Don’t ask me, that’s up to the mastering engineer or the label who owns the rights.
Peter, You must remember to thank Bob Stuart for having spend so much money to collect “support statements”
The funny thing is NOBODY outside of the ones paid to shill for MP3 vers. 2 is out in support of it.
At the moment there is no recordings out that has used anything but PCM or DSD to record. Why is that?
With all of the perceived advantages? Simply because they want ALL of the information that is available in the PCM master.
I asked You about two album reviews that You posted. Your answer is quoting two completely different albums. Just to remind You they were: Christian Weidner : Every Hour Of The Light And Dark & Giovanni Guidi, Gianluca Petrella, Louis Sclavis & Gerald Cleaver : Ida Lupino. You then go on about Judy Collins - Strangers Again and an insignificant producer. That nobody has ever heard of outside of Bob Stuarts company referring to him (to get their moneys worth)
2 Likes
Early implementations were certainly a problem, and they improved with time. However steep filters were part of the problem. High resolution PCM developed in part because it was possible to use gentle roll-off filters at higher sample rates, and they were found to sound better - by both designers and studio engineers.
1 Like
Well that’s not true. I have been involved in more than a dozen “takedowns” of albums that had been degraded by Bob Stuart (BS) and his cohorts. Without the knowledge of the Mastering engineer or rights owner.
These albums are no longer available in MP3 vers.2
In most cases the rights holders didn’t even know what BS’s “format” was.
4 Likes
Steep filters are still used to good effect, to some ears. It’s not the only factor that governs the quality of reconstruction. There’s plenty of scope for innovation in digital to analogue conversion, but it’s difficult to evaluate the MQA proposition objectively. I’m still left wondering why I’d choose to pay to adopt a closed format over a free, open one that I prefer the sound of, can tweak with my own filters and could implement myself at a push?
6 Likes
Peter-
You somehow forgot to mention Neil Young, who had the MQA versions of his masters removed from Tidal - because he said didn’t sound like his masters (which he owns) and had their sound altered by the MQA process without his knowledge or approval.
He was adamant that the MQA version was neither a “master” nor “authenticated”.
7 Likes
Question:
If MQA is so great and superior sounding, how come no label is using it as an archive format, only as a marketing format?
8 Likes
Oh, a quiz? 
- because they want the full resolution
- because it’s all a matter of DRM
- because BS gave them shares, so they get revenue
Did I get it right, is there a prize?
2 Likes
Yes!
Your prize is to be free to choose the format you prefer - am I allowed to choose my preference as well?
Enjoy the music Kenneth and don’t worry so much about MQA if you don’t like it.
Cheers!
There are always a balance of factors, and you can hypothetically trade an improvement in one or another area (modulator design for example) against lack of improvement in another. However doing one variable experiments to the extent possible, the enhanced ability to use slow roll-off transition bands has been a major argument for high resolution over the years.
Would it make a difference to the said mastering engineer if the sibilants are shown to be distorted? Maybe the mastering engineer has just become accustomed to distortion in sound and likes it that way?
The point in mastering, at least in acoustic recordings, is to be as faithful as possible to the original sound (live feed). I realize that the mastering engineer is usually far down in the chain, coming after recording and mixing, and usually doesn’t have access to the live feed. However recording/balance engineers like Morten L., who do coherent, acoustic, minimalist recordings, have very good access to the original and would know why they are saying that the smoothing of sibilants is a good thing.
It isn’t and shouldn’t be an archiving format. The archive should be the most direct form of the original, in case new and better correction or encoding is developed in the future.
There might be an exception in correcting A/D errors at the point of recording, as long as there is agreement about the error and its correction. Having to try to correct a correction at a later point in time is hopeless, so if the correction is in the archive, it needs to be right.
1 Like
Wow, I win. I got all the answers right
Do not worry, i’m enjoying the music as it was recorded and mixed. In PCM with no licens scammer interfering in the artistic choices made by the team that actually make the music.
Wow, I got all the answers right
You can have Your altered format, but please do stop being a shill, spouting marketing material that You clearly do not understand.
It might be appropriate for me to disclose that I have spend many hours in recording studios over the years. I’m lucky enough to be invited for a few recording sessions each year. Hence I know the sound of the studios. Us consumers can not get it, BS’s format is further away from the studio than straight PCM/FLAC.
2 Likes
If anyone needs to be informed properly about MQA, I might be tempted to jump in again,
Maybe it might interest you and your friends in the recording studio, you might get in touch with some mastering engineers who are using MQA.
I see that argument been made but usually (only?) in relation to MQA, other arguments are available:
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/origami/ThereAndBack.html
You say potato and I say…
1 Like
in fact there are loads of DACs that do upsampling which often results in smoothing of the sound and removes what some call digititis.
Unfolding, sorry upsampling is often used for that effect. Look at the Chord Hugo M Scaler it upsamples to the max which result in shallower filters used by the attached DAC. Reviews of this, describes it as natural, full of details, analog etc.
3 Likes
While I don’t run to buying an M Scaler, Chords approach to reconstruction is my preferred one.
1 Like
Yup, that’s real innovation, take the music people have.
Play it back in the best way possible.
2 Likes
They don’t have to, I remember an article published by MQA that covered this very point. There are times with certain music where you want the distortions. That’s fine as you can set it exactly as you wish. That’s an artistic decision. MQA is not an all or nothing process…
Just keep the spirit alive Kenneth! Have fun - cheers
1 Like