As far as I know, JA is still using his PonoPlayer frequently like some other well known audio reviewer.
My my Pono LE Norah Jones is still in use and I own a Codex as well as DAC/Headphone Amp and PreAmp for powered studio monitors in one of my listening systems and I’m very pleased with the sound quality.
Anyway, we shouldn’t hijack this thread any longer.
To return to the original topic: What I meant with my explanation about the “blue light” of the PonoPlayer is that there is in principle no difference to how the blue light on MQA DACs is to interpret. The labels send a file to MQA for automated encoding, that is the background of “authentication”, necessary for the blue light. It means nothing for the real quality of the delivered file, presumably it is the same upsampled one, they send to some download stores or HiRes streaming provider.
When you purchase a HiRes album from a download store, you can check it yourself with appropriate and easy to use analysis tools and get a refund if your complaint is provable entitled. You can’t check a downloaded MQA file because MQA is a black box for analysing tools. Concerning HiRes or MQA streaming, you don’t know anything about the real quality of the track, streamed from your provider and it is not easy to verify for a common customer, if at all.
I cannot agree with the optimism of @danny that MQA and/or Bob Stuart will accomplish any progress for real provenance, even if he’s really keen do it. In my perception, the validity of MQA marketing claims and presentations from Bob Stuart are comparable to the Twitter gush of the “genius”, currently resident in Washington DC.
There’s nothing ‘provenance’ and ‘authenticate’ about MQA. Firstly studios can do anything they like about their recordings; whether it is up-sampled, convert from lossy to lossless, applying loudness and special DSP processing, the final copies are passed to MQA Ltd for encoding. It’s that simple!
The ‘lose’ authentication of MQA encoded files is simply making sure the first 16 bit of data is not modified during storage and streaming so it be decoded subsequently. If change the upper 8 bit, you still can decode MQA! Now what does it means? True authentication means if the data is modified in any way and failed to decode, it should NOT playback at all! We are coming to the 5 years mark for MQA, it is failed format still clinging desperately because of Tidal. All other streaming providers have moved away and provide lossless streaming. I find it is the waste of time debating here. Move on and enjoy the nice music on Roon has to offer.
There are sad news for efforts to identify fake HiRes files and finally provenance and correctness of distributed music files.
Xivero.com, developer of the widely-used analysis software tool MusicScope is going to shut down end of November. Highresaudio.com is using the server version of MusicScope to filter suspect music files delivered from the labels.
Xivero.com was one of the first audio software specialists who gave us a deeper understanding of what MQA really is: https://www.xivero.com/downloads/MQA-Technical_Analysis-Hypotheses-Paper.pdf
Next point in the “game” against transparency and provenenance for the labels and some dependent providers. One important pain in the ass of the music industry must resign.
I’ll pop this here as it deals with provenance of the new Coldplay album
When you post stuff like this it makes me very happy that I did not buy the lifetime subscription.
You wasted how many man-years of development to advance Bob Stuart vision? Tell me exactly how this effort improved Roon.
And how many other, actually useful, features you did not include in the product because of that.
Roon is my preference in terms of usability, SQ etc that’s why I pay for a subscription. Not to advance Bob Stuart vision.
And what MQA can actually improve comparing to 96/24 or 192/24 FLAC. Or even 16/441 FLAC?
Do not repeat MQA marketing BS just spell clearly what improvements I can expect in terms of sound quality comparing to hi-res FLAC file.
Sure, some folks want MQA give them MQA. but that’s different that to chain the company to the quest for MQA domination of the entire chain of production and distribution of digital audio, limiting users choices to one.
Have you actually read this thread or are you simply trolling? The discussion is about MQA and provenance, not the merits of the format … there are enough threads about that already!
To quote @danny, this is about the “A” in MQA and as I said earlier it’s got some way to go to be useful. Moreover, provenance is more that just digital authentication. Take the latest Coldplay release …
Everyday Life is the 8th studio album by British rock band Coldplay , released in MQA from the 96-kHz 24-bit Master by Atlantic/Parlophone on 22 November 2019.
The album mixes were all supplied at 32-bit float/48kHz. They were then played back at their native resolution through Digital-to-Analog converters, run through and processed on analog mastering gear and then captured at 24-bit/96kHz.
In a few years’ time when there are alternative versions and remasters of Everyday Life provenance is more important.
This information is starting to address provenance and it’s how this could be presented through Roon that interests me, and from reading Danny’s comments I think that’s what he wants to do: “they have the data AND the means, they lack the system to present it.”
but, but, but, this is not true. “they” (by which I think you mean MQA Ltd.) do not have the means, because “they” don’t have a market that incentivizes the labels and general label culture to be a “trusted source”. An example here or there are only exceptions that prove the rule
On top of that, even if “trusted sources” really existed, the “A” in MQA would be the last solution anyone would want because of all the anti-consumer bagage of MQA. The tech part of a provenance solution is the easy part, and a trivial update to FLAC or any other software format would be all that is needed.
MQA is a poison pill, and those who insist on pointing to it as a “solution” for anything are going to illicit comments like @wormcycle every time, and rightly so. In fact is it not “trolling” to suggest otherwise?
I didn’t mean anything, I was quoting Danny. But evidently, they do have the data and the means if they choose you make use of it. And this is the crux of the matter. Just because something isn’t done now doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
First, that’s just it, it is not evident that they have the data at all. Even if they have it at the beginning, and perhaps for a few years, the data is lost/mismanaged to such a consistent degree that the assertion of “a trusted source” is a bit like sightings of Big Foot and Lessy.
The “why” of this mismanagement and lack of care speaks to the “choice” to which you refer. The cultural and market conditions that contextualize and incentivise the mismanagement are what they are, and are not fixable with a tech solution. So it is not a matter of means and simple choice as you would have it. Without incentive (market and thus monetarily) why would they choose to do anything at all, particularly something that takes planning, management, and money?
[[quote=“Martin_Webster, post:198, topic:83875”]
Have you actually read this thread or are you simply trolling? The discussion is about MQA and provenance, not the merits of the format
[/quote]
OK you want to talk about provenance. Check Webster. Provenance is not the goal by itself is more like a process to ensure authenticity through tracking the ownership path of art objects etc… there is absolutely no need for that in the digital file domain
Have you heard about keyless signature technology that provides mass-scale, non-expiring data validation and, unlike key based signature, eliminates the need for secrets or other forms of digital trust?
Do you really think that big data and banking industry waited for Bob Stuart to give them the means to ensure that the copy of a file is identical and authentic?
Nobody cares how many steps it took to digitize the recording as long as the product, or a copy of the product, can be checked as authentic.
It is another example of MQA creating a fuzzy definition of something that is well understood, at least in the digital domain, presenting is as a problem and finding a “creative” solution that nobody needs.
Well MQA has already destroyed the provenance of this album.
The band prefers to capture in the studio and to mix in a 48-kHz environment. Then MQA runs it through a ADC and make a 24/96 version.
That doesn’t spell provenance as the files are now presented as true 24/96…from a 48k source (stupid me, the file has of course been “unfolded”)
Clearly you haven’t read the information on this and it’s MQA transfer…
As I understand it, the owner of the music has the say on provenance. So the band may have sold their rights to the record studio or other. I believe that MQA will never upsample to a higher rate than the original master recording. So it might be out on cd at 44, or hi rez at 96, but if the master tape was 352, then that is what MQA will decode and full unfold to.
The full MQA unfold is giving me the best music of my life. It really works. Of course, if there was bad miking or bad processing to get the Master, then MQA cannot fix that. It can fix the a/d and d processing if it was done improperly, and it can do the reconstruction better than most other alternatives I have heard.
Has it? I don’t think so: you’ve completely misunderstood the processing.
Coldplay prefer to use a familiar studio to record and mix. This is done on 48kHz 32bit float equipment by the studio. Then they pass the mix to Emily Lazar for mastering. This uses a DAC to run the mix through their analogue mastering gear which is then captured at 96kHz 24bit. From this master we get the MQA release.
However, my point isn’t about the technology per se but rather the effort that has gone into documenting provenance and making this available. Unfortunately, this release is an exception.
Martin,
They present a 48k recording as a 96k recording, right along the lines of them presenting MQA as lossless. They just seem unable to stick to the truth.
If You get a file/piece of music presented (in ROON it shows up as a 96k file) as 24/96, that is not truthful, since the original recordings have been captured at 48k. Processing them analog and them digitizing them at 96k does not make them 96k recordings.
The problem here is that MQA are trying to position themselves as the protectors of provenance. Then they pulls a stunt like this. They even presented an old Madonna album as 24/96 that was originally recorded at 14/44.
They have no grasp…
Well Chris, if You think mixing in analog makes the resolution of a 48k recording into a 96k recording…
You need to get a better understanding of how things work.
It is simply not possible to recreate something that was not originally captured
Personally, I want to listen to music that sounds good. That is what’s important to me.
Well that is exactly what has happened in this instance, who knows how many others.
A digital 48k recording, whether mixed digital or analog, can only be upsampled (Sorry that’s unfolded) to 96k. Which is not to say that it will contain the same information as if the original capture was done at 96k
Well, to be fair, every high res site that is selling Like A Virgin is doing the exact same thing. The thing I find interesting is that Bob said that there was no digital mixing; when those involved in the 80s have said that a Sony FS-1 was used for the mixing. Hence, the albums original DDD SPARS code.
For a more comprehensive article on the actual original recording:
https://www.soundonsound.com/people/madonna-virgin