|
|
Post by yves on Oct 11, 2016 14:40:10 GMT -5
What's the MQA revenue model? Licensing fees to labels or just to DAC manufacturers? IIRC, MQA Studio is offered to the labels/studios as a service, as they are granted access to the encoding houses that MQA owns. DAC manufacturers have to pay a license. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 11, 2016 14:43:55 GMT -5
Honestly, other than some words on paper, I haven't seen that commitment. Could you please point me to the list of classic albums that have been remastered using MQA, that are currently being sold in the MQA format, and that people agree sound better than the last remaster of that album (or the original)? Could you please point me to the list of new albums, mastered in MQA, that people agree that the MQA version sounds better than the 24/96k or 24/192k PCM version? Please, don't get me wrong, I don't know what's going to happen...... I'm just not sure we need one more format..... I remember SACD, and I remember DVD-A, and I remember HDCD... (heck, I even remember SQ4 and CD4). As I said, I will be eagerly awaiting some new versions of old favorites that actually sound better than they did before.... (And some new stuff that sounds better in MQA than in FLAC...... ) 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 Loop 7 on Oct 11, 2016 14:48:03 GMT -5
What was SQ4 and CD4?
|
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Oct 11, 2016 14:55:46 GMT -5
Exactly!
Trey
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 11, 2016 14:57:59 GMT -5
In other words it's applying standard "corrections" that sort of work, except the results are limited in some cases, and sometimes it doesn't work at all........ (Are we to assume that someone listened to every song in that converted Warner catalog and picked out the ones that came out good and the ones that came out bad?) Assuming that someone was actually analyzing each individual recording, figuring out what should be fixed, and then applying a reasonable repair, this idea shows promise. However, I'm very concerned that it's actually fixing imperfections, and not simply "changing stuff" based on assumptions which may or may not be true ........ If you're correct, that part of the process is starting to sound a lot like "a little black box that makes stuff sound different - and some people think it sounds better". I'm sorry, but the idea of carefully done corrections that correct actual errors appeals to me. And the idea of an efficient streaming CODEC will certainly appeal to those whose livelihood depends on streaming. The problem is that I just don't believe in a piece of software than can figure out what music is supposed to sound like, get it right every time, and fix it..... , 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 yves on Oct 11, 2016 15:23:35 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. The correction of the original conversion errors is an inseparable part of MQA Studio, simply for the fact MQA is always end-to-end. MQA Studio has been specifically designed to always make corrections, as well as to always make them without degrading anything, albeit nothing gets released until the label, or copyright holder approves. (An awful lot has happened since the late Michael Gerzon and Peter Craven first began experimenting with the audible effects of applying different parameters to digital filters in the 1990s, and the technology behind those corrections made by MQA is the culmination of all that.) Even if the DAC is "MQA certified" it can still degrade the final sound due to limitations of the DAC hardware itself. MQA DACs will be available in all price categories, including the low cost segment so "degradation" is still only a relative term, but MQA is not to blame for that because the same thing applies to non MQA DAC hardware, for reasons that are obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Oct 11, 2016 15:36:52 GMT -5
Any information on what these corrections or flaws in ADC processes are?
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Oct 11, 2016 15:38:43 GMT -5
Honestly, other than some words on paper, I haven't seen that commitment. Could you please point me to the list of classic albums that have been remastered using MQA, that are currently being sold in the MQA format, and that people agree sound better than the last remaster of that album (or the original)? Could you please point me to the list of new albums, mastered in MQA, that people agree that the MQA version sounds better than the 24/96k or 24/192k PCM version? Please, don't get me wrong, I don't know what's going to happen...... I'm just not sure we need one more format..... I remember SACD, and I remember DVD-A, and I remember HDCD... (heck, I even remember SQ4 and CD4). As I said, I will be eagerly awaiting some new versions of old favorites that actually sound better than they did before.... (And some new stuff that sounds better in MQA than in FLAC...... ) 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. Those older formats that you mention are all based on a hopelessly outdated concept of resolution. Remember, Bob Stuart used to use a marketing strategy that was based on the "mousetrap theory" (if you put strong enough cheese in, eventually someone's going to bite).  |
|
harsh
Minor Hero
Posts: 40 
|
Post by harsh on Oct 11, 2016 15:45:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Oct 11, 2016 15:50:37 GMT -5
Any information on what these corrections or flaws in ADC processes are? It's mostly related to time smearing effects, like ringing artifacts resulting from the application of digital anti-alias filters. But it's also based on VERY sophisticated analysis/profiling techniques that take into account recent advancements in psychoacoustics, or the science of how sounds are perceived by the listener. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Oct 11, 2016 15:55:45 GMT -5
If you were given the choice between, all else being equal, a losslessly encoded 16-bit 44.1kHz stream/file and a lossy encoded stream/file the perceived quality of which is the equivalent to a losslessly encoded 24-bit 192kHz stream/file, what would you prefer?  |
|
harsh
Minor Hero
Posts: 40
|
Post by harsh on Oct 11, 2016 16:00:32 GMT -5
I would prefer a losslessly encoded 24-bit 192kHz.  I don't (want to) use streaming services. And perceived quality is just a claim. They claimed 128 kpbs mp3 has the same perceived quality as CD. Ahem... Not quite true |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Oct 11, 2016 16:25:27 GMT -5
I would prefer a losslessly encoded 24-bit 192kHz. I don't (want to) use streaming services. And perceived quality is just a claim. They claimed 128 kpbs mp3 has the same perceived quality as CD. Ahem... Not quite true Agree but I've even seen services like SiriusXM and online radio that claim CD quality with bitrates as low as 64 kbps. Just ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Oct 11, 2016 17:15:43 GMT -5
I would prefer a losslessly encoded 24-bit 192kHz. I don't (want to) use streaming services. And perceived quality is just a claim. They claimed 128 kpbs mp3 has the same perceived quality as CD. Ahem... Not quite true First off, perceived quality is what you, the listener, perceive. Secondly, the loss that occurs in MQA due to the encoder is the equivalent to sound waves travelling through only a few meters of air so the reality is that this loss is microscopic in direct PERCEPTIBLE comparison to the loss that results from the application of digital filters typical of 16-bit 44.1kHz audio, and yes of course you can hear it because that in fact is EXACTLY how one correctly defines the term "perceptible". Thirdly, this loss is also microscopic in direct comparison to the improvement resulting from the corrections that MQA Studio provides. Fourthly, MQA can support sampling frequencies of 768kHz (and higher) so I will follow your own logic by expressing my preference of an MQA encoded 24-bit 768kHz, NOT the losslessly encoded 24-bit 192kHz that you used for an excuse to avoid my question. And finally, the digital filters used by your DAC (or, in case your DAC is non oversampling, your software) are much more lossy than you seem to suggest. |
|
harsh
Minor Hero
Posts: 40
|
Post by harsh on Oct 11, 2016 17:22:25 GMT -5
Ok, you won.
MQA is perfection in a lossy form...
You work for them?
You should...
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Oct 11, 2016 17:38:13 GMT -5
MQA. DSD. BFD.
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Oct 11, 2016 18:24:40 GMT -5
Ok, you won. MQA is perfection in a lossy form... You work for them? You should... No, I don't have upgraditis, am not planning to get an MQA DAC just yet, nor am trying to talk anyone into getting one. Also, I am in the same boat as you when it comes to online streaming subscriptions because I also simply don't want them. |
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Oct 11, 2016 20:51:16 GMT -5
It remains to be seen, uh...heard if MQA will deliver. I will not hold my breath. We'll shall see. Or hear.
|
|
