MQA Discussion

Swisstrips said:
Archimago [emoji6] not sure his real name would change much of the data/facts presented. All of which is out out there in extreme detail for anyone to review or refute. [emoji106]

My personal reasons have little to do with sound. If people like it, who am I to argue. However The business model and execution have a significant (negative) impact. Ask a mastering eng who spent his time and craft to get something perfected only to have it completely changed without any say or consent and is permanent.

Someone (bob) has pre determined what I should like



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

In theory, doesn't MQA replace the mastering engineer? If we assume for a second that the album is recorded, it then goes to a Mastering Engineer for adjustment for final distribution, MQA assures us that the artist has signed off on this final Studio Master. So essentially, it removes the Mastering Engineer from the equation. So I ask, would you rather have some mastering engineer ultimately determine what you hear (based on format) or a final Master that the artist(s) have signed off on? This of course, as AJ has pointed out, assumes they are alive!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=6UPxNB8An6I
 
Over the last year, the only MQA music I’ve purchased was included as part of the latest Bob James CD. All of the MQA I’ve enjoyed is provided by Tidal.

So, to me, it’s not a big deal one way or another. My LUMIN supports MQA (which did not cost any additional dollars) and I stream Tidal. I don’t find ALL MQA recordings to sound better than the originals (many do but not all). And, I certainly will not buy my music collection one more time; I’ll use streaming to enjoy the better MQA recordings.
 
Mike said:
In theory, doesn't MQA replace the mastering engineer? If we assume for a second that the album is recorded, it then goes to a Mastering Engineer for adjustment for final distribution, MQA assures us that the artist has signed off on this final Studio Master. So essentially, it removes the Mastering Engineer from the equation. So I ask, would you rather have some mastering engineer ultimately determine what you hear (based on format) or a final Master that the artist(s) have signed off on? This of course, as AJ has pointed out, assumes they are alive!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=6UPxNB8An6I
Click to expand...

If someone is waging $ in front of an artist??. Then again, who says the artist has any control over distribution or redistribution of their art.
 
Mike said:
In theory, doesn't MQA replace the mastering engineer? If we assume for a second that the album is recorded, it then goes to a Mastering Engineer for adjustment for final distribution, MQA assures us that the artist has signed off on this final Studio Master. So essentially, it removes the Mastering Engineer from the equation. So I ask, would you rather have some mastering engineer ultimately determine what you hear (based on format) or a final Master that the artist(s) have signed off on? This of course, as AJ has pointed out, assumes they are alive!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=6UPxNB8An6I
Click to expand...

I doubt this is true, for many reasons, starting with the fact that a large number of artists with MQA recordings are dead! Also, the major labels are churning out MQA versions in large batches, just using "their" MQA encoders on their existing hi-res catalogs; the artists are no more "signing off" on them than they are on the original releases (which means some are, some aren't)
 
Mike said:
In theory, doesn't MQA replace the mastering engineer? If we assume for a second that the album is recorded, it then goes to a Mastering Engineer for adjustment for final distribution, MQA assures us that the artist has signed off on this final Studio Master. So essentially, it removes the Mastering Engineer from the equation. So I ask, would you rather have some mastering engineer ultimately determine what you hear (based on format) or a final Master that the artist(s) have signed off on? This of course, as AJ has pointed out, assumes they are alive!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=6UPxNB8An6I
Click to expand...

:disbelief: Why in the world wold you want to remove the mastering engineer. MQA sure as hell is not a mastering engineer, or I hope not. I don't follow your logic - the artists+ME have signed off on the final master. For MQA to come in and bulk undo everything that was mastered is so wrong. If that's their "authenticated" process, that's a lie and for the life of me don't understand how people are OK with that.

If the artist processed with MQA from start to finish that's different (if that's even being done), but that's not what any of this is about.

This hasn't even touched on the multitude of other items, but I digress.:D
 
Swisstrips said:
:disbelief: Why in the world wold you want to remove the mastering engineer. MQA sure as hell is not a mastering engineer, or I hope not. I don't follow your logic - the artists+ME have signed off on the final master. For MQA to come in and bulk undo everything that was mastered is so wrong. If that's their "authenticated" process, that's a lie and for the life of me don't understand how people are OK with that.

If the artist processed with MQA from start to finish that's different (if that's even being done), but that's not what any of this is about.

This hasn't even touched on the multitude of other items, but I digress.:D
Click to expand...

This is part of the topic that hasn't been discussed much. In my conversations with Mastering Engineer Bob Katz, he has been concerned about the role of the Mastering Engineer with respect to MQA. I am not either for or against the role of the Mastering Engineer as it relates to MQA, just merely discussing. DO NOT read anything into it. It's just curiosity on my part.

 
Mike said:
This is part of the topic that hasn't been discussed much. In my conversations with Mastering Engineer Bob Katz, he has been concerned about the role of the Mastering Engineer with respect to MQA. I am not either for or against the role of the Mastering Engineer as it relates to MQA, just merely discussing. DO NOT read anything into it. It's just curiosity on my part.
Click to expand...

[emoji106] it’s all good [emoji2]



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Kingrex said:
I don't know about the technical side but I do know you can hear a difference. Remember when we were young and had eq. Or at least I did. The big ADA 20 channel one. Inevitabley we would, or at least most I saw were a smiley face. Accentuating the highs and lows. I just listened to Led Zeppelin Lemon Song. I let HQ player do what it could between the base file and the MQA remaster. My DAC is not MQA. The remaster is more clear and has a lot more high frequency information. However, In finding the original more flat, I also found I heard the swing and rythem of John Bonhams drums more "in the groove". I rolled with the band more.

If the end of the graph is the addition of all that high frequency information, then I can see why many people gravitate to it. We think its added music. The clarity is another issue. It's nice and I don't see much reason to dislike it. But in the end, it's closing your eyes and getting into the groove that sets me free. Not analyzing the song. The original does it better, for me.
Click to expand...

In 1968-69 I remember sitting around in the basement with my friends (we were 13) listening to King Crimson and Led Zeppelin, on vinyl of course. I just listened to the Lemon Song on Tidal, Mqa and non, and I was struck how awful this recording sounds on my system. Robert Plant sounds like he's singing through a tin can. The Lampizator doesn't unfold mqa fully but I can't imagine it provides a significant improvement.

It sounded a lot better in the basement in '69. Maybe my memory is colored. Maybe the vinyl master is also better? But one thing I'm sure of is that recorded music needs good recording and mastering. Everything else is secondary.
 
Willco said:
In 1968-69 I remember sitting around in the basement with my friends (we were 13) listening to King Crimson and Led Zeppelin, on vinyl of course. I just listened to the Lemon Song on Tidal, Mqa and non, and I was struck how awful this recording sounds on my system. Robert Plant sounds like he's singing through a tin can. The Lampizator doesn't unfold mqa fully but I can't imagine it provides a significant improvement.

It sounded a lot better in the basement in '69. Maybe my memory is colored. Maybe the vinyl master is also better? But one thing I'm sure of is that recorded music needs good recording and mastering. Everything else is secondary.
Click to expand...

Sounded better then?! What were you smoking? [emoji12]
 
nicoff said:
Sounded better then?! What were you smoking? [emoji12]
Click to expand...

I know you made a joke, but seriously, why not? Can you give me a reason why it could not have sounded better back then? And if you can, please define 'better'.
 
Al M. said:
I know you made a joke, but seriously, why not? Can you give me a reason why it could not have sounded better back then? And if you can, please define 'better'.
Click to expand...

Maybe the vynl mastering was better than the CD mastering that Tidal is streaming? Or maybe our 13-year-old non-audiophile ears along with the low-fi stereo we were listening to made even the worst recording sound OK
 
I posted this in the most anti-MQA forum on the planet, so I may as well repost it here:


Lumin supports MQA for a very specific reason: Tidal. We try our best to support whatever format designated by streaming services. Qobuz Hi-Res uses FLAC, that is good, there's very little extra work for us. Hypothetically, if Tidal adopted a proprietary and new version of WMA Hi-Res (instead of MQA) and offered those Hi-Res music at no extra cost to existing lossless subscribers, then we would have to support that as well. We support MQA not because of certain features of MQA - we support MQA because it is designated by Tidal. (Back then I did not expect there would be MQA CD, but now that MQA CD is a reality, this would have been a factor to drive us to support MQA as well.)

We did not fear of becoming irrelevant. We did fear our customers could not play the music they wanted to play at the best possible quality using our products, regardless of whether it is Tidal Master or MQA CD. Unlike many network DAC, Lumin does not have any digital input whatsoever. We could not even tell Tidal customers to use Tidal desktop app for MQA Core decoding, because without digital input our products cannot be used with Tidal desktop app. Back then no third party add-on solution existed for our products to decode Tidal Master, so we had to implement it by ourselves.

There are members [in the other forum] who do not believe there are customers who ask for MQA. Check out the old threads in Roon forum and you'll see there were many, before Roon added MQA support in version 1.5. I explained there people wanted that because at that time Tidal is the only streaming service Roon integrated with, and Tidal Master is free to existing lossless subscribers. Free music is important for many people, although [some people] disagreed and I respect that. Some may question how long can Tidal offer Tidal Master at no extra cost, or even how sustainable their business is, or it may become less important if it is integrated to Roon as rumored and then everybody switches to Qobuz Sublime+ (EUR299.99 annual), but those possibilities are in the future. At this point in time, there are people who use Tidal.
 
wklie said:
I posted this in the most anti-MQA forum on the planet, so I may as well repost it here:


Lumin supports MQA for a very specific reason: Tidal. We try our best to support whatever format designated by streaming services. Qobuz Hi-Res uses FLAC, that is good, there's very little extra work for us. Hypothetically, if Tidal adopted a proprietary and new version of WMA Hi-Res (instead of MQA) and offered those Hi-Res music at no extra cost to existing lossless subscribers, then we would have to support that as well. We support MQA not because of certain features of MQA - we support MQA because it is designated by Tidal. (Back then I did not expect there would be MQA CD, but now that MQA CD is a reality, this would have been a factor to drive us to support MQA as well.)

We did not fear of becoming irrelevant. We did fear our customers could not play the music they wanted to play at the best possible quality using our products, regardless of whether it is Tidal Master or MQA CD. Unlike many network DAC, Lumin does not have any digital input whatsoever. We could not even tell Tidal customers to use Tidal desktop app for MQA Core decoding, because without digital input our products cannot be used with Tidal desktop app. Back then no third party add-on solution existed for our products to decode Tidal Master, so we had to implement it by ourselves.

There are members [in the other forum] who do not believe there are customers who ask for MQA. Check out the old threads in Roon forum and you'll see there were many, before Roon added MQA support in version 1.5. I explained there people wanted that because at that time Tidal is the only streaming service Roon integrated with, and Tidal Master is free to existing lossless subscribers. Free music is important for many people, although [some people] disagreed and I respect that. Some may question how long can Tidal offer Tidal Master at no extra cost, or even how sustainable their business is, or it may become less important if it is integrated to Roon as rumored and then everybody switches to Qobuz Sublime+ (EUR299.99 annual), but those possibilities are in the future. At this point in time, there are people who use Tidal.
Click to expand...

Peter - I remember years ago (when I was invited to hear the first MQA demo at CES), I told your boss that you guys should really look into it. I'm glad you guys were an early adopter! Lumin continues to provide exceptional service, after sale updates (for free) and much more to their cliental. It seems like only yesterday that you guys at Pixel Magic were barely a few months old. No one had ever heard of you, but I read some obscure post on the Linn Forum about this "Lumin" product. Nothing else. I tracked you guys down, sent an email and literally the next day, you overnighted me a Lumin (there was only one model) to review. Green paper packaging and all. I wrote my review: http://www.audioshark.org/dac-reviews-93/lumin-review-3787.html and the rest is history. In 5/6 short years, you guys have continued to go above and beyond for your customers, in your product development, etc. You also left Linn in the stoneages with their silly fight over DSD. You delivered a better product and half the price of the Linn and sounding better too. The rest is history.
 
The old Roon threads clamoring for MQA are mostly from Meridian/Sooloos fan boys. There are those who think B Stuart walks on water....and they are still out there.

MQA is hanging on by a Tidal thread. And who really cares?
 
Kingsrule said:
The old Roon threads clamoring for MQA are mostly from Meridian/Sooloos fan boys. There are those who think B Stuart walks on water....and they are still out there.

MQA is hanging on by a Tidal thread. And who really cares?
Click to expand...

I do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top