Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

What sites?  Where is this info?   This should be our aim for all music.

I'm only aware of obscure audiophile labels like Blue Coast and Sound Liaison that provide such details. Their recordings are generally superb, but I can enjoy music just as well without knowing the brand of microphone cables used during the recording. I listen to music, not equipment.

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, wushuliu said:

Gotta side with Brian on this. I don't see what's controversial about what he's saying. We as audiophiles and consumers have very little clue about the professional studio recording and mastering process - and I'm not talking small independent audiophile-oriented stuff that gets cycled through the usual audio magazines. This makes the MQA and streaming talk all the more frustrating because there is ZERO transparency on the source material.

 

You'd think if MQA was so artist and quality focused they would make every effort to reveal that info. I wouldn't be surprised for instance if someone like Rick Rubin or, say, Beck, or even Kanye, worked with 'lower res' (to us) as part of their palatte. Hell yeah I'd want to hear that directly, not some hi-res conversion just to appease a demographic that is convinced the higher the bit rate the better.

 

Rick Rubin is an audiophile who like Synergistic Research gear.

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

I think most of us would love to get the master-however it was done.

 

People here who like a different flavor - say DSD, because their system sounds best that way - are perfectly capable of converting the master if they prefer to listen that way.

 

I do sort of think that you and Lee are talking about 2 different things: he is talking about live recording of acoustic instruments in jazz and classical where he hears that high sample rates make a difference - as he noted with violins. You are talking about modern music - mostly electronic multitrack recordings with a lot of processing. 

 

I think those of us who are honest would agree that any difference we hear with high sample rates is generally on recordings with the first type of instrumentation rather than the second. 

 

I also hear benefits on rock and pop recordings. For instance, the hirez files of Alison Krauss and Union Station’s Paper Airplane are a significant improvement over the CD.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I also hear benefits on rock and pop recordings. For instance, the hirez files of Alison Krauss and Union Station’s Paper Airplane are a significant improvement over the CD.

Don’t disagree with you. But Alison Klaus recordings aren’t very much like Kanye West, Beyoncé, or even The Black Keys. I think on those it would be much harder to hear the difference.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, mansr said:

I'm only aware of obscure audiophile labels like Blue Coast and Sound Liaison that provide such details. Their recordings are generally superb, but I can enjoy music just as well without knowing the brand of microphone cables used during the recording. I listen to music, not equipment.

 

I also couldn't give a crap about the equipment used but I do like to know the provenance of the formats sold. For example, I'm not going to buy a recording in DSD format if it's simply a conversion from PCM. I'd rather buy the PCM version instead.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
1 hour ago, firedog said:

Don’t disagree with you. But Alison Klaus recordings aren’t very much like Kanye West, Beyoncé, or even The Black Keys. I think on those it would be much harder to hear the difference.

It's all about how the mastering compensates for the AD and creates a singular master.

 

192 or 96k or 44.1 from the same converter gets compensated with processing.

 

It's not like a great 44.1 can't capture all there is to hear.   Processing choices of 1/4db are more powerful than a converter sample rate change,

Link to comment

 

2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Rick Rubin is an audiophile who like Synergistic Research gear.

Rick has also at times listened to masters in a pick up truck, choosing between MEs.  Vlado Meller's Audioslave record, for example, sounds fine in car in the CH sections of some tracks, yet distorts badly on a good system.

 

Processes and people are complex, and I would not put he or I or anyone on the production team in one box such as "audiophile".   We are firstly creators, not only listeners who create with playback.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I also hear benefits on rock and pop recordings. For instance, the hirez files of Alison Krauss and Union Station’s Paper Airplane are a significant improvement over the CD.

 

Once we decide the details and air are "better" then we will hear "an improvement" in ANY higher sample rate version.

 

Doesn't make it better, just subjective for you. 

 

Better is closer to the master in the room.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

Once we decide the details and air are "better" then we will hear "an improvement" in ANY higher sample rate version.

 

Doesn't make it better, just subjective for you. 

 

Better is closer to the master in the room.

 

Hey man, give me more credit than that.  I'm experienced enough to consider a wide variety of factors beyond just air and details.  The midrange has to be right or nothing else matters.  Instrument timbre has to be right.  Placement of instruments on the soundstage in a live to 2 track recording has to be right.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Hey man, give me more credit than that.  I'm experienced enough to consider a wide variety of factors beyond just air and details.  The midrange has to be right or nothing else matters.  Instrument timbre has to be right.  Placement of instruments on the soundstage in a live to 2 track recording has to be right.

 

Sure but this is all subjective.

 

The best master is one one in the room, everything else is the ego of the listener ...

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

What sites?  Where is this info?   This should be our aim for all music.

 

 

I see a majority of consumers, and many posts here, that are "higher rates better".

 

You really have no clue about what you’re going on and on about, do you?

 

here’s a hint: none of the cookie cutter music you work on figures in this conversation.

 

As a photographer, I would consider myself very stupid if I ever claimed that the 40 megapixel PSD/ TIFF file with 87 layers in it is the “Best version” because it is what I have in the studio. It might be the “Original”, but it is terrible as a distribution format.  

 

No one here is claiming that “higher sample rates are just better” as a blanket statement. You are once again reading what is not there and just ranting away in a one side argument.

 

Being purposefully dense isn’t helping your case a single bit. Especially after you said your goodbyes about 3 times in the last one week and still keep coming back to do the same old.

 

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

 

What music recording is not "cookie cutter" to you?

 

 

What's your opinion regarding MQA on cookie cutter music?  Not claiming the music you work on is cookie cutter. Just wanting your opinion about using MQA on other types of music.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, esldude said:

What's your opinion regarding MQA on cookie cutter music?  Not claiming the music you work on is cookie cutter. Just wanting your opinion about using MQA on other types of music.

 

My take on MQA has nothing to do with musical or production style, it's about the codec, the marketing, the lies, and the desire to dominate.

 

What is cookie cutter?  What is not ?

 

All recordings are cared for by those who create and love them, each is someone's baby ... and all are products, judged by the market and critics, etc.  So what's the distinction here?  

 

The music you think is important vs. that which you don't?  A certain DR?  The lack of creative distortion vs. dense and processed productions?

 

I don't see a distinction in any objective way.  What am I missing oh wise consumers of music?

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

 

What music recording is not "cookie cutter" to you?

 

 

https://shop.klicktrack.com/2l/411252

 

one example.

 

i have heard one of the tracks in every format between 44.1 and DXD (plus DSD). I have done a blind test too, playing the files in random and not looking at the playlist to see the sample rate.

 

It doesn’t take an industry expert or have bat’s ears to hear how much more breathing space  the music has at 192 vs 44.1. 

 

Then again, 2L doesn’t put out 600 records a year, so their boundary conditions for quality are a bit different, I presume.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, synn said:

https://shop.klicktrack.com/2l/411252

 

one example.

 

i have heard one of the tracks in every format between 44.1 and DXD (plus DSD). I have done a blind test too, playing the files in random and not looking at the playlist to see the sample rate.

 

It doesn’t take an industry expert or have bat’s ears to hear how much more breathing space  the music has at 192 vs 44.1. 

 

 

You heard the same mix in every format?   How was it recorded?

 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, synn said:

All the information is on the site.

 

"5.1 SURROUND + STEREO produced in DXD (Digital eXtreme Definition 352kHz/24bit) by Lindberg Lyd, Norway "

 

Does this mean it was recorded in 24bit/352kHz? A fair assumption? Please excuse my ignorance.

 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, synn said:

 Try reading instead of asking to be spoon fed. All the information is on the site. If you buy the record, they will even send you a nice PDF that even covers the mike placements.

 

I'm busy making music and trying to have a conversation here.  Unlike you I'm not an armchair listener with free time.

 

if you can't answer the simple question then ok.

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, synn said:

A whole world of music exists outside the Beats headphones and car stereo optimized pop music world. The music that comes out of is produced under different benchmarks. The people who buy that music have different expectations.

 

 

 

Sure, I'm aware of the world of music, I'm asking you how you define "cookie cutter"

 

Man up, you're being a coward with the attacks.  STAY ON TOPIC, you created the term, Define it please

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, synn said:

 Try reading instead of asking to be spoon fed. All the information is on the site. If you buy the record, they will even send you a nice PDF that even covers the mike placements.

 

 

MIC not mike, there are no Mikes in a recording you arrogant fool.

 

I see it was recorded in 5.1 SURROUND + STEREO produced in DXD (Digital eXtreme Definition 352kHz/24bit) by Lindberg Lyd, Norway

 

SO OF COURSE that is the actual master.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...