KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 12, 2017 12:38:46 GMT -5
That's all absolutely fine..... However, it also means that, until and unless they actually give me MQA copies of music that I am already familiar with, and that sound "obviously better" to me, I'm not going to be convinced that there's much of anything there beyond the hype. I'm not saying that there isn't anything there.... but just that, until they prove there is, they've simply earned a place in my mental waiting room with all the other interesting but unproven claims. I haven't seen anything in their claims that contradicts reality, so I'm quite willing to consider that they might live up to their claims, but I'm not going to assume it yet. (So I'm NOT going to get all excited about it.) My main problem with their whole "presentation model" (how they explain their stuff to the public) is that it has ended up being awfully confusing..... and, collectively, it's started to sound a lot like "to get the best sound you're going to have to buy MQA content and play it on MQA certified equipment". And, yes, they're going to have to do quite a bit of proving to sell me that whole package. The problem I have, though, is that they seem determined to sell the whole package AS a package. if I can buy re-masters of a lot of my favorite albums that they're made sound better by their post-processing, and they really do sound even better when I play them on an MQA-certified DAC, then I might consider buying one. However, I'm NOT going to consider it if it doesn't really sound noticeably better, and not if it only sounds better with only one or two albums, and not if all it does is to make a 128 kbps Spotify stream sound as good as a CD (because I already have lots of CDs, and the extra bandwidth needed by 24/96k doesn't bother me either). I'm waiting for the buzz to quiet down, and some of the smoke to blow away, so we can actually see what MQA delivers on. Until then, I'm not going to get excited about it. (There are too many "great new things" to get excited about all of them... I got cynical somewhere between SQ4 and HDCD...) I must add one cynical comment.  There is a major difference between wind and buzz. Wind is a lot of air moving, and it can run power plants, and knock down buildings. Buzz is a noise made by bees, marketing folks, reviewers, and critics, and rarely moves or knocks down much of anything. (Although, if done effectively, buzz can sometimes lead to real wind... and sometimes not.) ... HERE'S MY PROBLEM WITH THE CLAIMS CURRENTLY BEING MADE FOR MQA:
1) MQA is NOT digitally bit-perfect (this is not in question). If we all agree (and we do) then why is this a problem? 2) Many people claim that they believe that MQA files sound better than those reproduced by other formats (this is a subjective judgment). So anything that can't be measured is a problem? 3) MQA CLAIMS that their final delivered result is closer to the analog original than the end result provided by other methods. Same comment as for No. 2 ...As of now, there is NO PROOF that the MQA-reproduced copy is closer to the ANALOG ORIGINAL than a PCM copy... Agreed 100%. Until a valid listening test is conducted between the analog source recording, a bit-perfect PCM copy, and a remastered & decoded MQA copy, nobody will ever know which is closer to the source. No matter how you cut it, MQA is a second or third generation kludge intended to repair known defects in the digitization process. But as a consumer, I'll never have the opportunity to run such a comparison. The best I could do would be to compare a consumer PCM copy to the MQA version. And that would only tell me which "sounded better" to my ears. Nevertheless, what "sounds better" is the goal that I pursue in audio, period. Since I have no "original experience" to compare a recording to, I have no choice but to discern what sounds better. Now garbulky , being a recordist, COULD record a digitized performance. But without the MQA encoding / decoding, he'd never be able to assess the veracity of the MQA copy vs. his PCM copy. In short - verification of MQA's claims is beyond what the average person can do. The only thing we can do is to decide whether (to our own ears) the MQA version sounds subjectively better than a non-MQA copy. The (vast) majority of those who HAVE heard MQA agree that (in their subjective opinions) the MQA is an improvement. Who am I to blow against the wind? I reserve personal judgement until I've personally heard MQA - but despite my (and your) valid reservations, I believe it deserves a chance. Cordially - Boom |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 12, 2017 13:47:13 GMT -5
We're in full agreement, Keith - Skepticism is justified. But the ratio of positive to negative reviews from those who HAVE heard it prompt me to want to hear it for myself. THAT'S what I'm saying. No more - no less. And when I DO hear it for myself, then I'll make my own decisions based on what I hear.
If I like it, that's absolutely no proof of Bob Stewart's claims. It only means that I liked it. Ditto if I don't - Even if the technology works exactly as claimed, I may not care for the results. Possibly the AD conversion cleaned up or masked some of the problems that existed in the original analog recording.
Either way, I'll never know for sure. The ONLY determination I'll be able to make is "better or worse" and even then, that determination will be pertinent only to my ears.
Boom
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 12, 2017 13:59:48 GMT -5
I don't disagree with YOUR STATEMENT at all. MY PROBLEM is this: It's quite simple to demonstrate that a digital audio signal or CODEC is bit-perfect - you just compare what you got to the original. Either the bits are exactly the same or they are not; the result is quite definitive - and not at all open to dispute; and we already know that MQA is NOT digitally bit-perfect. HOWEVER, no two analog signals are ever identical - so it's always going to be a matter of minimizing the differences. (And, especially with audiophiles, there's always going to be the question of how audible various differences are.) HERE'S MY PROBLEM WITH THE CLAIMS CURRENTLY BEING MADE FOR MQA:
1) MQA is NOT digitally bit-perfect (this is not in question). 2) Many people claim that they believe that MQA files sound better than those reproduced by other formats (this is a subjective judgment).
3) MQA CLAIMS that their final delivered result is closer to the analog original than the end result provided by other methods.However, what seems to be entirely missing are the various tests CONFIRMING that the decoded MQA-encoded content really is closer to the analog original. I don't know of anybody who has actually compared the analog original to the MQA copy and an equivalent PCM copy in a controlled test environment. I can only think of two ways to confirm this.... 1) We could take measurements about how the MQA copy and the PCM copies at various sample rates vary from the original and see how they compare. (Of course, since we already know that the results won't be identical, we could be right back to needing to determine if they sound audibly different.) 2a) We could do some serious double blind tests to confirm that the MQA copy sounds indistinguishable from the original. 2b) We could do some serious double blind tests to confirm that the MQA copy sounds more like the original than the various PCM versions. (If it turns out that both the MQA copy and the PCM copy sound indistinguishable from the original, then we're just wasting our time arguing.) As of now, there is NO PROOF that the MQA-reproduced copy is closer to the ANALOG ORIGINAL than a PCM copy. The fact that "a lot of people think MQA sounds better than PCM" is NOT proof that is is in fact more accurate to the original. (And, obviously, it's going to be impossible for most end users to compare anything to that analog studio original - which they don't have access to.) In other words, we've got a bunch of logical arguments about why MQA "should" sound really good. And a bunch of people who like it better than the specific PCM versions they've compared it to. But saying that you "like the MQA processed copy better than the PCM copy" is not at all the same as comparing it to the actual analog original. In fact, it seems to me an awful lot like when audiophiles claim that this or that system sounds "more like live sound" - even though they haven;t actually compared it to live sound. (Which means that, if you want to be accurate, it just sounds more like what they imagine it ought to..... ) So, to be very blunt, while MQA MIGHT BE more accurate to the analog original, I haven't seen any proof of that yet. MQA is Analog-to-Analog. The bit-perfect copy of the original input file contains unwanted audible ringing artifacts introduced by the digital anti-alias filter in the ADC, and *because* they're unwanted, the fact that a bit-perfect copy of that original file is not returned is a good thing if that's what it will take to reduce those artifacts so higher accuracy measured at the analog output is still higher accuracy no matter what bits are like. The obvious fact most end users haven't had access to that analog studio original anywhere in the past is PRECISELY what MQA is now, for the first time in history, effectively changing. It does so by enabling the artist / copyright holder to vouch for this authenticity and delivering to the end user the GUARANTEE that this authenticity was vouched for BY THOSE WHO ARE ENTITLED to vouch for this authenticity, and also, it does so because the artist / engineers responsible for creation of the music will be provided with professional tools to make those kinds of necessary comparisons. Music lovers and fans around the world don't need to compare anything. This is because the sound quality improvement inherent of MQA is, to put it mildly as opposed to putting it bluntly, so blatantly evident there IS no comparison! |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 12, 2017 14:20:25 GMT -5
Wind is a lot of air moving, and it can run power plants, and knock down buildings. Bob Stuart's marketing strategy used to be that of the old mousetrap theory, i.e., if you put strong enough cheese in, eventually someone's gonna bite. But I suppose that also getting a lot of air moving in the right direction certainly can't hurt for the smell of the cheese to hasten that effect. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 12, 2017 14:42:52 GMT -5
{snip}, nobody will ever know which is closer to the{snip} Ogni giorno un suono mai sentito prima ci regala una nuova esperienza emotiva. Every day a sound never heard before gives us a new emotional experience. ... Per Technics l'esperienza di ascolto non è soltanto una questione di tecnologia, ma anche di alchimia emotiva tra persone e musica. For Technics the listening experience is not just a matter of technology, but also of emotional chemistry between people and music. www.technics.com/it/chi-siamo/messaggio  |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 12, 2017 14:52:56 GMT -5
I don't disagree with YOUR STATEMENT at all. MY PROBLEM is this: It's quite simple to demonstrate that a digital audio signal or CODEC is bit-perfect - you just compare what you got to the original. Either the bits are exactly the same or they are not; the result is quite definitive - and not at all open to dispute; and we already know that MQA is NOT digitally bit-perfect. HOWEVER, no two analog signals are ever identical - so it's always going to be a matter of minimizing the differences. (And, especially with audiophiles, there's always going to be the question of how audible various differences are.) HERE'S MY PROBLEM WITH THE CLAIMS CURRENTLY BEING MADE FOR MQA:
1) MQA is NOT digitally bit-perfect (this is not in question). 2) Many people claim that they believe that MQA files sound better than those reproduced by other formats (this is a subjective judgment).
3) MQA CLAIMS that their final delivered result is closer to the analog original than the end result provided by other methods.However, what seems to be entirely missing are the various tests CONFIRMING that the decoded MQA-encoded content really is closer to the analog original. I don't know of anybody who has actually compared the analog original to the MQA copy and an equivalent PCM copy in a controlled test environment. I can only think of two ways to confirm this.... 1) We could take measurements about how the MQA copy and the PCM copies at various sample rates vary from the original and see how they compare. (Of course, since we already know that the results won't be identical, we could be right back to needing to determine if they sound audibly different.) 2a) We could do some serious double blind tests to confirm that the MQA copy sounds indistinguishable from the original. 2b) We could do some serious double blind tests to confirm that the MQA copy sounds more like the original than the various PCM versions. (If it turns out that both the MQA copy and the PCM copy sound indistinguishable from the original, then we're just wasting our time arguing.) As of now, there is NO PROOF that the MQA-reproduced copy is closer to the ANALOG ORIGINAL than a PCM copy. The fact that "a lot of people think MQA sounds better than PCM" is NOT proof that is is in fact more accurate to the original. (And, obviously, it's going to be impossible for most end users to compare anything to that analog studio original - which they don't have access to.) In other words, we've got a bunch of logical arguments about why MQA "should" sound really good. And a bunch of people who like it better than the specific PCM versions they've compared it to. But saying that you "like the MQA processed copy better than the PCM copy" is not at all the same as comparing it to the actual analog original. In fact, it seems to me an awful lot like when audiophiles claim that this or that system sounds "more like live sound" - even though they haven;t actually compared it to live sound. (Which means that, if you want to be accurate, it just sounds more like what they imagine it ought to..... ) So, to be very blunt, while MQA MIGHT BE more accurate to the analog original, I haven't seen any proof of that yet. The obvious fact most end users haven't had access to that analog studio original anywhere in the past is PRECISELY what MQA is now, for the first time in history, effectively changing. It does so by enabling the artist / copyright holder to vouch for this authenticity and delivering to the end user the GUARANTEE that this authenticity was vouched for BY THOSE WHO ARE ENTITLED to vouch for this authenticity, and also, it does so because the artist / engineers responsible for creation of the music will be provided with professional tools to make those kinds of necessary comparisons. Music lovers and fans around the world don't need to compare anything. This is because the sound quality improvement inherent of MQA is, to put it mildly as opposed to putting it bluntly, so blatantly evident there IS no comparison! However....there is no guarantee at all that the MQA is from the original master is it? It's basically whatever the record label signs off on. So it may as well be some post processed to hell digital copy. If they are doing some sort of mass release of MQA tracks, the record label may simply just give them the same tracks they already have - not necessarily the master track. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 12, 2017 15:15:53 GMT -5
Yeah, what he said too.... This is one of the things that confuses me. One minute they're claiming that: "the artist and the studio will get to sign off on each track"..... Yet the next they're saying something like: "we're not the quality police; we're going to take whatever the studio gives to us and says is their best version"..... So, what Yves says is exactly true..... "music fans won't have to compare anything for themselves"... they can just take the word of the guys selling it that it's better. (I'm sorry, but this sounds an awful lot like just where we are right now.) And they say...... "you'll be able to hear the master exactly as it was recorded"... then they say "of course the master is the studio's crown jewels - and they don't want to give that away". (So, yeah, I want those crown jewels; am I going to be getting them or not?) And, yeah, I'm sorry, but you do have to consider "business models". We're talking about offering that studio, and their stars, another chance to offer another "audiophile remaster", which means more sales, more royalties, and more publicity. I'm not sure how many of them are really going to be open to the idea of deciding that it might not be worth doing it. (Especially when they know a lot of people will buy it based solely on a few reviews and being told it's wonderful.) My guess is that they're going to think it's a great idea.... even before they listen to it. I honestly can't recall the last time a studio claimed that the latest remaster of a popular album sucked - and was a total waste of money. As with any other re-master, my advice is to listen for yourself, and, if you think it sounds better, then buy it. However, I'll admit that I'm a little miffed that they're telling me that then only way I can DECIDE whether it's worthwhile or not is to first buy new hardware. Let me be honest here.... I REALLY hope that MQA is going to give me the opportunity to buy new copies of my old favorites that REALLY sound better - this time. And I think it would be great if every MQA release sounds awesome. But... I'll believe it when I hear it. The obvious fact most end users haven't had access to that analog studio original anywhere in the past is PRECISELY what MQA is now, for the first time in history, effectively changing. It does so by enabling the artist / copyright holder to vouch for this authenticity and delivering to the end user the GUARANTEE that this authenticity was vouched for BY THOSE WHO ARE ENTITLED to vouch for this authenticity, and also, it does so because the artist / engineers responsible for creation of the music will be provided with professional tools to make those kinds of necessary comparisons. Music lovers and fans around the world don't need to compare anything. This is because the sound quality improvement inherent of MQA is, to put it mildly as opposed to putting it bluntly, so blatantly evident there IS no comparison! However....there is no guarantee at all that the MQA is from the original master is it? It's basically whatever the record label signs off on. So it may as well be some post processed to hell digital copy. If they are doing some sort of mass release of MQA tracks, the record label may simply just give them the same tracks they already have - not necessarily the master track. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 12, 2017 17:12:55 GMT -5
The obvious fact most end users haven't had access to that analog studio original anywhere in the past is PRECISELY what MQA is now, for the first time in history, effectively changing. It does so by enabling the artist / copyright holder to vouch for this authenticity and delivering to the end user the GUARANTEE that this authenticity was vouched for BY THOSE WHO ARE ENTITLED to vouch for this authenticity, and also, it does so because the artist / engineers responsible for creation of the music will be provided with professional tools to make those kinds of necessary comparisons. Music lovers and fans around the world don't need to compare anything. This is because the sound quality improvement inherent of MQA is, to put it mildly as opposed to putting it bluntly, so blatantly evident there IS no comparison! However....there is no guarantee at all that the MQA is from the original master is it? It's basically whatever the record label signs off on. So it may as well be some post processed to hell digital copy. If they are doing some sort of mass release of MQA tracks, the record label may simply just give them the same tracks they already have - not necessarily the master track. The best available, which varies from recording to recording. Read more at www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-and-warner-real-scoop |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 12, 2017 17:27:22 GMT -5
yvesWhat's more interesting to me than the MQA is that essentially what they are saying is they are going to make available high resolution audio files from everything available. Now man, that costs money! So MQA or not, if they can acheive actual high resolution releases from all kinds of files that fans have been clammering for a proper release - like metallica, red hot chili peppers, and maybe even some Led Zeppellin, that's a bigger anouncement than MQA. Now the doubt is - this is fantastically ambitious. Especially when there appears to be no huge amounts of extra money backing all this up from the consumers. So will they deliver on what they are claiming? They are literally saying they'll convert the world's music catalog in to high resolution in an year. Will they? Also how are they doing this? "So, once this project is finished and Sony and Universal have done their thing as planned, the bulk of the world's music catalog will be encoded and ready for streaming or download, in definitive versions, in just a few months Read more at www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-and-warner-real-scoop#XOSD6JA6V3wf0SoV.99" So....an example of the size. "Spotify says they've got 40, 50 million songs and about 4 million have never been played, and another 4–5 million have only been played once," Stuart told me. He thinks it's important to make all those songs—and more—available even if no one's listening to them, because he thinks completeness is important. Read more at www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-and-warner-real-scoop#XOSD6JA6V3wf0SoV.99" 50 million songs on just spotify.... How on earth are real people pulling up 50 million songs worth of analog tape/digital files and doing it to MQA in an year? This means they will have to convert 138,888 songs PER DAY from I assume the master tapes and supposedly deliver superior quality while doing it. Do they have the employees of a small nation working on this? Do they have robots digging up analog tapes out of vaults and running them? The math doesn't add up.
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 12, 2017 17:31:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jan 12, 2017 17:50:48 GMT -5
garbulky , don't be so skeptical about it. MQA is all part of the One World Order movement, whose only goal is to serve man.  One night you will go to sleep and the next morning when you wake up, ALL music will sound better.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 12, 2017 17:54:46 GMT -5
It's just a lot of songs is all I'm saying....
|
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jan 12, 2017 17:55:06 GMT -5
garbulky , don't be so skeptical about it. MQA is all part of the One World Order movement, whose only goal is to serve man. One night you will go to sleep and the next morning when you wake up, ALL music will sound better. That's geebo ! We need to stop him before he takes over the world with MQA ! They will eat us ! |
|
...HERE'S MY PROBLEM WITH THE CLAIMS CURRENTLY BEING MADE FOR MQA:
