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

[mansr]

She may not have counted converted to DSD titles. Could that be the difference?

 

That would make sense since anyone can convert anything to DSD. Including PCM productions converted by the label/distributor would be kind of pointless. Considering Cookie's opinions of PCM in general, it's also a fair assumption that she only counted pure DSD productions.

[Rt66indierock]

There's a mistake in my last sentence:

 

For me, evaluating performance is not just a matter of identifying differences and judging them according to one's taste (which is not static throughout an audiophile's life).

 

Semente,

KIH which Srajan Ebaen writes is palate for many of us to express our thoughts. Treat it as such and it is a valuable part John Darko’s site.

 

You missed the point of what I wrote by a lot. I’m trying to match a venue I like (natural reverberant space) and using a harmonica and a banjo (acoustic instruments)to evaluate accuracy. I suppose I could have used a bunch mics to record the harmonica and banjo but it wouldn’t make much sense to. Then I used these recordings as part of the evaluation process. The difference is I’m recording the sound amplified. And as I’ve stated everything I regularly listen to live is amplified. Evaluating equipment using unamplified music if you don’t listen to it can result in some humorously bad sounding combinations.

 

It’s the process I described in KIH #35 that gets you in the right place. A Harpist during the same period followed the same process with the additional help of her harp being in in the listening room. She was happy for a longtime with completely different equipment because the equipment was suited to her music. We would play each other’s music and laugh at how it sounded on the wrong equipment.

[semente]

Semente,

KIH which Srajan Ebaen writes is palate for many of us to express our thoughts. Treat it as such and it is a valuable part John Darko’s site.

 

You missed the point of what I wrote by a lot. I’m trying to match a venue I like (natural reverberant space) and using a harmonica and a banjo (acoustic instruments)to evaluate accuracy. I suppose I could have used a bunch mics to record the harmonica and banjo but it wouldn’t make much sense to. Then I used these recordings as part of the evaluation process. The difference is I’m recording the sound amplified. And as I’ve stated everything I regularly listen to live is amplified. Evaluating equipment using unamplified music if you don’t listen to it can result in some humorously bad sounding combinations.

 

It’s the process I described in KIH #35 that gets you in the right place. A Harpist during the same period followed the same process with the additional help of her harp being in in the listening room. She was happy for a longtime with completely different equipment because the equipment was suited to her music. We would play each other’s music and laugh at how it sounded on the wrong equipment.

Thanks, that makes it a lot clearer.

 

There's no way one can evaluate performance with a single instrument, unless perhaps when you don't listen to anything else and even then..

This reminds me of single driver speakers and the girl with banjo syndrome.

 

R

[semente]

Orchestral music not only has a huge variety of instruments and their respective timbres but has a lot of them.

And often the sections are playing different parts simultaneously.

The dynamic range and sonic complexity are enormous, there's often some significant contribution of natural sounding ambient cues and you get a lot of legato sound which is great at revealing frequency response deficiencies.

Finally there is a certain uniformity in sound quality and characteristics.

 

R

[esldude]

Orchestral music not only has a huge variety of instruments and their respective timbres but has a lot of them.

And often the sections are playing different parts simultaneously.

The dynamic range and sonic complexity are enormous, there's often some significant contribution of natural sounding ambient cues and you get a lot of legato sound which is great at revealing frequency response deficiencies.

Finally there is a certain uniformity in sound quality and characteristics.

 

R

Should we take into account research showing listeners are better and more reliable evaluating simple music vs complex? The big orchestra is detrimental to effectively rating sound quality. The 3 piece jazz recording is better.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[semente]

Should we take into account research showing listeners are better and more reliable evaluating simple music vs complex? The big orchestra is detrimental to effectively rating sound quality. The 3 piece jazz recording is better.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

That research probably refers to A-B comparisons (was it by Toole et Ca.?), and we must not forget that jazz is more liked by the audiophile community (which explains why they play so much of that Barbie-Bubbles-&-Krell rubbish at hi-fi shows).

I find long term evaluation more fruitful, though.

 

And I've stated a few advantages of using orchestral but I agree that one should also use single or small group instruments, as well as acapella choir and solo vocals for they all have their particular qualities.

 

Jazz trios and quartets tend to be close- and multi-mic'ed which affects timbre and imaging but I also use a couple or four tracks when I'm assessing new equipment, mostly to see how it sounds but also paying particular attention to certain aspects that I find useful for the job in question.

 

R

[Rt66indierock]

Thanks, that makes it a lot clearer.

 

There's no way one can evaluate performance with a single instrument, unless perhaps when you don't listen to anything else and even then..

This reminds me of single driver speakers and the girl with banjo syndrome.

 

R

 

 

I said I used it as part of the evaluation process. If the high notes of a harmonica don't sound right there is no other quality that will redeem a piece of equipment for my use. And an interesting secret of high end audio is can your equipment reproduce the sound of banjo properly? Art Dudley has written about this several times most recently in his coverage of the Capital Audio Fest 2016.

"The courage to play banjo music: that's something the lucky showgoer encounters only in those rooms whose sponsors know—really, really know—that their systems won't make a horrid, clattery, barbed-wire-on-glass mess of it."

 

Funny that the room he mentions had amps and speakers similar to my recipe from the seventies and early eighties. Finally I've never heard a single driver speaker reproduce the sound of a banjo properly so why you thought to respond that way is puzzling.

[semente]

I said I used it as part of the evaluation process. If the high notes of a harmonica don't sound right there is no other quality that will redeem a piece of equipment for my use. And an interesting secret of high end audio is can your equipment reproduce the sound of banjo properly? Art Dudley has written about this several times most recently in his coverage of the Capital Audio Fest 2016.

"The courage to play banjo music: that's something the lucky showgoer encounters only in those rooms whose sponsors know—really, really know—that their systems won't make a horrid, clattery, barbed-wire-on-glass mess of it."

 

Funny that the room he mentions had amps and speakers similar to my recipe from the seventies and early eighties. Finally I've never heard a single driver speaker reproduce the sound of a banjo properly so why you thought to respond that way is puzzling.

 

I guess you don't know the expression, it's generally used when referring to people with low expectations or a limited musical diet that for this reason (and others) do not accept or acknowledge the limitations of topologies such as single drivers and mini standmounts...

 

I have given up on reviews some time ago but I remember Dudley as someone who likes un-ordinary equipment that tints sound, not who I would choose as example for accuracy assessment.

And, in my view, what you wrote for the banjo also applies to the other acoustic instruments, even those which only produce low frequency sound.

 

R

[Ralf11]

Banjo music always makes me think of that documentary film on the South, Deliverance.

[esldude]

That research probably refers to A-B comparisons (was it by Toole et Ca.?), and we must not forget that jazz is more liked by the audiophile community (which explains why they play so much of that Barbie-Bubbles-&-Krell rubbish at hi-fi shows).

I find long term evaluation more fruitful, though.

 

And I've stated a few advantages of using orchestral but I agree that one should also use single or small group instruments, as well as acapella choir and solo vocals for they all have their particular qualities.

 

Jazz trios and quartets tend to be close- and multi-mic'ed which affects timbre and imaging but I also use a couple or four tracks when I'm assessing new equipment, mostly to see how it sounds but also paying particular attention to certain aspects that I find useful for the job in question.

 

R

 

There is more than just Toole, not that there is anything wrong with his research. It does involve A-B though other research about the best method gets the best results that way. Just like research into long verse short term shows superior results with short no matter how much audiophiles say otherwise.

 

You can get Chesky jazz recordings done in the purest manner possible. Two mikes and no processing.

 

You can get chamber music with two or three musicians, a favorite of mine, if you don't like jazz.

 

I read some research from Dolby labs a while back. It was mostly related to how to do movie sound. One of the interesting results is human hearing tends to group together more than 3 sound sources if they come from roughly the same direction. The brain processes and hears it as one composite source. In the process one hears less detail.

 

But that is okay, you will continue to evaluate in the manner you prefer. If I were making an evaluation only track, I might want alternating male and female singers in the middle, a guitar or horn on one side, and a drum or piano on the other. It would be the dreariest musical dreck, but might be excellent for simple quick evaluation of speakers. In fact some of the very early LP's demo'ing stereo benefits were made like this. They would do quite well, but I guess a quality digital remastered re-issue of those is not going to be a big seller.

[Rt66indierock]

I guess you don't know the expression, it's generally used when referring to people with low expectations or a limited musical diet that for this reason (and others) do not accept or acknowledge the limitations of topologies such as single drivers and mini standmounts...

 

I have given up on reviews some time ago but I remember Dudley as someone who likes un-ordinary equipment that tints sound, not who I would choose as example for accuracy assessment.

And, in my view, what you wrote for the banjo also applies to the other acoustic instruments, even those which only produce low frequency sound.

 

R

 

I choose the Art Dudley quote because it is easy to find and current. Whatever you think of Art the "secret" that banjo's are very hard to reproduce properly predates Art's career as an audio journalist by at least a decade. I love his accurate description "barbed-wire-on-glass".

 

I'd love to attend and audio show with you. Let you find systems you like then play banjo music and break them. How many rooms would I have to do this before you admitted you are wrong?

[semente]

There is more than just Toole, not that there is anything wrong with his research. It does involve A-B though other research about the best method gets the best results that way. Just like research into long verse short term shows superior results with short no matter how much audiophiles say otherwise.

 

You can get Chesky jazz recordings done in the purest manner possible. Two mikes and no processing.

 

You can get chamber music with two or three musicians, a favorite of mine, if you don't like jazz.

 

I read some research from Dolby labs a while back. It was mostly related to how to do movie sound. One of the interesting results is human hearing tends to group together more than 3 sound sources if they come from roughly the same direction. The brain processes and hears it as one composite source. In the process one hears less detail.

 

But that is okay, you will continue to evaluate in the manner you prefer. If I were making an evaluation only track, I might want alternating male and female singers in the middle, a guitar or horn on one side, and a drum or piano on the other. It would be the dreariest musical dreck, but might be excellent for simple quick evaluation of speakers. In fact some of the very early LP's demo'ing stereo benefits were made like this. They would do quite well, but I guess a quality digital remastered re-issue of those is not going to be a big seller.

I do like jazz but mostly from the 50s and early 60s but I don't have any Chesky recordings.

 

A-B is a direct comparison; I prefer to evaluate by listening long term and that allows me to use different "test" tracks which include a large variety of setups from a single cello or piano to a large scale orchestral cantata, from recordings by Denon, BIS, Dorian as well as from more "commercial" labels.

 

But I always support my listening with measurements whenever they're available.

 

R

[Rt66indierock]

That is possible and indicates the danger of throwing out an unqualified number.

 

Kal, I’m going to stand on 2,600. I looked the Acoustic Sounds site yesterday afternoon and saw 609 DSD titles. There is no way I’m counting converted old Credence Clearwater Revival albums and others to DSD as real DSD tiles. Please tell me why this format should be considered viable. If I’m right and Cookie as well the format is dead. If I’m wrong by a factor of 10 DSD is still pretty such stillborn as Mike Moffat of Schitt has said. Let’s say I’m wrong by a factor of 100 DSD is still not relevant. If you can convince me that I’m wrong by factor of 500 maybe we can have a discussion maybe.

 

But if I really needed a unique piece of music only available on DSD I’d just convert it in J River so why bother?

[Kal Rubinson]

Kal, I’m going to stand on 2,600. I looked the Acoustic Sounds site yesterday afternoon and saw 609 DSD titles. There is no way I’m counting converted old Credence Clearwater Revival albums and others to DSD as real DSD tiles. Please tell me why this format should be considered viable. If I’m right and Cookie as well the format is dead. If I’m wrong by a factor of 10 DSD is still pretty such stillborn as Mike Moffat of Schitt has said. Let’s say I’m wrong by a factor of 100 DSD is still not relevant. If you can convince me that I’m wrong by factor of 500 maybe we can have a discussion maybe.

 

But if I really needed a unique piece of music only available on DSD I’d just convert it in J River so why bother?

I have no idea what the total is but I find 2600 an unrealistic number. Acoustic Sounds doesn't have much so I would not rely on them. For example, they have the indicated number of SACDs from these labels: Challenge Records (8), Chandos (29), Channel Classics (3). C'mon, counting only what I have already ripped, I have about 20 from Challenge, 50 from Chandos and about 50 from Channel. And that is only from the CH portion of their listing by labels. sa-cd.net shows over 10,000 listings although that includes many converted from other formats.

 

Now, I am not insisting on DSD but I do focus on multichannel and classical, including PCM. If you want to say that the format (SACD + DSD) is dead, it is not apparent to me. If you want to say it is commercial failure, OK, but I still get new recordings, discs and downloads, every week.

[Kal Rubinson]

FWIW, of the 29 Chandos entries at Acoustic Sounds, none are SACD. Just emphasizes the point that Acoustic Sounds is not a useful reference.

[JohnSwenson]

[/i]Funny that the room he mentions had amps and speakers similar to my recipe from the seventies and early eighties. Finally I've never heard a single driver speaker reproduce the sound of a banjo properly so why you thought to respond that way is puzzling.

 

My speakers use Lowther PM1A drivers in my own design of an enclosure (I call them the bazookas, there is a picture of them somewhere on the internet), but they are driven in an unusual method, it is based on Nelson Pass's article on current drive. He designed a compensation network for the PM1A so I copied that with good quality components and feed it from a 50 ohm amp (which is what he used for designing the network). The result is amazing. It does very well on Banjos.

 

I love listening to the Kingston Trio on these and they have a lot of Banjo. I particularly like the live recordings from concerts where they just had a couple mics on stage, these sound amazing with this setup.

 

I do have a Rythmic sub in this setup, but it doesn't have much to do with banjos.

 

John S.

[Rt66indierock]

My speakers use Lowther PM1A drivers in my own design of an enclosure (I call them the bazookas, there is a picture of them somewhere on the internet), but they are driven in an unusual method, it is based on Nelson Pass's article on current drive. He designed a compensation network for the PM1A so I copied that with good quality components and feed it from a 50 ohm amp (which is what he used for designing the network). The result is amazing. It does very well on Banjos.

 

I love listening to the Kingston Trio on these and they have a lot of Banjo. I particularly like the live recordings from concerts where they just had a couple mics on stage, these sound amazing with this setup.

 

I do have a Rythmic sub in this setup, but it doesn't have much to do with banjos.

 

John S.

 

I'm always interested in listening to vintage stuff as long as you are in the lower 48.

[Rt66indierock]

FWIW, of the 29 Chandos entries at Acoustic Sounds, none are SACD. Just emphasizes the point that Acoustic Sounds is not a useful reference.

 

Kal, I can’t get around that the fact that only five of the nine albums I use for reference are available in SACD. I value consistency when I test so I’m unwilling change the reference albums. Boring but my notes are worthless if I’m not using the same music at the same volumes. They aren’t unusual but they are rock. And I realized something a long time ago everything I will want to listen to is available on CD or vinyl even if it started in Apple’s GarageBand.

 

Have fun at the New York show. I hope there are no power issues and the rooms work. I look forward to reading your impressions just as enjoy your column.

[Kal Rubinson]

Kal, I can’t get around that the fact that only five of the nine albums I use for reference are available in SACD. I value consistency when I test so I’m unwilling change the reference albums. Boring but my notes are worthless if I’m not using the same music at the same volumes. They aren’t unusual but they are rock. And I realized something a long time ago everything I will want to listen to is available on CD or vinyl even if it started in Apple’s GarageBand.

I think that confirms that we have different needs and preferences. So, while you might judge SACD/DSD as dead to you, it is quite viable for me.

 

Have fun at the New York show. I hope there are no power issues and the rooms work. I look forward to reading your impressions just as enjoy your column.

Thanks. Others will be reporting on the show.

[Rt66indierock]

Kal, when you can’t listen to the Beatles or your favorite Eagles album I don’t think I’m being unreasonable to consider the format not getting off the ground. You are making the same argument I made awhile back about Stereophile. I’ll probably see the guys who run TEN next weekend in Pomona. I doubt audiophile stuff will come up since they have shuffled you off in the Home Tech Network category.

 

We now return you our thread topic focusing on MQA, the Press and the Industry.

[Kal Rubinson]

Kal, when you can’t listen to the Beatles or your favorite Eagles album I don’t think I’m being unreasonable to consider the format not getting off the ground.

I am sympathetic but not personally involved. It works for me.

 

I doubt audiophile stuff will come up since they have shuffled you off in the Home Tech Network category.

No one has shuffled me off to anywhere. I have chosen to focus on what interests me and I do not have to cover products that do not.

 

We now return you our thread topic focusing on MQA, the Press and the Industry.

OK.

[Rt66indierock]

MQA has joined the Digital Entertainment Group and Lisa Sullivan MQA Director of Marketing will be at SXSW in 2017. She will be a on a panel (Hi-res) Music for the Masses Going Mainstream. I’m curious whether this kind of activity is going help market MQA to record companies.

 

I’ve said before that MQA has hurt other DAC manufactures. Ken Kessler just wrote about Heinz Lichtenegger (Pro-Ject) complaining about Japanese Multi-Nationals infringing on his territory by selling turntable features instead sound quality. Then he complained about the same Japanese Multi-Nationals selling DACs with criminal markups. The part of his comments I liked best were his fears that consumers will be taken for a ride by opportunistic brands. Sounds like the current MQA discussion.

 

As for Steven Stones ethical dilemma, well it doesn’t reach the heights of some others written about in the recent past. But if you can write an article about conflicts of interest between journalists, a manufacturer, the publication paying him and readers as cavalierly he does maybe readers and manufacturers need to pay more attention to the turnover in reference components of reviewers.

 

Finally I should point out that Chris is resented by the guys who write for multiple publications. As long this is true I’m not going to worry about him being too close to manufactures.