Is MQA good enough to get Analog Guys to enjoy it? Or still cause Digital Fatigue?

[dminches]

All he did was take a guess at the percentage of people over 40 who are buying the media. Your graph proved him right about his guess. So he was right, not wrong. He then expressed his concern that the demographics don't bode well for the future of the high end. Your graph seems to support his claim, not prove that he is wrong. He expressed a concern based on the numbers and made no claims which he could not prove. You, however, "believe" that because there is data showing a "bucket" of 25% of these two forum members are aged below 40 that the high end is not in trouble. This data is not an indication of the future state of the industry. I'm glad that Atkin believes it too. If you have data showing that the young bucket will stay in the hobby as they get older, then we can discuss this interesting topic in a different thread.

Well said and thank you. Unfortunately this high-end hobby is dying off. There are fewer stores and it seems like the buyers are all old farts like us. My whole staff is 22-35 and they like music but they have no interest in high-end. Not a scientific sample but I see no evidence of a youth movement here.

 

[dminches]

It is actually. Their disposable incoming in that age bracket limits how many can afford high-end gear. As they get older, their income increases and with it, the population expands.


Nope. There is constant flow despite the strong limiting factor of high cost of high-end gear.

MP3 revolution has been with us for nearly two decades. If it was going to kill the high-end, by now there would have been no young people in the pool. Yet there is.

Again, spend some time in the industry, talk to people and you see that there is no gloom and doom. There were when we had the recession. But with the economy getting stronger and strong, and cost of excellent music reproduction getting lower and lower, I see no danger of collapse.

You have the right to your own opinion but admit you are just making stuff up. There is no proof that the millennials of today will have more disposable income than we do. In fact, their goals are different and that could mean they have less interest in collecting stuff like we do.

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

I will edit this comment. I haven't found a MQA version that sounds worse than the than either the CD version or played ripped from a server or streamed.

I think you might have missed the point of what he originally said and what I responded to. What was meant is that the quality of the original recording is more important than any end-user delivery format, including MQA versus anything else. They (and I ) were not referring to the same recording supplied on different formats or technologies.

 

[Legolas]

I think you might have missed the point of what he originally said and what I responded to. What was meant is that the quality of the original recording is more important than any end-user delivery format, including MQA versus anything else. They (and I ) were not referring to the same recording supplied on different formats or technologies.

That is true, but iuf we imagine a level playing field and concentrate on the sound of MQA I do believe it is a move forward.

Last night Audirvana V3 was finally released with MQA masters in Tidal integration. I am not on an MQA compliant DAC, so my findings so far are relevant possibly to non MQA DACs (which is most of us at the moment).

I cannot exactly say if the quality jump is because of a bigger resolution file coming through Tidal, or MQA trickery, or both. I am also not sure if it is equal or better than the exact same album as HD downloads from a source such as HD Tracks.

BUT I can say I am convinced to far. I and using Audirvana V3 to unpack the MQA file, and send it to my NOS DAC at max 96K. The MQA files in Tidal pop up as 24/192K or 24/96K. I haven't come across any as 24/88.2 yet. A+ is set to max out at 96K as my DAC chip can handle that res as is an AD1865 chip.

My summary of the difference between Redbook ripped locally from CDs as AIFFs or on Tidal Redbook 44.1 (pretty much the same) v MQA. Bear in mind at the moment there are lots of MQA but it is far from a complete catalogue, mainly Warner, Atlantic and others I think (led Zep for example). Some old stuff, some recent like Beyonce Lemonade and Enya Dark Sky Island for example. Limited dance or electronic so far.

The first thing is the midrange seems to be fuller and more 3D and pops out at you, it took me by surprise in some cases. There is more depth and seemingly more dynamic, even though Redbook is supposed to be 110 dB S/N ratio, no idea, but it is more energetic for sure.

Second, the bass is deep and powerful, more textured and tuneful. It seems to have more energy available.

Third, female vocals and piano seem warmer, less 2D and thin, just more substance somehow.

Fourth, Piano is more realistic and has more texture.

Fifth, the detail is around the same i.e not brighter or tipped up, but it is a cleaner treble and less confusing. Easier to hear tiny background details / ambiance.

It is hard to explain, but I am trying to describe the change v the Redbook version as I hear it on my system. It is different and in a good way I am convinced. Jumping straight back to the Redbook version seems a bit flatter, less 3D and more confused when things really get going (complex passages).

YMMV and quite possibly this will reflect how each type of DAC plays the MQA content. Maybe a DAC with higher res capability may be even better? I can't assess that obviously. But folk on old school R-2R DACs with a limit to 96K will be pleased with MQA I am sure. I would say give it a shot. It takes a while to set up correctly. On my system I also have to set the AOIP network to 96K from 44/1 i Dante and check Audio Midi on my Mac (takes 30 seconds) but never the less it is important to get the best result (for me).

 

[microstrip]

There are two aspects of MQA I dislike - we still do not know exactly what it does to the original binary files and once a file is MQA encoded we loose any tracking of the original digital format. High-rez digital is already a nebulous zone, this new format will not clarify the situation.

Does anyone know how DSD files are processed by MQA?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

There are two aspects of MQA I dislike - we still do not know exactly what it does to the original binary files and once a file is MQA encoded we loose any tracking of the original digital format. High-rez digital is already a nebulous zone, this new format will not clarify the situation.

Does anyone know how DSD files are processed by MQA?

they (dsd files of any kind) are not processed by MQA. they (dsd files) would first need to be converted to some sort of PCM.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

http://www.remusic.it/EN/HighResAudio-has-stopped-offering-MQA-format-33b85b00

 

[Legolas]

There are two aspects of MQA I dislike - we still do not know exactly what it does to the original binary files and once a file is MQA encoded we loose any tracking of the original digital format. High-rez digital is already a nebulous zone, this new format will not clarify the situation.

Does anyone know how DSD files are processed by MQA?

If we look at MQA via Tidal I am assuming they were sourced from the Studio original whatever format that was (PCM or DSD?). The file as printed in MQA / Tidal says the resolution at that point. I also assume the reason some are 192 or 176.4 is a multiple 9downsize) of the studio original? Are there genuine DSD realises off the DSD studio masters? I have no idea, but if we are trying to keep to the history of the original then that would be the ideal?

Historically I have always thought there was possibly copies off copies from the audio master tape to protect that tape. I am unsure if that stopped when it went digital, but regardless IMO to secure the integrity of the original to down sampled PCM or even DSD for consumer release is going to affect the quality we get our hands on.

Mike, have you had chance to compare an MQA (same album and version as far as you can tell) to one of your own HD downloads as PCM or DS? I am curious if they are similar, worse, better? My findings on Redbook via CD rips v Redbook off Tidal is they are so similar on a regular basis as not to worry about it. I found the odd occasion where one or the other was better, but that could be the master sourcing as discussed here.

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

New approaches to old problems (getting better sound in your listening room) pose a philosophical question for me. As a trained classical musician (violin) and audiophile I view the main issues in the pursuit of high quality audio reproduction to be at the beginning of the entire audio chain and not at the end. If you own a Ferrari and put low octane fuel in it, do you blame Ferrari for the subsequent loss of engine power or do you blame the fuel that came from the service station? I don't really see that audio is any different these days. I see time and time again that a less than satisfactory end user listening experience is largely the result of poor engineering during the recording session itself, the use of questionable recording equipment (with a significant portion of the blame aimed at analogue to digital converters and microphone choice / placement) and questionable mastering. I can find many examples to prove my point but I'm not going to start denigrating individual engineers and record labels just to make that point. And to be fair, there have been bad recordings made throughout the last 60 years too - just as there are many great ones made today as well.

But the bottom line for me is that I know, for example, precisely what each and every orchestral instrument is supposed to sound in real life - right there in the room with you - and I have to be honest here: if the engineer knows what they are doing and they use a very high quality converter, select their microphones well and know how to place them optimally, then that recording will sound excellent even on a very modest $10,000 system in any format that has ever been offered and used by consumers - except for CD (OK and 8-track cartridge . In the case of CD, it will still sound good, it just won't sound as good as the other consumer digital formats.

Again, putting on my musician's hat then yes, I have to say outright that nothing reproduces violin sound, for example, better than a pure analogue chain throughout - so that means open reel or LP. But assuming an excellent system in that listening room that includes an excellent DAC, a digital format (including CD) will still be no more than 10% "worse" sounding than even open reel (the latter format being the one that I personally hold in the highest regard of all). If the CD is more than 10% worse than open reel, then I would be looking at (amongst other things) the resampling algorithms, dithering algorithms (and associated setting choices) as well as the CD manufacturing process before blaming the CD format itself. And if you take that 10% variation as being the "envelope of available performance" for all formats (worst to best) ever made available to consumers since the advent of stereo tape and LPs in the 1950s, then I'll toss around a figure of a good 50% (or even more) as being the "envelope of performance" when it comes to audio engineers, their recording equipment and the mastering process.

I guess what I am trying to say is that any further development of formats together with spin-off variants or enhancements seems to be - to me at any rate - a solution looking for a problem. Let's just say for argument's sake that MQA delivers the very best of digital and analogue combined, with none of their weaknesses. And to be honest, based on what I have read about it, it may well go some way to achieving that. But do I really want to get, say 5% better performance when the quality of the software I buy counts for up to 10 times that when it comes to subjective audio quality? I'd rather vote with my wallet at the record store and buy great recordings instead.

And for people who might tell me that I need to live with MQA for a long time to make a decision about it, remember that I have the ultimate reference of all - the intimate knowledge of the what the actual musical instrument sounds like played by the musician in the room with you. And I can already tell you that vinyl and open reel in particular already have the ability to get you 95% the way to transparency if the recording itself is a top drawer one. Now MQA cannot possibly make a musical instrument sound better than it does in real life - so that means it can only deliver an extra 5% at best. To me this just isn't worth it when there are far more obvious problems to be solved.

I realise we can't have every professional audio engineer possess the ability and exceptionally critical listening skills of a Robert Fine, a Kenneth Wilkinson, a Jack Renner or a Keith Johnson. I further realise that there are probably less than 10 mastering engineers I know of who I could put my complete faith in delivering a very high calibre product to the end user. But I can look at the websites of some recording companies for example (who again will remain nameless) and I am absolutely astonished at the poor calibre of equipment they use, despite having "big name" contracts for "big name" labels. Some of them don't even care about the analogue to digital converters at all, for example and those devices represent one of the biggest problems of all in my opinion.

Bottom line is the audio world needs better attention paid to recording technology as well as cultivating upcoming recording / balance engineers with better skills than is the norm these days. And I would rather resources be devoted to these things than yet more approaches that are little more than bandaids in the overall scheme of things.

 

[a.dent]

Fiddle Faddle, I couldn't agree more with your wish to improve the production end of the music we listen to. I think we all agree that improvements at the beginning of the chain are bound to make the biggest differences. The problem is , we have no control over what happens in the studio or mixing desk. We do, however, have control over how we play our music. The 5% improvement that MQA can (maybe) give us is worth pursuing IMO.

 

[a.dent]

That is true, but iuf we imagine a level playing field and concentrate on the sound of MQA I do believe it is a move forward.

Last night Audirvana V3 was finally released with MQA masters in Tidal integration. I am not on an MQA compliant DAC, so my findings so far are relevant possibly to non MQA DACs (which is most of us at the moment).

I cannot exactly say if the quality jump is because of a bigger resolution file coming through Tidal, or MQA trickery, or both. I am also not sure if it is equal or better than the exact same album as HD downloads from a source such as HD Tracks.

BUT I can say I am convinced to far. I and using Audirvana V3 to unpack the MQA file, and send it to my NOS DAC at max 96K. The MQA files in Tidal pop up as 24/192K or 24/96K. I haven't come across any as 24/88.2 yet. A+ is set to max out at 96K as my DAC chip can handle that res as is an AD1865 chip.

My summary of the difference between Redbook ripped locally from CDs as AIFFs or on Tidal Redbook 44.1 (pretty much the same) v MQA. Bear in mind at the moment there are lots of MQA but it is far from a complete catalogue, mainly Warner, Atlantic and others I think (led Zep for example). Some old stuff, some recent like Beyonce Lemonade and Enya Dark Sky Island for example. Limited dance or electronic so far.

The first thing is the midrange seems to be fuller and more 3D and pops out at you, it took me by surprise in some cases. There is more depth and seemingly more dynamic, even though Redbook is supposed to be 110 dB S/N ratio, no idea, but it is more energetic for sure.

Second, the bass is deep and powerful, more textured and tuneful. It seems to have more energy available.

Third, female vocals and piano seem warmer, less 2D and thin, just more substance somehow.

Fourth, Piano is more realistic and has more texture.

Fifth, the detail is around the same i.e not brighter or tipped up, but it is a cleaner treble and less confusing. Easier to hear tiny background details / ambiance.

It is hard to explain, but I am trying to describe the change v the Redbook version as I hear it on my system. It is different and in a good way I am convinced. Jumping straight back to the Redbook version seems a bit flatter, less 3D and more confused when things really get going (complex passages).

YMMV and quite possibly this will reflect how each type of DAC plays the MQA content. Maybe a DAC with higher res capability may be even better? I can't assess that obviously. But folk on old school R-2R DACs with a limit to 96K will be pleased with MQA I am sure. I would say give it a shot. It takes a while to set up correctly. On my system I also have to set the AOIP network to 96K from 44/1 i Dante and check Audio Midi on my Mac (takes 30 seconds) but never the less it is important to get the best result (for me).

This is pretty much exactly how I have found MQA.

One caveat however is the DAC. I have tried Tidal App (on MacBook Air) unfolding MQA to 96/24 to my Vitus DAC. I then tried Tidal MQA via Roon to my Mytek Brooklyn DAC decoding to 192/24. Now you would expect the fully unfolded file to sound the best but of course the Vitus is MUCH better playing partially unfolded files through all frequencies. than the Myek fully unfolding. The difference is really only in the upper frequencies where the Mytek still sounds "digital". The Vitus with the 96/24 unfolding sounds wonderfully analog

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

The 5% improvement that MQA can (maybe) give us is worth pursuing IMO.

I actually agree with that too. I am one of the first to admit I enjoy chasing 5% increments. That is what I have been doing with my own system (and only that) over the last 18 months!

 

[Whatmore]

I think you might have missed the point of what he originally said and what I responded to. What was meant is that the quality of the original recording is more important than any end-user delivery format, including MQA versus anything else. They (and I ) were not referring to the same recording supplied on different formats or technologies.

+1

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

What was meant is that the quality of the original recording is more important than any end-user delivery format, including MQA versus anything else.

Exactly. Me seems, last years CD releases sound became significantly better, because studio equipment last years was improved (higher resolution of DAW projects as one of the reasons).

 

[Legolas]

Fiddle Faddle, I couldn't agree more with your wish to improve the production end of the music we listen to. I think we all agree that improvements at the beginning of the chain are bound to make the biggest differences. The problem is , we have no control over what happens in the studio or mixing desk. We do, however, have control over how we play our music. The 5% improvement that MQA can (maybe) give us is worth pursuing IMO.

Agree 100%. And TBH we all know playing various music files which ones are well recorded and which are howlers, it is kinda obvious. In classical I believe it is more constant or that is what I have thought so far. In pop and dance, well a mixed bag, more problems. The popular dynamic range compression they keep doing makes it sounds louder on the radio or a boom box, but is not a good move. I listen to quite a bit of trance / electronic music and that IS very well recorded / mastered. Maybe as it has limited real instruments in it, more electronic processing and samples?

And there are some great old school recordings around, bit of tape hiss but they sound marvellous. And quite possibly the pursuit of old vinyl for some is part of that reason?

But as said in previous posts, we have no control over what the studio does. We can only hope it goes in the right direct (keep improving) and not slide back to 'get it out the door' mentality and budget restraints affecting the quality of the final release. And if there is a quality drop between studio master to Redbook (obviously will be) and if MQA reduces some of that, then it is all good my book.

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

Agree 100%. And TBH we all know playing various music files which ones are well recorded and which are howlers, it is kinda obvious. In classical I believe it is more constant or that is what I have thought so far.

With classical (which forms 99% of my collection of LPs, CDs and high res downloads), the problem is arguably even worse. The only "guarantee" you have with classical is that (with very rare exceptions) it doesn't partake in the loudness wars - any compression used - if at all - is subtle. It's either manually applied during the recording process by raising faders when or as needed and sometimes a soft limiter is applied (i.e during live performances of very large scale orchestral). But these techniques are usually transparent to the listener unless they are trained and listening out for them. Even then I've never in my entire life of collecting classical heard a recording negatively effected by compression. EMI is probably the worst offender in this respect and you can actually probably thank EMI for saving your hearing, since you don't get blasted away by orchestral peaks whilst struggling to hear a solo above the noise level of your ducted room airconditioning.

On the other hand - and this is a huge other hand - poor microphone choice, poor microphone placement, dodgy analogue to digital conversion, questionable mastering can have hugely negative effects on the final product and such effects are even more painfully obvious than they are with other genres. Classical is notoriously difficult to record and reproduce well to begin with and the effect that these poor choices and techniques have range from poor rendition of acoustic instrument timbres, poor imaging, "steely" and "dry" sound, overly reverberent sound, loss of detail, phase issues - the list goes on. Massed strings are the worst effected of all - especially violins.

I'd say that personally speaking, 70% of my classical recordings sound very good (or better) and the remaining 30% are anything from barely acceptable to mediocre. But that is a collection amassed with great sound and great performances being equal priorities. Had my collection been formed on the basis of performance alone, that ratio would be the other way around!

 

[Legolas]

Good post Fiddle Faddle.I don't have enough Classical to have such in-depth appraisal of that gender I guess. I do notice with Classical, the period where AAD and ADD then DDD was coming out, I seemed to prefer AAD masters. I have no idea if that still applies. But in the 90's the DDD recordings were to cold and brittle for my tastes. Oddly enough, the labels pushed the DDD as if it was a good thing....

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

I do notice with Classical, the period where AAD and ADD then DDD was coming out, I seemed to prefer AAD masters. I have no idea if that still applies. But in the 90's the DDD recordings were to cold and brittle for my tastes. Oddly enough, the labels pushed the DDD as if it was a good thing....

I don't feel that a whole lot has changed since you formed your opinions. Most of my digital collection consists of remasterings from original recordings made between 1952 and around 1980 - the last year give or take of mainstream classical analogue recording. I do have of course a number of "DDD" releases but I generally don't like them as much unless they were recorded by one of a small number of engineers that really know their stuff and have very critical listening skills. Pretty much all the guys working out of Emil Berliner Studios for example, know their stuff - both the recording and mastering /remastering engineers. So anything they do for example, I am happy to add to my collection - whether it be a vinyl record or a high res download.

Those guys - just as an example - prove that the so-called "golden age" of recording wasn't so much a magical time as it was simply a combination of great engineers using great equipment.

 

[Legolas]

I found an interesting article by Mojo Audio.They seem to be saying true DSD recordings don't exist. Another point I had mulled over before. No idea why we even have 96K and 192K? I wonder if this last point is (in part) what MQA and the 'time smearing' is about?

http://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

I found an interesting article by Mojo Audio.They seem to be saying true DSD recordings don't exist. Another point I had mulled over before. No idea why we even have 96K and 192K? I wonder if this last point is (in part) what MQA and the 'time smearing' is about?

http://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/

Well personally I think those articles are sailing right on the edge of the wind. Telarc, for example, always released pure DSD recordings on SACD discs. It was only the actual edit points that were DXD (ultra-high resolution PCM). And as I well remember Michael Bishop saying on an audio forum many years ago words to the effect that if you can hear those edit points then you really ought to donate your ears to science.

The author also linked to one his his "myth busting" 16 versus 24 bit articles. Yet, contrary to his article, one only has to take a 24 bit file and noise shape it to 16 bits to hear they sound different to each other. That is also why mastering engineers (well, the good ones) don't simply press a button so to speak to do the final dithering to 16 bits. They have multiple options on how to do it. My DAW, for example, has nine different dithering options, all of which are mathematically perfect yet all of which provide a different and inferior sound to the final 16 bit product. The trick is to pick the best one of those nine, meaning the one that subjectively compromises the original 24 bit sound the least. But if you agree with the above author, none of that matters - I could pick any of the nine and they would all sound the same. Well I wish it was that easy rather than agonising over which combination provides the best compromise for each and every 24 bit file. And the above applies to any material - not just digital recordings. Old analogue recordings that are transferred to digital suffer the same quandary - how to dither to 16 bits whilst doing the minimum sonic damage.

Perhaps it is time to start myth busting myth buster articles.