@brianlucey The only thing "authenticated" is the addition to Stuart's bank account. Out of which he possibly pays Stereophile and Abso!ute Sound to keep gaslighting their readers relentlessly so they actually start to believe this lossy mqa CODEC is better than, well, just about everything digital on the planet. Now there are even mqa CDs being released. As if they didn't learn from the failure of HDCD. I'll take the word of professional engineers who actually record and work with this stuff over some money-grabbing hack who owned a high-end audio company, and presents us with psychobabble-laden white papers as proof that his lossy CODEC is valid... |
@ Brian Lucey
Hi Brian!
Thanks for contributing.
"
Batch processing of my work, by labels, is happening as we speak. It’s
not "Authenticated" as a master by me, or my clients ... it’s just
another lossy codec.
" - Brian Lucey
Your are spot on as usual.
Best Regards
|
To Brian Lucy. Your input, as a professional in the Audio industry, is much appreciated. I believe your ,kernels of truth, will evolve into a positive influence on this discussion. |
It’s Mindboggling to me that Bob Stuart could say MQA, which places -noise- in the 3 lsb’s,could provide sound that is ‘better than the original’. Scoundrel. |
MQA is a psyop. When $300,000 speakers failed to establish "Audiophilia" as a clinical definition of insane, the Audio industry had to work up a new test.
|
I would agree it’s a philosophy in that it comes down to whether it sounds more realistic rather than some sort of scientific comparison. Have you haters actually listened to MQA content? It does sound more realistic, it does correct lots of artifacts and the artist agrees, or it wouldn’t be authenticated. And it takes up much less space and data for streaming. So what if the industry makes money? Why should it all be for free?
without profit, nothing would ever improve. What makes some of you believe that you’re entitled to the hi-res digital file sampled from the master? And, why do you think it’s better?
MQA is a clever way to efficiently use bits so as not to include unnecessary “white space” found in your hi-res (ie 96k/24) files in the MQA data. It’s not using “perceptual coding”, like that awful MP3.
If youve not listened to MQA, don’t let a thread like this discourage you. Have a listen. An MQA of 192/24 content sounds more realistic than the straight up, original. |
MQA is included with Tidal HiFI for $20. I am streaming from my iMac to Oppo205 now. It does't sound better than 44.1k/16bit. MQA is a compressed 192k/24bit format. No complaint.
|
@johnmuoio .. I ‘hear’ what your ears are telling you. However it seems you perhaps are unaware of the details in the mqa process. Simple old fashioned tone controls, that distorted the music in many ways, made a sound that many,using less than state of the art equipment, felt was better to them. No denying that. But the stated reason for using the name ‘master guality’ - authenticated yet! was to convey that the so named recordings represented the quality of the master recording. As you will learn,if you do a little research, is that nothing could be further from the truth! Scoundrels in England just like in America .. ie liars.
|
The latest issue of TAS has a very favorable review of the Rossini, even more so with MQA material.
After reading the section on how dCS implements MQA for its OWN hardware, my interest in MQA is now reignited but only with regard to SQ of MQA vs non-MQA files played via the same dac. dCS seems to be the first company to implement MQA in this way.
The MQA-capable Rossini may just be the ticket to end all MQA debates based on SQ alone. I posted the above in another thread. Is dCS getting it wrong about MQA? |
I already own all the music I will ever buy. So, for me, MQA in meaningless. I own 4,500 LP, 2,500 CDs. I don't stream, I have all the music I will want. I have read the pros and cons of MQA. and I know the market will decide. Not some guy who dreams of making money, not some recording studio execs who dream of getting the cat back into the bag.. The Market. If enough folks buy processors with MQA, and buy enough music with it, MQA will win. If not ... MQA will lose. And not one argument or fact check or discussion makes a single bit of difference. Just your DOLLARS. Did you buy? or not buy?
I voted, I bought a $7000 SACD/DAC without MQA this Summer.Enough said on my part.
|
I already own all the music I will ever buy. So, for me, MQA in meaningless. I own 4,500 LP, 2,500 CDs. I don't stream, I have all the music I will want. I have read the pros and cons of MQA. and I know the market will decide. Not some guy who dreams of making money, not some recording studio execs who dream of getting the cat back into the bag.. The Market. If enough folks buy processors with MQA, and buy enough music with it, MQA will win. If not ... MQA will lose. And not one argument or fact check or discussion makes a single bit of difference. Just your DOLLARS. Did you buy? or not buy?
I voted, I bought a $7000 SACD/DAC without MQA this Summer.Enough said on my part. I am doing likewise - listening to my own music collection with a non-MQA dac, no streaming. The only reason for me to think about MQA is for the next dac I buy - should it be MQA-capable or not? Will cross the bridge when I get there, I guess. :) |
I have at least that many LPs and CDs/digital files, but I have to admit that MQA streaming of Tidal through Roon has been a revelation. Roon core software does the first MQA unfold to 24/96 or 24/88.2, and you don't need an MQA DAC to hear the difference vs. 16/44.1. Tidal has been poorly served by a marketing strategy focused on hip hop/rap. The Tidal MQA library contains pretty much the entire '50s and post-bop jazz catalog of Blue Note, Impulse/Verve, Riverside, Prestige, as well as ECM from '70s to the present. Not to mention MQA of most of Bowie, Rod Stewart, Beach Boys, and many new release alt/indie hi-res artists like Father John Misty, Beach House, Calexico, etc. that I would have otherwise purchased on physical media. For $20/month I'm all in. |
I agree with @elizabeth . I own all the music I will need. If I want to find an obscure recording I have free-Spotify. MQA will be a fad, nothing more |
|
@elizabeth what was the point of your post? Was it to demonstrate you have a hermetically closed mind? You totally convinced me. |
I liked S Stone's MQA comments in recent TAS...that you need properly recorded music in acoustic space, and be sitting exactly in sweet spot to appreciate/evaluate MQA...I have not done that...though I do enjoy streaming in addition to LP and CD...no interest in MQA, hoping my mind is not hermetically sealed... |
jane hamble... With 39 posts, I read all your posts. You read like a younger version of myself. Congratulations, and good luck (you will need it)
In my 70th year on this planet I find I do not hear much NEW music worth listening to. Of all the ’top’ albums in the past fifteen years, I have found only a few I like. I bought them on LP. My audio life is pretty much enjoying the past 100 years of recorded music. Rock, Jazz and Classical in equal measure. Most recent/new Rock/Pop music generally is made up of bands incapable of inventing new music, playing basic chords over and over (badly BTW), bad sounding singers with poor technique droning on about stuff I could care less about! I spend my listening time with stuff I like.
If not enjoying the endless stream of new drivel makes me a closed mind. no problem.I accept the mantel and wear it like a crown.
If you are writing about not being interested in new equipment? MQA is not the first new thing in the Universe. It may work, it may fail. Basically I stated not my problem, and why. Beyond that it does not matter (to me). It may matter to you? Again not my problem.
|
I don't consider my position to be closed minded. I don't own an SACD player or even a CD player, everything is digital files--10 Tb in the server with back-up, 4Tb of 16/44, 24/96 FLAC and MP3-320 files.
Can we improve upon the sound of 24/192 PCM?
like @elizabeth,
Don't Know, Don't Care.
When I stopped watching TV and started listening to my Musical Medicine, I lost interest in the clown car and circus parade which is the daily "news"
Now, tell me about a Jazz player I need to hear... |
@cj1965 some excellent points there. |
I own SACD, CD. But I now stream MQA through Tidal. Compare to 44k/16bit, MQA does sounds better. Since it come with Tidal HiFi. Why not listen to them? I recently acquired an Opportunity 205 enable me to do SACD/CD/4K/MQA. I am open to any formate that improve my listening experience. |
I am constantly seeking out new music, much of which is older -- until I recently brought digital into my systems, there were many recordings I did not have access to.
In my case, I suppose being uninformed is better than being misinformed, I gather the industry is promoting MQA and there is a fair amount of resistance to it from the audiophile community. Rather than stake out a position-- since I don't really have one-- I have a few questions:
1. Wasn't MQA through some sort of file compression, supposed to facilitate streaming of hi-rez files which could get bottlenecked in the passage from the originating server to the user's player?
2. Is DRM part of the code, or is it simply a fear that once you allow a standard like this to gain traction, that is a potential next step?
|
I really like the wordplay of "origami unfolding" instead of compression-decompression. My know-it-all kids explained to me that if it is lossy, it cannot be origami, they tried to illustrate this through an analogy with "real" Transformers vs. Hollywood-style transformation of a VW Beetle into a 50-ton battle-tank. They lost me then and there... Anyway, I listen to Master Tidal on Windows 7, thru Schiit Eitr into Wadia 781i. MQA of my favorite ECM albums do not sound as good as those same CDs played through Wadia (or Naim CDS3). One explanation is that Wadia is old and outdated and/or that it sounds better from internal transport, not as good when used as DAC. Another explanation came yesterday from Tidal support: " A DAC which is MQA capable can unfold up to 8x
(provided the DAC has that capability). With the desktop and/or a non-MQA DAC
you will get 24bit/88.2 (96) kHz... In order to listen to the MQA format to its fullest extent,
your equipment needs to be MQA capable. Otherwise, you will not be getting the
full MQA experience but you will still have better quality than HiFi."
|
