advertisement


MQA

Status
Not open for further replies.
DimitryZ said:
No, they are correct. There is multi-year churn over the status of MQA as "lossless" or "lossy." The argument revolves around two controversies.

One is wether MQA, purely as a data handling system, can reproduce entirely bit-perfect LPCM file, say 24/96 accros the entire frequency bandwidth. Many audiophiles have a strong belief that any alterations to the original bit-perfect file is unacceptable, since it is the "true source." They are not bothered by the facts that an actual studio tracks undergo multiple non-bit perfect alterations on the way to become "the master." Since MQA is a closed, proprietary, analogue-to-analogue system, it has proven very difficult to ascertain it's exact "purity" status and MQA has been cagey on the subject The current, consensus is that MQA is not bit perfect data handling system in at least ultrasonic part of the spectrum.

The other, equally burning controversy, is the proprietary digital manipulation of the original master to reduce pre-ringing artefacts that are produced in the A/D process. Many or most ADCs used in the studio today, introduce these into the music on transients due to the popularity of linear and minimum phase filters in both recording and playback equipment. MQA claims to have analyzed popular recording chains and to have calculated the amount of pre-ringing that would be present in the "lossless master." They say they apply a reversing process to "null out" this recording artefacts from the original file. In practice, this appears to consist of applying a digital filter from the so called "apodizing" filter family, likely with varying coefficients to "null out" the pre-ringing present in the original file. This filter is also available in most modern DACs, though in a single form. Many audiophiles consider different digital filters used in digital audio to be inaudible (I don't), which suggests that whatever digital reconstruction filtration MQA is going is at best subtle. However, again they object is "doing something" to the "lossless master" which in our hobby is often considered wrong to the point of sacrilege.
Click to expand...

So If I may sum this up for the sake of clarity, what you appear to be saying is that as the studios already screw up the signal during the mix/mastering stages it's fine for MQA to go screw it up some more ???

Hilarious ... do go on :D
 
miktec said:
So If I may sum this up for the sake of clarity, what you appear to be saying is that as the studios already screw up the signal during the mix/mastering stages it's fine for MQA to go screw it up some more ???

Hilarious ... do go on :D
Click to expand...
Or repair it.

Of course, if you believe that the masters are already perfect, that's IMPOSSIBLE. Perfect audio forever, right? What are remasters, then? More perfect, of course!

Especially if you never actually listen. Just more forum chatter from another MQA know-nothing.
 
miktec said:
You reckon?

So it's that easy ... hooda thunk it !!

Do you think they could take that nasty slapback echo off Elvis's Sun recordings while they're at it .... have a word with them would you please :)
Click to expand...
You should email them.

According to Amir, they do use different masters sometimes. I will have a listen. Which particular Elvis recording that you heard in MQA did you find offensive?
 
Here's a good example of how bad it can be to get you started - listen to that guitar as well .... awful!!

Now if MQA could clean all that up wouldn't it be so much better?

 
Yes, I suspect that this is getting close to be shut down as a thread.

Albeit that we have one MQA believer here, it seems that those who really have no interest in it are joining the anti-MQA movement for the very reason that no actual questions ever get answers.

For me the situation is simple. If MQA alters the Master then that is distortion and should be avoided, and if it does not alter the Master, then what is the point of it? If it is pointless, why would you want to buy equipment to use it when perfectly respectable kit already exists to make a very good job of straight lossless digital.

It would be storm in a tea-cup except for MQA's avowed intent to insert itself into the recording process at the recording company level, which will deny the choice of straight lossless digital to those of us quite happy with it.

Best wishes from George
 
DimitryZ said:
Yes, George, " Digital Master" is the god at whose altar you worship.

It's comforting to believe that there is an absolute "truth" that we should aspire to in our playback and it's called "the Digital Master." This holy entity can't be bettered or improved, as it represents perfection incarnate.

Any moves to change it, claiming improvement, is blasphemy against all we hold holy and must be eradicated.

What you describe is cult-like thinking. I have put down my best assessment of MQA, which you handily ignored, because to acknowledge it would open you to accusation of blasphemy yourself.

And who wants to be an outcast?
Click to expand...

Dear Dimitry,

It is a simple fact that all recording and replay deviates from perfection. Over the last century and a half of sound recordings, there has been a continuous refinement of quality, though even today it is clear that perfection has yet to be achieved. Microphones are not perfect, recording machines are not perfect, replay systems and loud speakers ... not perfect. The aspect that marks out the developments in recording and replay are a continuing effort to make a closer approach to perfection in replay.

With lossless digital the issued master "is" the gold standard. The digital master is not something that is reduced in quality by the carrier as the file is a lossless clone of the master. Nobody is going to claim that that masters in the future will not, almost certainly, be closer to perfection than those of today and before.

As soon as a replay system adds to and or reduces the master information it is distorting it. This not a belief. It is a fact. Just like the fact that amplifiers always have a degree of distortion. The effort is to reduce distortions. You are a solid state amplifier person as you consider that valves are more distorting than solid state. Both valves and solid state distort, but the characters of that distortion is different. Both have been developed and improved with the passing of time.

No distortion that can be avoided is desirable. Therefore, as MQA does introduce distortion and losses, it is entirely undesirable. It is therefore of concern to any who wish their music to be as well replayed as the current state of the art allows, observing that MQA want to take away the choice in some cases to listen to the unadulterated digital master via lossless means. Why does MQA not bring out an "MQA" filter that can be applied to lossless digital masters at the playback end and be done with it? Such things have already been done on certain current DACs, and the end user is given the choice of straight or modified replay from lossless digital.

On the other hand if MQA is actually still as close to perfect as direct lossless replay, then I see no point in it, as it will sound exactly the same.

So if it sounds the same, it is pointless, and if it does not sound the same and adds distortion and subtracts information, then it also pointless.

Perhaps one question may be permissible? "What use do you see in MQA?"

Best wishes from George

PS: Please do not confuse me with someone who holds religious beliefs, or considers blasphemy as a sin! And I deplore cults as being the worst thing that humans have invented!
 
George J said:
Dear Dimitry,

It is a simple fact that all recording and replay deviates from perfection. Over the last century and a half of sound recordings, there has been a continuous refinement of quality, though even today it is clear that perfection has yet to be achieved. Microphones are not perfect, recording machines are not perfect, replay systems and loud speakers ... not perfect. The aspect that marks out the developments in recording and replay are a continuing effort to make a closer approach to perfection in replay.

With lossless digital the issued master "is" the gold standard. The digital master is not something that is reduced in quality by the carrier as the file is a lossless clone of the master. Nobody is going to claim that that masters in the future will not, almost certainly, be closer to perfection than those of today and before.

As soon as a replay system adds to and or reduces the master information it is distorting it. This not a belief. It is a fact. Just like the fact that amplifiers always have a degree of distortion. The effort is to reduce distortions. You are a solid state amplifier person as you consider that valves are more distorting than solid state. Both valves and solid state distort, but the characters of that distortion is different. Both have been developed and improved with the passing of time.

No distortion that can be avoided is desirable. Therefore, as MQA does introduce distortion and losses, it is entirely undesirable. It is therefore of concern to any who wish their music to be as well replayed as the current state of the art allows, observing that MQA want to take away the choice in some cases to listen to the unadulterated digital master via lossless means. Why does MQA not bring out an "MQA" filter that can be applied to lossless digital masters at the playback end and be done with it? Such things have already been done on certain current DACs, and the end user is given the choice of straight or modified replay from lossless digital.

On the other hand if MQA is actually still as close to perfect as direct lossless replay, then I see no point in it, as it will sound exactly the same.

So if it sounds the same, it is pointless, and if it does not sound the same and adds distortion and subtracts information, then it also pointless.

Perhaps one question may be permissible? "What use do you see in MQA?"

Best wishes from George

PS: Please do not confuse me with someone who holds religious beliefs, or considers blasphemy as a sin! And I deplore cults as being the worst thing that humans have invented!
Click to expand...
George,

You speak as though you don't hold religious beliefs. This is not a disparaging comment - I attend a church, now virtually, almost every Sunday. We are doing anti-racism sessions now after the service.

You are confusing "Digital Master" with actual performance made during the recording process. This is understandable - we all were thought to think that. That is what you explicitly say in your post - "Gold Standard" - i.e. something that can't be improved. Anything that changes this "Gold Standard" is therefore distortion, a very bad thing.

However, if you allow for a radical possibility that when the mastering engineer pushes "send" to transport his downmix to the record company for publication, it doesn't automatically represent the "gold standard" of this particular performance, crazy things become potential.

MQA makes a claim that they ACTUALLY improve on the master, admittedly a bold claim. In actual critical listening, which I am probably the only one here have done (because I actually put my money where my mouth is, unlike most who rather quote hearsay or their political beliefs) this is true on some but not releases.

The real reason MQA is winning listeners is that it actually delivers (many times, not always) on their bold claims. In repeated listening tonight, hires LPCM sounds excellent, like the best digital - detailed and tonally neutral. MQA sounds slightly darker, deeper and emotionally engaging. For those of us steeped in analogue, perhaps a difference between Ortofon Jubilee or Lyra cartridges and Transfiguration line can explain the difference. As I listen, perhaps LPCM is a larger venue, like an auditorium, and MQA is like a jazz club. Perhaps a balance between the two renditions will be "optimal" in my full range system.

Unless I am mistaken, George, you don't stream, therefore MQA is exceedingly unlikely to ever affect you at all. Yet here you are, posting very long letters, vehemently arguing against something you will never experience.

Why?

P.S. I now proof read my posts several times to make sure my grammer, punctuation and spelling are correct, in order mitigate attacks by my anti-MQA colleagues on the basis of my imperfect English.
 
Last edited:
Dear Dimitry,

I would never make the mistake of confusing a released recording master with the performance. The closest to that will always potentially be a live radio broadcast, where no post production work can be done.

However, once the editing and post production work is done the musicians [or musician] will approve it or ask for more work [different editing and so on] ... The master will not be a complete reflection of a performance. It will be a compilation of takes, of production decisions about microphone placement, decisions on degree of compression in dynamic and so on almost ad nauseam.

The master will hopefully reflect the performer's "idealised" performance. It may not always live up to the lofty ideal in reality.

Now if the question is about the perfection or lack of it with digital recording, well certainly there is still room for improvement! If MQA represented a consistent improvement, it would by now have gained widespread adoption. The fact that it has not may give pause for thought as to why this might be.

I'll leave it like that for now, but no doubt your advocacy of it will continue in future, and my skeptical view is open to being convinced by solid peer reviewed evidence. The trouble with any evidence that might be presented is that MQA themselves have made it all but impossible to explore what effects their system of mastering might be bringing, for good or bad. That gives me huge cause for doubt as well. Saying that it is a commercial secret does not really wash in my humble opinion! MQA just saying it is the best is not an easy thing to swallow whole, if you understand my meaning. That would require me to believe without evidence.

Best wishes from George
 
George J said:
Dear Dimitry,

I would never make the mistake of confusing a released recording master with the performance. The closest to that will always potentially be a live radio broadcast, where no post production work can be done.

However, once the editing and post production work is done the musicians [or musician] will approve it or ask for more work [different editing and so on] ... The master will not be a complete reflection of a performance. It will be a compilation of takes, of production decisions about microphone placement, decisions on degree of compression in dynamic and so on almost ad nauseam.

The master will hopefully reflect the performer's "idealised" performance. It may not always live up to the lofty ideal in reality.

Now if the question is about the perfection or lack of it with digital recording, well certainly there is still room for improvement! If MQA represented a consistent improvement, it would by now have gained widespread adoption. The fact that it has not may give pause for thought as to why this might be.

I'll leave it like that for now, but no doubt your advocacy of it will continue in future, and my skeptical view is open to being convinced by solid peer reviewed evidence. The trouble with any evidence that might be presented is that MQA themselves have made it all but impossible to explore what effects their system of mastering might be bringing, for good or bad. That gives me huge cause for doubt as well. Saying that it is a commercial secret does not really wash in my humble opinion! MQA just saying it is the best is not an easy thing to swallow whole, if you understand my meaning. That would require me to believe without evidence.

Best wishes from George
Click to expand...
George,

There are NO peer review papers against MQA.

You opinion that performers "approve" of the "gold standard" LPCM digital master is equally challenged by anti-MQA cohort that performers "don't approve" of their MQA releases. Certainly Neil Young felt this way. Though he chose not to sue MQA for "changing" his work. I don't think we can claim with any certainly what artists really approve of. Your ideas of how musicians interact with the record company in terms of sound quality is quaintly off the mark.

Exploration of MQA is only done in the analogue domain, by listening to it and comparing it to alternatives. For many audiophiles, this is impossible to accept, as they have adopted "digital master perfection." For those who dare to explore, it is often a rewarding experience. But they have to stop being lazy and actually use their ears...what a weird concept for audiophiles. It is actual effort to get trial subscriptions to Tidal and Qobuz/Amazon and decide what is best for you.

I am sure CDs will fulfill your musical demands for many years to come. As long as you don't ask "Is there anything better?" That way lies madness....
 
George J said:
Dear Dimitry,

I would never make the mistake of confusing a released recording master with the performance. The closest to that will always potentially be a live radio broadcast, where no post production work can be done.

However, once the editing and post production work is done the musicians [or musician] will approve it or ask for more work [different editing and so on] ... The master will not be a complete reflection of a performance. It will be a compilation of takes, of production decisions about microphone placement, decisions on degree of compression in dynamic and so on almost ad nauseam.

The master will hopefully reflect the performer's "idealised" performance. It may not always live up to the lofty ideal in reality.

Now if the question is about the perfection or lack of it with digital recording, well certainly there is still room for improvement! If MQA represented a consistent improvement, it would by now have gained widespread adoption. The fact that it has not may give pause for thought as to why this might be.

I'll leave it like that for now, but no doubt your advocacy of it will continue in future, and my skeptical view is open to being convinced by solid peer reviewed evidence. The trouble with any evidence that might be presented is that MQA themselves have made it all but impossible to explore what effects their system of mastering might be bringing, for good or bad. That gives me huge cause for doubt as well. Saying that it is a commercial secret does not really wash in my humble opinion! MQA just saying it is the best is not an easy thing to swallow whole, if you understand my meaning. That would require me to believe without evidence.

Best wishes from George
Click to expand...

The interesting thing is that a great ‘performance’ will transcend the production, mastering and performance. In the classical world, how could we do without the De Sabata Tosca, the Toscanini Otello, the Klemperer and Futwangler Beethoven or the George Szell legacy. When these are spinning, production, delivery and perfection sound perfection are all moot. The Kleiber Beethoven Fifth and Seventh with its glassy violins and imperfect sound still makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck as much as any almost perfectly recorded symphony. We should chase performance, not the sound.I’ve heard some wonderfully recorded stuff from Chandos and ECM but the music and performance is often just OK.I remember the classical demonstration discs being touted years ago. I think the Kondrashin Dvorak 9th was one such disc. My FIL gave me a copy. Played it once. I still prefer the Macal. Performance is where my heart lies.
 
Del monaco said:
The interesting thing is that a great ‘performance’ will transcend the production, mastering and performance. In the classical world, how could we do without the De Sabata Tosca, the Toscanini Otello, the Klemperer and Futwangler Beethoven or the George Szell legacy. When these are spinning, production, delivery and perfection sound perfection are all moot. The Kleiber Beethoven Fifth and Seventh with its glassy violins and imperfect sound still makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck as much as any almost perfectly recorded symphony. We should chase performance, not the sound.I’ve heard some wonderfully recorded stuff from Chandos and ECM but the music and performance is often just OK.I remember the classical demonstration discs being touted years ago. I think the Kondrashin Dvorak 9th was one such disc. My FIL gave me a copy. Played it once. I still prefer the Macal. Performance is where my heart lies.
Click to expand...
Another excellent point. Dave Brubeck's "Take Five" sounds excellent in pretty much every release!

Melody Gardot's latest release - "Sunset in the Blue" - is excellent wether you choose LPCM or MQA.

You will be all like "where has she been all my life?"

Go hear it and report back!

Y'all can thank me privately for this tip if you aren't comfortable publicly thanking an MQA supporter.
 
DimitryZ said:
Another excellent point. Dave Brubeck's "Take Five" sounds excellent in pretty much every release!

Melody Gardot's latest release - "Sunset in the Blue" - is excellent wether you choose LPCM or MQA.

You will be all like "where has she been all my life?"

Go hear it and report back!

Y'all can thank me privately for this tip if you aren't comfortable publicly thanking an MQA supporter.
Click to expand...
I know them both well. Gardot’s The Rain is a favourite of mine. Gorgeous voice and back story. I’ve listened to these ‘performances’ for years on various formats and their power is undiminished. Formats are always welcome and always promote debate but I feel we can sometimes get wrapped up in these debates and lose sight of the main event. I’m guilty of this myself but I consciously pulled back when I realised.I enjoy music so much more now. This is not to diminish others’ journeys or quests for ‘sound’ but I’ve realised that it became an unwanted distraction. I listen to the music first. Sometimes the sound will surprise me or enhance the performance. That’s my conscious order of things nowadays.
 
Del monaco said:
I know them both well. Gardot’s The Rain is a favourite of mine. Gorgeous voice and back story. I’ve listened to these ‘performances’ for years on various formats and their power is undiminished. Formats are always welcome and always promote debate but I feel we can sometimes get wrapped up in these debates and lose sight of the main event. I’m guilty of this myself but I consciously pulled back when I realised.I enjoy music so much more now. This is not to diminish others’ journeys or quests for ‘sound’ but I’ve realised that it became an unwanted distraction. I listen to the music first. Sometimes the sound will surprise me or enhance the performance. That’s my conscious order of things nowadays.
Click to expand...
You are totally right and and a timely reminder for this debate. Thank you for reminding us all that our hobby is all about enjoying great music.

I listened to "Sunset in the Blue" three times tonight, MQA/LPCM/MQA - and though on balance I preferred MQA on this release, the performance was superb regardless. I feel I gained more understanding of this performance having listened to it in both formats.

Do you want an upclose front-row breathy sound (MQA) or mid-club clear sound (LPCM), the performance is exceptional. Emotionally, MQA was easy to connect to, while LPCM offered a clear window on the vocals and the accompaniment. One can be very happy with either format.

Conceptually (and I am sure this will be misused) MQA offers "it is this" performance while LPCM offered "it iis what you decide" performance. Of course most of you won't understand it as you don't listen to MQA.

The reason MQA is gaining listeners is "it is this" quality. One has to hear it to appreciate it. Though LPCM has equally engaging qualities of musical line and detail.

MQA offers a very particular performance, while LPCM offers a performance with excellent metrics.
 
I’d agree that the “MQA sound effect” is quite minor, akin to changing a DAC’s upsampling filter.

If it was just a software button you could turn on or off, or an effects box like the m-scalar, I’d have no problem with it.

Instead they replace the original file with their mangled version, which they have the cheek to call a “master”. Then they require you to use licensed hardware to unmangle the file and process it in a certain way that they have deemed to subjectively sound the best. In case you have the temerity to disagree with their interpretation, you are referred to “psychoacoustic research” and/or “what the artist heard/intended”. None of which you can ever verify (of course).

MQA is a genius invention for all the wrong reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top