MQA is Vaporware

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

 

It's not fair to insist that all positivity regarding MQA comes from the press. Archimago's "Internet Blind Test" demonstrated that half of the CA members who participated had a preference for MQA-encoded files when the comparator was a high-resolution PCM file. That preference was usually slight and, of course, didn't begin to approach statistical significance when the entire group was considered. But audiophiles are used to putting a value on small perceived differences that can be considerable. What makes perfectionist audio such a great hobby is that there are so many possibilities when it comes to achieving a musically satisfying end. That variability is informed by ones prior experience with live music and recordings, as well as the fact that different people hear (and listen) differently. So those who conclude that MQA-encoded music sounds "better" shouldn't be hostilely dismissed as lousy listeners or as having a nefarious agenda.

 

Again, like with others, you are debating another point.  "Positivity", is one thing, and saying MQA should be the NEW DIGITAL STANDARD is a completely different thing. Saying it sounds "better" than the professionally mastered, lossless file it was derived from is absolutely different than saying it sounds "good".

 

I have heard cheeky exhibitors, playfully dazzle a room full of show goers at audios shows with MP3s on $250K systems. I heard some classic Blue Note Jazz played back from an Android phone that sounded really "good"...when the exhibitor revealed he was playing MP3s the look on those in attendance was priceless.

 

There are many possibilities to achieving a musically satisfying end, but let's start with the music unprocessed by proprietary DSP in a closed system. There are numerous ways Audiophiles can customize the sound of digital and MQA is the worst option.

 

So let's debate the correct point..the chasm between what consumers have heard and what 15-20 print reviewers and bloggers hear is so wide you could fly a jumbo jet through it.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Nobody’s opinion should be dismissed, but finding non-press accolades equivalent to TAS and Stereophile is like finding Bigfoot. 

Exactly, and they continue to conflate the notion that some think MQA sounds "good", and those in the press who say it sounds "better".

[Brinkman Ship]

Here is a post from the SH forum by an "ordinary" show attendee. If you click his profile, you will see he has

an impressive system, and is well versed.

 

"I heard a very hi-end demonstration of MQA about a month or so ago in NYC. Peter McGrath did the demo with his own recordings (24/96) that had been MQA processed. We had a chance to hear the original and then the MQA version. The setup was as follows: Wilson Audio Alexx speakers, top-of-the-line VTL preamp and amp. and Meridian DAC (of course). The music wasn't what I usually listen to, however, the difference was very clear to everyone in the room (including Michael Fremer, who was seated next to me). I expected to hear equivalence (i.e. that MQA had done no harm), however, there was clearly a difference. The MQA sounded somewhat brighter and had more presence! It reminded me at the time of the "loudness button" and old amps that I had 30 years ago (I had not seen the May 2017 Stereophile at the time of the demonstration).

 

I managed to corner one of the MQA guys who accompanied Peter and after some prodding by me he explained that they do DSP of the signal as part of the MQA encoding to "make it sound better". While he did not go into any great detail, he indicated that things are done to try to reduce pre and post ringing that are present in almost all digital audio signals. I can only speculate that this involves some kind of digital filtering of the original signal.

 

Based on this one demonstration I certainly would not advocate for spending time and money on MQA (and risking falling into the clutches of Meridian). Since my preferred digital is SACD I do not see any need for MQA and I certainly do not want anyone using DSP on my digital data streams to make them "sound better"

 

If I had been able to vote I would have voted for the following:

I won't use it as it doesn't offer me anything I don't already have

I think we have sufficient formats to manage high quality audio already

I think Meridian are focusing more on creating a revenue stream."

 

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/meridian-mqa-poll.434912/page-23#post-16488505

 

QUITE a bit different than what Fremer and others reported...

[Brinkman Ship]

Now..let's have some fun!  Virtually the same demo, as reported by John Atkinson..

 

"When Peter then played the MQA version, my jaw dropped—this was not the recording with which I was familiar. This was now a live string quartet playing in front of me. The music made instant sense in a way that it had taken me a long time to comprehend from the PCM original."

 

JVS:

 

"In another comparison of a before/after McGrath recording, this time of music by Stravinsky, the MQA file's colors were so much more striking, and the timbres far more real-life. When we switched to one of Peter's live recordings of the Kalichstein-Laredo-Robinson Trio performing Beethoven—I was present at the recording session—there was a fineness of detail to the MQA recording that seemed far more real than the comparatively thick-sounding non-MQA presentation.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-laas#2cl12wKsWqAR49yz.99

 

CHASM..wide as the Grand Canyon folks.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

What's also surprising from the old guard is all of a sudden their massive dislike of all things DSP has evaporated. For decades we've heard from the Ministers of Information about not touching a pristine signal, room correction is bad, converting formats is bad, etc... I'm cool if they believe it and want to espouse their beliefs. I'm sure I'm guilty of espousing my own audio beliefs.

 

However, the sudden turnaround professing that processing a pristine signal like origami and removing bits that can't be replaced is the second coming of digital audio is quite strange. Where did my ole straight wire with gain guys go?

...THIS......

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

18 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

Audio reviewers in general, also say that you cannot judge and make exact estimations of sound quality, in audio show conditions.

 

Yet, in the case of MQA, they put that prudence aside and make very definite judgments about (MQA) sound quality (being better). Curious...

There NUMEROUS curious things about MQA coverage, starting when the new MQA World was"birthed"..

[Brinkman Ship]

9 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

OK I’ll tell you, in a nutshell I simply can’t abide hypocrisy, unfairness and double standards in any aspect of life.  The outrage I seem to have provoked by suggesting that  all should admit their industry connections where applicable (a restating of existing forum policy as I understood it) rather than just those  seen as supportive of MQA,  simply  serves to show that my concerns were well-founded.

Just too rich. Don't fall off that high horse.

 

MQA is the Pink Slime of the audio industry. Period.

[Brinkman Ship]

Interesting note.

 

Today, Starbucks started a promotion that gives you bonus points for signing up for a Spotify account.

[Brinkman Ship]

Just now, crenca said:

 

What's the corporate connection?

I don't think there is..a few years ago, Starbucks was giving away Apple iTunes download cards.

[Brinkman Ship]

9 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Right there, right there!  The consumer reaction against the efforts of these publications to promote something that is against their interests is neither "bizzare" or "ill tempered".  That's just rhetoric - emotivism on your part.  What is "bizzare" is their obvious anti-consumer stance. Yet, for some reason it bothers you Norton, even though you claim you are not an industry insider.  Why?  You don't like the tone of the debate?  So what, the substance is there - not that you contribute to the substance.  What is it about MQA that you find worth defending?  The sound?  So what, the sound is not the reason it exists .  Are you sure your not an industry shill?  What is it about MQA that deserves support Norton?

 

What is the substance of your complaint Norton beside the fact that you don't like the debate itself?

The biggest complaint of the Norton type is we are shattering the illusion of a vast catalog of magically "corrected", 'deblurred", and "authenticated" hires music for 20 bucks a month.

[Brinkman Ship]

21 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

I am not sure what you are worried about, Norton, in the last few pages you have simply been told that you "do not understand," "do not care," "like a little IM, etc.," "claim that you are not an industry shill," "rely on authority and reputation," practice "emotivism," and are a hypocrite.  Of course while Crenca cutely lines through words like "confidence game" and "mutilates."

 

Don't worry.  Anyone who doesn't immediately fall in line with every single belief of these zealots (and signal their allegiance with adequate vehemence) is similarly treated.  They fully believe they are morally justified in any behavior by their righteous crusade.

 

Bill

Sorry, we are not giving ONE MAN who has bled out 40 million dollars in the audio business control of digital audio reproduction, processing, distribution, and future developments and advancements.

 

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Not cute, clever ?

 

Why don't you and Norton commensurate on your own civility thread?  You can play that tiny little fiddle in the background while you lament ?

[Brinkman Ship]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

You’re acting like it’s impossible to lie online. Asking people the question about affiliation does nothing unless the person is honest. 

 

For all I know you’re Bob S.

 

It takes a bit of sleuthing to catch someone bad mouthing another company for their own benefit. I’ve yet to see anyone come out and say “It’s me.”

There was a very well known speaker manufacturer who had over 100 personas/monikers on various forums....there was a lot of pushback against his products after being elevated to God like status by a certain magazine.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yeah, it’s nearly impossible to catch smart people but fortunately most people attempting this aren’t smart in this area. 

Yup, this individual had an IT background.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

I keep hearing about this but admit I missed the actual incident...what does this manufactures name rhyme with?  ?

nothing..i can think of...but the speakers are, um, black...and heavy...

[Brinkman Ship]

50 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

At the risk of becoming the devil's advocate for MQA which I don't wish to be I believe there needs to be all interpretations and viewpoints considered to appear balanced to the outside world. In that light I would say I don't think the preference vs difference vs chance occurrence scenario is all that straight forward as suggested in the above quote.

 

Imagine if people are asked if they prefer chocolate to vanilla ice cream and the result comes back 50:50. Does that mean they were guessing or have no preference?

ask your self why MQA needed to mobilize an army of internet shills to infiltrate the forums if process was so obviously superior?

 

Also ask your self if there is one true word in the bullshit name...

 

Master-we know for a fact the end result does NOT represent the master

Quality-we for a FACT there is REDUCED quality

Authenticated-we for a FACT nothing is authenticated

[Brinkman Ship]

5 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

Sounds like the dude who told Stereophile that other speaker designers hadn’t made any significant advances in years. Came out of nowhere to become “the world’s best speaker designer”. Just ask him!

..he called other-speaker companies..”furniture makers”...lol

[Brinkman Ship]

3 hours ago, wdw said:

 

Just hoping to qualify this... and the following replies, Crenca, et.al, to this first post.

 

So, accordingly, Alon Wolf, of Magico was very active on music based internet sites maintaining multiple aliases advancing his commercial interests.  Do I have it correctly?  

 

No snark here.  Just hoping for clarification.  Innuendo or fact?   No hands in the cookie jar but everyone knew?

 

 

Essentially correct..more like audio hardware forums...he was there to address and control backlash from the over the top TAS reviews and to defend pricing, which at the time was shocking to many. He eventually ended up on one forum that had ultra wealthy members as himself to engage with fanboys, customers, and potential customers.

[Brinkman Ship]

15 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

I have read all 43 of your posts. You do not defend MQA in your posts. But, everyone of your posts is to criticize or create conflict; usually against anti MQA posters. 

 

True, sometimes you may simply have been defending yourself. But, I could not find one post in which you constructively add something to the discussion (MQA or otherwise). It is as if you only signed up to CA to create or participate in conflicts with people. That doesn't automatically make you a shill, but it does shine a spotlight on your motivations for participating here. 

Accurate. i was going to post something similar. .just defending/attacking, I see nothing added to discussion.

 

BTW, I don't think he is a shill...

[Brinkman Ship]

12 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

Why would he? He wants to provoke people into making unpleasant comments, then play the martyr. 

Yes, that seems to be a trend..

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

ARQuint et al. care not for these matters. That's quite obvious at this point. We can only hope that MQA fails in the market despite the out-sized praise by TAS, Atkinson, Austin, and Darko.

Correct...at this point it is about saving face...

[Brinkman Ship]

4 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

There is that hammer again Mr. Quint.  Perhaps you are getting closer to your and your cohorts failure on MQA however.  You should ask yourself why - why do yourself and your cohorts, subjectively, find "smoother top end, better spatiality and superior bass clarity" (when it comes to MQA) when the tested group does not, and why does the control group (as represented by the consumer reaction against MQA and here and elsewhere - everywhere except your cohort) also correlate with the tested group.

 

In other words, what is it about your subjectivism that is disconnected and in in conflict with consumers subjectivism?  Another way to ask this question is what is special about your subjectivism?  Not special in a good way, but rather special in that you come to subjectivised conclusions at odds with the other groups who you ostensibly serve?  

 

You see Mr. Quint, we are past your scenario - way past it.  It is irrelevant, as irrelevant as a monkey on the moon with a hammer.  When will you put down your hammer, and start asking yourself the hard questions?

 

 

another question...why do musicians and mastering engineers also NOT hear what Quint and his "cohorts" hear?

[Brinkman Ship]

4 minutes ago, firedog said:

Agree with Kal about the products that "force" the MQA filters onto all playback (some allow you to manually  switch filters) should be censored. It's one of my big problems with MQA: it is so costly to implement properly (both iFi and dCS report spending over a 1000 hours of specialized software engineering to do so) that most manufacturers take the easy/cheap way out and leave MQA as the default. Whether coincidentally or not, that gives MQA playback an unfair SQ advantage on those machines, I think. Probably a reason some say they prefer it. 

Even MORE of a reason to punish companies that go near MQA. Screw them.

[Brinkman Ship]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I can imagine a big market for old pre-MQA versions of products that have implemented the MQA filter on everything. 

hmmmm..interesting notion...?

[Brinkman Ship]

16 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

I do care. That's why I'm here.

 

I don't feel you're listening to me. There are others  besides audio writers who feel that MQA-filtered files sound better than the corresponding PCM source. And not all audio writers with a positive view of the sound have made extravagant claims for the technology.

 

I can agree with all of this. These are valid concerns that need to be addressed. Myself, I do not stream much at all and have a large collection of local HD files that I hope to keep adding to. I want to continue to apply DSP room correction when I listen, which is problematic with MQA. But insulting individuals and attempting to delegitimize publications in their totality because they do not sing exactly the same song as you do on this one issue will not serve anyone's cause, which is the cause of good sound.

 

 

"I do not stream much at all and have a large collection of local HD files that I hope to keep adding to. I want to continue to apply DSP room correction when I listen, which is problematic with MQA. "

 

Then why the hell do you even give a damn about MQA?