Yep. Added to library.
Mastering credited to Greg Calbi… who seems to have some significant previous credits…
1 Like
I do know what SOME people think, and that’s what I said. Why do people get so heated about this and about MQA. What’s important to some is totally unimportant to others. I want to hear what I like and don’t care what processing was done to get it there. Sometimes, the original recordings sound like crap.
Why can’t we just be free to express our opinions without being told our opinions don’t count?
Some may guess what I’m thinking right now but that doesn’t mean they really know what I’m thinking. 
People can … but they should endeavour to stay on topic. This thread isn’t intended for anti-MQA rhetoric–there are plenty of other threads for that–it’s about the idea of provenance.
I love MQA. Also, you don’t have to guess what someone is thinking. You hear what they are saying.
1 Like
I think you’re bluffing…
1 Like
If only we could authenticate that thought…
1 Like
Neither is it intended for pro-MQA rhetoric. Whether MQA sounds good to you is not pertinent to the topic of Provenance. Also, whether MQA sounds horrible or is just mp3’s dressed up in a gown with lipstick is also not pertinent to the topic.
It is about whether MQA can provide a mechanism for reliable provenance information in it’s own releases.
That being said, since provenance requires trust, it IS, in my humble opinion, a relevant topic on whether MQA’s previous marketing has sullied the water, so to speak.
6 Likes
I agree with you on all points.
I actually thought you would. 
1 Like
So, since we seem to be getting back on track… @danny , you said you are investigating how to get the information in the repository of signers from MQA. That would at least identify who is providing the source to be encoded. Is there other metadata you are trying to acquire as well?
Sounds like this thread is getting a bit toxic. It’s time to move on and be more constructive in other threads. As i mentioned here, we are at 5 years mark, nothing has changed but fading off. Those hanging on are numbered, those who have moved on already enjoyed the goodness what Roon has to offer🤣
1 Like
I’m in total agreement, my argumentation against MQA has been due to their track record. They have repeatedly issued “Masters 
” that have a digital resolution way above what was originally recorded.
Sorry I do not buy the remixed in analog moniker. Analog mastering/remixing is only done because the engineer or the artist/band likes the sound signature.
It does not make a 24/44 recording into a better technical quality it just adds a noise signature.
Regarding provenance, a local painter sold one of his paintings to a company. He later found out that the company intended to cut up the painting to use as the face of watches. Even though he sold the painting he went to court, not wanting his painting cut up and won, on the basis that the painting would loose it’s provenance. No connection just a fun story
I’m adding some points of clarification here since remixing is not mastering and mastering in analogue has nothing to do with MQA. In the Coldplay example it was the artist’s choice to master in analogue (each track was mixed in digital.) In the Madonna example the original mix (analogue tape) was converted to digital for remastering.
The fact that the ADC used a higher sample rate and bit depth to capture the master is not relevant either; the engineers were working with an analogue source. This is very different to, for example, converting a lossy MP3 to a lossless FLAC.
Regarding a 44.1kHz MQA stream unfolding to 88.2kHz, this is explained in the following post.
However, I agree that MQA has failed to deliver on their promise of provenance–a point I made in my opening post.
2 Likes
Well, it is relevant to some degree, and it is not “very different” even if it is different and not to be blamed on MQA encoding itself. But your point is taken.
MQA failed IMO because it (or any other encoding) the wrong tool for the job. A bottom up, software/tech solution was never going to fix all the divergent practices and procedures of the recording/mastering/label/delivery chain, because the problem itself is not a “tech” problem, it’s a market and cultural problem.
Martin
The point is that however You look at it if You start out with a 24/44 file DA it to analog remaster/master or remix (i’m aware what the differences are) in the analogue domain (to add the nice analogue noise) then You do not gain a higher technical quality by sampling it at 24/384 (or less) You only gain the sound of the analogue mixing console. And when MQA is only able to contain a dynamic range of about 17 bits why waste the space with 24 bits. Regarding Madonna I will remind You that only some of the voice recordings were done analogue.
Since we are talking provenance here it’s very relevant, an MP3 saved as FLAC does not make it magically into a lossless file. As well as converting a 24/48 file to analogue and then sample it to 24/384 makes any better than the original 24/48 file.
All you need for that discovery you refer to is a band name, band members’ names, producer etc and you’re sorted. Nothing to do with provenance as discussed here.
I think it has everything to do with what needs to be discussed here. I want the information you listed, and more, encoded in the file or stream I listen through Roon and all my devices. That way there is no uncertainty that I’m listening to the product of those artists and not just a different version to which those credits may have been erroneously applied.
Just to correct something here; in the case of the Coldplay album it was recorded at 32-bit float/48kHz not 24/48 as has been stated multiple times in this thread.
It was then mastered in the analogue domain and digitised again to 24/96.
Well You are aware that the number of bits only has influence on the dynamic range ? The “Everyday Life” album has a Dynamic range from 3 to 7 in the actual “songs” This Dynamic range is below what a 78 rpm record could muster in 1889 !!! Which means that the 32 bits in this case is just a matter of a standard setting their recording software.
The 48 kHz sampling rate is more interesting as this gives the possibility to record up to 24000 Hz. Not because we can actually hear those frequencies, but because that lets us use a gentler digital filter to keep out unwanted frequencies. But why upsample the signal to 96 kHz when no signal has been captured from 24001 to 48000 Hz (other than the noise from the analogue mixer)?
Just had a thought, how do You save a floating file?
1 Like
There is an interesting reply on Provenance at the end of this article.
https://audiophilereview.com/audiophile-news/what-does-master-quality-mean-to-me-or-you.html