MQA is Vaporware

[kaufenpreis]

I may give Quobuz a spin then and see how I get on.

[fung0]

4 hours ago, Fokus said:

Magazines sell stories. Positive stories sell better.

 

Actually, no - negative 'clickbait' generates the most traffic.

[mansr]

34 minutes ago, fung0 said:

Actually, no - negative 'clickbait' generates the most traffic.

An audiophile goes to audition a new DAC. You won't believe what happens next.

[Rt66indierock]

Ajax, its never too late for the Ping Eye 2 irons. The set I'm using I bought this year on Ebay for around $100 2-W, S, L. The Dynamic Gold Shafts (new) cost just under $100 on Ebay. The grips were $55. They are Pure from nearby Mesa, AZ. It cost me a little over $19 a club to have them refinished (retumbled)  and assembled by a guy who built custom clubs for MacGregor in Georgia. He is on Ebay too.

[fung0]

7 hours ago, Bob Stern said:

I don’t think Stereophile is that cynical and unethical.  John Atkinson has stated repeatedly that Stereophile forbids its reviewers from accepting perpetual free "loans" of equipment.

 

As a journalist who's spent decades reviewing all kinds of electronic equipment, including audio gear, I can offer some perspective.

 

First, let me point out that it's difficult to buy a good review by letting the reviewer keep a bad product. Also, practically speaking, it's impossible for reviewers of expensive equipment to remain current without at least some 'long term loans.' But in the case of MQA, specifically, what would reviewers get to keep? If it's a DAC, its real value doesn't depend on its MQA capability. The manufacturer will probably be very happy if the review says "It's a terrific DAC, but the MQA stuff is a waste of time."

 

Second, and more important, anyone who specializes in reviewing a particular type of product becomes a part of that industry. After a while, they identify less with average consumers than with their 'peers' - in the business they cover. This 'camaraderie' is a big source of subtle bias. Gifts of gear may factor into it, but it's the absorption of identity that really matters. Publications can counter this effect by encouraging tough review standards - but most don't.

 

Third, in advertising-driven publications reviewers are always under an invisible pressure to be positive, especially to companies that are likely to provide ad revenue. The degree of influence varies a lot from one publication to another. I've worked for a few that truly did insist on tough reviews - typically because they were in a boom market, where readership was more valuable than any one advertiser. (In Maximum PC, for example, reviewers were judged by how fully they used the 1-10 ratings scale. Giving a 7 was especially frowned upon, as it was viewed as a 'safe' and largely meaningless rating. I once gave a product a 2; the publication was fine with that, but I was hounded online by overprotective fans who managed to discover my personal email address.)

 

Fourth, and most important of all, any reviewer who's in it for the long haul is very conscious of maintaining his or her reputation. That means being very careful not to publicly offer opinions - especially negative opinions - that could later prove to be wildly incorrect. It is this fear that leads to the worst problem - what has been called 'pack journalism.' You can be wrong if everyone else is, and you can usually get away with being the only one to praise a product. But if you 'pan' something all by yourself, you're sticking your neck out. It's the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome, and it's very real. (Some might call it 'riding the wave.' For instance, I saw numerous journalists gain prominence by trumpeting the dangers of Y2K. None of them suffered any career disadvantage when Y2K turned out to be total hogwash. Meanwhile, predicting that Y2K would not be a problem gained me no traction with major publishers, and brought me no credit after the fact for having been proved correct.)

 

In all this, nobody makes a conscious decision to bias their reviews. And no company makes an overt effort to bias them. Only a few of the most disreputable publications (easily identified) encourage them to be biased. What happens is more like geological pressure. Over time, people's views adapt. Companies don't offer bribes as such (if only!), and gifts of gear are insufficient to buy anyone's ethics. (In fact, forbidding gear 'keepers' doesn't make your reviewers more honest - just more self-righteous, which plays directly into the more important mechanisms I've outlined above.)

 

Manufacturers exploit this system by exerting steady influence. They start by getting a few of the more influential (and more easily-led) reviewers on-side. Once they've planted a few of those benchmark opinions, the rest of the industry tends to go along. It's a lot like herding sheep. But it's just basic human nature in action.

 

Reviewers can be counted to to make glowing statements about something like MQA for many reasons. It's new. It's technically obscure, allowing them to sound clever by explaining it. It sounds 'better' according to their well-honed confirmation bias. And by becoming early pundits, they get to be out in front of what looks like the next big trend. Yielding to these pressures is how you build a career. Resisting them is how you get marginalized and ignored.

 

None of this is conscious. None of it is 'deliberate.' It's a mindless system that wasn't created by anyone; like the Internet, it just evolved. It's subtle, but it works superbly. And it leaves behind no 'smoking gun' for cynics to discover.

[crenca]

43 minutes ago, fung0 said:

 

Second, and more important, anyone who specializes in reviewing a particular type of product becomes a part of that industry. After a while, they identify less with average consumers than with their 'peers' - in the business they cover. This 'camaraderie' is a big source of subtle bias. Gifts of gear may factor into it, but it's the absorption of identity that really matters. Publications can counter this effect by encouraging tough review standards - but most don't.

 

 

 

Fourth, and most important of all, any reviewer who's in it for the long haul is very conscious of maintaining his or her reputation. That means being very careful not to publicly offer opinions - especially negative opinions - that could later prove to be wildly incorrect. It is this fear that leads to the worst problem - what has been called 'pack journalism.' You can be wrong if everyone else is, and you can usually get away with being the only one to praise a product. But if you 'pan' something all by yourself, you're sticking your neck out. It's the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome, and it's very real. (Some might call it 'riding the wave.' For instance, I saw numerous journalists gain prominence by trumpeting the dangers of Y2K. None of them suffered any career disadvantage when Y2K turned out to be total hogwash. Meanwhile, predicting that Y2K would not be a problem gained me no traction with major publishers, and brought me no credit after the fact for having been proved correct.)

 

 

 

Manufacturers exploit this system by exerting steady influence. They start by getting a few of the more influential (and more easily-led) reviewers on-side. Once they've planted a few of those benchmark opinions, the rest of the industry tends to go along. It's a lot like herding sheep. But it's just basic human nature in action.

 

Reviewers can be counted to to make glowing statements about something like MQA for many reasons. It's new. It's technically obscure, allowing them to sound clever by explaining it. It sounds 'better' according to their well-honed confirmation bias. And by becoming early pundits, they get to be out in front of what looks like the next big trend. Yielding to these pressures is how you build a career. Resisting them is how you get marginalized and ignored.

 

None of this is conscious. None of it is 'deliberate.' It's a mindless system that wasn't created by anyone; like the Internet, it just evolved. It's subtle, but it works superbly. And it leaves behind no 'smoking gun' for cynics to discover.

 

Excellent post Fung.  You explain very well some things that are quite obvious yet so little talked about.  The "absorption of identity", the pressure from manufacturers - MQA really took these realities and went to town with them.  

 

While you are at pains to explain that none of this is conscious and intentional, it really does not matter in my opinion.  The reality at the end of the day is that these folks end up being so anti-consumer that it is incumbent upon them to do something about all of this.  It is a real problem that only the big bad internet forums counter in any way (which is why these same guys absolutely despise forums such as these)...

[Ajax]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Ajax, its never too late for the Ping Eye 2 irons. The set I'm using I bought this year on Ebay for around $100 2-W, S, L. The Dynamic Gold Shafts (new) cost just under $100 on Ebay. The grips were $55. They are Pure from nearby Mesa, AZ. It cost me a little over $19 a club to have them refinished (retumbled)  and assembled by a guy who built custom clubs for MacGregor in Georgia. He is on Ebay too.

 

Hi Indie, thanks for the follow up  information on sourcing the Ping Eye 2 clubs. Sounds like a great deal. Unfortunately my golf is not what it used to be (2 x total knee replacements) and my enthusiasm for the game has waned.

 

At my "prime" I played off 12 at NSW Golf Club, Botany Bay, Sydney, which IMO is Australia's premier golf course ... it is located on the ocean only 15km south of Sydney's CBD and is our "Pebble Beach". It was designed by the great Alister MacKenzie, of Augusta National and Cypress Point fame, and is a must visit for any golfer travelling from overseas. Greg Norman is a member and also our course architect. Notables I have seen out there include Arnold Palmer, Nick Faldo and President Clinton. Take a second and click on the link below, which provides a series of photos that will give you a feel for its unique beauty.

 

Golf Digest currently ranks the NSW Golf Club as the No.1 golf course outside the United States and the UK.

 

"It's one of the great golf courses I've seen, really a fun golf course. You could have some real times out here."                Arnold Palmer, 27 Nov, 2004

 

https://www.nswgolfclub.com.au/cms/

 

Back to MQA before Chris has a fit 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Ajax said:

Hi Indie, thanks for the follow up  information on sourcing the Ping Eye 2 clubs. Sounds like a great deal. Unfortunately my golf is not what it used to be (2 x total knee replacements) and my enthusiasm for the game has waned. At my "prime" I played off 12 at NSW Golf Club, Botany Bay, Sydney. IMO Australia's premier golf course in Australia, our Pebble Beach. It was designed by the great Alistair MacKenzie of Augusta National and Cypress Point fame and is a must visit for any golfer travelling from overseas. Greg Norman is a member and also our course architect. Notables I have seen out there include Arnold Palmer, Nick Faldo and President Clinton. Take a second and click on this link, which provides series of photos that will give you a feel for its unique beauty.

 

https://www.nswgolfclub.com.au/cms/

 

Back to MQA before Chris has a fit 

 

 

 

:~)

 

I learned to golf at Hazeltine when I was a kid. I remember hitting an approach shot into the bleachers on the 8th hole, that were setup for the US Open, set to begin the following day. 

 

Back to MQA...

[rickca]

Yeah, there just aren't enough golf forums.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, rickca said:

Yeah, there just aren't enough golf forums.

 

Sorry I just got a copy of the September issue of The Absolute Sound. The only way I'll break a sweat trashing it is if I write it outside in our Phoenix summer heat.

 

[Charles Hansen]

12 hours ago, fung0 said:

As a journalist who's spent decades reviewing all kinds of electronic equipment, including audio gear, I can offer some perspective.

 

Hello Fung0,

 

Excellent article with a very detailed and informed perspective.

 

Best,

Charles Hansen

PS - Is that you Leo?

[Charles Hansen]

13 hours ago, fung0 said:

 Companies don't offer bribes as such (if only!),

 

Hello Fung0,

 

While I agree with your very well articulated premises for most publication. I am fairly certain there are exception to the above quoted sentence.

 

I know of at least one US print magazine and one US webzine that allegedly only review equipment if you advertise. (They may occasionally break their own rule, so as not to make it too obvious.) Advertisers are allegedly guaranteed good reviews, and the more valuable the ad contract (size and frequency of placements, along with contract duration) allegedly the better the reviews will be. One publication allegedly took a loudspeaker company from start-up mode to major player  within 3 years, almost single-handed. One publication allegedly will sell cover shots to the highest bidder. One publication allegedly  will write lengthy positive reviews in exchange for non-financial incentives such as all-expenses-paid luxury vacation (which can be easily disguised as "travel expenses/reimbursements").

 

As you correctly note, the product being pimped must meet a certain level of performance (at least in the writer's mind) or else it would be too obvious and the reviewer/publication would lose credibility.. You will never see a mediocre product promoted in this way. But "sweetening the pot" can result in reviews that are more praiseworthy than would they would otherwise receive.

 

It's also well known that some manufacturers allegedly will not submit products for review to certain magazines. I think even Magnepan publicly acknowledges that they will not submit review samples to Stereophile, due to the fact that they do not measure ""well" under JA's loudspeaker test protocol. That is just one example and one reason.

 

Best, regards,

Charles Hansen

[FredericV]

17 hours ago, fung0 said:

 

As a journalist who's spent decades reviewing all kinds of electronic equipment, including audio gear, I can offer some perspective.

 

First, let me point out that it's difficult to buy a good review by letting the reviewer keep a bad product. Also, practically speaking, it's impossible for reviewers of expensive equipment to remain current without at least some 'long term loans.' But in the case of MQA, specifically, what would reviewers get to keep? If it's a DAC, its real value doesn't depend on its MQA capability. The manufacturer will probably be very happy if the review says "It's a terrific DAC, but the MQA stuff is a waste of time."

 

This actually happened in The Netherlands. Ruud Jonker, a very technical person, also a mastering & studio engineer, and an IT specialist, and also reviewer for Music Emotion, wrote a very good review about the Mytek Brooklyn, but had serious reservations about MQA.

Ruud is not a parrot which copy pastes the official marketing version, which is good. So even with a core feature the reviewer does not like, a product can still stand for all it's other features.

I use the Mytek not for MQA, but as a tool to see what resolution (bit depth + sample rate) is going into the DAC coming out of our music server. The Mytek can clearly figure out if S32_LE PCM data is 24 bit with zero padding or 32 bit, which for DSP makes a difference


 

[Oddio]

I just created an account on computeraudiophile for the sole purpose of commenting on this. My question is this: For those of you who oppose MQA, have you ever tried listening to MQA files through an MQA-Supported dac?  It does make a big difference to the sound quality if your dac supports MQA. There is no other method of "testing" the full quality of MQA without actually listening through an MQA-enabled dac.

 

If the answer is no, you've never listened through an MQA DAC, and you're still opposed to MQA, you might want to ask yourself if you're listening with your ears or with your eyes.

 

To me, the improvement in sound quality that I heard when listening to Tidal Masters through my Dragonfly Red is profound. It sounds better than listening to uncompressed 24 bit / 96 khz files on my much more expensive Chord Mojo dac, which is almost unbelievable to me now even as I'm writing this. And again, it isn't even just a subtle improvement.

 

I know I'm not imagining things through expectation bias because I wasn't even aware my Dragonfly Red was updated to support MQA for a while. I detected the improvement in sound quality and it was driving me crazy because I couldn't figure out why the sound was suddenly so much better on my PC, but not on my Android, which doesn't have MQA. I was clueless to the fact I was listening to MQA on my PC, so there couldn't possibly be any expectation bias.

 

Also, another question for those opposed to MQA: How well do you understand the MQA process, particularly the "deblurring" as they call it?

[mav52]

Oh my

[Oddio]

I ask those questions in pursuit of the truth. They are important questions to anyone who is actually trying to figure out if MQA is beneficial to sound quality or not.

 

If MQA is worthless, that's fine with me, but responses like "oh my" and "meet Bob Stuart's newest shill" don't really make any meaningful, logical points and lead me to believe I signed up for a bad forum.

[ShawnC]

15 minutes ago, Oddio said:

I ask those questions in pursuit of the truth. They are important questions to anyone who is actually trying to figure out if MQA is beneficial to sound quality or not.

 

If MQA is worthless, that's fine with me, but responses like "oh my" and "meet Bob Stuart's newest shill" don't really make any meaningful, logical points and lead me to believe I signed up for a bad forum.

So I see you've met mansr.  He's a computer wizard and has decoded MQA files.  As you can tell, he doesn't like what MQA does.

 

There are a lot of threads about MQA, so read them all  (most just repeat themselves)

 

You can use the ignore button if you wish,  but many members here, even if you don't agree with them, have valuable input to learn from.

 

If the only thing MQA did was get a better master to listen too, then I'm fine with that.  Don't worry I'm a shill to, I enjoy what I hear from MQA most of the time.

[lucretius]

21 hours ago, fung0 said:

It's a lot like herding sheep.

 

Excellent post.  The follow the herd mentality seems especially pervasive for those reviewers that do not do blind tests or perform measurements.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Oddio said:

I ask those questions in pursuit of the truth. They are important questions to anyone who is actually trying to figure out if MQA is beneficial to sound quality or not.

 

If MQA is worthless, that's fine with me, but responses like "oh my" and "meet Bob Stuart's newest shill" don't really make any meaningful, logical points and lead me to believe I signed up for a bad forum.

 

Hi Oddio - You will find the answers to your questions in the MQA threads here on CA. I don't think you'll find more information on all sides of MQA anywhere. Here is a start:

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/search/?&q=mqa&search_in=titles

[christopher3393]

12 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Excellent post.  The follow the herd mentality seems especially pervasive for those reviewers that do not do blind tests or perform measurements.

 

That would be most reviewers, right?

[Jud]

7 hours ago, Oddio said:

How well do you understand the MQA process, particularly the "deblurring" as they call it?

 

Rather well.  No magic.  It faces the same choice all filtering methods do: Balancing time domain and frequency domain response.  It isn't a very sophisticated filtering method, meaning that choice, that balance, is a pretty stark one; if it does well with one, it's going to do badly with the other.  The MBA folks have chosen to throw the balance way towards doing better in the time domain, meaning frequency domain performance is lousy.  This in turn means potentially audible levels of intermodulation distortion.

 

So MQA is possibly going to sound different from filtering methods that do a better job of this balance.  Many people may hear something different and be wowed, but in fact MQA stands a very good chance of producing a different but *less accurate* sound.

 

Now everything I've said so far is based on "all else being equal." However, in instances where the MQA master is a different and better master, then the quality of the master will trump any difference in filtering methods.

[mansr]

34 minutes ago, Jud said:

Balancing time domain and frequency domain response.

That's a nonsensical thing to say. Time and frequency are equivalent through the Fourier transform. What is good in one is good in the other. Some characteristics are more easily studied in the time domain, others in the frequency domain, that is all.

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's a nonsensical thing to say. Time and frequency are equivalent through the Fourier transform. What is good in one is good in the other. Some characteristics are more easily studied in the time domain, others in the frequency domain, that is all.

 

What I was trying to describe was that the sharper the cut the filter makes, and thus the less aliasing (imaging?), the more ringing occurs, and vice versa.  I have seen this described in terms of time domain vs. frequency domain response by the folks who developed the ESS chips.  Is there a way of expressing this that would make more sense?

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

What I was trying to describe was that the sharper the cut the filter makes, and thus the less aliasing (imaging?), the more ringing occurs, and vice versa.

It's not that simple. An ideal sinc filter has a perfect cut-off with no ringing or aliasing/imaging. Unfortunately, it is also infinitely long and thus unpractical. A filter of limited length will necessarily have some imperfections, and there are tradeoffs to be made here. Commonly discussed parameters include passband ripple, steepness, stopband attenuation, phase linearity, and more, even the dreaded, among audiophiles, ringing. Whether these aspects are expressed and studied in the time or frequency domain, they are part of the signal regardless of its representation. In other words, it is not a matter of time domain vs frequency domain accuracy, it is about which defects are most important to minimise for the application at hand.

[Jud]

Yep, I realize this.  Just that as mentioned I've seen (by more folks than ESS) "time domain artifacts" used to describe ringing, and "frequency domain artifacts" used to describe aliasing/imaging.  Thinking of time and frequency domain performance as having to be balanced also (for me at least) helps get at the concept of conjugate variables, where optimization of one necessarily means less optimization of the other.