MQA disappointing


(Rudi) #893

For argument’s sake:
You would be right if the exact circumstances of the recording setup (incl. the actual pieces of equipment used) could be replicated as they were at the time of recording and measured for calibration. I think some reasonable doubt is appropriate whether that would be possible. In a hypothetical case, where the configuration could be replicated, the equipment would have aged and its characteristics would have changed since the recording, making de-blurring impossible.
Besides the procedure of fingerprinting the equipment used being totally impractical.


(Chris ) #894

You seem to assume The MQA people don’t know all this and have to capability to deal with things. But, clearly, you know best so you must be right. I stand corrected…


(Rudi) #895

Good links to further information in there as well. After reading the whole thing you pretty much see the whole landscape (incl. the relevant players).
:slight_smile:


(Rudi) #896

I assume nothing. I simply imagine the effort required to

  • find out the exact recording configuration
  • replicate it
  • measure the fingerprint

for each recording that is MQAed
Sounds quite a lot of effort to do for one recording, let alone for hundreds a month


(Chris ) #897

Well that’s is what has been going on in the background for a long time and is a reason releases from older recording are taking a long time to come through.
Also, this work costs money and shows that the idea that MQA are getting fat on license fees for little effort is a false idea.
Perhaps you should read the blog on Fairytales white glove treatment to see how much work and research is required. You are not going to do this for a quick buck.


(Rudi) #898

Thanks for the background, Chris. I wasn’t aware of this. Tip o’ the hat to the good folks at MQA.
I think I now see the light.
:slight_smile:


#899

I am all wrong and you have everything all right good for you.


(Jeff) #900

A handful of white glove treatment but the majority is a batch process. Labels simple won’t spend money on the process, there is nothing to be gained. Their win is in not releasing the absolute best quality available along with the control licensed playback can give them in the future. There is absolutely no win for a label with regards to advertised sound quality improvements, the audiophile market is less than 1%.

Deblurring:
Single source A/D conversion is one thing but how do you deblur multi-track digital albums that used many different A/D converters or even digital sampling?


#901

Only the Hi-Res stereo mixed down (final copy for distribution) is sent to MQA Ltd for processing. Multi-tracks Hi-Res are ‘crown jewel’ belong exclusively to the music labels.

MQA said it compensates some issue of the A/D de-blurring but it doesn’t state it is done during the A/D process; recording session at the music studios.


(Rudi) #902

I guess the emoji didn’t quite reflect the tongue in cheek between Chris and myself
:wink:


(Music and Shawarma Lover) #903

Obviously contradicted by the pro MQA posts to which others respond. This has been a dialog, not a monologue. Not saying it’s always productive, but finger pointing at one side (and there aren’t really sides because both pro and con folks have their individual reasons) doesn’t recognize the reality of the thread.


#904

As long as MQA is paying people to spread their propaganda in forums like this, there never will be a honest discussion about this topic.
It’s a pity, that in our days this is not a special thing and most companys are doing it. I hope with the new EU-GDPR a change is possible. It can be very expensive for the poster if a company sponsored post is not labeled as advertisement.


#905

Please elaborate. Just who is MQA paying to spread ‘their propaganda’ in this forum, or would you like to retract your assertion?


#906

#907

I know exactly what the term ‘Ad hominem’ means, but why on earth have you decided that I need to know in respect of this post. I’m genuinely puzzled by your very strange post.

I simply asked you to clarify your accusation that MQA is paying members of this forum to give positive feedback about MQA. As a recent member of this forum and who has posted on a number of occasions to say that I find the inclusion of MQA Masters in Tidal’s streaming service to be a positive thing, I want to make sure that your accusation is not being aimed at me.

It strikes me that if you are not prepared to offer any supporting evidence than I should be the person explaining to you what the term ad hominem’ means.


#908

I personally don’t really make a difference between those guys, and the heir to a cigarettes-and-apartheid fortune, but, well…


#909

I don’t know you, and so I would never accuse you of something.
Stating that companies pay people to manipulate discussions to their own good, doesn`t mean that someone who has the same opinion can not be independent. Most people are. But unfortunatly not all.


(Chris ) #910

That is so lame an answer. Name and shame please or admit it’s just your assumption based on zero facts…


#911

Utter piffle


#912

Anyone else notice chrislayercake is the predominate propionate/defender of MQA here?