Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA, The Press, The Industry, Consumers, etc ...


Melvin

Recommended Posts

As you pointed out, and ideal model would be wholly member sponsored with you and other CA writers insulated from manufacturers but that is so challenging to pursue.

 

I think we often give up far too early on the subscription model. Think about how much better the content on Netflix, HBO, etc. is than on advertising supported network television. Clearly a significant number of us think the difference is worth it and pay up to get the better content.

 

I don't like the fact that it creates an economic divide that leaves the poor watching ever-lower quality advertising sponsored content, but you have to start somewhere.

 

I would argue that what we have achieved so far by giving in to advertiser sponsored content is:

 

In food: listening to advertisers makes us fat;

In television: watching advertising sponsored content makes us intellectually lazy;

In news: watching advertiser sponsored content makes us stupid;

In audio: advertiser sponsored content makes us lust after stuff we can't afford and don't really need to enjoy music.

 

Glad we are happily being led to our own demise by those trying to sell us stuff... ;-))

 

Computer Audiophile charted a new direction by originally providing us with Chris' hard work and the contributions of lots of smart people getting together to learn a new topic from each other. As with many things, keeping that purity of purpose gets harder with scale and success. :-((

Synology NAS>i7-6700/32GB/NVIDIA QUADRO P4000 Win10>Qobuz+Tidal>Roon>HQPlayer>DSD512> Fiber Switch>Ultrarendu (NAA)>Holo Audio May KTE DAC> Bryston SP3 pre>Levinson No. 432 amps>Magnepan (MG20.1x2, CCR and MMC2x6)

Link to comment
I think we often give up far too early on the subscription model. Think about how much better the content on Netflix, HBO, etc. is than on advertising supported network television. Clearly a significant number of us think the difference is worth it and pay up to get the better content.

 

I don't like the fact that it creates an economic divide that leaves the poor watching ever-lower quality advertising sponsored content, but you have to start somewhere.

 

I would argue that what we have achieved so far by giving in to advertiser sponsored content is:

 

In food: listening to advertisers makes us fat;

In television: watching advertising sponsored content makes us intellectually lazy;

In news: watching advertiser sponsored content makes us stupid;

In audio: advertiser sponsored content makes us lust after stuff we can't afford and don't really need to enjoy music.

 

Glad we are happily being led to our own demise by those trying to sell us stuff... ;-))

 

Computer Audiophile charted a new direction by originally providing us with Chris' hard work and the contributions of lots of smart people getting together to learn a new topic from each other. As with many things, keeping that purity of purpose gets harder with scale and success. :-((

 

Computer Audiophile charted a new direction by originally providing us with Chris' hard work and the contributions of lots of smart people getting together to learn a new topic from each other. As with many things, keeping that purity of purpose gets harder with scale and success. :-(

 

What we need is to develop an AI largely based upon Chris before he is corrupted by his success. Then he can revel in the success freely while leaving management of the forum to the AI.

 

Thinking further along these lines maybe a discussion on this from this other angle. If you were developing the perfect AI for audio reviewing and article writing, what characteristics would he have and probably the hardest part, what would be his prime motivational programming in order of importance?

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Thinking further along these lines maybe a discussion on this from this other angle. If you were developing the perfect AI for audio reviewing and article writing, what characteristics would he have and probably the hardest part, what would be his prime motivational programming in order of importance?

 

Dennis: I actually think things here still work pretty well because the community is small enough, many of us know each other (whether in real life or through our screen personalities) and manufacturers are well enough identified that we don't actually get led astray. The only abuse I can see is that controversial threads do tend to get more action than noncontroversial ones -- which encourages everyone to become a bit more contoversial in order to get responses. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it leads to polarization over time.

 

I think MQA is actually a terrific subject for this discussion because I can honestly say that I do not feel any more informed about it today than I did when I spent a few days intensely researching it when first announced. A huge amount of "vitual ink" has been spent since then getting us to seemingly very litle in additional clarity. why is that and how could we fix it?

Synology NAS>i7-6700/32GB/NVIDIA QUADRO P4000 Win10>Qobuz+Tidal>Roon>HQPlayer>DSD512> Fiber Switch>Ultrarendu (NAA)>Holo Audio May KTE DAC> Bryston SP3 pre>Levinson No. 432 amps>Magnepan (MG20.1x2, CCR and MMC2x6)

Link to comment
Dennis: I actually think things here still work pretty well because the community is small enough, many of us know each other (whether in real life or through our screen personalities) and manufacturers are well enough identified that we don't actually get led astray. The only abuse I can see is that controversial threads do tend to get more action than noncontroversial ones -- which encourages everyone to become a bit more contoversial in order to get responses. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it leads to polarization over time.

 

snip

 

Don't get me wrong here. I agree things still work well here. Kudos to Chris for this. Even more so that it has grown as much as it has without losing the character which attracted me in the first place.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

I think MQA is actually a terrific subject for this discussion because I can honestly say that I do not feel any more informed about it today than I did when I spent a few days intensely researching it when first announced. A huge amount of "vitual ink" has been spent since then getting us to seemingly very litle in additional clarity. why is that and how could we fix it?

 

With MQA in particular much of the blame is with Meridian. If things were handled differently I don't think half the dislike on the subject toward the media would exist. The rollout has been handled abysmally. Pono was similar and also badly handled as well as being more hype than substance. But the MQA thing is about 10 times worse.

 

Audio writers hear about a new format promising much improved sound, guarantees you'll get what was intended in the studio, and it can be put into a small file size. Plus it can retroactively improve recordings based upon some fancy research and processing. No writer will let that alone for fear of being late to the game.

 

Had MQA been out and available with us knowing at least where and when it would work one year later then those early reports would not be remembered. We could have compared it openly to make up our own minds, and we would know what MQA was at least as a consumer. We need not all become engineers on how it works. Instead we still from over 2 years ago don't know. Comparisons have been highly curated as if afraid to simply demonstrate sonic superiority. Things were announced as to how it would work and then altered or abandoned. We had equipment makers announcing in a show over a year ago they would right away have MQA hardware only to be told they weren't going to get that chance. During that very show. Comparisons to the Keystone cops is over-rating the performance of the people behind MQA.

 

About reviewers in particular I could write long statements as could anyone. I'll just use two examples.

 

I thought John Gordon Holt was an excellent reviewer. I did not think he ever wanted guru status. I think he was honest. Even if wrong he was honest as well as sometimes saying he had been in error. I suppose he was a poor business man, but that was because his reviewing and audio activities took precedence. He didn't seem to much care if his experience or ideas were different. He extolled the virtues of early digital quite properly before the backlash that something was wrong about it grew.

 

Harry Pearson on the other hand, could write wonderful descriptions that were a pure delight to read. However, you could notice over time he would develop ideas not fully based upon his listening experience. Creative ideas. Then seek out gear he could review to bolster those ideas. I also think whether he started with it in mind he very much wanted to be an audio reviewer guru. He was the archetype of that very persona. Perhaps it just happened and he was seduced by it.

 

JGH wasn't anti-science or anti-tech. As everyone knows he said High end audio took a wrong path when it rejected blind testing as a validation. He wasn't afraid to have his hearing tested you might say and let the chips fall where they belonged. HP certainly seemed anti-tech, seemed to build the myths around special audio shamans who knew things the science didn't tell us and took us places regular tech types couldn't.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
So if the difference between MQA and non-MQA material is not obvious on less expensive gear, than what is the point since MQA isn't being marketed to the audiophile community? A bit of a paradox. More and more I am failing to see the whole point of MQA.

 

This is a good point, which I hope is wrong, but I must say that, while I think I heard a very distinct difference between 24.96 Hi Res and the same MQA file when a/b'd in the MBS room at RMAF (and was very impressed with MQA), I was less impressed with the "smaller" system in the adjacent room with a top notch system, including a high quality Mytec dac and Vandersteen model 5's. I hope MQA doesn't only impress with a $110,000 dac, etc. MQA also sounded good to me in the Constellation room with Magico S1 mk2's and the latest Meridian top of the line dac (also pricey).

- Mark

 

Synology DS916+ > SoTM dCBL-CAT7 > Netgear switch > SoTM dCBL-CAT7 > dCS Vivaldi Upsampler (Nordost Valhalla 2 power cord) > Nordost Valhalla 2 Dual 110 Ohm AES/EBU > dCS Vivaldi DAC (David Elrod Statement Gold power cord) > Nordost Valhalla 2 xlr > Absolare Passion preamp (Nordost Valhalla 2 power cord) > Nordost Valhalla 2 xlr > VTL MB-450 III (Shunyata King Cobra CX power cords) > Nordost Valhalla 2 speaker > Kaiser Kaewero Classic /JL Audio F110 (Wireworld Platinum power cord).

 

Power Conditioning: Entreq Olympus Tellus grounding (AC, preamp and dac) / Shunyata Hydra Triton + Typhoon (Shunyata Anaconda ZiTron umbilical/Shunyata King Cobra CX power cord) > Furutec GTX D-Rhodium AC outlet.

Link to comment

Assume for a moment that the filters used in a DAC when processing MQA audio are well designed. (The MQA designers certainly understand filters.) So if some DACs sound different MQA vs non MQA playback, it might be because their non-MQA filters have been "voiced" to produce a particular "brand" sound, rather than an "accurate" sound. DACs where the MQA and non MQA sound the same might have filters designed to be "accurate".

"People hear what they see." - Doris Day

The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were.

Link to comment

re: MQA

 

It seems that much of the consternation surrounding MQA is because they are messing with the format and even the music itself. What if it isn't better? What if it's only marginally better? What if MQA fails? What if MQA starts jacking up royalty rates once they get traction? How long will music labels continue to offer alternative Hi-res formats? Why won't they license software unfolding / filters to the likes of Roon, HQP, Jriver, etc.?

 

We've come a long way since the days of Fairplay and when HDCD, DVD-A and SACD were the next big thing. After all that, paying a premium price for Hi-res music in a proprietary, end-to-end "codec enhanced" format that reverts to ~CD Quality if I don't use a compatible DAC just doesn't sit well with me.

Link to comment
Hi crenca - I know you and I don't always agree, but I enjoy your posts and thank you for the honest commentary and contributions to CA.

 

I have a request of you, and all the members of the CA Community. You mentioned the "audiophile press" and your pretty negative assessment of the audiophile press. No arguments from me, it's illogical to argue about one's opinion. However, can you be specific? I have my own negative opinions about some of the audiophile press and positive opinions as well. My main concern though, is how myself, CA, and its writers, are viewed. I highly encourage people to be honest and offer constructive criticism when they can. When I say I am concerned with how CA is viewed, it has nothing to do with wanting to be liked by people or writing articles that people like rather than articles that are interesting to us, but it has everything to do with misperceptions. In other words, perception is reality and if CA is viewed the same as other audiophile press, then I need to do a much better job to change this point of view.

 

I really understand when you say, "The audiophile press is simply too close to the industry." From my perspective, and I'm being very honest here, it's difficult to find the right balance. My number one priority is, and must always be, to the members of the CA Community. You aren't here for me, I'm here for you. Without the readers and contributors, CA doesn't exist. Period.

 

Now add in the industry side of this coin. CA accepts advertising dollars from many companies in the industry. I would love for CA to work the same way as Consumer Reports, by reader subscription only, but based on the revenue generated from the CA subscription model, this won't currently work. CA is my full-time career. I quit working for Ameriprise Financial back in 2009 to focus solely on CA, and have generated my sole income from CA ever since. Note: advertising on CA gets manufacturers a banner on the site. There is no pay-to-play around here.

 

Now add in the fact that CA must maintain relationships with companies in the industry. It's how we get (pretty much) carte blanche when it comes to obtaining products we want to review. CA could have a billion readers per month, but without the relationships, we aren't getting the hard-to-get equipment for review. At the recent RMAF I went to dinner with a few manufacturers / dealers / distributors. At each dinner it would have taken an act of Congress for me to pay for my own meal. This is just how much of the world works. Fortunately, at these dinners I have the opportunity to tell people what CA and its community is all about and to push our agenda. I can't count how many times I mentioned the word education and that I want to find more ways educate readers. I told manufacturers how they could help the CA Community by offering question and answer sessions. I also made very clear that each manufacturer could help themselves and the community by coming on the site and giving rather than taking. I continued by suggesting they offer up their knowledge and expertise to the community by interacting with everyone and answering questions not only about their own products but about technologies and other items they have researched etc... That said, spending hours with people at dinner enables me to get to know them on many levels. Perhaps more than I should, but this is always in the back of my mind and I work very hard to eliminate any bias this may bring into my product reviews or comments on the forum. one really nice thing about CA, with respect to any bias shown by a writer, is that the comment section is wide open tot he world and we don't like to moderate the comments of respectful adults. In other words, if I show any bias, the members of the CA Community would literally call me out instantly for the entire world to see.

 

Anyway, sorry for the winded posts. You raised a very good point that got me going. I'm always concerned with peoples' mis/perceptions of CA and welcome all comments good, bad, or indifferent.

 

Chris,

 

Sorry I have not responded - I was travelling this past week and was AFTK.

 

I believe I have mentioned before that I have been a follower of the big enthusiast automobile press (R&T, Car and Driver, etc.) since I was a teenager (really before - my father competed in SCCA autocross from before I was born) and have compared the "audiophile press" (i.e. Stereophile, Absolute Sound, etc.) to this experience. Now it might be argued that car performance has a more "objective" side (0-60 {and the more telling 1/4 mile trap speed}, skid pad/breaking and track time numbers, etc.) but truly it is almost as "subjective" as audio for all sorts of reasons (who was driving on any given day, etc.). Just look at the classic "Mustang vs. Camero" and "911 vs Corvette" debates - a few seconds of performance here or there has had little influence on these arguments.

 

This is my speculation: I think for the audiophile world the main problem for these publications, and too a lessor extant efforts such as yours, is the third thing you mention, the "maintaining relationships" part. The Auto world/business is so large that while these very relationships are there and have to be maintained, they are also not as influential (or so it seems). In the auto press, R&T or Car and Driver can do a comparison (say, between 5 sports cars or family sedans) and can say quite harsh (and in my experience usually true) things about the losers. I just never see that in the big audiophile press.

 

Now, I believe what you write here (and what you and your co-panelists said at RMAF at the "truth in advertising" seminar) and that there are reasons for things being the way they are (none of them "evil" or "intentional"), but the end result is still an "audiophile press" that is too close to the industry and does not serve the consumer as well as it should IMO.

 

I think a bit more creativity about how the audiophile press does its job is necessary. Why don't we have more "shootouts" between products - particularly when more than one reviewer is involved. For example, take the 5 most popular "standmounts" (LS50, B&W, etc. - or floor standers between $X and $Y) and compare under the same conditions (room, other electronics, etc.). Obviously I am borrowing this idea from the auto world. I have noted the "Jana" phenomenon over at Stereophile - inject smart, young, innocent (and pretty - saw her at RMAF and her pictures do not do her justice) girl into the old men's club and stand back. This however is not really a rethink of the fundamentals and is little more than what vendors do by hiring those booth girls.... ;)

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
Chris,

 

Sorry I have not responded - I was travelling this past week and was AFTK.

 

I believe I have mentioned before that I have been a follower of the big enthusiast automobile press (R&T, Car and Driver, etc.) since I was a teenager (really before - my father competed in SCCA autocross from before I was born) and have compared the "audiophile press" (i.e. Stereophile, Absolute Sound, etc.) to this experience. Now it might be argued that car performance has a more "objective" side (0-60 {and the more telling 1/4 mile trap speed}, skid pad/breaking and track time numbers, etc.) but truly it is almost as "subjective" as audio for all sorts of reasons (who was driving on any given day, etc.). Just look at the classic "Mustang vs. Camero" and "911 vs Corvette" debates - a few seconds of performance here or there has had little influence on these arguments.

 

This is my speculation: I think for the audiophile world the main problem for these publications, and too a lessor extant efforts such as yours, is the third thing you mention, the "maintaining relationships" part. The Auto world/business is so large that while these very relationships are there and have to be maintained, they are also not as influential (or so it seems). In the auto press, R&T or Car and Driver can do a comparison (say, between 5 sports cars or family sedans) and can say quite harsh (and in my experience usually true) things about the losers. I just never see that in the big audiophile press.

 

Now, I believe what you write here (and what you and your co-panelists said at RMAF at the "truth in advertising" seminar) and that there are reasons for things being the way they are (none of them "evil" or "intentional"), but the end result is still an "audiophile press" that is too close to the industry and does not serve the consumer as well as it should IMO.

 

I think a bit more creativity about how the audiophile press does its job is necessary. Why don't we have more "shootouts" between products - particularly when more than one reviewer is involved. For example, take the 5 most popular "standmounts" (LS50, B&W, etc. - or floor standers between $X and $Y) and compare under the same conditions (room, other electronics, etc.). Obviously I am borrowing this idea from the auto world. I have noted the "Jana" phenomenon over at Stereophile - inject smart, young, innocent (and pretty - saw her at RMAF and her pictures do not do her justice) girl into the old men's club and stand back. This however is not really a rethink of the fundamentals and is little more than what vendors do by hiring those booth girls.... ;)

Wonderful. Thanks for the response. I agree with what you're saying. One thing comes to mind as well. In the audiophile world a bad review can kill a product. In the car world that just doesn't happen. I think many writers in audio would hate to see a product killed because they didn't like it. Our world is so small and I guess we are too close. If a product is killed and that hurts a small manufacturer we may feel bad whereas maybe we shouldn't.

 

I have more to say but I'm on the road (not driving). Talk soon.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Wonderful. Thanks for the response. I agree with what you're saying. One thing comes to mind as well. In the audiophile world a bad review can kill a product. In the car world that just doesn't happen. I think many writers in audio would hate to see a product killed because they didn't like it. Our world is so small and I guess we are too close. If a product is killed and that hurts a small manufacturer we may feel bad whereas Nauber we shouldn't.
Freudian slip?

Kal Rubinson

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to comment

It would be rather more difficult than ever to do, but I have wondered in the past, what kind of reviews we would get if the review sample had it maker's name obscured. Either placed in a black box with access only to connections. Or an assistant who makes connections as needed in an equipment cabinet that can be closed and locked. Remote interaction of lots of current audio gear makes that close to impossible in many cases unfortunately.

 

This would insulate reviewers form concerns about which company, of what size makes the gear under review. I would hope reviewers would think of this like giving advice to friends. Okay, nobody likes to kill someone's company with a bad review. On the other hand, if your closest pals were about to buy an item and you having used it know it has issues would you protect the company that makes the gear or tell your buddies, "I think I would steer clear of that, you can do better"?

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

I keep wondering what the business case is for the major labels to convert their catalogs to MQA. Chris, you said that nobody you know is telling. To understand the motivation, we need to follow the money. What a great opportunity for investigative journalism. The problem in this case is that deep throat and Woodward/Bernstein are not going to become celebrated heroes.

 

I have to think that MQA has some kind of revenue sharing agreement with the major labels.

 

I'm not saying MQA doesn't make music better. I just doubt that the major labels see that as sufficient justification to get on board.

Pareto Audio AMD 7700 Server --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs

 

i7-6700K/Windows 10  --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's 

Link to comment
I keep wondering what the business case is for the major labels to convert their catalogs to MQA. Chris, you said that nobody you know is telling. To understand the motivation, we need to follow the money. What a great opportunity for investigative journalism. The problem in this case is that deep throat and Woodward/Bernstein are not going to become celebrated heroes.

 

I have to think that MQA has some kind of revenue sharing agreement with the major labels.

 

I'm not saying MQA doesn't make music better. I just doubt that the major labels see that as sufficient justification to get on board.

 

Personally, I think that MQA will allow the labels to stop providing access to their studio masters. As the record labels convert everything over to MQA, they will pull the non-MQA files from sites like HDTracks. You will only be able to purchase the MQA'd files. This way the record companies can sell you "hi res" files without giving away their "Crown Jewels." Whether you consider this DRM doesn't really matter, but you will not have a choice in what you can buy.

Main System: [Synology DS216, Rpi-4b LMS (pCP)], Holo Audio Red, Ayre QX-5 Twenty, Ayre KX-5 Twenty, Ayre VX-5 Twenty, Revel Ultima Studio2, Iconoclast speaker cables & interconnects, RealTraps acoustic treatments

Living Room: Sonore ultraRendu, Ayre QB-9DSD, Simaudio MOON 340iX, B&W 802 Diamond

Link to comment
OK captain obvious :~)

 

Of course they should but nobody is talking about the terrible products that should be killed. That's an easy situation. The real world is much more gray than black and white.

 

I see nothing but praise for even the most ridiculous products.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...