|
|
Post by Wideawake on Aug 9, 2016 15:58:37 GMT -5
MQA at the studio uses measurements to confirm that flaws exist in the ADC or mastering, and that correction methods yield an improvement in accuracy. If the accuracy is improved, then logically it makes sense that "it will still be different". Remastering involves taking the already recorded tracks and mastering those again. Unless MQA is used during the recording process to lay down each track and then to create a master from it, I don't see it creating a better master. A more compressed file perhaps but not necessarily better. I'm still not clear as to the "folding" technology. The article you linked (thanks), explains the concept nicely but does not provide enough detail to get a good picture of how it is done. Again, 3 bits will likely not be sufficient to create all the folds. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Aug 9, 2016 16:23:15 GMT -5
MQA at the studio uses measurements to confirm that flaws exist in the ADC or mastering, and that correction methods yield an improvement in accuracy. If the accuracy is improved, then logically it makes sense that "it will still be different". Remastering involves taking the already recorded tracks and mastering those again. Unless MQA is used during the recording process to lay down each track and then to create a master from it, I don't see it creating a better master. A more compressed file perhaps but not necessarily better. I'm still not clear as to the "folding" technology. The article you linked (thanks), explains the concept nicely but does not provide enough detail to get a good picture of how it is done. Again, 3 bits will likely not be sufficient to create all the folds. Well, if the measurements confirm that the improvements in accuracy aren't fake, then obviously that's that. The "3 bits" I was referring to is the minimum distance, expressed as a number of bits, that is kept between the noise floor of the recording and the encapsulated data. Each bit is the equivalent of 6.02 dB so 3 bits below the noise floor means 18.02 dB below the noise floor, which is not audible at realistic home listening levels (i.e., assuming maximum peaks of 115 dB SPL at listening position). P.S., here's a document that shows this: www.2l.no/hires/documentation/2L-MQA_Comparisons.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Aug 11, 2016 15:05:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Aug 16, 2016 12:57:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Aug 20, 2016 5:27:41 GMT -5
garbulky pointed out something to me that I hadn't thought about concerning MQA. Even though Warner has adopted MQA, it doesn't mean that they're going to go back and release remastered MQA versions of their existing catalog. Why? It costs money to do so, and there's no way for consumers to pay for the MQA remastering except by streaming. How many customers are likely to pay for a streamed MQA version of music that they already own in CD quality? So Warner is likely to use MQA going forward on new releases (most of which I have little interest in) but the majority of their existing catalog will never be MQA. That being the case, MQA'a only hope of becoming an industry standard is if Apple opts to buy them out. Even if that happens, how much of Apple's back catalog would they pay to have remastered in MQA? Therefore, for the existing body of digitized music, MQA will never happen, period. That being the case, I've changed my vote in this poll from "yes" to "no." MQA might have had a chance if they released free software that would automatically and easily convert existing CD-quality files to MQA. Then, the consumer could convert their own music (if they wanted to) to MQA at no cost but the time to run the converter. But even if they could, what would they have? The CD original would be the limiting factor, and even if MQA could reduce pre-ringing and conversion filter artifacts through their software encoding, would most people hear any difference? I think that MQA has killed their own creation with their licensing and fee structure. If they offered the encoding algorithm free to all, then it might become more widely used. But by asking for fees at both the recording and playback ends, Meridian has ensured that most music will never get MQA remastered. And that alone is enough to kill the format. Sic transit gloria mundi.
|
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Jan 6, 2017 11:12:30 GMT -5
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs 
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jan 6, 2017 11:44:22 GMT -5
Okay, so is this a CODEC or hardware? And, how is this different than PCM? |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 6, 2017 11:51:02 GMT -5
And MQA is (slowly) gaining ground... Will it hang on? Yet to be determined. Just because companies are willing to release new product in MQA format doesn't mean that they'll spend the time & money to convert their entire existing catalog. To me, a MQA watershed will be whether or not Oppo includes MQA decoding on their upcoming UDP-105 player. I'm hoping they do, but if they don't it'll bode ill for my involvement with the format.
Boom
|
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Jan 6, 2017 13:53:40 GMT -5
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jan 6, 2017 14:36:20 GMT -5
So, according to the link, it's a compression CODEC. Therefore, it is not better than PCM; at best it is the same. Why would I want this? |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 6, 2017 14:49:28 GMT -5
So, according to the link, it's a compression CODEC. Therefore, it is not better than PCM; at best it is the same. Why would I want this? I think it's about size. It puts more data in to the same size. Think mp3's but for hi res files. Also they talk something about improved timing which I don't know anything about. I'm not sold on it. If you want to get the benefits you have to have a DAC that decodes MQA which likely most people don't have. But what you mentioned is pertinent. They are going to have to get people to buy in to it if they want it to be a success. But if most people can't see a concrete example immediately of why it is better or why they would want it, then like SACD it may have issues simply starting off. I've read a few articles on it but other than some - not all - mentioning there's some sort of improvement and not really describing how the improvement sounded, I don't really comprehend clearly how this is going to be something I would want. For instance here's something that would sell me: A codec that can dynamically adapt to the recorded signal to record more data. For instance if the signal is a pure sine wave, then it encodes it as normal - say 16/44.1. But if there is tons of information and variation in a small piece of it, it ups the bandwith by a huge amount and records every tiny variation in it in very tiny time increments. If that doesn't make sense. A PCM signal can capture the signal within one time interval and the next. This codec would be designed where it captures every bit of the signal at very tiny increments of time and then adjusts its encoding bit rate or bandwidth depending on the complexity of the signal. So it avoids huge multigigabyte/terabyte files ....unless they are needed. This is different from "you won't perceive the difference", it's is there data here or not. - Universal DRM free format. (yeah right!) A codec that has no need for filters, no pre or post ringing without tricks (like shifting the pre in to the post ringing). No weird ultrasonic noise. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 6, 2017 14:54:02 GMT -5
Hi stiehl11No, it is NOT the same as PCM, despite being a codec. MQA, supposedly: Repairs timing errors that were caused by the original digitization of the analog music. Restores high frequencies that were truncated by the original analog-to-digital conversion. Does so with less bandwidth than uncompressed PCM audio Is backward compatible with DACs that lack MQA decompression Walks the dog & cooks dinner Now, not having heard it, myself, I couldn't confirm or deny these claims. But those who have heard it seem to generally think that it IS worthwhile. So the long & short of it is that I'm withholding judgement until I actually hear an MQA-encoded recording through an MQA-capable DAC. Boom |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 6, 2017 15:12:28 GMT -5
There will be a new algorithm out next week/month/year/decade that will allow more accurate and more efficient compression and MQA will be out of date technically. There is a window where MQA can make claims of it being state of the art (whether it is or not is another discussion), that window will close at some point. That's the history of data encoding and I see no reason why the future would be any different.
In regards to back catalogues, the industry knows this (eventual obsolescence) and, as a result, is unlikely to rework titles when they know full well that they will have to do it all again when the next SOA encoding comes along.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jan 6, 2017 15:17:40 GMT -5
Hi stiehl11No, it is NOT the same as PCM, despite being a codec. MQA, supposedly: Repairs timing errors that were caused by the original digitization of the analog music. Restores high frequencies that were truncated by the original analog-to-digital conversion. Does so with less bandwidth than uncompressed PCM audio Is backward compatible with DACs that lack MQA decompression Walks the dog & cooks dinner Now, not having heard it, myself, I couldn't confirm or deny these claims. But those who have heard it seem to generally think that it IS worthwhile. So the long & short of it is that I'm withholding judgement until I actually hear an MQA-encoded recording through an MQA-capable DAC. Boom So.... what do "timing errors" sound like? Can you point to a recording that has these "timing errors" that I can listen to? And, what frequency ranges are we talking about? Bandwidth doesn't concern me; maybe streaming services or Comcast might worry about that, but not me. HDCD and SACD were backwards compatible as well; I wonder what happened to those formats? |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 6, 2017 15:35:19 GMT -5
ALL digital recordings contain "timing errors" due to the brick-wall filters used to prevent any frequency of more than 20KHz from being digitized. The PCM sample rate (44KHz) is intended to allow clean recording up to 20KHz, but no more. If you prefer to call them "phase distortion," that should be equally accurate. Higher frequency digital recordings with greater bit depth are intended to give more headroom, but the vast majority of digitally-recorded music is "red-book" 44KHz / 16-bit standard.
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jan 6, 2017 16:18:40 GMT -5
ALL digital recordings contain "timing errors" due to the brick-wall filters used to prevent any frequency of more than 20KHz from being digitized. The PCM sample rate (44KHz) is intended to allow clean recording up to 20KHz, but no more. If you prefer to call them "phase distortion," that should be equally accurate. Higher frequency digital recordings with greater bit depth are intended to give more headroom, but the vast majority of digitally-recorded music is "red-book" 44KHz / 16-bit standard. So, I should be able to hear and point out "timing errors" or "phase distortion" in digital recordings when compared to analog recordings, correct? And, what does a Perfect 5th above a 20KHz fundamental sound like? I'm interested because I'm not sure I've heard one. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 6, 2017 17:36:17 GMT -5
Hi stiehl11 - I've given you the info I have from reading about MQA as best as I can remember it. I'm not trying to defend or dismiss MQA - I haven't heard it. For more info, Google it if you're interested. But the encoding issues of analog to digital recordings have been identified, accepted, and discussed now for decades. Cheers - Boom. |
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jan 6, 2017 19:43:32 GMT -5
Hi stiehl11 - I've given you the info I have from reading about MQA as best as I can remember it. I'm not trying to defend or dismiss MQA - I haven't heard it. For more info, Google it if you're interested. But the encoding issues of analog to digital recordings have been identified, accepted, and discussed now for decades. Cheers - Boom. I'm just trying to find what's interesting about it. More usable bits and higher sampling frequencies are always a good thing! But, there's already "more bits" and "higher sampling frequencies" readily and easily available. If they weren't, I'd be all over this like white on rice. I am very well aware of the encoding issues of analog to digital and I'm not doubting any of it (not sure why you bring it up). So far, I haven't seen anything that MQA does that makes me "excited" about it. In all seriousness it's probably going to sound a lot like HDCD... which is already out there (and pretty much dead). The only thing I'm seeing different is that it's proprietary and it makes someone else money. |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Jan 6, 2017 23:47:37 GMT -5
Hi stiehl11 - I've given you the info I have from reading about MQA as best as I can remember it. I'm not trying to defend or dismiss MQA - I haven't heard it. For more info, Google it if you're interested. But the encoding issues of analog to digital recordings have been identified, accepted, and discussed now for decades. Cheers - Boom. I'm just trying to find what's interesting about it. More usable bits and higher sampling frequencies are always a good thing! But, there's already "more bits" and "higher sampling frequencies" readily and easily available. If they weren't, I'd be all over this like white on rice. I am very well aware of the encoding issues of analog to digital and I'm not doubting any of it (not sure why you bring it up). So far, I haven't seen anything that MQA does that makes me "excited" about it. In all seriousness it's probably going to sound a lot like HDCD... which is already out there (and pretty much dead). The only thing I'm seeing different is that it's proprietary and it makes someone else money. Stop by the nearest audiophile store and try it out like I did. I did a A/B comparison and MQA encoded files sounded better 95% of the time (Metallica in MQA sounded too relax). It's hard to describe, but it had no digital glare. You could turn up the volume more with MQA and not bother you. Make sure the DAC supports MQA. |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Jan 7, 2017 0:11:28 GMT -5
If MQA turns out to be a great thing, I will embrace it with a cynical sense because one company will own the codec for all lossless streaming music.
|
|
