Mastering Engineer Brian Lucey on MQA:
We’re just arguing about different things.
Complete agreed on.
The conversation is too wide spread out.
Maybe someone can break it downs bit.
Frode saidMastering Engineer Brian Lucey on MQA:
Wow, hard-hitting anti-MQA comments from someone seemingly in the know, thanks for the links.
(If he “helped Mytek redesign the Manhattan II,” as he states in the second link, should he be bashing MQA, given that Mytek is all-in on MQA?)
1234 - yeah maybe an MQA SQ thread, and an MQA streaming thread. Only problem is, things do impinge upon one another. It’s a bit like breaking into political echo chambers.
When you come at it from a streaming perspective, it’s all good - I imagine the only people who care AT ALL that Tidal is offering MQA are the small subset of us who are paying the extra money for HQ Tidal - and MQA Masters are currently free.
Thousands of albums you don’t have to buy, at better-than-who-gives-a-shit-quality FOR FREE.
When you come at it from a sound quality or control perspective, it’s not so good. When I compare a CD rip on my computer system (see below) played back via Roon, with the MQA Master of the same album (dunno what the source is - might be WAY higher, and it’s…I guess…first unfold?) on the Tidal Desktop app (same path and DAC), it does not sound as good as the CD rip (yeah, I checked the box). If I put the CD in the DMP it is no contest, but that’s not a fair fight. I’m just interested in apples-to-apples comparisons.
The difficulty I’m having is this maybe-better-than-whatever wonderfulness BEING ATTRIBUTED TO MQA’s SQ, when I think it has almost nothing to do with MQA. Betcha a dollah if Tidal had decided to populate their Masters with comparable FLACs sourced from the same file, people would be equally happy - or perhaps more happy - but that only matters to the small percentage of SQ geeks. For us who are ALSO “music catalog control freaks” though, it would not have required new codecs, DACs, software, etc. And the labels would have not been on board like they are.
THE IDEA that you MAY be getting a folded 24/192 or whathaveyou for FREE is EXCITING. It sounds better even BEFORE you hear it. It impairs the rational faculties. It doesn’t appear that (at this point) the vast majority of people debating it are able to actually set up a meaningful comparison. I admit I have only done the above and the Mini Meridian thing, neither of which provided the promised magic.
But the Tidals of the world can’t continue giving it to us for free and stay in business.
For those of us concerned about MQA taking over our World, the issue is that the preferences (or disinterest) of those who feel they are getting good enough/the best SQ they’ve had, may mean the death of the Current Standard of SQ for those of us who do care about that. We do nothing, and we lose. Why is it the world seems that way all around lately?
Allow to add a few observations
1- it’s not just an increased bit rate or resolution it’s much more than that.
2-
I did what you stated using my umt plus and the cd did sound better then there normal hifi
but consider this in your evail a better dac yields better results meaning the tidal and cd comparison is not very wide in fact while I agree it is not the same improvement as norm tidal to mqa
3- the sound is very different in ways resolution never effects.
Its more on the level of pcm and dsd mqa being dsd
mqa being more detailed and dynamic but still softer and relaxed. That’s not higher Rez at least not for me.
Now all else you say I completely agree with
trickery and all. It’s not the same master I guess or from a master tape not 5 gen. But still it’s feel is very different.
I do not want tidal to become the norm at all. Streaming is fine. I doubt there upcoming cd will be better than a great pcm cd and not as good as a sacd or SHM sacd.
I was kind enough to list a tidal album antoneo
if you really want to hear just how good tidal red book can be play it. It will blow your mind in dynamics and hyper detailed. It’s only draw back is it’s not dsd and has some pcm bite.
My over all point is as your me beef streaming alone is it’s strong point.
It is more than just higher Rez for me.
badbeef said . . . maybe an MQA SQ thread, and an MQA streaming thread.I understand the appeal, but the issues/discussions are inextricably entwined. There would be cross-over posts within one-half day. This is a group that makes the mythical herding of cats appear easy.
Just mention in your post which aspect of MQA you are addressing if you think there is a meaningful distinction. I, on the other hand, find all aspects of MQA suspect. 
badbeef saidThank you badbeef, I was feeling a bit lonely. I was not impressed with MQA SQ. Even a MQA / non-MQA SQ comparison played on the same computer -- I thought the non-MQA version sounded better (the MQA version had less "air").When you come at it from a sound quality or control perspective, it’s not so good. When I compare a CD rip on my computer system (see below) played back via Roon, with the MQA Master of the same album (dunno what the source is - might be WAY higher, and it’s…I guess…first unfold?) on the Tidal Desktop app (same path and DAC), it does not sound as good as the CD rip (yeah, I checked the box). If I put the CD in the DMP it is no contest, but that’s not a fair fight. I’m just interested in apples-to-apples comparisons.
Hopefully, MQA will be something I can ignore for now…
Elk - true - recalling separating threads before, it’s hard to keep track of which one you’re in.
I would like to say how very much I appreciate your patient and thoughtful cat herding: )
1234 - Not sure what you mean by #1
Jah said Thank you badbeef, I was feeling a bit lonely. I was not impressed with MQA SQ.I know a number who are similarly unimpressed and seen a number of negative reports. There are so many variables however that it is tough to reach an opinion.
It would be great to have known Redbook to compare with this same Redbook CD after MQA processing. I would then also like the same mastering but in high resolution PCM MQA processed to occupy the same bandwidth as Redbook. That is, a true comparison.
I remain uncomfortable with MQA’s claim of “improving” Redbook through “deblurring,” etc. Filters sound different, I do not know what else they may be up to to sweeten the sound.
Nothing we have is known unless you made it your self. I don’t feel we need the direct comparison as you state. There mqa is remastered so it’s not the same file as your cd or download or vinyl. All you or anyone needs is an honest view does it sound better. And elk of you have a way of sweetening some files. Allow me to send you some bad ones and show me how much better it can sound woth sugar lol. No one here or elsewhere has to feel good or bad we all just need to like it or not. In addition we are end users what ever will happen will nkt be altered by us end users.
Oddly this debate seems Erie to me as just a few years ago same thoughts of a new and bad sound. Funny how many of you still feel dsd is bad or don’t care. Either answer tells me your not in a room with me and that’s fine by me.
I was really impressed with MQA… till I listened to hi-res albums that some of them likely came from.
MQA has an artificial sense of space that sounds smooth but at the expense of clarity and also loss of high end detail. And definitely their claim of deblurring is crap since the transients in hi res kick the crap out of MQA.
I think some dacs play it better than others. While both my Msb and lampi do very well others may not. Clarity is a paramount
1234 saidI don’t feel we need the direct comparison as you state. There mqa is remastered so it’s not the same file as your cd . . .
Do you have a cite for this? I have not seen MQA claim they remaster recordings.
Do you have or use tidal ? The vast majority of mqa are remastered as claimed on tidal woth the name of who remastered it.
Look up tull.
In tidal you will see two or more of the same album.
Under the album art there is letters
E for explicit
M for mqa master.
I truly get and understand all those against tidal I for one do not want another format and even worse this to become the rule. I love dsd first and pcm next
mqa is simply nice for streaming for me but to claim it’s just a hi Rez of the same norm red book is simply not true it’s very different in many ways. Ways that resolution does not do
sorry of some posters don’t hear it for hiw good it is. And again no need to completely unfold period to enjoy it.
Sorry elk if I have misled you in remastered
My assumption was (and is) that they take existing masters and “remaster” them for MQA - simply encode them and make the changes they make. That is, they don’t do a traditional remastering first, then make MQA files from it. That would be an impossibly huge and expensive task.
I think they are calling it “remastered” because they are in fact changing the Master with the MQA encoding process.
"but to claim it’s just a hi Rez of the same norm red book is simply not true it’s very different in many ways. Ways that resolution does not do "
dunno who claimed this? And in what ways that resolution does not do? For someone who claims not to want another format you are defending it a lot.
And I don’t think anybody’s saying they are against Tidal.
I agree and to do so many so fast there is over 5000 on tidal now.
Of anyone owns tidal hifi
non mqa find Antonio forcione quartet in concert. An amazing example of tidal red book
there is now two of the same albums listed. This usually means an mqa is coming.
Mat one point I felt as great as the IRS V are I thought they lacked in speed due to the lush mids. This album shows me they do not as they remain extremely fast and yield lifelike imaging and fill my large room like a concert hall and I in the front row lol.
Now of tidal can improve this as well then I am sold. But only for tidal I do reserve to keep our beloved music as is. Analog rules and next is great dsd tape transfers
mqa even when completely unfolded does not do better and for me a bit behind it in speed and lushness. I own a few flagship headphones that do give other views speakers do not and mqa is still behind great dsd.
Badbeef did you download a dsd track I posted for all. It was a rip from a expensive long out of print 45 from LOUIS Armstrong st James infirmary
that track is hiw good dsd is
1234 said M for mqa master.I am familiar with this. An MQA "Master" is simply a file which has been processed with MQA. This, of course, is not remastered. But I understand how you ended up using the term.
MQA asserts these are “master-quality recordings,” whatever this is. This reminds me of MP3 describing 128 kbps (or whatever) as “CD Quality.”
I wish MQA would identify the provenance of these files. What is the original file from which these MQA “Masters” are made? i would like to hear the sound of this file v. the same file after subjected to MQA processing. That is, is the MQA processed file actually better. Or is it only better than a standard Redbook CD simply because it starts with a better original course? If the later, this is great for streaming but lousy for audio.
1234 - no I missed that one - I have the SACDs of Ella and Satch. What post # was that? I have been a DSD person from day one.
re: Forcione - Ken Christianson, longtime Chicago audio dealer and recorder of many of the NAIM recodings (True Stereo) including the Forcione album Heartplay, is an acquaintance of mine. He teaches a recording class at Columbia College in Chicago, and came to the school I was teaching music production at a year or so ago to do some of his minimalist-mic-technique recording for a friend of mine.