advertisement


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

Or accusations that Sony is "gaming the system" by sourcing better masters.
Exactly that was noted on the version of Kind of Blue used for the initial reviews of the SCD-1 by HFN&RR, the SACD version having a 2dB lift at some frequencies compared to previous CD versions.
 
It is not unusual when on hybrid SACD disc CD layer and SACD layer sound different because of different mastering.
Is there a good tool to check this? In a reversal of the standard audiophile trope MrsKettle was listening to the Herve Niquet Water/Fireworks disc and I could tell while out of the room that she was listening to the CD layer.
 
I do not know. I just notice in few occasions when reviewers mention that SACD layer sound better and suspected that it is because of greater care taken at mastering. And for long term player I got SACD player instead just CD player. So far I have three sacd discs, will see in future.
 
Exactly that was noted on the version of Kind of Blue used for the initial reviews of the SCD-1 by HFN&RR, the SACD version having a 2dB lift at some frequencies compared to previous CD versions.
Do you mean the reviewer complained that the SACD layer was sounding better because of better mastering and accused Sony of fraud?

Really?
 
I have also in one case found the CD layer of an SACD dynamically compressed compared to the SACD layer.

Such shenanigans and our worries about them are not particular to MQA.
 
Do you mean the reviewer complained that the SACD layer was sounding better because of better mastering and accused Sony of fraud?

Really?
No, they noted that the single layer SACD version was a different mastering to anything that had gone before in order to explain some of the differences. So not really, completely different to the smoke and mirrors currently going on.
 
No, they noted that the single layer SACD version was a different mastering to anything that had gone before in order to explain some of the differences. So not really, completely different to the smoke and mirrors currently going on.
So when MQA finds a better master in the vaults or remasters the material better, that's a good thing, right?

Or is it bad just because MQA did it?
 
EDITED ...


MQA.

Thanks to Jim and others we may one day know what happens during the MQA encoding and decoding. Still ...

  1. What exactly does MQA authenticate?
  2. Does the MQA algorithm and its process work equally well, or badly, on all music files?
  3. Are MQA files and LPCM Flac created equal from the exact same master file? - Does the master file receive special treatment before it is fed into the MQA encoder?
  4. Why create a lossy codec with a fixed sound signature when we already have lossless LPCM Flac and all the filter possibilities in the world at our disposal?
  5. In the future, how will we know that we buy true lossless LPCM Flac files and not files that have been made from lossy MQA files?
  6. Will there be a true freedom of choice between music as MQA and LPCM Flac for all future remasters and artists?
 
Last edited:
I have also in one case found the CD layer of an SACD dynamically compressed compared to the SACD layer.

Such shenanigans and our worries about them are not particular to MQA.
I think the level of vitriol engendered by MQA in some folk is unique and unprecedented in my long history with the hobby.
 
MQA.

Thanks to Jim and others we know pretty much what happens during the MQA encoding and decoding.

  1. What exactly does MQA authenticate?
  2. Does the MQA algorithm and its process work equally well, or badly, on all music files?
  3. Are MQA files and LPCM Flac created equal from the exact same master file? - Does the master file receive special treatment before it is fed into the MQA encoder?
  4. Why create a lossy codec with a fixed sound signature when we already have lossless LPCM Flac and all the filter possibilities in the world at our disposal?
  5. In the future, how will we know that we buy true lossless LPCM Flac files and not files that have been made from lossy MQA files?
  6. Will there be a true freedom of choice between music as MQA and LPCM Flac for all future remasters and artists?
What we really should be worried about is not tiny MQA, but gigantic Apple, Amazon and Atmos/Spatial Audio.

If one worries about Mostly Quite 'Armless (MQA in Jim's writing), wait until the only music you have access to is perceptually lossy Atmos, which sounds quite audibly bad on a standard 2 channel system.

Ironic, in a bad way. :(

 
Last edited:
Does MQA ever told what they did, different master or secret process? Do they allow present both versions at the same time?
SACD do not use camouflage like MQA and do not present itself as something else (CD) like MQA does.
 
So when MQA finds a better master in the vaults or remasters the material better, that's a good thing, right?

Or is it bad just because MQA did it?
As in lots of wasted bandwidth previously, give us exactly the same thing in MQA and not and let us properly compare.

Labels like Chandos and LSO Live do that, unless you think that they would hamstring the layer used by most music buyers to sell Sony's tech?
 
MQA.

Thanks to Jim and others we know pretty much what happens during the MQA encoding and decoding.

  1. What exactly does MQA authenticate?
  2. Does the MQA algorithm and its process work equally well, or badly, on all music files?
  3. Are MQA files and LPCM Flac created equal from the exact same master file? - Does the master file receive special treatment before it is fed into the MQA encoder?
  4. Why create a lossy codec with a fixed sound signature when we already have lossless LPCM Flac and all the filter possibilities in the world at our disposal?
  5. In the future, how will we know that we buy true lossless LPCM Flac files and not files that have been made from lossy MQA files?
  6. Will there be a true freedom of choice between music as MQA and LPCM Flac for all future remasters and artists?
No.
 
Does MQA ever told what they did, different master or secret process? Do they allow present both versions at the same time?
SACD do not use camouflage like MQA and do not present itself as something else (CD) like MQA does.
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."
 
Last edited:
As in lots of wasted bandwidth previously, give us exactly the same thing in MQA and not and let us properly compare.

Labels like Chandos and LSO Live do that, unless you think that they would hamstring the layer used by most music buyers to sell Sony's tech?
I am tired of repeating this but that's has been available on 2L "workbench" for over 5 years.

However, if in all these years, one hasn't compared them, it must not be very interesting or important to them. So asking for more of the same if one never tried what is already available makes no sense.

As for demanding that MQA sourced masters, which become available explicitly due to proprietary agreement between MQA and the labels, be also released in non-MQA format - that's an interesting but not a practical request. And should be addressed to the labels and not MQA, as their contracts with the labels are surely limited to MQA releases.

The labels are always free to release a good sounding master in any format they wish, but they rarely do. If the MQA work is uncovering and publishing better sounding masters, we should be happy, not angry.
 
Last edited:
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.
Well done 320k AAC is indeed very, very good. Most of us fail to consistently tell it apart from lossless in DBTs.

Proms program is impressively diverse. I am going to give it a listen! - Great tip - I downloaded the BBC SOUNDS app.
 
I think the level of vitriol engendered by MQA in some folk is unique and unprecedented in my long history with the hobby.

Which should make you wonder why, not?

What we really should be worried about is not tiny MQA, but gigantic Apple, Amazon and Atmos/Spatial Audio.

Certainly. Years ago I wrote somewhere that we should not worry too much about MQA, but about what comes after MQA.

I am tired of repeating this but that's has been available on 2L "workbench" for over 5 years.

Minimalist audiophile fare from a tiny label, presumably with white-glove MQA treatment. As such not representative in technique, style, repertoire, and work flow of the industry average, both non-MQA and MQA. Moreover, having listened to it back then, it left me cold IIRC.
 
Maybe it's SMPTE time codes. Whatever it is, it's clearly unsuitable for the data displayed. Unless you're trying to mislead, of course. Then it's perfect.
The squarewave picture shows 75 fps. This corresponds to the compact disk time code with 75 frames per second.
The displayed time are to be interpreted as hours:minutes:seconds:frames. So e.g. 00:00:01:07.5 means 1 second 7.5 frames. 7.5 frames corresponds to 0.1s (=7.5/75). Result: 1.1 seconds.
The squarewave has a cycle time of 0.25 frames = 0.00333... seconds. This means we have a squarewave of frequency 300 Hz.

Now a squarewave consists of sinewaves of odd order = 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 ... With the given 300 Hz this results in 7 frequencies up to order 13 = 300 Hz, 900 Hz, 1500 Hz, 2100 Hz, 2700 Hz, 3300 Hz and 3900 Hz. We can now check the spectral lines and we can clearly count 7 lines up to 4 kHz.

This means: the displayed data are very correct.
 
I propose that the music industry adopt a certificate that guarantees the consumers that they buy genuinely "matematically lossless" files when they shop for LPCM redbook or hi res files.
 


advertisement


Back
Top