• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Now we know why Amir is pro-MQA

Status
Not open for further replies.

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
"The most difficult problems to solve are those which are nonexistent."

True, but the hard work involved in inventing a problem and then convincing people they need your solution can be repaid handsomely in rich pickings and $$$$$'s. Or so I'm told by Audioquest, PS Audio etc.
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,202
Likes
16,982
Location
Riverview FL
"Tidal started adding MQA audio starting back in January 2017 and, since then, the number of tracks has grown from around 30,000 to more than 1 million. " - link

Ok...

That's two years, so 41,666 tracks per month, 10,416 per week, 1,488 per day, 62 per hour, , ha... 1 a minute. 24/7.

That's enough to give me an idea about the level of effort being put into remastering/deblurring and whatever.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,072
Likes
16,606
Location
Central Fl
I cannot agree more. IMHO MQA is simply a shot in the wrong direction and the road toward better SQ leads through better mastering, not through some new lossy codec..
We were told, at least it was insinuated, that the de-blurring process and compression theme could be separated and offered that way. After numerous requests went unanswered I'm not sure what the truth is. But IMO the best option for the consumer would have been to offer them in that manner. Those that found de-blurring to be a positive thing could purchase and use it as desired. Same runs for the compression process, if it proved itself to be more efficient than flac or the others, it's superior function would be self explanatory.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,072
Likes
16,606
Location
Central Fl
That's enough to give me an idea about the level of effort being put into remastering/deblurring and whatever.
Thanks scrutinizer! Those numbers alone are very enlightening.
And scary!
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
The whole concept of high resolution music has been devalued. Put the issue of whether or not people can discern a difference for a moment. These downloads are sold as a premium product with all sorts of claims about the masters used yet it appears an awful lot of them are just upsampled to light the right LED on a DAC so buyers get a feel good factor and think that they are getting something different.
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
"The most difficult problems to solve are those which are nonexistent."

May I propose a book as we approach Santa night?

Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber:

https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Job...lshit+jobs&dpPl=1&dpID=51WI7LXn1IL&ref=plSrch

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs

Original essay:

http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

ONE NOTEWORTHY QUOTE:

«..when a profit seeking enterprise is in the business of distributing a very large sum of money, the most profitable thing for it to do is to be as inefficient as possible»

It seems like bullshit has no end in this modern day and age. Bullshit jobs everywhere, and of course, BS in audio. We’ve become blind to all the BS around us.

Because most jobs (at least of the higher-playing variert) are BS these days, it makes sense that we need a BS scheme to help us control the money flow in distributed music.
 
Last edited:

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
I think even our host, @amirm , has fallen for the bettered mastering BS. Correct me if I’m wrong.

And thanks to @RayDunzl for sharing his back of the envelope.
I will correct you and suggest you read through amirs reasoning, nothing to do with ‘ mastering’ .
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
I don't see tuition fees as being entirely bad. I self funded my BEng and MSc and the thought of blowing a lot of money I had saved whist working in the merchant navy concentrated my mind to consider whether it was the right thing to do and was a pretty good motivator to study hard and get the most out of the experience.
 

Patrick1958

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 28, 2018
Messages
498
Likes
412
Location
Belgium
MQA is what it is, a codec to deliver HR in a smaller package for streaming.
However the claims that it offers studio quality as like the sound engineers and artists intended and recorded is a misconception, (not saying a lie, but close).

Go to HDtracks and purchase/download the Eagles album Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975 at 192/24. (Just one of the excamples i tested)
Yet played and available as a MASTER trough the Tidal Desktop app in exclusive mode, the maximum the desktop app can deliver is 96 Khz. So a down sampled version is what you hear. For a HR file at 24 bit i would expect a noise floor/dither to be around -129 Db. Yet it measures -96 Db!!! What is the app or MQA hiding between -96 and -129? I get a constant -96 reading on ALL Masters albums i play trough tidal master. Is this still HR, IMO no.
A -96 is used in 16 bit files, so why is it there in a 24 bit file.
Simple conclusion, the end result from the 24/192 is no longer HR but a downsized/resampled version. Eather going trough a hardware dac with full control i assume you get (maybe someone can jump in who has an MQA capable dac, i don't, i have to rely on the desktop app from tidal) 16 bit at max.... how does this compare to a HR 24 bit file?


Is this still the HR the artist and sound engineer intended to deliver, IMO not. So much for their claim.

Knowing some of you will jump on the "can i measure it wagon".. yes you can!!!. No need for expensive devices, Your windows control panel and an external recording device suffice. One important note here : the soundcard/dac/usb spidf should be able to deliver a spdif output and the recording device an spdif input. Set windows control panel to 24 (whatever Khz because tidal is taking control and outputting) set recording device to 24 bit 96 Khz (the max the desktop app is able to deliver) These settings in windows sound manager and external recording device should give you bit perfect output and recording settings, windows control panel and dac/spdif control should both be set at 24 bit max volume. Disable any dither setting in recording device if able.
Start the Tidal desktop app, set your settings to master and exclusive control. Play ONE Master song/file for a few seconds. This will enable windows wasapi full control to bit perfect, following the tidal app settings for MQA rendering.


Start recording on your external device, wait a few seconds and then start tidal playing a master.
Transfer your recording to computer, open in Audacity, highlight the silence part at the beginning, go to menu analyze/contrast and you will constantly see a -96 dB. With the same part highlighted go to menu/analyze/spectrum and be amazed at what you see below -96. And that is supposed to be a 24 bit file.... i don't think so.


The Eagles album is not an exception, many HR albums i gathered over the years at HDtrack and now available on tidal in MQA show this misreading.
Can i hear it or not, we leave that in the middle. Fact is, a 24/44.1, 24/88.2, 24/96, 24/174 etc is not what you get. At best you get a 16 bit etc file.
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
I will correct you and suggest you read through amirs reasoning, nothing to do with ‘ mastering’ .

@Thomas savage , this is what I had in mind regarding MQA «remastering» and @amirm ’s take on MQA as a service of value for consumers:
——-
2991901C-374E-4193-B04E-D8AF0757F1AF.png


——-
Both @amirm and you talk about remastering here.

You wrote «unless they do a great job remastering the files» and @amirm talked about «potentially hand-tuned new masters» and then he put the weight of his authority back this sentence:

«...some of the MQA content I have heard compared to non-MQA sound remarkably better, indicating better mastering».

I think @RayDunzl ’s back of the envelope calculations show that you (Thomas) were guilty of wishful thinking. As for @amirm , he must have been very lucky picking out the few MQA albums with «better mastering».

So I may not stand corrected after all?
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
@Thomas savage , this is what I had in mind regarding MQA «remastering» and @amirm ’s take on MQA as a service of value for consumers:
——-
View attachment 19272

——-
Both @amirm and you talk about remastering here.

You wrote «unless they do a great job remastering the files» and @amirm talked about «potentially hand-tuned new masters» and then he put the weight of his authority back this sentence:

«...some of the MQA content I have heard compared to non-MQA sound remarkably better, indicating better mastering».

I think @RayDunzl ’s back of the envelope calculations show that you (Thomas) were guilty of wishful thinking. As for @amirm , he must have been very lucky picking out the few MQA albums with «better mastering».

So I may not stand corrected after all?
But that’s not the bases of his appreciation , it’s merely a point of difference or potential difference. Have a read or don’t lol but don’t be lazy .

Oh and don’t charge me of anything, wishful what?
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
But that’s not the bases of his appreciation , it’s merely a point of difference or potential difference. Have a read or don’t lol but don’t be lazy .

Oh and don’t charge me of anything, wishful what?

It’s been evident for any intelligent being that MQA is not about «remastering» or «hand-tuned». MQA is an algorithm, to convert existing files into MQA version by means of machine - not intelligent man.

@RayDunzl put figures on what we (except @amirm) knew all the time. The «level of effort» on MQA’s side is zero. It baffles me it’s possible to think otherwise.

So it seems like @amirm is being the naive one here, phantasizing about «hand tuned».
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom