MQA Off-Topic Spinoff

[PeterSt]

12 minutes ago, Shadders said:

OK - thanks. The embedded does not link - so how are you decoding MQA ?

 

Ehm ... by an MQA decoder ?

Or is that a very unexpected answer ?

 

In such a link there's this diagonal arrow (edit : in the top right of it).  Click on that.

[rickca]

4 hours ago, PeterSt said:

The best part of MQA was taken (the deblurring part) and the distrusted part (which normally needs MQA hardware) was replaced by software.

Really brilliant! 

[PeterSt]

8 hours ago, PeterSt said:

23 hours ago, synn said:

i love Megadeth too though. But now I digress... @PeterSt may I suggest “countdown to extinction “ as the next project?

 

edit: it appears “Rust in peace” (their best album) has an original and a 2004 remaster)

 

Ha !  Both are on Tidal. And ... an MQA of it. All seem to be from a different master.

 

Original : 4.5dB better (than my set average etc.).

Remaster : 6dB worse than above.

MQA : Same as the Remaster.

 

So now I should listen to a compressed version in order to compare with MQA. Grrr.

 

Unexpected report :

 

I had to heat up the system. So I thought : why not. Let's play Rust in Peace to get in the mood. They say it is brilliant, so ...

 

So it is. I played it throughout in the least compressed version.

Then on to the MQA, last two tracks only.

 

Dawn Patrol. Picked for a reason because a quieter track. Infinitely better than the 6dB less compressed one I played 6 minutes ago. A serious example of "into the dead mouth". Yep.

Then Rust in Peace. A ton of noise. Just to much noise and all what made sense at first (what about Black Sabbath melody and rythm changes) now did not work at all AT ALL.

 

Funnily enough we have the opportunity to listen to the same compression level of non-MQA (see quote above). Okay ...

Now Dawn Patrol tells nothing any more. So want an apparent example of what MQA does ? list to how you see how thick the strings of the lower keyed guitar is (you'd say a bass guitar but it isn't). Mind you, the MQA version. And how its wounded.  Now try again with the Redbook Remaster (on Tidal). Nothing, totally nothing comes forward of this. No dead-head either.

And Rust in Peace ? if so possible, even more noise.

 

Next one ... the real test. System should be steaming.

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

Ehm ... by an MQA decoder ?

Or is that a very unexpected answer ?

 

In such a link there's this diagonal arrow (edit : in the top right of it).  Click on that.

Hi PeterSt,

OK- thanks.

Have you therefore paid MQA Ltd, signed the NDA, and implemented an MQA decoder as approved and signed off by MQA Ltd ?

Thanks and regards,

Shadders.

[Abtr]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

... Super Collider (Megadeth) is from the same master. But I hear it is not advised to listen to it. I will myself in a small hour. ...

I don't think the Tidal MQA version and non-MQA version of Super Collider use the same master. The non-MQA version is louder and in my system (and in this case) the MQA version sounds better (if that's the right term), more space/reverb, less fatiguing, etc..

[PeterSt]

 

2 minutes ago, Abtr said:

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

... Super Collider (Megadeth) is from the same master. But I hear it is not advised to listen to it. I will myself in a small hour. ...

I don't think the Tidal MQA version and non-MQA version of Super Collider use the same master. The non-MQA version is louder and in my system (and in this case) the MQA version sounds better (if that's the right term), more space/reverb, less fatiguing, etc..

 

You must be in denial now. Hahaha.

 

Why the "loudness" as such changes, I explained elsewhere. Must be able to do that again but trust me - you look at the wrong measure now.

 

I am into the third track and think it is great so far. Plays way loud as background music. After another track on to the Redbook (which thus us way less compressed).

[PeterSt]

8 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

After another track on to the Redbook (which thus us way less compressed).

 

Oops, way MORE compressed.

 

And I already hear in the first track I'm playing of that (Off the Edge) that all is gland now. There's too much push. It's not nice any more. Stressed. Want to turn it off etc.

[Abtr]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Oops, way MORE compressed.

 

And I already hear in the first track I'm playing of that (Off the Edge) that all is gland now. There's too much push. It's not nice any more. Stressed. Want to turn it off etc.

So we agree?

[PeterSt]

What I don't understand is why nobody pointed out to me Peace Sells - But nobody is buying.

And then the Black Friday track. 

OK, I know. The non-MQA is so much different (master) that I had to listen 3 times before I knew it is actually the same song.

 

Both equally compress (way too much) but the non-MQA is way way better. It is listenable. The MQA one is not.

[Abtr]

21 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

What I don't understand is why nobody pointed out to me Peace Sells - But nobody is buying.

And then the Black Friday track. 

OK, I know. The non-MQA is so much different (master) that I had to listen 3 times before I knew it is actually the same song.

 

Both equally compress (way too much) but the non-MQA is way way better. It is listenable. The MQA one is not.

So we agree it's not the same master. And you prefer the non-MQA version. OK.. 

[Cornan]

24 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

What I don't understand is why nobody pointed out to me Peace Sells - But nobody is buying.

And then the Black Friday track. 

OK, I know. The non-MQA is so much different (master) that I had to listen 3 times before I knew it is actually the same song.

 

Both equally compress (way too much) but the non-MQA is way way better. It is listenable. The MQA one is not.

 

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are hearing? I can admit that MQA was'nt that big deal that I was hoping for, but it is still a step-up from FLAC IMO. Like a good FLAC recording. No doubt!

Would I want MQA? It depends. If all FLAC was great recorded I would'nt miss it, but so far I do! ?

[Ralf11]

People are concerned about MQA bringing DRM

[fas42]

7 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

It is a bit too bad that you have this example from a 2L based album, but the explanation normally is that any (random) means of better playback/reproduction implies more "hall". Remember what I said yesterday about the Metallica and "now it is stereo" ? it is an example of such an improvement. In this example it was about less squashed music, but we must realize how much waves in air interact and how the sharper they are the more 3d things become (including a more vibrant stereo image).

And all improvement is about "sharper". Sharper but in a good way and thus easily bearable.

 

Thrash metal and such has always been totally off my radar - it may as well never happened, in terms of my exposure to it. But seeing how Metallica is being focused on, I grabbed an audio segment of Kill Em All from a YouTube clip, of the early 80's mastering - and, must say, excellent stress test for playback. Huge cymbals, reverb, soundstaging, vocals deeply embedded, frantically driving - it's got all the ingredients to bring non-optimum systems to their knees, effortlessly.

 

This is the sort of material I enjoy working with, because the transfomation when a setup gets it right is truly amazing ...

[Miska]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Thrash metal and such has always been totally off my radar - it may as well never happened, in terms of my exposure to it. But seeing how Metallica is being focused on, I grabbed an audio segment of Kill Em All from a YouTube clip, of the early 80's mastering - and, must say, excellent stress test for playback. Huge cymbals, reverb, soundstaging, vocals deeply embedded, frantically driving - it's got all the ingredients to bring non-optimum systems to their knees, effortlessly.

 

This is the sort of material I enjoy working with, because the transfomation when a setup gets it right is truly amazing ...

 

Long time ago in the past, I used Metallica to test MP3 encoders, because some encoders just run totally confused and started producing really audible artifacts.

 

But now I use three newer things that are usually mastered better. Steven Wilson's solo productions (also available as hires), Procupine Tree (one of Steven Wilson's projects) and Opeth (where Stevel Wilson participates in newer albums). Well, I guess you got the plot...

 He has also remastered bunch of older prog-rock...

 

[fas42]

5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Hey Shadders - Everything. The whole chain. Playback software, D/A converter, Dedicated Audio PC (with LPS), Amplifiers, Loudspeakers. Interlinks, USB cables. The only think I can think of what we do not design/make is power cords. Maybe next year.

Playback software explicitly includes Operating System leanness (beyond AudioPhil and WindowX together), OS running completely from RAM (no HDD/SSD) and of course Tidal support and MQA; MQA hardware purposely not for the reason of not being able to apply my own filtering easily - but I have it for myself.

 

This is the approach that works. I always, always, always think of the system as a whole as being the beast that has to be brought under control - any part of it not pulling its weight correctly is what has to be addressed, and doing that yields the worthwhile returns.

 

I am truly amazed at the amount of talk, discussion being expended on MQA - this is worth, maybe, 0.01% of what's worth doing to get optimum sound.

[Miska]

2 hours ago, Cornan said:

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are hearing? I can admit that MQA was'nt that big deal that I was hoping for, but it is still a step-up from FLAC IMO. Like a good FLAC recording. No doubt!

Would I want MQA? It depends. If all FLAC was great recorded I would'nt miss it, but so far I do! ?

 

Why do you think it would be step-up from FLAC? IMO, it is step-down with reduced resolution and use-case restrictive proprietary way to decode it. I fail to see anything positive on it, only negative sides.

 

[Abtr]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

This is the approach that works. I always, always, always think of the system as a whole as being the beast that has to be brought under control - any part of it not pulling its weight correctly is what has to be addressed, and doing that yields the worthwhile returns.

 

I am truly amazed at the amount of talk, discussion being expended on MQA - this is worth, maybe, 0.01% of what's worth doing to get optimum sound.

Right, DR/mastering is much more important.

[Miska]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

People are concerned about MQA bringing DRM

 

Well, it is already such. You need to have approved hardware or software to decode it in first place. (until reverse-engineered open source version appears in VLC/ffmpeg)

 

In comparison, you don't need anybody's approval or specific hardware or software to be able to decode FLAC, ALAC, MP3, AAC...

[Cornan]

1 minute ago, Miska said:

 

Why do you think it would be step-up from FLAC? IMO, it is step-down with reduced resolution and use-case restrictive proprietary way to decode it. I fail to see anything positive on it, only negative sides.

 

 

As far as I see it the same album with FLAC with MQA is a step-up in SQ with more HF revealed. Not a lot, but still worth it IMHO. It is similar to a bad recording on FLAC to a good one IMO.

[fas42]

12 minutes ago, Cornan said:

 

As far as I see it the same album with FLAC with MQA is a step-up in SQ with more HF revealed. Not a lot, but still worth it IMHO. It is similar to a bad recording on FLAC to a good one IMO.

 

The "more HF revealed" type of thing really gets me - audiophile systems generically do their utmost to dump, discard the real HF content - the giveaway is that cymbals typically sound blahh!! on them. Then they try and "recover" what they've just thrown out ...

 

The pattern is, when more HF is heard, it's obviously distorted, and sounds unpleasant. So, just cut it off, with a pair of scissors - so much nicer now!! But ... the playback now lacks life, sparkle - what do I do to recover that ... and round and round and round we go - and never are the real issues addressed ...

[crenca]

On 11/23/2017 at 12:12 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I missed that. Anyone have a link?

 

oops, not sure why I put it that way - I was trying to point out the fact that even MQA's supporters (e.g. TAS, labels, MQA) support the notion of a DRM protection of "crown jewels", which is backed into the design of one level of resolution for IP licensed, reduced for another...

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

oops, not sure why I put it that way - I was trying to point out the fact that even MQA's supporters (e.g. TAS, labels, MQA) support the notion of a DRM protection of "crown jewels", which is backed into the design of one level of resolution for IP licensed, reduced for another...

And nobody gets the full master resolution.

[mansr]

47 minutes ago, Cornan said:

As far as I see it the same album with FLAC with MQA is a step-up in SQ with more HF revealed. Not a lot, but still worth it IMHO. It is similar to a bad recording on FLAC to a good one IMO.

MQA has reduced HF content. The "core" decodes to 96 kHz, then the "render" filters roll off the high frequencies somewhat.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

until reverse-engineered open source version appears in VLC/ffmpeg

Don't hold your breath:

https://trac.videolan.org/vlc/ticket/18029

[esldude]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

MQA has reduced HF content. The "core" decodes to 96 kHz, then the "render" filters roll off the high frequencies somewhat.

Maybe some aliasing is replacing the lost HF.