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

[Mr_Sukebe]

Well, if those generating the MQA *had* "sourced a better version" then it prompts the questions:

1) Is that version available to us so we can bypass the added cost of MQA and any risk of MQA being poorer than that input? if so, how do we determine which version is is, so can choose it? (And use it to assess MQA.)

2) if it isn't - how did the people generating the MQA version get it, and why would the music company agree to let them have a profit from when the music company could gain a profit without such a 'cut' by offerring it direct?

It also simply puts another facet on: You can't assess MQA fully *unless you also have access to what went into MQA*. Otherwise you may be assessing some other cause of a 'difference' that has zip to do with MQA. And for all we know, what was fed *into* the MQA encoder might have been preferred by listeners to both of those 'compared'.

Bottom line: No provenance => useless outcome that can mislead.

If 'God' can help us with this, then he can speak up... Maybe he'll issue an MQA version. 8-]

Jim>
You’ve scrutinised to death MQA statements about their claims, so you already know the answers, all you’re doing is generating more “leading” questions.

Quite obviously, this has been one of those occasions where they’ve revisited their source material whilst applying the MQA encoding.
Also obvious is that original material being available for other use.

the question about whether it can be re-released in non-mqa format is simply irrelevant to this discussion as it’s not their responsibility to action. If you want the better FLAC version, then go ask for it, instead of wasting your time on here.

The point here is that the MQA end to end process has triggered the remaster, which I can’t believe that even you would deny is a benefit to listeners?

 

[darrenyeats]

I wouldn't assume the only non-loud version came about because of MQA. Indeed, a less loud version is available in hi-res.
https://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=krall&album=moment
https://www.highresaudio.com/en/album/view/wy6mew/diana-krall-from-this-moment-on

So it was a choice to put out the CD version as louder. If MQA took the hi-res as their source, as it appears to me, then I'd certainly not criticise them for it.

The discussion here is just about comparing like with like.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

...

The discussion here is just about comparing like with like.

You think?
No, I don't think so, and most of the MQA discussions on have never been about that.

When was the last time you actually read about a comparison of how MQA tracks sound in this forum?
Everyone else has given up, because they know that once a discussion has opened, that it'll get bombed with comments like "mqa fraudsters".

And being fair, why would there be any expectation of the files being exactly the same?
MQA have explained that they apply a filter at source during the encoding process. So whilst some of the data will be lossless, even if you could fully re-construct it, it won't be 100% the same data as was taken from the source files.
Now some are going to argue how awful that is. However, the "mastering" process as used on I assume pretty much every available recording is likely to have had some filters and manipulation. Downstream of that, the process of "upsampling" by many DACs is again "fiddling" with the data, as it's inventing new data.

So no, the data you get out of the back end from an MQA capable DAC is NOT going to be the same as the source file.
However, chances are that's also true for most of our existing CDPs and DACs.

As such, it's really then just a question of personal preference on what you prefer the sound as (just as say Roon includes upsampling filter options).

Jim> I'll take the opportunity to ask, how are you getting on with LISTENING to the Explorer 2 that you have had for a number of months now?

 

[darrenyeats]

What do you mean by source?

In this case I would want to compare the hi-res downsampled cleanly to 16/44, with the MQA.

I think the source in both cases is the hi-res. Even if it isn't, it is clearly much nearer to a fair comparison, looking at the waveforms.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

What do you mean by source?

In this case I would want to compare the hi-res downsampled cleanly to 16/44 with the MQA.
I think the source in both cases is the hi-res. Even if it isn't, it is clearly much nearer to a fair comparison, looking at the waveforms.

By source, well that in itself it debatable. As I understand it, the recording starts with individual tracks, e.g. guitars, drums etc. Those are then mixed together by the engineers, probably producing several versions. For new material, I assume that it's done in 24 bit. As part of the mixing, I "assume" that includes will include the use of "compression" and a variety of other tools to manipulate the sound however the engineer sees fit, before the throw out a final "mix", which I assume is what we'd call a master.

What we don't know is where in the process any of those versions will revisit, whether that's MQA, CD, (new) vinyl or 24 bit. That I assume is down to the engineer and I don't know about you, but I don't remember reading on say a CD sleeve notes of how that process was conducted.

The implications being that whilst in theory you might be able to find a track that's been released in both CD and MQA format from the same data version there's no way of knowing how that'll play out across millions of tracks, any more than whether the CD or 24 bit version is using the same data version.

Ref MQA, as I've stated above, even if they were exactly the same data version, MQA have stated that they apply their own filter during encoding, meaning that it'll most certainly NOT be the same data that hits a downstream DAC, regardless of how "lossy or not" MQA is.

 

[adamdea]

You think?
No, I don't think so, and most of the MQA discussions on have never been about that.

When was the last time you actually read about a comparison of how MQA tracks sound in this forum?
Everyone else has given up, because they know that once a discussion has opened, that it'll get bombed with comments like "mqa fraudsters".
....

As such, it's really then just a question of personal preference on what you prefer the sound as (just as say Roon includes upsampling filter options).

Jim> I'll take the opportunity to ask, how are you getting on with LISTENING to the Explorer 2 that you have had for a number of months now?

Adecdotal sighted reports -Some people like come people don't, as ususal. Results of structured tests suggest no clear overall preference in fact no satisfactory evidence of any preference at all.
Conclusion that MQA indistinguishable from hi res counts as a real win for MQA for target audience of people who incorrectly think that means it sound better than 16/44
Yawns all round.

 

[DimitryZ]

Adecdotal sighted reports -Some people like come people don't, as ususal. Results of structured tests suggest no clear overall preference in fact no satisfactory evidence of any preference at all.
Conclusion that MQA indistinguishable from hi res counts as a real win for MQA for target audience of people who incorrectly think that means it sound better than 16/44
Yawns all round.

The only structured blind testing I found is by Archimago a while back and results were complex, with weighted scoring going to MQA. This was "MQA Core Decode only" comparison.

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html?m=1

My own listening experience on a variety of MQA and non-MQA equipment over many years reflects this as well.

 

[DimitryZ]

By source, well that in itself it debatable. As I understand it, the recording starts with individual tracks, e.g. guitars, drums etc. Those are then mixed together by the engineers, probably producing several versions. For new material, I assume that it's done in 24 bit. As part of the mixing, I "assume" that includes will include the use of "compression" and a variety of other tools to manipulate the sound however the engineer sees fit, before the throw out a final "mix", which I assume is what we'd call a master.

What we don't know is where in the process any of those versions will revisit, whether that's MQA, CD, (new) vinyl or 24 bit. That I assume is down to the engineer and I don't know about you, but I don't remember reading on say a CD sleeve notes of how that process was conducted.

The implications being that whilst in theory you might be able to find a track that's been released in both CD and MQA format from the same data version there's no way of knowing how that'll play out across millions of tracks, any more than whether the CD or 24 bit version is using the same data version.

Ref MQA, as I've stated above, even if they were exactly the same data version, MQA have stated that they apply their own filter during encoding, meaning that it'll most certainly NOT be the same data that hits a downstream DAC, regardless of how "lossy or not" MQA is.

The only comparison files publically available is the "workbench" by the audiophile recording label 2L. That has several recordings in various DXD/PCM resolutions and MQA. That is what I used when deciding if I was interested in trying MQA.

However, these soon fell under suspicion, with fears that the PCM files were manipulated in some way to give an impression of inferiority to the listener. I did not find it to be the case in actual listening - they just sounded subtly different, showcasing both formats well.

I have long encouraged people who want to do technical comparisons to contact 2L directly to understand files' provenance differences.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Jim>
You’ve scrutinised to death MQA statements about their claims, so you already know the answers, all you’re doing is generating more “leading” questions.


the question about whether it can be re-released in non-mqa format is simply irrelevant to this discussion as it’s not their responsibility to action. If you want the better FLAC version, then go ask for it, instead of wasting your time on here.

The point here is that the MQA end to end process has triggered the remaster, which I can’t believe that even you would deny is a benefit to listeners?

My interest is in the issue of if running material though an MQA encode and decode makes any changes. That can only be done when we have:

1) A version we *know* was presented to the MQA encoder to produce...

2) The version that then emerges from the MQA decoder when presented with the output from (1).

Othewise we can't tell if any/all the 'differences' - measured or audible - are the result of MQA. What we may 'like' or 'prefer' is up to each person to decide. My opinion simply would apply to me on that, yours is yours, as is each other person's. Your business, not mine.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

You think?
No, I don't think so, and most of the MQA discussions on have never been about that.

Jim> I'll take the opportunity to ask, how are you getting on with LISTENING to the Explorer 2 that you have had for a number of months now?

My considerations are aimed precisely at "that" as per above. What others want to argue about is up to them.

And I'm using the Explorer for the purposes I have repeatedly explained. Which isn't to comment on what I 'like' when I listen as others will have their own preferences which differ from mine. And I make no claims to having 'golden ears'.

However it remains moot if we can't do a comparison where we know that MQA is the *only* cause of any 'difference'.

 

[DimitryZ]

My interest is in the issue of if running material though and MQA encode and decode makes any changes. That can only be done when we have:

1) A version we *know* was presented to the MQA encoder to produce...

2) The version that then emerges from the MQA decoder when presented with the output from (1).

Othewise we can't tell if all the 'differences' - measured or audible - are the result of MQA. What we may 'like' or 'prefer' is up to each person to decide. My opinion simply would apply to me on that, yours is yours, as is each other person's. Your business, not mine.

If one talks to 2L and decides they are trustworthy, 1) and 2) have been available for ~5 years.

Since there are a multitude of MQA mastering labs available worldwide, the ability to personally produce 1) and 2) personally has been available for ~4 years.

 

[Rosewind]

Show us all three files and let them be examined and analysed + listened to:
- the source file common to both MQA and LPCM FLAC
- the MQA file created directly from the source file
- the LPCM FLAC file created directly from the source file.

Then we can put all this to rest - which is pretty much what we all and I suppose MQA hope to do. Yet no one from MQA has offered a set of all three files with full disclosure of track provenance.

Why not, if there is nothing to hide?

Until that happens, yawn indeed.

 

[DimitryZ]

Show us all three files and let them be examined and analysed + listened to:
- the source file common to both MQA and LPCM FLAC
- the MQA file created directly from the source file
- the LPCM FLAC file created directly from the source file.

Then we can put all this to rest - which is pretty much what we all and I suppose MQA hope to do. Yet no one from MQA has offered a set of all three files with full disclosure of track provenance.

Why not, if there is nothing to hide?

Until that happens, yawn indeed.

This, of course has been available from the 2L "workbench" for over five years. DXD master, FLAC hires, CD and MQA. Worldwide, non-commercial use availability to compare and decide. Excellent music, too.

Those actually interested, availed ourselves of this facility years ago. There was indeed nothing to hide - comparison showed the strengths of both formats.

Those with larger financial resources always had the option to have their own music mastered at any of the many MQA licensed recording houses.

Those interested in something different continue to demand something else... "known provenance" became the new "must have," even though it was/is almost always missing from everything we listen to - and nobody seemed(seems) to care in the case of PCM. With an MQA release though, you better show us a complete, signed and notorized chain of custody declaration before we would consider it legit (no promises).

Without this assurance, this is likely just another proof of "MQA fraud" - like finding a better sounding, unclipped master in the record company's vaults . What will these dangerous MQA fraudsters think of next - a clean, less compressed remastering? For shame!

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Show us all three files and let them be examined and analysed + listened to:
- the source file common to both MQA and LPCM FLAC
- the MQA file created directly from the source file
- the LPCM FLAC file created directly from the source file.

Then we can put all this to rest - which is pretty much what we all and I suppose MQA hope to do. Yet no one from MQA has offered a set of all three files with full disclosure of track provenance.

Why not, if there is nothing to hide?

Until that happens, yawn indeed.

Just to make clear:

1) I have emailed 2L. I'll see what response I may get.

2) For heaven's sake! Doesn't anyone else realise - *The Proms* have started! )

3) My technical investigation, sparked by the GO episode, has now covered all that I intended with the specific exception of wanting a copy of what went *into* the encoder wth provenance of that status. So if (1) goes no-where, I will simply focus on (2) and enjoy the sheer musical joy of mere 320k aac from R3.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Those interested in something different continue to demand something else... "known provenance" became the new "must have," even though it was/is almost always missing from everything we listen to - and nobody seemed(seems) to care in the case of PCM.

Your "nobody" returns FALSE in mere reality. Look, for example, at the various webpages I've devoted over the years to the many ways those in the 'music biz' screw up what they release. Clipping, over-compression, misuse of HDCD, etc, etc. All done by someone out of sight of the end-user. And I'm far from the only person who has raised such issues for decades now.

 

[darrenyeats]

Also see the DR database (which I linked to earlier).

 

[DimitryZ]

Your "nobody" returns FALSE in mere reality. Look, for example, at the various webpages I've devoted over the years to the many ways those in the 'music biz' screw up what they release. Clipping, over-compression, misuse of HDCD, etc, etc. All done by someone out of sight of the end-user. And I'm far from the only person who has raised such issues for decades now.

Sure, folks complained about recording and mastering quality since the Edison's cylinders, I am sure.

However, demands for "known provenance of the master" is new and novel at least in the audiophile circles (outside narrow historical recordings set). And used, almost entirely as part of MQA criticism.

In the archeological artefacts world, though, it's very appropriate.

 

[gints]

No, it not new. It is not unusual when on hybrid SACD disc CD layer and SACD layer sound different because of different mastering. The same can happen with MQA.

 

[DimitryZ]

No, it not new. It is not unusual when on hybrid SACD disc CD layer and SACD layer sound different because of different mastering. The same can happen with MQA.

I don't remember "master provenance" demands made around SACD. Or accusations that Sony is "gaming the system" by sourcing better masters.

We were just happy we were getting better sound.

 

[gints]

Not different masters, mastered differently.