Years ago when I first used ITunes I lost a lot of files I could never account for, since then nothing, who knows ?
Paul McGowan said So far MQA decoding has only been worse and that has not changed. We suspect (as do they) that it's because the tricks they're using with filters to try and make the sound better (closer to the original source material in their parlance) screws with our own in the DAC. They then suggest they need to tune their decoder to our filters for best results.If that’s all true then we’re out. As you’ve seen with Torreys, Ted and the engineers continue to improve the state of the art with digital filters on a regular basis - and one of the whole reasons we went to an FPGA based DAC in the first place was the freedom to improve the product’s performance over time. If we were restricted in what we could to future developments, held back because everything in the USB chain had to be “fixed” by the MQA engineers first… that would be nuts.
They’ve never said that has to be so and I am merely speculating as we wait for an answer.
I too wish they’d just release this as software so the compressed file could be decoded and leave the DAC design to us.
Hi Paul,
Is your FPGA based DAC technology also able to correct for ADC errors made by older anti-aliasing filters used during recordings in the past? It seems that the MQA software is able to do this and is creating a transparant window back in time. This feature within MQA is what fascinates me most. As soon as there is a reasonable library with MQA coded records available which will contain digital recordings from the 80’s then this aspect should not only be audible, but also measureable… Or is this a wrong statement?
An apodizing filter corrects most of the ills of not great anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters in the audio chain. It simply shaves a small amount of the high frequencies off nibbling on the phase errors and some of the preringing caused by earlier filters. One wonders how much of the MQA goodness that one hears about is simply the apodizing filter. You don’t need MQA to apply an apodizing filter, they are available in many DACs these days as well as some software players, etc.
dvorak saidUnfortunately, the 96/24 version of the file will be no better.By the way, what do you mean by a "a typically awful “CD quality” master file?" What is this?Just referring to the actual PCM content of many modern CDs, which is what I understand most labels use as their "masters" when submitting to iTunes. The awfulness in question is largely due to the Loudness Wars – a result of production practices not any inherent limitation of 16-bit 44.1ksps PCM audio.
If the producer and artist wants the sound of compression the higher bit-rate file will be compressed as well. Dynamic compression both allows for a louder overall mix, but also introduces a specific sound which is often desirable for pop/rock, especially on vocals and bass guitar.
Mastering engineers do not add extra compression simply for 44/16, there is no reason to do so; the dynamic range of CD already easily exceeds the dynamic range of the music. Instead, they simply downsample and dither the 96/24 file after all other editing and mastering has been completed.
Everyone records, edits and masters in a high bit-rate format as there are many practical advantages in doing so, and storage and processing power are both cheap.
On my good stereo? Yeah, with this level of equipment a well-made AAC file can be thoroughly enjoyable but the CD is always better.Even those CDs sourced from "a typically awful “CD quality” master file?" :)
However, most of the cost that matters is borne by the music service provider. Go ahead and try and convince companies *which aren't trying to significantly differentiate themselves on the basis of audio quality* that they should double or triple their storage and bandwidth requirements for a change which most of their customers wouldn't appreciate.This is an appealing argument logically, but storage and bandwidth truly are cheap. Consider the free 15GB Google provides the millions who have a free Gmail account. Apple's iTunes profitability is barely impacted by storage and bandwidth requirements, especially storage.
Moreover, offering CD streaming would not double storage and bandwidth requirements. Rather the only impact would be occasioned by that small percentage of users who deliberately choose better sound.
As a practical matter, very few iTunes users will ever hear any improvement wrought from the Marketed for . . .er . . .Mastered for iTunes files; we agree most iTunes users are unconcerned with sound quality and do not possess the requisite equipment. This is further evidence Apple is vastly more interested in marketing than sound. It Apple actually desired to provide better sound it would offer CD streaming. As you note, “the CD is always better.”
Elk said Unfortunately, the 96/24 version of the file will be no better.Your argument mixes a bunch of true facts with overreaching assertions and generalisations. (I am guilty of that too, at times – this is all in the spirit of friendly discussion :) )If the producer and artist wants the sound of compression the higher bit-rate file will be compressed as well. Dynamic compression both allows for a louder overall mix, but also introduces a specific sound which is often desirable for pop/rock, especially on vocals and bass guitar.
Mastering engineers do not add extra compression simply for 44/16, there is no reason to do so; the dynamic range of CD already easily exceeds the dynamic range of the music. Instead, they simply downsample and dither the 96/24 file after all other editing and mastering has been completed.
It is true that you can produce what I termed “awful” high res PCM just as easily as you can produce awful 44/16. An AAC file produced from a 96/24 PCM track will sound essentially identical to an AAC file produced from a 44/16 downsampled version of that same track. If the high res was awful, so too shall be all its derivative versions.
It does not follow that this is the only path for audio production and that no benefit can come from following guidelines such as are outlined in “Mastered for iTunes”.
It is true that dynamic range compression is used primarily for the “sound” it creates rather than any concern about exceeding the dynamic range of the distribution medium.
It does not follow that the Loudness Wars practice of compressing as much as possible of the mixed audio waveform into the top 3dB of the available dynamic range, even if it causes frequent clipping, is automatically applied to every high res master. You can apply large amounts of DRC to individual instruments during recording and post-production to create the sounds of guitars etc as desired, without necessarily producing an “awful” master. Mastering can take place in multiple stages and can fork to produce different products for different media. There are many albums whose high res masters retain much greater dynamic range and/or headroom than the subsequent CD master – especially those for which a vinyl master is also produced.
Everyone records, edits and masters in a high bit-rate format as there are many practical advantages in doing so, and storage and processing power are both cheapYes, of course. That fact doesn't support your arguments though.
I'm not sure why you need this clarified, because I thought I put it unambiguously.On my good stereo? Yeah, with this level of equipment a well-made AAC file can be thoroughly enjoyable but the CD is always better.Even those CDs sourced from "a typically awful “CD quality” master file?" :)
Yes, on my good stereo, lossless 44/16 PCM sounds better to me than AAC produced from that same 44/16 PCM. Always. That shouldn’t surprise anybody. (I haven’t had a chance to compare CD audio with an AAC produced from a higher resolution.)
The main point I tried to make, which I thought would be more interesting to discuss, is that on lesser equipment comparing the exact same files the difference is usually inaudible and sometimes even in favour of the AAC!
Running data centres is anything but cheap. Both Google and Apple are making decisions on optimising their ROI for these services, and they have decided (on the basis of far more information and expertise than you or I possess) to configure them a particular way at this time. Both are subject to change but you can't claim to know better than them on this matter.However, most of the cost that matters is borne by the music service provider. Go ahead and try and convince companies *which aren't trying to significantly differentiate themselves on the basis of audio quality* that they should double or triple their storage and bandwidth requirements for a change which most of their customers wouldn't appreciate.This is an appealing argument logically, but storage and bandwidth truly are cheap. Consider the free 15GB Google provides the millions who have a free Gmail account. Apple's iTunes profitability is barely impacted by storage and bandwidth requirements, especially storage.
Moreover, offering CD streaming would not double storage and bandwidth requirements. Rather the only impact would be occasioned by that small percentage of users who deliberately choose better sound.Are you moving the goalposts? I got the strong impression you were arguing that Apple should be streaming lossless audio all the time, to all users. You know, because bandwidth and storage are so cheap, and if they really cared about sound quality that's what they should do.
Or did I misinterpret you on that?
As a practical matter, very few iTunes users will ever hear any improvement wrought from the Marketed for . . .er . . .Mastered for iTunes files; we agree most iTunes users are unconcerned with sound quality and do not possess the requisite equipment. This is further evidence Apple is vastly more interested in marketing than sound. It Apple actually desired to provide better sound it would offer CD streaming. As you note, "the CD is always better."As you insist on ignoring, "Mastered for iTunes" is always better AAC than "Just Transcode your Loudness Wars CDs" AAC. Every Apple customer gets better audio quality, for free, every time one of the music publishers follows the Mastered for iTunes guidelines in preparing their audio files. This is true even on modest equipment like an iPhone and its supplied earbuds.
I can accept that due to low adoption rates this initiative hasn’t had a substantial impact, but I can’t understand why you are so bent on pooh-poohing it as a cynical marketing ploy. It doesn’t cost anything, it doesn’t hurt anybody, and it delivers meaningful benefits.
Would it make a difference to you if the program title was changed from “Mastered for iTunes” to “Guidelines for producing better sounding AAC tracks”?
[Edit:
A timely anecdote to add. I have already mentioned I use Apple Music (streaming) for music discovery and casual listening then purchase CD quality or better of music I really love. My brother sent me a recommendation a few weeks ago to listen to Andrew Bird’s new album, and when I queued it up not only did I love the music but I was really impressed with the recording and production too, and I told my brother that. Yesterday I ordered the CD. Just now I looked at the album in iTunes for the first time and there’s this blue badge on the page saying… you guessed it… “Mastered for iTunes”.
When the CD arrives I’ll do some listening comparisons and maybe even some data file analysis to see how the two products compare.]
dvorak saidIt does not follow that this is the only path for audio production and that no benefit can come from following guidelines such as are outlined in “Mastered for iTunes”.
Nor did I state this. In fact, I explicitly stated a better data compressed file should result from using a better source.
It does not follow that the Loudness Wars practice of compressing *as much as possible* of the mixed audio waveform into the top 3dB of the available dynamic range, even if it causes frequent clipping, is automatically applied to every high res master.Of course not. Nor did I ever state this. Again.
There are many albums whose high res masters retain much greater dynamic range and/or headroom than the subsequent CD master – especially those for which a vinyl master is also produced.This can happen. Ironically, it also can go the opposite way. And they can be the same. It depends on many factors: genre, intended audience, preferences of the producers and musicians, expected distribution chains, etc.
Everyone records, edits and masters in a high bit-rate format as there are many practical advantages in doing so, and storage and processing power are both cheap.It does if you understand my position rather than concentrating on creating and knocking down strawmen. :)Yes, of course. That fact doesn’t support your arguments though.
I noted that Redbook masters are not automatically additionally dynamically compressed and limited versions of a high quality, high resolution master. Often they are simply downsampled and the bit-depth truncated and dithered - with all the good and bad of the high resolution master. That is, I disagree with your blanket “typically awful “CD quality” master file” and “Loudness Wars CDs” generalizations.
They are many beautifully produced CDs. They are also some which are absolute dreck. Of course, if one’s listening is limited to pop/rock you will sadly run into proportionately much more dreck.
Running data centres is anything but cheap.Not in absolute terms for you or me, but cheap in the scheme of operating iTunes. iTunes is incredibly profitable and Apple enjoys more than 90 percent gross margin on sales through iTunes.
Are you moving the goalposts? I got the strong impression you were arguing that Apple should be streaming lossless audio all the time, to all users.I never wrote this either. You are on a roll. :)
Rather, I observed if Apple was actually interested in streaming better quality audio, iTunes would be offering actual CDs and higher bit-rate files, instead of limiting their best content to light-beer AAC versions.
As you insist on ignoring, "Mastered for iTunes" is always better AAC than "Just Transcode your Loudness Wars CDs" AAC.Again, no. I have repeatedly acknowledged better sources should result in better end results, even if the end result is data compressed - especially if the lesser source is as awful as you claim.
I however disagree with your blanket assertion that CD masters are inherently dreadful. And I note you acknowledge that even these “awful “CD quality” master file” CDs sound better than Apple’s special-sauced AAC files.
. . . why you are so bent on pooh-poohing it as a cynical marketing ploy.Because it is. It costs Apple nothing, it is great marketing like BMW's "Ultimate Driving Machine" nonsense, and provides Apple fans more fodder for claiming superiority - when real, true superior sound is easily distributed via streaming a 44/16 FLAC file. All without the posturing, marketing, special feel-good labeling.
But, as you observe, it is cheaper for Apple to limit its bandwidth to AAC, enhancing profitability. 
Would it make a difference to you if the program title was changed from "Mastered for iTunes" to "Guidelines for producing better sounding AAC tracks"?Nope. Not even a tiny bit.
And if you read Apple’s “technical” guidelines it is clear they are addressed to impressionable consumers, not to audio professionals. This is a marketing document. For example, the document carefully defines “frequency,” “dynamic range,” “aliasing,” “bit-rate,” “compression,” “limiting,” ad nauseum. Oh, please . . . as a recording engineer I really need this pablum.
I appreciate and accept you are impressed with Apple’s special AAC files. I will leave you to them. I am not so similarly impressed.
Any thoughts on MQA?
John Darko on MQA: http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/06/an-inconvenient-truth-mqa-sounds-better/
Quote:
'With a PS Audio DirectStream Jr DAC sat below the Mytek Brooklyn in my HiFi Racks hifi rack and with files in hand, the answer was only a morning’s listening away.
I’ll cut to the chase: for the same reasons stated above, but to a lesser degree, the MQA files handled by the PS Audio DAC bested the sound quality of the 192kHz or 96kHz hi-res versions in every single case, from Muddy Waters to Steely Dan to Ravel and (especially) to Ella and Louis.’
To understand John Darko’s review comments above, the paragraph preceding the above is helpful as it describes the two data files he was comparing.
"Without MQA in the DAC, no un-folding takes place – only the first 44.1kHz or 48kHz is parsed – and the pre-emptive filter correction isn’t applied. Only the MQA encoding process is heard. Would hi-res PCM, untouched by MQA, sound better, worse or the same when A/B-d against MQA’s time domain corrected, sample-rate limited equivalent?"
Other interesting explanations and comments:
MQA meets the end user and his/her DAC, inside which the MQA code (software) sits on an XMOS chip. Its job is not only to unfold (decode) the hi-res according to the sample rate limits of the DAC chip but also to optimise the DAC chip’s sound quality by applying a pre-emptive corrective filter to the digital signal prior to conversion to analogue (rendering). This the main reason why the MQA code must sit within I2S reach of the DAC chip i.e inside the DAC box and why its effectiveness would be diluted/nullified if placed in an upstream streamer.
And:
One implication for DAC manufacturers signing up for MQA certification is that Bob Stuart’s team will need to recalibrate the filter each time a change is made to the DAC design e.g. a move from Wolfson to ESS chips means fresh MQA code will be required. FPGA DAC developers whose changes come thick and fast via software updates might see this scenario as less than ideal.
Elk saidYou opened this line of conversation in post #31 saying: "“Mastered for iTunes” is cynical marketing at its best. Yes, some claim highly compressed lossy AAC files sourced for 96/24 files sound better than if sourced from CD, but they are still low bit rate lossy compressed files."dvorak saidIt does not follow that this is the only path for audio production and that no benefit can come from following guidelines such as are outlined in “Mastered for iTunes”.
Nor did I state this. In fact, I explicitly stated a better data compressed file should result from using a better source.
Your only other comment regarding improved AAC output from improved source input was in post #33: “It makes some sense in that a better quality source should result in a better quality end result, even when reduced to a highly lossy low bit-rate format.”
You are unreservedly critical of “Mastered for iTunes”, but your acknowledgement of a trivial technical reality is couched in “some claim”, “some sense” and “should” with a negatively-slanted disclaimer tacked on the end in both cases. I didn’t claim to quote you verbatim, and I think I gave a fair representation of the position you’ve staked out.
In direct response to me saying that Mastered for iTunes AAC tracks sound better than AAC tracks sourced from CDs whose flaws are "a result of production practices" a la the Loudness Wars, you said in post 44: "Unfortunately, the 96/24 version of the file will be no better... Mastering engineers do not add extra compression simply for 44/16, there is no reason to do so; the dynamic range of CD already easily exceeds the dynamic range of the music. Instead, they simply downsample and dither the 96/24 file after all other editing and mastering has been completed."It does not follow that the Loudness Wars practice of compressing *as much as possible* of the mixed audio waveform into the top 3dB of the available dynamic range, even if it causes frequent clipping, is automatically applied to every high res master.Of course not. Nor did I ever state this. Again.
I was making the point that if you avoid doing aggressive DRC on the whole track (as per Mastered for iTunes recommendations) you’ll have a better sounding master which results in a better sounding AAC. You certainly weren’t agreeing with me, and I can’t see a better reading of your argument than that mastering is always done that way and suggesting that it could/should be done otherwise for an audible benefit is somehow invalid.
Indeed. So the variability you are acknowledging here means that content producers have a choice in how much dynamic range and headroom they leave in their masters. Which makes it perfectly reasonable to request that they exercise such choice in favour of better overall sound quality. In particular, leaving some headroom and avoiding clipping is said to be really important for maximising the quality of an AAC conversion. DRC for artistic effect is one thing. Just stop it with the loudness wars already, please.There are many albums whose high res masters retain much greater dynamic range and/or headroom than the subsequent CD master – especially those for which a vinyl master is also produced.This can happen. Ironically, it also can go the opposite way. And they can be the same. It depends on many factors: genre, intended audience, preferences of the producers and musicians, expected distribution chains, etc.
Everyone records, edits and masters in a high bit-rate format as there are many practical advantages in doing so, and storage and processing power are both cheap. Yes, of course. That fact doesn't support your arguments though.It does if you understand my position rather than concentrating on creating and knocking down strawmen.
I noted that Redbook masters are not automatically additionally dynamically compressed and limited versions of a high quality, high resolution master. Often they are simply downsampled and the bit-depth truncated and dithered - with all the good and bad of the high resolution master. That is, I disagree with your blanket “typically awful “CD quality” master file” and “Loudness Wars CDs” generalizations.
Maybe the disagreement here is just one of semantics. Wouldn’t that be nice! I’ve tried to make it clear that I’m talking about the habitual (implying “frequent”, “common”, “usual” - NOT “every”, “always”, “mandatory”) use of DRC to push all the audio into the top few dB of the dynamic range in modern audio production. It doesn’t matter at which stage that blanket process is applied. It does matter that far too many CDs - and especially “remasters” of wonderful older recordings - are treated this way. As mentioned just above, the lack of headroom is said to be a particular challenge for AAC encoding. All Mastered for iTunes is saying is that the AAC tracks you publish will sound better if you master thoughtfully rather than pushing everything to the limits.
They are many beautifully produced CDs. They are also some which are absolute dreck. Of course, if one's listening is limited to pop/rock you will sadly run into proportionately much more dreck.Of course there are wonderful CDs out there. "Typical" does not mean "without exception". And you're right that more modern, popular genres of music are the worst offenders on a percentage basis, but even there you find great sounding recordings with plenty of headroom and dynamics.
You need to cite a reference to back that one up. All the info I can find is that Apple takes a 30% cut of the sale price, and then their costs come out of that. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-musicians-make-spotify-itunes-youtubeRunning data centres is anything but cheap.Not in absolute terms for you or me, but cheap in the scheme of operating iTunes. iTunes is incredibly profitable and Apple enjoys more than 90 percent gross margin on sales through iTunes.
In post 31 you said: "Given that bandwidth and storage is now cheap, iTunes should be offering actual CDs and higher bit-rate files – not “CD-like” specially labeled compressed lossy files." Perhaps I'm over-indexing on the "not" and should put more weight on the "offer".Are you moving the goalposts? I got the strong impression you were arguing that Apple should be streaming lossless audio all the time, to all users.I never wrote this either. You are on a roll.
Rather, I observed if Apple was actually interested in streaming better quality audio, iTunes would be offering actual CDs and higher bit-rate files, instead of limiting their best content to light-beer AAC versions.
In post 33 you said: “if Apple was actually interested in streaming better quality audio, it would stream at least 44/16 Redbook in FLAC or a similar lossless format…” “consumers are purchasing the bandwidth and storage required to stream HD movies. They will never even notice the streaming and storage requirements of good audio, much less care Consumers are not shopping between the bandwidth needs of compressed audio and 44/16.”
At face value that still reads that as an insistence that a service which cared about audio quality would be using lossless streaming as a minimum. But I can accept that you are actually meaning to indicate a desire for lossless to be an option that customers could select, which would put us in agreement.
I wrote in post 30: “If Apple started offering lossless audio as part of Apple Music subscription, I’d pay up instantly.”
And then in post 34: “I would be so delighted if I could have the option to get music from Apple in lossless formats, and would happily pay more to do so.”
As you insist on ignoring, "Mastered for iTunes" is always better AAC than "Just Transcode your Loudness Wars CDs" AAC.Again, no. I have repeatedly acknowledged better sources should result in better end results, even if the end result is data compressed - especially if the lesser source is as awful as you claim.
Covered above - your two previous mentions of this point have been so caged in caveats that I still can’t read them as meaningful agreement. I’ll take your assurances from here on though.
I however disagree with your blanket assertion that CD masters are inherently dreadful. And I note you acknowledge that even these "awful “CD quality” master file" CDs sound better than Apple's special-sauced AAC files.OK, perhaps here I have not made myself clear enough, because I did not intend to make a blanket assertion. My initial statement on this topic was in post 32: "AAC tracks produced following the “Mastered for iTunes” guidelines sound CLEARLY better than AAC tracks produced from a typically awful “CD quality” master file."
The word “typically” there is meant to convey a statistical leaning, a tendency, a majority. I didn’t say “inherently” in that sentence, nor did I use blanket words like “all” or “every”. But I concede I’m leaning heavily on “typical” to carry the intended meaning.
You politely called me on that in post 33, and I responded in post 34 with a clarification. I swapped “typical” for “many”, again not a blanket term. And I explicitly clarified that the awfulness was “due to the Loudness Wars – a result of production practices not any inherent limitation of 16-bit 44.1ksps PCM audio.”
So you are disagreeing with an assertion I was not trying to make, and I apologise if I didn’t make my thoughts clear enough.
Hold the “special sauce”, we’ll come to that in a minute.
. . . why you are so bent on pooh-poohing it as a cynical marketing ploy.Because it is. It costs Apple nothing, it is great marketing like BMW’s “Ultimate Driving Machine” nonsense, and provides Apple fans more fodder for claiming superiority - when real, true superior sound is easily distributed via streaming a 44/16 FLAC file. All without the posturing, marketing, special feel-good labeling.
But, as you observe, it is cheaper for Apple to limit its bandwidth to AAC, enhancing profitability.
Would it make a difference to you if the program title was changed from "Mastered for iTunes" to "Guidelines for producing better sounding AAC tracks"?Nope. Not even a tiny bit.
And if you read Apple’s “technical” guidelines it is clear they are addressed to impressionable consumers, not to audio professionals. This is a marketing document. For example, the document carefully defines “frequency,” “dynamic range,” “aliasing,” “bit-rate,” “compression,” “limiting,” ad nauseum. Oh, please . . . as a recording engineer I really need this pablum.
I appreciate and accept you are impressed with Apple’s special AAC files. I will leave you to them. I am not so similarly impressed.
I feel like here we’re finally getting to the core of your position, and what I’m seeing is emotion masquerading as reason.
It’s clear that you, personally, have an in-principle objection to lossy audio codecs being applied to mass-market music distribution, and that you place purity of sound quality at the top of the priority list. Fair enough.
You also have a strongly negative emotional reaction to some styles of marketing, or possibly to one particular company which exemplifies such a style. That’s also your right.
But given those two starting points, you seem unable to have a rational conversation about the possibility that following some simple audio production guidelines in an Apple document could result in an improvement in the audio quality of AAC tracks served from Apple’s online music services. That’s really the guts of what I’m talking about here: in my personal experience, the average quality of “Mastered for iTunes” tracks is higher than the average for all other tracks I’ve listened to from iTunes, and I’m happy about that, and I think I can understand technically why that difference would exist.
You, however, seem to want to dismiss my experience and straightforward technical reasoning because you don’t like compressed audio and you don’t like the way Apple marketing people styled their communication. Well, that’s not a debate.
Just on this comparison you made between “Mastered for iTunes” and “Ultimate Driving Machine”. You seem to be saying that you think there is absolutely zero technical/practical content behind Mastered for iTunes. That the entire thing is nothing more than a piece of paper and a blue logo dreamed up by marketing to somehow “posture” and “provide Apple fans more fodder for claiming superiority”. You also appear to make snide reference to improving profitability, so I have to point out again there’s no cost to anybody at all in this.
Here’s an alternative hypothetical for you to consider:
What if there were some music lovers, audiophiles even, working at Apple. Perhaps they’re in engineering, or maybe they’re part of the iTunes group or something. Could be that some of the business reasoning I outlined in earlier posts means that offering lossless is currently off the table, but these folks are determined to do whatever they can to bring the audio quality of iTunes up as high as they can make it.
They can optimise their AAC encoder and decoder, they can push for the hardware guys to care about DACs and headphone outputs and earbuds as much as possible, but they also know that garbage in = garbage out. Anything they can do to improve the quality of the masters which come into their AAC encoding process will result in better sounding tracks in the iTunes catalog.
So the engineers take a pitch to management pointing out that a lot of the submissions they’re receiving are 44/16 PCM, compressed to hell and maybe even clipping all over the place. That’s a worst case scenario for AAC encoding. If only they could get music publishers to give them something with better resolution and a bit more breathing room for the encoder to work on…
From that point it’s easy to imagine how marketing gets involved and ends up writing the document you so object to. Apple’s marketing is frequently too over-the-top for my tastes too, but that doesn’t blind me to taking an objective look at the product or technology in question.
As a matter of simple reasoning verified through personally listening and comparing, the Mastered for iTunes initiative results in better sounding tracks in the iTunes library. And even if Apple marketing wants to make it sound like “special sauce”, the truth is that if all publishers followed these guidelines all the time, the overall standard of audio quality would rise across the industry.
Any thoughts on MQA?Yeah, see my posts 30, 32, 36 and 39 above, which all contain MQA-related comments that you have not chosen to respond to.
You are merely bickering at this point and playing “gotcha.” I am not going to bother to respond.
I am certain you understand my position.
You are exceedingly impressed with iMastered. Having recorded, edited, mixed, mastered and produced many recordings, and played on many more, I am very comfortable with how music is recorded and find iMastered vapid.
We merely disagree. I can live with this. 
And no one else here cares. Not even a tiny bit.
Elk said I am certain you understand my position.I just made the case that your position was all emotion and no reason. If you want to accept that... discussion over, I guess.
And no one else here cares. Not even a tiny bit.Dude. *You* lit this fire with your post #31. I'm just challenging the assertion that you made on a public forum about digital audio, because I believe it to be objectively untrue and of relevance to everybody who's interested in audio quality in the age of Internet music distribution. I've been talking about the technology broadly, and you've been focused on the marketing and on anything else that you could try and sling on a company you apparently dislike.
Interestingly it does all have relevance to MQA as we look at the trade-offs involved in designing digital audio codecs for file size, audio quality, addressable markets, licensing and revenue streams, and even your accursed marketing.
I look forward to doing a listening comparison such as Darko has just done, on my DS. I would like to hear the standard 44/16 PCM, the MQA 44/16 and if possible the higher res antecedent (same mix/master, just prior to downsampling and dithering to produce the standard 44/16 PCM). The DS is so good, and the MQA process appears so intrusive, that I struggle to imagine the two working well together.
I have to agree with Elk. I think “Mastered for iTunes” is nothing more than a marketing gimmick and will disappear in short order. Like Elk, I just don’t see any real market for it. But then, I feel pretty much the same way about MQA. I doubt either will be around five years from now.
Well, everybody’s entitled to form an opinion and make a prediction. I just hope there’s some actual listening being done to inform that process, regardless of which technology or product we’re discussing.
While sound quality is a factor, many other issues also come into play and often are more important. SACD sounds great and essentially failed. DVD-A and Blu-Ray have had very little market penetration.
MQA appears headed in the same direction as SACD, repeating many of the same mistakes and making some new ones.
If MQA truly sounds better on the front end when a recording is made, does not interfere with workflow, can be incorporated as a plug-in or is installed in an ADC with clearly superior sound, does not require repeated and/or expensive licensing, can readily be heard downstream, and is universally compatible, it may have some success. Recording engineers are always looking for equipment and software that sounds better.
At some point someone will build an unarguably better mousetrap. Until then, I expect these schemes will fall in and out of favor - just like flavor of the month streaming services. (It will be interesting who and what format(s) final wins the streaming battle.)
Honestly, in this case I don’t even feel the need to listen to it to form my opinion and make my prediction. Apple are the kings of marketing, but if a product doesn’t meet their market penetration standards, they’ll ditch it in a heartbeat. They heavily promoted Aperture as a photography application for pro photographers and it was an excellent product. But at some point they decided they weren’t competing with Adobe Lightroom to the extent they wanted and they just ditched it, leaving a lot of photographers in a lurch. Luckily, I saw that one coming and had already transferred to Lightroom before they cancelled Aperture.
“Mastered for iTunes” has all the earmarks of another failed product attempt, for a lot of the reasons Elk has already mentioned. It may turn out to be a great product, but if it doesn’t light a fire under consumers, they’ll ditch it. And it’s hard to see where a substantial consumer base for this product is going to come from.
Michael Lavorgna over at Stereophile/AudioStream has posted the most compressive first-hand analysis of MQA so far. He pulls no punches and dodges no issues. This is an excellent example of good audio journalism.
http://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-reviewed#pEHwbAE8OdYWm4tY.97
Additionally, he has posted one of Paul’s posts about MQA and a response by Bob Stuart.
http://www.audiostream.com/content/ps-audios-paul-mcgowan-weighs-mqa#9sMqFv41Ilqll2Xw.97
I am looking forward to Paul’s response.
Frustratingly, Bob Stuart’s reply to Paul does not even touch on the issue Paul raises. Instead, he side-steps it entirely.
I’ll defer to Paul on that, but I wonder out loud whether it would be possible to give users an on MQA on/off switch. If you prefer the FPGA performance without the MQA engaged, do that. If you don’t, “push the button.” When I read Stewart’s response, it almost sounds like that’s what he’s implying here:
“We support many different DACs and platforms ranging from simple to complex. If a DAC uses custom DSP (maybe in an FPGA) then for non-MQA playback we encourage manufacturers to do their own thing and this is readily accepted by several already implementing MQA in their designs.”
I’m actually far more intrigued by Lavorgna’s experience with MQA. Like me, he’s a serious Tidal streamer and it’s hard to dismiss the real advantages MQA brings to high res streaming. On the other hand, he acknowledges that the dCs Rossinni can produce better sound. No one can say in any conclusive way whether MQA is “worth it” untill a great deal more music is available. If Tidal flips the switch on lots of titles, our ears will be our guide.
Bottom line: I’d like to have my DS cake and eat the MQA pie as well. But that’s just me.
Here’s another review of MQA from Tone Audio with an overall positive impression. I’m in agreement with Vance in that I’m not looking for MQA to replace my high resolution music files, but if it can significantly improve the sound of streaming files from Tidal I’m anxious to give it a try!
vhiner1 said I'll defer to Paul on that, but I wonder out loud whether it would be possible to give users an on MQA on/off switch. If you prefer the FPGA performance without the MQA engaged, do that. If you don't, "push the button." When I read Stewart's response, it almost sounds like that's what he's implying . . .I read Stuart's comment very differently. I read him to say if the file is MQA, your MQA approved DAC must decode it as we require. If the file is non-MQA, manufacturer do what ever you want. (How gracious of him.)
His quote: “If a DAC uses custom DSP (maybe in an FPGA) then for non-MQA playback we encourage manufacturers to do their own thing.” That is, do what you want when playing non-MQA.
But note, he is silent on MQA playback. MQA requires the DAC manufacturer to play by MQA’s rules when decoding MQA files.