MQA is Vaporware

[sullis02]

On 10/22/2017 at 5:27 AM, Em2016 said:

 

"no scientific listening tests have been done so far"

 

I'm definitely not an MQA supporter. But what Is a scientific listening test?

 

Does this mean double blind testing with 1500 or more randomly selected people?

 

Are speakers and DACs designed that way?[/quote]

 

 

 

An effect of the magnitude claimed by Meridian, if real,  would not need anywhere near 1500 subjects to demonstrate conclusively in a DBT, do you understand that?

[sullis02]

1 hour ago, Don Hills said:

 

Coming soon: MQA compatible USB cables.

 

 

I'm visiting from HA.  It's been awhile since I've seen anyone go so far down ridiculous , and probably imaginary, audio rabbit holes as some on this thread appear to have gone. 

[sullis02]

The only actual benefit of HDCD, if any, was the relative (for its time) high quality of Pacific Microsonics (Johnson and Pflaumer)'s ADC.   Which itself isn't anything that could not have been done by others.

 

The rest was really all unnecessary marketing nonsense.  And if you didn't have an HDCD decoder  for the discs, it was potentially bad (if peak-extension was used) unnecessary marketing nonsense.   16-bit  CD already had ~96 dB of dynamic range available to it, and mastering engineers already weren't utilizing it.  

[sullis02]

8 hours ago, sandyk said:

  We need to be mindful that we risk losing participation by some very high profile industry figures if we continue to insult and ridicule those that we don't agree with.

Robust discussion is fine, but personal insults and attacks are not.

 

Barry Diament is one of those that no longer participates for this reason.

 

As regards matters relating to digital audio, Barry Diament is at best a well-meaning victim of Dunning-Kruger, or at worst a hopeless high-end hack.   

[sullis02]

11 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

I will let others decide for themselves.

 Many members will have quite a few from Barry in their own collections.

 

An incomplete list of Barry Diament credits from a 2008 thread

 

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/essential-barry-diament-masterings.131468/page-19

 

 

So?   One can be a decent (re)mastering engineer and still hold all manner of ridiculous beliefs about digital audio.  Promoting stuff that in fact won't make any audible difference, obviously won't make your work sound worse.     

[sullis02]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

 

More specifically, the list (which is kind of jaw-dropping in terms of artists - Yes, Genesis, CSN, Pete Townshend, Led Zeppelin, U2 [edit: forgot Bob Marley!] are just a start - and includes many masterings considered the best sounding for the particular albums) may be found in this post:

 

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/essential-barry-diament-masterings.131468/page-19#post-3602393

 

This doesn't mean Barry is infinitely knowledgeable about matters audio-technical, of course.  It does seem to me to say that he has some idea what good sound is, and that cheap insults over the interwebs are unmerited.

 

 

Talk about your 'cargo cults'......Hoffman's place fits the bill.   Diament did most of his work back in the 80s when he was one of Atlantic records' few in-house  remastering engineers for the new CD medium.   No doubt some consider those 1st gen CDs the 'best sounding'  (though for giggles one may always read a Hoffman thread and see how quickly such 'consensus' turns to mush)   but rest assured that it's far from a universal opinion.  

 

And again, having 'some idea what good sound is'  doesn't protect you from all the usual sighted biases nor does it automatically validate your cause/effect beliefs.   If wav 'sounds better' than flac to old Barry,  proof doesn't come from the ability to make a nice sounding record.     We aren't accepting such specious arguments from authority for MQA 'sound' -- Bob Stuart after all is a highly respected name in audio --  so why accept those sort of argument for Barry Diament's claims?

 

 

[sullis02]

On 12/11/2018 at 4:41 PM, sandyk said:

 

Japanese Audiophiles are a pretty discerning lot, and will hopefully soon see right through MQA.

 

 

LOL!  Good one!  Thanks, I needed a laugh.    

[sullis02]

*Negative* audiophile fluff about MQA like that Audiobacon piece are about as credible as MQA marketing fluff.   There's no solid evidence I know of that indicates MQA will either impart or remove 'warmth' or 'density'...or any clearly audible difference at all, for that matter.   (Same for 'oversampling done with software', a pretty broad brush category)