MQA is Vaporware

[semente]

It's not the licensing (at least from what they say) but limited content availability that Jason and Mike have pointed to, as they have with DSD.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

But apparently the future could be in uprezzing Redbook to DSD so they might have missed the train, or more likely those that buy their PCM-only DACs are missing the train... Maybe.

[semente]

Germany in 2014:

 

 

 

UK in 2015 (CD sales in the UK more resilient than downloads):

 

 

 

Overview 2014:

 

[semente]

Sterophile is to varying degrees always more pro-vendor than pro-consumer. That's certainly the filter I use when reading anything from their media brands.

 

Nowadays there is very little hi-fi critique; magazines are little more than an effective marketing tool...

[semente]

What you want Vincent1234 is a two way street - but Michael does not do that - if the "facts" do not go his way, and if you do not agree with him he simply will not have a "discussion" with you. Besides, even if he did you would likely be disappointed because he simply does not dig very deep when it comes to the technicalities of things digital. He is much better when engaging in subjective "sounds like" impressions...

Audio reviewers cannot engage in conversation with the consumers because if they are discredited they'll be of no use to the manufacturers.

That means no more toys and no more paycheck.

 

I am surprised that people who take audio seriously still read them...

Even the measurements page in stereophile is full of excuses for ill-performing equipment.

 

I know that there's also a lot of misinformation in forums, and very polarised opinions, but as far as I know those that I participate in are hardly ever manipulated by the manufacturers.

[semente]

On 26 May 2017 at 9:22 AM, PeterSt said:

 

Correct. But now listen for the artist playing the violin;

The worse the reproduction system, the less you will be able to recognize the artist.

 

I recall that at one stage I started to be able to sense the mood of the artist, at the time of the recording. Especially with violin/viola much expression can be put in the instrument (but in the end it can be done in any instrument) with the emphasis to "drama".

It is not that at some stage I learned to do this; instead, at some stage by system became good enough to do it; to show it. To express it.

 

I'm not sure I agree.

What about Rachmaninoff's or Billie Holiday recordings, and others from the 20's and 30's?

I think that the improvements in resolution and frequency band and dynamic range and tonal accuracy result in more realism.

The illusion is more credible.

[semente]

On 26 May 2017 at 3:52 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Just stumbled upon this (accidentally), where Andrew talks about real music and reproducing the real thing etc...

 

 

 

See how he is afraid to say that he doesn't listen, that he doesn't design "by ear" at 11m19s...it's sad to see a well regarded engineer having to avoid honesty for fear of losing customers.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uhkmvd3XnI&feature=youtu.be&t=11m19s

 

[semente]

5 hours ago, mav52 said:

From another article Andrew said this " Andrew has a feeling in his head of the sound he is trying to achieve. The technical approach is a mix of art and science. There are things you can do by measurement, yet that only works if you can measure correctly, since it is a three-dimensional process. There are numerous axes to consider when measuring, and how a speaker interacts with its environment. Understanding the experiment, measurements, design, etc is critical to correlation. The process is to set a goal, build and check that you meet that goal by measurements combined with listening and then making any necessary changes. Then measure again and listen again. It is this process that keeps him on the path to achieving what he had in mind. There are a whole host of other factors that come into play in finalizing the sound including equipment, the room, music, etc. that must also be considered in order to meet his goal. " http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0915/Andrew_Jones_Elac_Article.htm

 

Dave Clark (Positive Feedback)

What role is listening involved in with respect to the design/measurements …or does the actual design/measurements take precedent over what you hear… that is, if I can hear it, who cares how it measures?

Andrew Jones

First comes the measurement. There are a lot of parameters in speakers that can be measured that are known to correlate well with listening. The problem that I see so often from those who doubt such correlation exists is that they don't know how to measure accurately! I see their curves and I see the artifacts in the curves that are the result of measurement errors and nothing to do with the behaviour of the speaker itself! Accurate measurements and a sufficient set of measurements go a long way to revealing the performance, and allow us to get towards the final result very much quicker than with just listening alone. My approach is to set a design goal for the measured performance, meet this as close as possible, then evaluate the result by listening, but ONLY once I believe I have met the initial design objective. Then I try and honestly evaluate the result, and if (when……) I hear something wrong I go back and see if I can correlate this to the measurements. Maybe I was too enthusiastic in my evaluation of having met my target. Maybe my target is just wrong. I go back and make changes based on the re-evaluation, then re-listen. But I am always cross referring to the measurements.

DC

What shortcomings or limitations are there as to what one can measure versus what can hear?

AJ

I am not implying that we can measure everything that we hear. But we can measure a lot so we can shorten the design process. We can also however hear a lot of what isn't actually there! We can be easily misled in our hearing evaluation and attribute things that don't really exist. With too many variables during the design process we can also become confused. So we have to be as careful in our listening as we have to be in our measuring.

 

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue30/andrew_jones.htm

[semente]

On 16 July 2017 at 3:04 PM, Digital Assassin said:

And now Mr. Analog, Michael Fremer has jumped on board the Atkinson MQA train with ridiculous over the top

statements.

 

According to Archimago:

 

"Most recently (August 2017 Stereophile, reviewing Brinkmann's Nyquist DAC) I read that mister analogue himself Michael Fremer endorses MQA - "Had this been CD sound in 1983, I'd still be an LP guy - but I'd also be all in with digital." Wow... Really? Consider that later on in the article he used the analogy of "Grand Canyon of analog-vs-digital" to describe the sonic divide to describe the difference; did MQA make that much difference!?"

 

Please note, he said the identical nonsense a few months ago while being interviewed at a show.

 

This tells me he had a pre-determined agenda.

 

Now the entire staff at Stereophile is officially on board. They got the boss's memo.

 

 

 

MQA Vinyl Edition 220g

 

[semente]

4 hours ago, Digital Assassin said:

This may be linked on John Darko's site, but it is not written by him... he is all on board with MQA.. jumped right in the pool when he saw the big mags fellate Bob Stuart..a real sycophant iIMO.

 

 

[semente]

6 hours ago, esldude said:

Yes, yes, the tape measure was to measure how high some recorded bit appeared.  Since height is heard as comb filtering of your outer ear, and tops out with interference around 13 khz, I suppose better metadata gave a boost to 13 khz, and you could measure it with a tape.   And presumably the better your playback the higher it sounded.  

 

Now don't fool yourself with an o-scope or spectrum analyzer.  But perceived height measured with a cloth tape is golden.  Top notch research there.  Had it been gov't funded they would have qualified for at minimum an Ignoble nomination.  

 

This is (UK) Government funded (BBC) research which measures image width:

 

[semente]

2 hours ago, Confused said:

Just as a point of note.  Strictly speaking, the BBC is not UK Government funded.  It is funded from the proceeds of a TV Licence, that you are obliged to purchase if you want to use a TV in the UK, irrespective of what you want to watch on it.  It is a subtle point, because the Government has some say over the cost of the licence, and it is the Government's Police force and court system that will prosecute you if you do not pay the licence.  However, the BBC is therefore independent of Government in terms of how it operates and what research it might choose to perform, the Government is not dictating this stuff.  OK, if this seams overly pedantic, yes I know and apologise for that, but it is a subtle difference.  For what it's worth, the BBC is doing some very worthwhile R&D work currently, the recent CD quality FLAC internet radio streaming initiative being one example.  (MQA free hi-res streaming, you might say......)

 

What is the difference between public funded and government funded.

The TV License is not that different from a tax.

 

 

P.S.: it cost a bit under £150 this year.

[semente]

37 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Thanks Archimago,

 

Journalism died in the United States with the Duke Lacrosse Case in 2006. There are only people expressing their point of view left now so I have no expectations of anything but a marketing piece for MQA. After all Jim Austin wants to keep writing for Stereophile and that requires supporting MQA.

 

Take care,

 

Stephen

 

If you see audio magazines as journalism then I'm affraid your expectations are misplaced.

Marketing vehicle would, in my view, in most cases, be more a adequate designation.

[semente]

6 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

1)  Will Austin actually talk about facts as opposed to his own subjective impressions?

A:  Only the "facts" of so much of audiophiledom, the assertions of this or that product/company.  For example he will use terms like "Hi Res" without any definition, not bothering to explain that MQA is in fact a lossy facsimile of actual Hi Res PCM.  Bit depth will be something "perceived", and math will have nothing to do with it.

 

2)  Will he just call up a bunch of people to interview as if having a bunch of voices on the "pro" side carries much weight in the face of objective analysis?

A:  Yes, but he will also glue bits and pieces of these interviews together in what appears to be a coherent and believable story of MQA.  He is a storyteller first and foremost, and has to tow the line of his pro-MQA, anti consumer publication

 

3) Will he bother presenting the opinions of those who voice objections against MQA?

A:  Yes, in a negative light and then he will repeat the unverifiable marketing verbiage of MQA.  What else can he do?  How MQA really works is behind the black box of IP/DRM.

 

4)Will he/Stereophile create their own diagrams and illustrations independently or run images and ideas fed to them by MQA Ltd. / Bob Stuart?

A:  No, only MQA supplied information of any kind.  What other kind of information is there besides pro-consumer based reverse engineering? As a likely NDA signor (and certainly working for those who are) he is not even allowed to do otherwise.

 

5)Will they actually bother to do their own blind testing with some kind of controls?

A:  No

 

 

 

 

 

And Stereophile will probably be handsomely paid for it.

[semente]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Fair points but I think FLAC is not a great analogy as it does not include a process for improving such as the apodizing filters.

 

Most DACs and music file players/processors have their own filters which can in many cases be selected to taste by the end user. Who needs pre-filtered media?

That sounds like a rather lame excuse to push DRM.

[semente]

1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

At an audio show, the financial stake is to sell gear.  Peter and Sunny are selling Wilson speakers and ARC/T+A gear.  They don't have a stake in selling MQA.  Peter is world famous in many circles for the quality of his recordings.  Wilson Alexx speakers are known for their resolution and overall quality.  Bob probably figured this would make for some good demo sound.  

 

Your post reminds me of a great scene:

 

 

[semente]

11 hours ago, #Yoda# said:

 Maybe, I'm observing the HiRes download market for some years now. After a very sluggish start with facile first trials of the labels and several simple upsamples from redbook masters, the market gained momentum in 2015, maybe partially forced by the publicity of Neil Youngs Pono Kickstarter campaign. Gradually more and more new albums has been released in 24/88.2 or better resolutions.

Since MQA is available on Tidal and as download primarily at onkyomusic.com there is a significant change noticeable in the usual and average resolution in HiRes downloads. Today, the very most new albums, primarily in the top-selling Pop/Rock genre, but others as well, are released only in 24/44.1 or 24/48, the minimal requirements for HiRes music and not nearly in the real master quality. Simply a coincidence? 

 

How do you know whether or not 22/44.1 or 24/48 isn't THE real master quality for that particular file?

[semente]

14 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Brian,

 

As someone who records in various sampling rates in PCM and DSD, I have to differ here.  44.1 can sound very good, however, we have found that 24/88 or higher is essential to getting the timbre of fine violins correct on classical ensemble recordings and it also affects instruments in jazz ensembles.

 

All else being equal (proper mic placement, decent ADC and DAC gear, good cabling and power), a hirez format is still a step up from the best 16/44.1.

 

A proper mic is also mandatory for getting the timbre of a violin right. Steer clear of mics that exaggerate the upper octaves.

[semente]

12 hours ago, firedog said:

Don’t disagree with you. But Alison Klaus recordings aren’t very much like Kanye West, Beyoncé, or even The Black Keys. I think on those it would be much harder to hear the difference.

 

This is the kind of stuff that my sun listens to, Mendes, a girl named Cabelo. It sounds better through his Bluetooth speaker or car stereo than in my system...

[semente]

13 hours ago, firedog said:

There are hi-res audiophile download sites that often give this information: acousticsounds.com, highresaudio.de, e-classical.com, nativedsd.com. Other classical oriented sites.

 

And yes, I realize these are niche sites. For mainstream stuff you don’t get the info.

 

If Native DSD is what I think it is, I wonder how many recordings are available, not counting vintage analogue stuff that was digitised (i.e. RCA/Sony)?

[semente]

8 hours ago, synn said:

 

“There is no U in color” - Mastering engineer Brian Lucey.

 

England in uproar. The queen mobilizes troops. More at 11.

 

Theresa May, don't focus on Brian Lucey, focus on the destructive MQA.

[semente]

9 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

So you're saying Audiophiles are one thing?   I was seeing it that way too but this site opened me eyes, you're not all a bunch of dynamics snobs listening to 80s style perfection based recording styles and musics.

 

Hey, slow down there friend.

I am an audiophile and I'm listening mainly to music styles from the late XVIII to early XX century in recordings from the late 40s to the our very day.

Some recordings are good, some are bad, irregardless of the date they were made.

I am perhaps a bit of a (musical) snob when it comes to the music but I do listen to some terrible recordings of wonderful music performances.

At the moment I haven't got a single (audiophile) recording that I bought because of sound quality alone or over music/performance quality.

In fact I find that to be the problem with many audiophile lables: the sound is good but there isn't a single record that I would like to buy from them.

 

As for pop & rock, I have some recordings of stuff from the 80s and 90s because that was the time I was listening to the genre.

Nowadays I hardly ever listen to it and I buy perhaps one or two recordings a year; these past 3 years I only bought "A Moon Shaped Pool".

I have no complaints over tonal balance of this album and the dynamic range is rather narrow but acceptable for the genre, but the gain/loudness is just absurd.

This is the second track:

 

[semente]

3 hours ago, Em2016 said:

 

Is it crazy to think that one day Apple may give you 2 years of Apple Music for "free", with the purchase of a new iPhone or Mac?

 

I'm talking out of my bum here but I think 3 years from now, the standard pricing model (currently $9.95 per month) will look very different to how it looks right now.

 

But who knows. Crystal ball stuff.

 

How much have TV streaming prices dropped since they became available?

 

Does TV streaming have more or less subscribers than music streaming?

 

Maybe one day we'll be able to buy a single monthly subscription for both TV and music content... (We may already, I don't know because streaming doesn't interest me at the moment).

[semente]

20 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Ha!  You used the word "elegant". This in no way helps your cause to convince us that you are not an anti-consumer shill for the industry.

 

I noticed that too.

[semente]

20 hours ago, crenca said:

 

 

Lee, I gave you a thumbs up because your explicitly honest about who is manipulating who in your scenario. 

 

On this board however you're dealing mostly with audiophiles

 

@GUTBill come along in a minute to set things straight.

[semente]

4 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Responding to the call. Yes, I'll correct the statement: "mostly non-audiophiles".

 

I've been meaning to ask you if you agree with the following:

 

IF MQA is lossy AND lossy is in many cases not as good as the high res Master THEN MQA is not high-end (thus not audiophile either)