|
|
Post by rhale64 on Jan 14, 2017 13:05:09 GMT -5
OK I like cheese as much as the next guy but I am going to get back to the RMC-1.
Now that Tidal is streaming thousands of songs in 24/96 MQA which takes away the content problem. When are we going to take it seriously? An insider has already said the license fee is not very much at all.
So that is the second question taken care of. Heck even Cary Audio has implemented it in a couple of their products already.
Audioquest is implementing it in both their DACs.
And the thing that screwed DVD audio and SACD is the popular music was never converted. Well I would say what Tidal has done is a shot at that also.
And now the hirez music consortium is saying that we will have multiple hirez MQA streaming options very soon IE; Pandora, Apple among others.
Are we still taking the wait and see approach?
|
|
|
|
Post by rhale64 on Jan 14, 2017 13:50:01 GMT -5
Isn't this wait and see attitude what killed and will continue to kill all good quality music from ever being popular? Isn't this EXACTLY what killed SACD and DVD audio?
Have either of you actually listened to Tidal MQA encoded music?
If so, and you really don't think the difference is worth the cost. Why are you in the RMC-1 thread? I actually do think it matters. That's why we pay a bit more for our toys.
We want good quality playback gear. But are we really not willing to invest in great quality music? Or are you just saying CD quality is good enough because that is what we originally thought.
I can say without a doubt that well mastered cd's do sound pretty good. But there isn't enough of them. And most popular music is awfully saturated.
Wouldn't it be nice if all music sounded as great as the very best cd's we have heard? I know I do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Jan 14, 2017 15:47:49 GMT -5
I just don't understand this focus on MQA. Just go with 96kHz/24bit or better and call it a day.
Casey
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 14, 2017 22:53:01 GMT -5
I just don't understand this focus on MQA. Just go with 96kHz/24bit or better and call it a day. Casey I think you answered your own question. |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Jan 15, 2017 11:39:11 GMT -5
Perhaps I have answered my own question.
I guess it's just that it's not clear at all what MQA is.
Is it a better lossy compression scheme which delivers psycho-acoustically higher quality music once uncompressed than MP3? Is it a way of somehow magically processing old recordings and making them sound "better" (perhaps by analyzing the signal and predicting what the recording technology was unable to record)? Is it a licensing scheme by the big record companies to try to gain a foothold in the changing music distribution system as more people move to streaming? Is it a new Digital Rights Management copy protection system?
In the end of the day, if this were a "30 second elevator pitch to a Venture Capitalist", it would be a complete failure and die before it started. There's no clarity here at all. So when I see all of the fervent support for it, I wonder if other people "got the message when I didn't" or if it just "the next new thing that everyone wants to have".
Casey
|
|
|
|
Post by mickseymour on Jan 16, 2017 1:53:01 GMT -5
Is it a better lossy compression scheme which delivers psycho-acoustically higher quality music once uncompressed than MP3? ... I wonder if other people "got the message when I didn't" or if it just "the next new thing that everyone wants to have". My understanding is that it is a lossy compression scheme that allows the provider, Tidal for example, to squeeze higher resolution audio down an increasingly busy internet connection. If you have an audio system that can resolve high resolution sources then it is a good thing as you should hear the difference when compared to MP3. If you are streaming to a mobile phone, I don't see any point. As with all compression schemes, the decoder is in the receiver and will require a licence. Even if the hardware existed at a domestic level, I don't see any benefit from being able to encode at home. Disc space is cheap and if you'd want to encode to put music on your phone, you might as well use FLAC or MP3. |
|
|
|
Post by kellys on Jan 16, 2017 9:57:23 GMT -5
You're talking about putting a lot of stuff, and stuff that most home users simply don't need, all into one box. To put it bluntly, we're trying to design a $5k box that sounds really good, and does most of what MOST people want. (We're not really looking to design a $15k box that does EVERYTHING that EVERBODY wants.) People who really need that extra level of architecture, and that extra level of processing, are just going to have to get that extra box. Absolutely agree here. Putting the crossover into the amp can be done, but we are not talking amps here. A lot of people use independent speaker management systems e.g. the Behringer DCX2496 for their subs or going active with DIY speakers. It would safe a lot of space and money if this filtering and equalizing could be done in the processor already. You just have to be able to: 1. Assign each output channel independently to each of the possible speakers (FL, FR, C, ...) 2. Time delay each output channel 3. PEQ each output channel 4. Set lowpass and highpass filters for each output channel (6-24dB should be enough, LR, Bessel, Butterworth...) 5. Do all of this via USB or an App You could even still use something like DIRAC with this if you design this as 2 different architectural layers inside of the DSP / RMC-1. So all of this is a separate and optional second layer between the "normal" RMC-1 processing and the XLR outputs. So for DIRAC the RMC-1 knows e.g. to measure FL a signal has to be sent to XLR 1, 2 and 3 and can then set an overall delay and correction for that speaker, applying to all 3 XLRs mapped to this speaker internally. -1 terrible reply Active front stage is increasingly popular. Plus it may sell additional amps to go along with it. The crossovers, eq, etc are all there in the the channel assignments anyways. And I guarantee the box is already going to support stereo subs similar to other Emotiva products so you are half way there already. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 16, 2017 13:34:25 GMT -5
Perhaps I have answered my own question. I guess it's just that it's not clear at all what MQA is. Is it a better lossy compression scheme which delivers psycho-acoustically higher quality music once uncompressed than MP3? Is it a way of somehow magically processing old recordings and making them sound "better" (perhaps by analyzing the signal and predicting what the recording technology was unable to record)? Is it a licensing scheme by the big record companies to try to gain a foothold in the changing music distribution system as more people move to streaming? Is it a new Digital Rights Management copy protection system? In the end of the day, if this were a "30 second elevator pitch to a Venture Capitalist", it would be a complete failure and die before it started. There's no clarity here at all. So when I see all of the fervent support for it, I wonder if other people "got the message when I didn't" or if it just "the next new thing that everyone wants to have". Casey It is not just a compression scheme, nor even just a codec/format, but also an analog-to-analog music capture/delivery and authentication technology, as well as a philosophy. Evidence in support that humans can laterally localize (lateralize) sound sources that have an interaural time difference (ITD) of as little as 10µs is really not new [Yost W. A., Hafter E. R. (1987) Lateralization. In: Yost W. A., Gourevitch G. (Eds.) Directional Hearing, Springer, New York, pp. 49-84]. So it makes sense to want to minimize the time smear effect of digital filters (the ringing). BUT... ever increasing the sampling frequency in order to achieve that goal is increasingly wasteful in terms of data rates, to the point of being simply uneconomic. (Even, if the digital audio data in question is intended to be stored for music archival purposes, as opposed to online music streaming). 24/192 FLAC files are already taking up considerable amounts of data storage space so, with sampling frequencies going up to 384 kHz, or 768 kHz, and beyond, it makes (much) better sense to capture, store, and protect [in a lossless manner] only the part of data that is relevant to the music signal instead. If looking at it from a traditional (i.e., hopelessly outdated) standpoint of the Sampling Theory and how that would translate to the concept of digital audio resolution, MQA looks not just strange, but extremely very strange. But then, to most audio electronics engineers, auditory neuroscience also looks extremely very strange. [citation needed]  |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 16, 2017 15:23:00 GMT -5
Errrrr. yeah...... The confusion is due to the fact that MQA is a whole bunch of different things which all sort of go together. It is actually a collection of technologies and an overall philosophy for a workflow. Each piece can, at least in theory, give you an improvement in sound quality, and most of the pieces can be used independently of the rest of the pieces. Here are a few of the more prominent claims and conclusions. As you will see, many are independent, and may or may not live up to the individual claims made for them. 1) As a digital CODEC, MQA is LOSSY. If you're starting from a digital original, some of the information is discarded, and you CANNOT get it back. That is the definition of a lossy CODEC. (MQA readily admits this.) 2) Starting from an analog original, MQA claims to preserve MORE of the IMPORTANT information than other formats with equivalent bandwidth requirements. This would assume that your analog original was encoded on "MQA certified" equipment and played back on "MQA certified" equipment. They therefore claim that, starting from an analog master, ALL digital encoding is lossy anyway, and that MQA is LESS audibly lossy than uncompressed PCM. (Their claim that something is lost whenever you encode to a different format is true; their claim that their process yields a result that is audibly closer to the analog original is yet to be proven.) 3) Starting from a digital "master", MQA claims to be able to reverse engineer the digital recording and remove some of the flaws caused by the original encoder. They claim that you'll hear a net improvement in quality because the problems they fix are more important than the information they discard. They also claim that this process can be done using an "automatic encoder" or a higher-quality encoder that is manually operated. 4) As with most lossy encoders, the producer may choose to trade off quality against bandwidth. With MQA, they claim that you can produce a stream that is audibly slightly above CD quality, but takes up a lot less space. They also claim that you can produce a stream or files that are the same size as CD quality, or even 24/96k PCM files, but are of audibly higher quality. 5) Any MQA encoded file or stream can be played on "ordinary equipment", but you won't get the benefits of the MQA encoding. Any MQA encoded file or stream can be played using a software MQA decoder, and you'll get SOME of the benefit of the MQA encoding. To get ALL of the benefits of MQA encoding, you'll need to play your MQA content on an MQA certified DAC. 6) There will be a process whereby the studio or performer MAY "certify" that a given MQA version of a track has been "approved". The folks at MQA have made it quite plain that they will "take the word of the studio" that the version they're encoding is the best quality one available. The automated MQA encoder MAY also be used to produce "MQA encoded and improved copies" of various tracks without human intervention or any approvals/certifications. (I've heard descriptions of various LEDS which might light to indicate a "certified" track....) 7) Finally, because the MQA certification performed on hardware includes design factors intended to improve transient accuracy, MQA certified DACs MAY sound better when playing ordinary content. (Note that this certification involves paying MQA for a license which may entail design review or modification of the product itself.) 8) If everything lives up to their claims, then there would be an excellent reason to want a home encoder. Because the encoder is claimed to be able to detect and correct certain error that occurred during the original digitizing process, a home encoder could theoretically be used to process and "fix/improve" digital content you already own, and so make it sound better. However, I have NOT heard any claims that this would ever be practical, or that they plan to make one available. Is it a better lossy compression scheme which delivers psycho-acoustically higher quality music once uncompressed than MP3? ... I wonder if other people "got the message when I didn't" or if it just "the next new thing that everyone wants to have". My understanding is that it is a lossy compression scheme that allows the provider, Tidal for example, to squeeze higher resolution audio down an increasingly busy internet connection. If you have an audio system that can resolve high resolution sources then it is a good thing as you should hear the difference when compared to MP3. If you are streaming to a mobile phone, I don't see any point. As with all compression schemes, the decoder is in the receiver and will require a licence. Even if the hardware existed at a domestic level, I don't see any benefit from being able to encode at home. Disc space is cheap and if you'd want to encode to put music on your phone, you might as well use FLAC or MP3. |
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Jan 17, 2017 10:42:15 GMT -5
Perhaps I have answered my own question. I guess it's just that it's not clear at all what MQA is. Is it a better lossy compression scheme which delivers psycho-acoustically higher quality music once uncompressed than MP3? Is it a way of somehow magically processing old recordings and making them sound "better" (perhaps by analyzing the signal and predicting what the recording technology was unable to record)? Is it a licensing scheme by the big record companies to try to gain a foothold in the changing music distribution system as more people move to streaming? Is it a new Digital Rights Management copy protection system? In the end of the day, if this were a "30 second elevator pitch to a Venture Capitalist", it would be a complete failure and die before it started. There's no clarity here at all. So when I see all of the fervent support for it, I wonder if other people "got the message when I didn't" or if it just "the next new thing that everyone wants to have". Casey An MQA primer: www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers-question-what-mqa#eGojvpEjbOf4bfQd.97 |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Jan 17, 2017 14:36:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rhale64 on Jan 17, 2017 14:53:02 GMT -5
Lol. Some of us have been trying to get this point across. Some could care less I guess. Some absolutely hate the idea. I still don't understand the latter group. We all pay licensing fees for Dolby and DTS. So what's one more. It can't be that much when the Dragonfly DAC is getting the MQA treatment. |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jan 17, 2017 15:10:57 GMT -5
Lol. Some of us have been trying to get this point across. Some could care less I guess. Some absolutely hate the idea. I still don't understand the latter group. We all pay licensing fees for Dolby and DTS. So what's one more. It can't be that much when the Dragonfly DAC is getting the MQA treatment. I read that MQA is for streaming PCM files and takes a 24-bit 192kHz file and compresses it into a 16-bit 44.1khz file size. What if someone comes up with something else that does something with digital files ? Myself, I wish they would stop compressing and manipulating all music files and start recording music to be high quality from the get go. We have the technology. |
|
|
|
Post by goodfellas27 on Jan 17, 2017 15:27:04 GMT -5
I understand where you're coming from, however, please listen to the MQA files before judging. It's not just "compressed" files.
I too would love the industry comes together and set standards, like the movie industry did. As far as someone else coming with a new digital file; I would welcome it. As long as it fixes a problem and improves the accuracy of the music. If not, we wouldn't have all this amazing tech today. Innovation is key!
|
|
|
|
Post by rhale64 on Jan 17, 2017 15:35:02 GMT -5
OK it is a PCM file folded. And each layer of decoding unfolds more of the file. But it is not only 24/192. It can be any sample rate. It could theoretically be I guess 32/? But DSD it isn't. And I would welcome Blu-ray audio. As it sounds great. Or an equivalent digital means. But truly analog has always sounded best to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jan 17, 2017 15:39:43 GMT -5
I understand where you're coming from, however, please listen to the MQA files before judging. It's not just "compressed" files. I too would love the industry comes together and set standards, like the movie industry did. As far as someone else coming with a new digital file; I would welcome it. As long as it fixes a problem and improves the accuracy of the music. If not, we wouldn't have all this amazing tech today. Innovation is key! I do not stream anything and it is very possible I will never stream anything. I have never bought a Hi-Rez music file and have no plans to purchase them to replace my 16-bit 44.1khz CD disks unless it is a new recording done at a higher resolution and done properly as to sound better than a 16-bit 44.1khz CD. I have never had a smart phone that plays music and if my flip phone breaks someday maybe I will. It will not be the device I choose to carry around to listen to music. I have a little sony NWZ-A17 portable music player that plays my 16-bit 44.1khz files in the form of a FLAC lossless file. I wish I did not have to change anything about the original CD file but FLAC lets me have everything named and sounds good enough for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jan 17, 2017 15:50:40 GMT -5
I suggest everyone stop buying mp3's and force those that make and sell them to stop immediately !  That would be innovative !  |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Jan 17, 2017 16:04:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 17, 2017 17:55:44 GMT -5
I thought that was one of the "gripes" about FLAC - poor compression. Is that not true? If FLAC is good at compression...and high res - what is MQA actually trying to solve? |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jan 17, 2017 17:58:54 GMT -5
I thought that was one of the "gripes" about FLAC - poor compression. Is that not true? If FLAC is good at compression...and high res - what is MQA actually trying to solve? From what I've heard, a decompressed FLAC file is identical to the original file. I thought MQA was supposed to make the decoded file sound "better" than the original. Maybe they should have MQA for books or TV shows. You just insert the original book or show into the encoder/decoder and out comes a better version. |
|
