grs113

Thanks Krzysztof, I'm a Tool fan, but I lamented the original CD releases were not the best examples for dynamic range. With each release, you could hear and see (through spectral analysis) the increasing use of multiband compression to increase perceived loudness. It would be nice if the 24 bit remasters could be given more dynamic range to increase the impact of the drums and the edge of the guitars, but the DR numbers I've seen thus far don't look promising. :(

Props to @ShawnC and @cjf for sharing objective findings. I personally find these remasters to be interesting but somewhat disappointing. There is some increased clarity on the top end, but the dynamics and impact have been reduced. They aren't as good as the Appetite album tracks, but if you compare the G N' R Lies tracks on the Appetite Super Deluxe version to the original G N' R Lies release, it's obvious they have been compressed.

Certainly this could be true, but I don't think I am always willing to accept this generalization. There are prolific mastering engineers like Bob Ludwig who have managed to produce outstanding audio quality with even 16 bit recording systems. Most of us know and respect Mr. Ludwig's work, but just FYI: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Ludwig Bob Ludwig's expertise as a trained listener is universally accepted. It's likely he has heard more live studio music and masters than the overwhelming majority of us posting here. Mr. Ludwig uses his own spectrum analyzer, and he addresses many of the issues surrounding MQA's audible benefits in this video: Our experiences are apparently different. It may be true in many cases that the MQA improvements I heard were due to different sources, but I have many high res sources, and it's probably not always true. I audibly preferred most of the MQA versions I heard. I get it. I understand that you want the ability to acquire and digitally process full resolution, non-folded, fully lossless versions of your files, based on traditional modern encoding methods. I hope you (and we all) can. I respect that you have issues with the requirements of the MQA ecosystem. Please pardon if I'm misjudging, but I'm inferring that perhaps you see MQA as a threat to your ability. In my opinion, the greatest threats to high res are already lack of access (for multiple reasons) and the public's decreasing ability to recognize the benefits, due to worsening audio quality in various distributed forms. IMO, wishing for full resolution, non-folded, fully lossless audio isn't going to fix these problems or give us greater access. I believe failure of MQA could even give the music industry one more reason and ultimately kill any chance for high res audio to gain wider market acceptance. Definitely, I would be interested to see this--thank you for offering. What can you show? I'm not interested in comparative analysis of folded, undecoded MQA files, but I would be interested in learning about the filters, especially the end-to-end (first A/D to final D/A) and intermediate impulse response characteristics. Is this possible? Can you point me to meaningful analysis? Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

Good comments. It seems true that the labels and their apparent greed in selling us marginally better (or even crappy) reissues have been the root problems for a long time. It's a good point that MQA doesn't prevent poor audio quality, but it does provide a much-needed incentive; that is buy-in from the artist or mastering engineer. For sure, poor sound quality is a problem is a problem for me. Loudness manipulation, compression (upward and downward), limiting, and other mods to reduce bitrate are becoming increasingly prevalent and concerning. I'm hoping we will eventually be able to conduct detailed spectral analysis of the decoded MQA stream. In the meantime, I'll use my ears and comparisons, over time, to judge MQA audio quality. The relative improvement I've heard so far, in music I know well, gives me room for optimism.

I am giving MQA and its metadata scheme the benefit of the doubt, particularly from the standpoint that protecting the consumer from manipulated or reduced sound quality is critical. Has anyone noticed how distributed audio quality is worsening nowadays, in most of its forms? Does anyone really think that owning a DSD512 DAC is any incentive for the music industry to provide better source quality, or any guarantee we will actually realize better quality from commercially available music? That seems to me to be naive. I've seen too many high res discs with poor quality content, i.e. DVD Audio discs with pure 16 bit data masquerading in 24 bit MLP containers, to trust in any lossless format-- MLP, FLAC, or other. Unfortunately, it ultimately has very little to do with end to end quality. It's just too easy to hide subpar audio quality in digital formats, and there are too many places in the chain where audio quality can be damaged. I think it's a fair guess Mr. Stuart is aware of these shortcomings too. There are a lot of things I like about MQA, but I think Mr. Stuart's idea to gain quality buy-in from the musician or mastering engineer, confirmed by unaltered transmission of a digital provenance marker to my DAC, is brilliant. If that's DRM, I'm all for it. Judging by most high res products that I've seen, I think the music industry has largely failed us. We need a better paradigm than consumer compatibility with DXD or DSD512. Most of the MQA music I've streamed or downloaded sounded excellent. It gives me some hope. Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

Thanks for this thread. MusicScope analysis of the Guero (Deluxe set) DVD-Audio indicates that there is only 16 bit data within the 24 bit stereo container. A couple of songs have steep low pass filters well below 20 kHz, but I too assumed they were intentional for effect, i.e. artistic discretion. Looking forward to learning more...

Many thanks to you and Bob (and the CA community) for all the great work you put into this. It had to take a lot of time to thoroughly address so many good questions. As a user of paid steaming services for new music discovery, I'm excited and hopeful that MQA will be successful.

For sure there were a LOT of questions to be addressed. I'm also looking forward and appreciate your efforts on this... Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Excellent post and really great thoughtful commentary--thanks! I can't help but see potential analogies with HDCD, which was unprotected in the DRM sense but a proprietary technology nonetheless. I share many of your concerns but remain optimistic in MQA's potential. I truly am very interested in the potential sound quality improvements of MQA. Should we not consider a better paradigm and means of audio delivery? Hopefully better transparency will come. At the very least, I do think we should consider the possibility that the A/D and D/A converters may be historically under-characterized and therefore one of the least understood links in the distribution chain. Still watching and patiently waiting...

To Mr. Stuart: I read your 2014 AES convention paper #9178 with great interest. It is clear to me that MQA has great potential and considers a larger array of psychoacoustic factors than are currently acknowledged in conventional sampling/filter theory. In addition to post #10, questions 8 through 10, I would like to ask: Can you please clarify how DAC sampling rate capability might affect reproduction quality, considering your paper statement that the receiver (decoder) should implement an appropriate up-sampling reconstruction? What sampling rate capability(ies) would you consider ideal for highest quality reproduction, and what other DAC capabilities would you suggest are important?