF thread?
Click to expand...
Key word is 'non standard file format', so you cannot inject it in existing system without user knowledge like MQA does.
 
Werner said:
And how would you do that when the commercially only available source of a music work is MQA or stripped MQA?
...
Click to expand...

Is it?
I seem to remember that it's quite easy to streaming FLAC?
What you're suggesting is simply a worst case guess, and the take up of Tidal is almost certainly going to be considered a good "test case". Frankly, your scaremongering is akin to whether or not Brexit will have an impact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top