MQA Discussion

[Poppyhome]

Here's Mark Waldrep's take on this from June 24, 2018 —

"What most writers — especially ones that have no experience engineering a record — get wrong is that the pathway from analog “masters” to “high-resolution” digital file doesn’t improve the fidelity of the original master — if done well, it maintains whatever fidelity (including the narrow dynamic range and limited frequency response) was present in the original master. This is the mantra of MQA supporters and the goal of its inventors — to minimize any sonic degradation due to the transfer from analog to digital. 96 kHz/24-bits can do this without any loss and without the overcharges associated with MQA’s licensing agreement. The 11,000 MQA albums on Tidal didn’t come from high-resolution sources so why all of the praise for a method that makes claims to produce high-resolution streams? It’s crazy. It’s why many of the high-end makers of DACs have decided to pass on MQA. They’re right."

Ron

[W9TR]

Mark Waldrip runs a Hi-Rez download service and physical media company, AIX, whose business model is directly and incontrovertibly threatened by MQA.

One thing that's getting lost in the discussion is the ability of MQA to undo the damage done by the brick wall filtering used in the mastering of early Redbook CD's. Since there were very few of these converters used, it should be straightforward to apply the appropriate correction and improve the time domain performance of these CD's.

So the debate marches on unabated. I will say that for me there is no debate - hi-rez native files, even 24/96 win out in sound quality over MQA to my ears in my system. But no one is streaming those right now, and if they were, my slooow Century Link Internet service couldn't handle them anyway.

Which brings me to my current modus operandi - listen on Tidal MQA. For the very rare album with sound quality and artistry deserving of a hi-rez download, I'll buy the file.

[gbaby]

Originally Posted by moonhawk

Are you aware of how much manipulation and filtering is used in a typical digital recording? There is no such thing as an "unadulterated" recording.

Maybe so, but at least it was done to achieve a result that the artist approved and recording studio approved. There is no need for further manipulation after the fact. More importantly, I do not approve of a new codec for music requiring me to replace my CDs or equipment.

[moonhawk]

Originally Posted by gbaby

Maybe so, but at least it was done to achieve a result that the artist approved and recording studio approved. There is no need for further manipulation after the fact. More importantly, I do not approve of a new codec for music requiring me to replace my CDs or equipment.

Well, you're not the only frog in the pond, my friend.

My only pick with MQA, technical questions aside, is if they do make it mandatory. But i don't foresee any case where you can't continue to enjoy your CDs for many years to come.

[Poppyhome]

Originally Posted by W9TR

Mark Waldrip runs a Hi-Rez download service and physical media company, AIX, whose business model is directly and incontrovertibly threatened by MQA.

One thing that's getting lost in the discussion is the ability of MQA to undo the damage done by the brick wall filtering used in the mastering of early Redbook CD's. Since there were very few of these converters used, it should be straightforward to apply the appropriate correction and improve the time domain performance of these CD's.

Hey, I'm no expert, and don't know if you are an expert in the recording industry, but Mark's statements on recordings, MQA, and all the hi-res hoopla make sense and sound logical.

That's just my opinion.

Ron

[clpetersen]

Originally Posted by W9TR

...

One thing that's getting lost in the discussion is the ability of MQA to undo the damage done by the brick wall filtering used in the mastering of early Redbook CD's. Since there were very few of these converters used, it should be straightforward to apply the appropriate correction and improve the time domain performance of these CD's.

So the debate marches on unabated. I will say that for me there is no debate - hi-rez native files, even 24/96 win out in sound quality over MQA to my ears in my system. .....

Nice post!
re: the early Redbook brick wall filtering and subsequent MQA time-domain correction (so-called deconvolution, used in many optical applications to good effect). Agreed, as you mention, if the details of the original converter are known, than this could work.
Seems like an easy thing to demo to doubters. Has this been done?

[gbaby]

Originally Posted by moonhawk

Well, you're not the only frog in the pond, my friend.

Dave, your reason for supporting MQA are valid; limited bandwidth. So, I cannot blame you. I, do, however, feel MQA is bad for the industry in that it will require equipment upgrades, and who knows how MQA will affect difference surround algorithms.

[moonhawk]

Originally Posted by gbaby

Dave, your reason for supporting MQA are valid; limited bandwidth. So, I cannot blame you. I, do, however, feel MQA is bad for the industry in that it will require equipment upgrades, and who knows how MQA will affect difference surround algorithms.

Well, it should remain as a matter of choice for manufacturers, artists, and consumers.

[Still-One]

Originally Posted by Poppyhome

The 11,000 MQA albums on Tidal didn’t come from high-resolution sources so why all of the praise for a method that makes claims to produce high-resolution streams? It’s crazy. It’s why many of the high-end makers of DACs have decided to pass on MQA. They’re right.[/B]"

Ron

No actually the high end makers of DAC's (MSB and dCS) have gone with MQA. It is the mid-fi makers that are dragging their feet.

[Poppyhome]

Originally Posted by Still-One

No actually the high end makers of DAC's (MSB and dCS) have gone with MQA. It is the mid-fi makers that are dragging their feet.

I did not know that high-end equates to super expensive — plus the statement is ".....many of the high-end makers of DACs have decided to pass on MQA."

My opinion is high-end great sounding DACs don't need to cost more than a car.

Ron