|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Oct 11, 2016 11:40:01 GMT -5
According to the post below's reporting of an MQA press conference, things are moving along: - The entire Warner Music catalog has been converted to MQA (yea, the whole thing)
- If everything goes according to current plans/contract negotiations, the other Big Two label's (Sony and Universal) catalogs will be converted to MQA by next Spring
- Tidal, as well as other streaming services who shall remain nameless at this point, will be streaming MQA content.
I REALLY don't want to see one company own the intellectual property for all digitally released music but it sounds like it's happening. Audiostream Post: What Is Up With MQA? |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 11, 2016 13:31:25 GMT -5
Ok....has it really been converted? If so, I am quite surprised.
|
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Oct 11, 2016 13:34:20 GMT -5
Ok....has it really been converted? If so, I am quite surprised. Me too! Then again, if they had it all digital, they just needed to transcode it all, I suppose. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 11, 2016 13:39:11 GMT -5
But have they actually REMASTERED the entire Warner catalog, or just converted it? There is a distinction there...... Remastering would mean doing all the fancy stuff, like remastering each album individually, using information about how it was originally encoded to correct some of the original conversion errors. (This is something that was promised as part of "the collection of features and services that make up MQA". It also sounds like quite a bit of work, and almost certainly costs extra.) Converting it could just mean passing it through an automated converter; this would give you close to the original quality, but in a much smaller file. (This would be a big benefit to a streaming service, and to their customers with limited bandwidth, if they want to stream the music. However, it's NOT the major benefit that MQA is claiming to be able to offer audiophiles.) I find the choice of words to be somewhat lacking in detail there...... As an audiophile, I find the possibility of new remasters of classic albums, this time with better quality than the previous masters, to be very interesting. And, of course, a new mastering format that offered better quality would be very welcome - as long as it isn't too proprietary or restrictive. However, as someone who doesn't stream much, and who has plenty of spare bandwidth, I don't see much benefit to getting the same content as before in a slightly more efficient format. According to the post below's reporting of an MQA press conference, things are moving along: - The entire Warner Music catalog has been converted to MQA (yea, the whole thing)
- If everything goes according to current plans/contract negotiations, the other Big Two label's (Sony and Universal) catalogs will be converted to MQA by next Spring
- Tidal, as well as other streaming services who shall remain nameless at this point, will be streaming MQA content.
I REALLY don't want to see once company own the intellectual property for all digitally released music but it sounds like it's happening. Audiostream Post: What Is Up With MQA? |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 11, 2016 13:40:04 GMT -5
Ok....has it really been converted? If so, I am quite surprised. Me too! Then again, if they had it all digital, they just needed to transcode it all, I suppose. From what I gather - it's not a matter of running it through an encoder. MQA is supposed to correct the timing errors in the Analog to digital chain. I am skeptical that they dug out ALL the master tapes and run it through the MQA machine. that would be a massive undertaking. |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Oct 11, 2016 13:46:28 GMT -5
Me too! Then again, if they had it all digital, they just needed to transcode it all, I suppose. From what I gather - it's not a matter of running it through an encoder. MQA is supposed to correct the timing errors in the Analog to digital chain. I am skeptical that they dug out ALL the master tapes and run it through the MQA machine. that would be a massive undertaking. That's what I thought too, however if they just transcoded it all without any re-mastering and/or error analysis and correction, it could be possible. However, as Keith stated, that would not improve the sound. So what's the point for us then? |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Oct 11, 2016 13:46:54 GMT -5
Schitt, it took Jimmy Page 3 or 4 years to get the limited amount of Zeppelin albums redone this go around. An entire catalog remastered? I wouldn't bet one dime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Oct 11, 2016 13:48:10 GMT -5
But have they actually REMASTERED the entire Warner catalog, or just converted it? As an audiophile, I find the possibility of new remasters of classic albums, this time with better quality than the previous masters, to be very interesting. And, of course, a new mastering format that offered better quality would be very welcome - as long as it isn't too proprietary or restrictive. Don't be surprised if record label marketing teams promote bath conversions as "remastered." If they are remastering, I'm so cynical that my money says releases will be compressed, loud and fatiguing. |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Oct 11, 2016 13:48:11 GMT -5
Empire's new clothes?
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Oct 11, 2016 13:48:52 GMT -5
I REALLY don't want to see once company own the intellectual property for all digitally released music but it sounds like it's happening. It's better this way. People who don't want MQA can still play MQA files/streams without an MQA decoder, and without an MQA DAC. |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Oct 11, 2016 13:52:43 GMT -5
I also wonder if this is a slipper slope with the ultimate goal of forcing manufacturers to support (and pay to license) MQA?
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 11, 2016 13:54:03 GMT -5
My guess is that there will end up being a range of options... or at least two. As I understand it, it should be possible to "just convert the file" - which would basically give you a smaller file that is arbitrarily as good as the original, but quite a bit smaller, but with none of the original errors or imperfections corrected. This would give you a file that was smaller than the original, but supposedly sounded indistinguishable from it, or at least very close. This would be useful for streaming.... Then there's the option that involves actually finding out how the original was mastered, and then making specific corrections and adjustments to correct or "null out" as many of the flaws as possible. I'd have to assume that this option would involve some hand tuning. This would be the option that, if you believe the claims, might actually give you a new master that sounds better than the "old master". The first option would actually be pretty trivial.... a basic format conversion takes a few seconds per song on a reasonably powerful computer. The second one seems like it could be very exacting, time consuming, and expensive. Me too! Then again, if they had it all digital, they just needed to transcode it all, I suppose. From what I gather - it's not a matter of running it through an encoder. MQA is supposed to correct the timing errors in the Analog to digital chain. I am skeptical that they dug out ALL the master tapes and run it through the MQA machine. that would be a massive undertaking. |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Oct 11, 2016 13:57:10 GMT -5
KeithL Are you surprised labels are making such a huge commitment? My prediction is that Apple won't touch this with a 10 foot pole since they need to control the IP. Maybe they'll buy Meridian.
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Oct 11, 2016 13:59:17 GMT -5
But have they actually REMASTERED the entire Warner catalog, or just converted it? There is a distinction there...... Remastering would mean doing all the fancy stuff, like remastering each album individually, using information about how it was originally encoded to correct some of the original conversion errors. (This is something that was promised as part of "the collection of features and services that make up MQA". It also sounds like quite a bit of work, and almost certainly costs extra.) Converting it could just mean passing it through an automated converter; this would give you close to the original quality, but in a much smaller file. (This would be a big benefit to a streaming service, and to their customers with limited bandwidth, if they want to stream the music. However, it's NOT the major benefit that MQA is claiming to be able to offer audiophiles.) I find the choice of words to be somewhat lacking in detail there...... As an audiophile, I find the possibility of new remasters of classic albums, this time with better quality than the previous masters, to be very interesting. And, of course, a new mastering format that offered better quality would be very welcome - as long as it isn't too proprietary or restrictive. However, as someone who doesn't stream much, and who has plenty of spare bandwidth, I don't see much benefit to getting the same content as before in a slightly more efficient format. According to the post below's reporting of an MQA press conference, things are moving along: - The entire Warner Music catalog has been converted to MQA (yea, the whole thing)
- If everything goes according to current plans/contract negotiations, the other Big Two label's (Sony and Universal) catalogs will be converted to MQA by next Spring
- Tidal, as well as other streaming services who shall remain nameless at this point, will be streaming MQA content.
I REALLY don't want to see once company own the intellectual property for all digitally released music but it sounds like it's happening. Audiostream Post: What Is Up With MQA?The correction of the original conversion errors is an inseparable part of MQA Studio, simply for the fact MQA is always end-to-end. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Oct 11, 2016 14:00:14 GMT -5
I also wonder if this is a slipper slope with the ultimate goal of forcing manufacturers to support (and pay to license) MQA? MQA is not an enforcement agency. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 11, 2016 14:03:42 GMT -5
I don't have any inside information here, but I don't think it will be quite as dire as you fear. For example, did you know that Spotify uses something called Ogg Vorbis? Very few people do. It's used internally by the streaming software (so who cares?) I would guess that, assuming that Tidal goes with MQA, it will play just the same as before on computers and other equipment that doesn't support MQA. You'll just have a new option that, if your DAC supports MQA, and you set things up correctly, your DAC will supposedly sound a little better when playing their encoded content. The fees will fall onto Tidal, who will pay them in order to be able to offer you "music that sounds better and uses less bandwidth". Maybe they'll offer a new "MQA service" for a slightly higher fee, or maybe they'll just keep it as a product differentiator for their service.) Do you have any HDCDs? They play on normal equipment. They also offer "enhanced dynamic range when played on equipment that supports HDCD". (So they sound slightly different, and sometimes better, if your decoder supports HDCD.) The only real question will be of how much new content gets mastered in MQA..... And whether it sounds better, or ENOUGH better, to justify getting a new DAC. (And, hopefully, it won't sound worse if you play it on non-MQA enabled equipment; they swear it doesn't.) I also wonder if this is a slipper slope with the ultimate goal of forcing manufacturers to support (and pay to license) MQA? |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Oct 11, 2016 14:19:06 GMT -5
, but with none of the original errors or imperfections corrected. The MQA encoder automatically recognizes and corrects these original errors or imperfections, even if the profile for the Analog-to-Digital Converter hardware is missing from the encoding process. The profile just helps to get the best corrected results, and, also because there will be limits to how good those results will be, in a number of cases re-conversion from analog tape to digital has to be carefully considered when possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Oct 11, 2016 14:25:07 GMT -5
I don't have any inside information here, but I don't think it will be quite as dire as you fear. For example, did you know that Spotify uses something called Ogg Vorbis? Very few people do. It's used internally by the streaming software (so who cares?) I would guess that, assuming that Tidal goes with MQA, it will play just the same as before on computers and other equipment that doesn't support MQA. You'll just have a new option that, if your DAC supports MQA, and you set things up correctly, your DAC will supposedly sound a little better when playing their encoded content. The fees will fall onto Tidal, who will pay them in order to be able to offer you "music that sounds better and uses less bandwidth". Maybe they'll offer a new "MQA service" for a slightly higher fee, or maybe they'll just keep it as a product differentiator for their service.) Do you have any HDCDs? They play on normal equipment. They also offer "enhanced dynamic range when played on equipment that supports HDCD". (So they sound slightly different, and sometimes better, if your decoder supports HDCD.) The only real question will be of how much new content gets mastered in MQA..... And whether it sounds better, or ENOUGH better, to justify getting a new DAC. (And, hopefully, it won't sound worse if you play it on non-MQA enabled equipment; they swear it doesn't.) Yes I know about Ogg but only because I worked on CDN where we offered some transcoding for certain applications. What's the MQA revenue model? Licensing fees to labels or just to DAC manufacturers? |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Oct 11, 2016 14:28:57 GMT -5
KeithL Are you surprised labels are making such a huge commitment? My prediction is that Apple won't touch this with a 10 foot pole since they need to control the IP. Maybe they'll buy Meridian. If Apple acquires Meridian, then MQA will still continue to be a separate, independent company. This is because MQA is not a subsidiary of Meridian Audio. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 11, 2016 14:36:02 GMT -5
Errr... yes and no. Imagine you have a system (an "end to end" system) that includes an equalizer. If you don't know what needs correcting, then you don't know what settings will make things better or worse, so you leave the dials all set to zero. Yes, technically, everything is running through your equalizer. However, unless you dial in a specific setting, it's not changing anything (other than any noise or distortion it may add by its very presence). Without individual knowledge of each individual master, at best they could GUESS about what to correct, pick a "standard setting", and risk improving some while making others worse. And, if they just run a lot of stuff through at some arbitrary setting, without knowing specifically what will make each other better or worse, then that's simply distortion. There are several FUNCTIONAL parts of MQA - as a system: 1) encode new material as accurately as possible 2) the MQA CODEC format, which is a way for encoding audio information into a file or stream and getting it back 3) have "MQA compatible" equipment which both plays the MQA format, and has been "optimized" to have good time response 4) re-master existing content to make it sound better by removing errors that were there in the original mastering process Even if all of the functions are present in a single software package, it's not as simple as having a button marked "make it better and send it out" that can automatically detect and correct errors perfectly. They may have a default setting that may "be more likely to make things better instead of worse" - but I think they're exaggerating that part of things. Likewise, some thing will turn out to already be as good as they can be, in which case ANY alteration is simply distortion. (If they apply changes to something that's as good as possible to begin with, then any change it makes will make it worse, right?) MQA is actually several different things, which have been packaged together into an ecosystem, and a "story"... If you start with an original recording - which was NOT mastered in MQA....... One part of MQA can do its best to fix timing errors and other flaws in the original. Another part is the CODEC, which lets you send your data over a stream, or save it into a file, and get it back without degrading it. And they claim that, if you want to play it without degrading it, you should use a DAC which is "MQA certified". (This means a DAC which both contains the decoder for their CODEC AND has been optimized to not degrade the time response of the audio.) (Note that those are two different things that they want to have in the same DAC.) In short, they're doing their best to tie it all together into one big system so you have to buy the whole thing..... but there are actually several distinct pieces involved. But have they actually REMASTERED the entire Warner catalog, or just converted it? There is a distinction there...... Remastering would mean doing all the fancy stuff, like remastering each album individually, using information about how it was originally encoded to correct some of the original conversion errors. (This is something that was promised as part of "the collection of features and services that make up MQA". It also sounds like quite a bit of work, and almost certainly costs extra.) Converting it could just mean passing it through an automated converter; this would give you close to the original quality, but in a much smaller file. (This would be a big benefit to a streaming service, and to their customers with limited bandwidth, if they want to stream the music. However, it's NOT the major benefit that MQA is claiming to be able to offer audiophiles.) I find the choice of words to be somewhat lacking in detail there...... As an audiophile, I find the possibility of new remasters of classic albums, this time with better quality than the previous masters, to be very interesting. And, of course, a new mastering format that offered better quality would be very welcome - as long as it isn't too proprietary or restrictive. However, as someone who doesn't stream much, and who has plenty of spare bandwidth, I don't see much benefit to getting the same content as before in a slightly more efficient format. The correction of the original conversion errors is an inseparable part of MQA Studio, simply for the fact MQA is always end-to-end. |
|
