MQA is Vaporware

[GUTB]

Why is it that TAS is unanimous in thier support of MQA?

[Brian Lucey]

1 hour ago, Abtr said:

 

OK, but tube amps tend to distort (much) more than solid state amps. I have a tube preamp and I can clearly discern the added 'tube sound'. But as yet I can't hear any characteristic added distortion in MQA. I hear differences between redbook and MQA, but IMHO that's fully the result of the use of a different master in MQA (usually, IME, a relatively low DR version is used but apparently not always). Can you describe how this distortion in MQA sounds? 

 

What matters is sufficient resolution to hear a sonic signature and compare it.   The ability to AB has nothing to with the gear actually, I can AB on headphones at a loud trade show and hear much more than most.

 

Tube amps can be more revealing than solid state, again watch the myths.   It's all in how things are done and ultimately how they interplay.   The room also, is huge.

 

 

To answer ... MQA has been tested to have harmonic distortion, and I heard it before the tests.  It's a potentially euphonic haze.

[Rt66indierock]

4 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Why is it that TAS is unanimous in thier support of MQA?

 

Didn't know they were. I'll see more of their writers in December.

[Brian Lucey]

4 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

You will find few people here who believe that higher sample rates are always better. 

 

Instead the consensus among most people here is that the quality of the work done by folks like you trumps resolution every time and that music released in Redbook format can sound amazing. 

 

Good news.

What matters is the work, yes, but the gear aspects matter hugely given the same work.

 

1. The analog line to and from the AD or DA

2. The clock

3. The filtering

 

Power supplies factor in 1 and 3 also

[kumakuma]

Just now, Brian Lucey said:

 

Good news.

What matters is the work, yes, but the gear aspects matter hugely given the same work.

 

1. The analog line to and from the AD or DA

2. The clock

3. The filtering

 

Power supplies factor in 1 and 3 also

 

I'm sure most folks here would agree with you.

[Charente]

38 minutes ago, mansr said:

Perhaps they should have started in Normandy.

 

Nothing of any significance that I notice in France ... looking at audiophonics.fr DACs for sale (a few dozen at various price levels) not a single one boasts MQA.

[kumakuma]

9 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Why is it that TAS is unanimous in thier support of MQA?

 

Because new technology/products gives them a way to fill their monthly quota of magazine pages...

[GUTB]

The most most revealing, flawless sound I’ve ever heard came from tube amps. One such system was VAC’s incredible million-dollar room at CAF. Another was a much more modestly priced $50k Raven Shaman MkIIs.

[synn]

One inconsistency I noted about MQA:

 

on one hand, they claim that each track has to be examined by their engineers and correction for the original ADC will be applied during the encoding process to MQA. And apparently the files have to be sent to them for this.

 

on the other hand, you hear announcements like how Warner etc. will be converting a huge portion of their catalog to MQA. If you consider the sheer amount of man hours required for this according to the claimed MQA workflow, not to mention the amount of logistics involved, there’s no way they are actually doing what they claim to be doing; unless they have an entire country at their disposal to churn the gears.

[GUTB]

BTW there is obviously no chance most of these MQA albums have been mastered with individual care, simply given the sheer volume of releases. I bet Meridian worked with the studios to build a bulk conversion script.

 

The true benefit will come from — as usual — audiophile labels and other special releases taking care in the mastering phase by talented engineers.

[Brian Lucey]

15 minutes ago, GUTB said:

BTW there is obviously no chance most of these MQA albums have been mastered with individual care, simply given the sheer volume of releases. I bet Meridian worked with the studios to build a bulk conversion script.

 

The true benefit will come from — as usual — audiophile labels and other special releases taking care in the mastering phase by talented engineers.

 

What benefit will come?

 

 

19 minutes ago, synn said:

One inconsistency I noted about MQA:

 

on one hand, they claim that each track has to be examined by their engineers and correction for the original ADC will be applied during the encoding process to MQA. And apparently the files have to be sent to them for this.

 

on the other hand, you hear announcements like how Warner etc. will be converting a huge portion of their catalog to MQA. If you consider the sheer amount of man hours required for this according to the claimed MQA workflow, not to mention the amount of logistics involved, there’s no way they are actually doing what they claim to be doing; unless they have an entire country at their disposal to churn the gears.

 

Yes, they are just kicking out something to make money that was not vetted or custom made.  And even if it was, it's not better or equal.

[Brian Lucey]

22 minutes ago, GUTB said:

The most most revealing, flawless sound I’ve ever heard came from tube amps. One such system was VAC’s incredible million-dollar room at CAF. Another was a much more modestly priced $50k Raven Shaman MkIIs.

 

Exactly

 

VAC makes a nice amp line for sure.  I'm very happy with my modded 211 but they are a contender if I was not.

[asdf1000]

6 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Spotify uses free Vorbis codec, not MP3...

 

 

Argh i learnt that long ago and keep making that mistake. Thanks for the reminder 

[Mordikai]

21 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Why is it that TAS is unanimous in thier support of MQA?

Good point. In an ordinary healthy discussion there would be opposing viewpoints within the TAS staff and they could debate it in print, which could make for interesting reading. But no

 

[Fair Hedon]

17 minutes ago, Mordikai said:

Good point. In an ordinary healthy discussion there would be opposing viewpoints within the TAS staff and they could debate it in print, which could make for interesting reading. But no

 

REALLY simple. Create demand, manufacturers scurry to make their hardware buzzword compliant (in this case, MQA), more ad revenue will ensue, and Harley gets to pay is mortgage. Economics, plain and simple.

 

Serving the consumer and critical reporting are last on the list.

[GUTB]

2 hours ago, Fair Hedon said:

REALLY simple. Create demand, manufacturers scurry to make their hardware buzzword compliant (in this case, MQA), more ad revenue will ensue, and Harley gets to pay is mortgage. Economics, plain and simple.

 

Serving the consumer and critical reporting are last on the list.

 

TAS is well known to be a no-BS publication.

[beetlemania]

2 minutes ago, GUTB said:

TAS is well known to be a no-BS publication.

 Sarcasm font must be broken

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

TAS is well known to be a no-BS publication.

 

Really?

 

I lost all respect for the rag in 2012 when they published that infamous series of articles on computer music sound quality written by a oncologist. If I remember correctly, TAS picked up the articles after Stereophile rejected them.

 

I still have a subscription because it's cheap but I only read it for the music reviews.

[Rt66indierock]

9 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

TAS is well known to be a no-BS publication.

 

That is the funniest thing I've read on this thread in awhile. You must not have interaction with Robert Harley or the other writers. They have nice covers, it goes downhill from there.

[mansr]

20 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

I lost all respect for the rag in 2012 when they published that infamous series of articles on computer music sound quality written by a oncologist. If I remember correctly, TAS picked up the articles after Stereophile rejected them.

The articles where they used a tape measure to assess the sound of metadata in FLAC files? That was pure entertainment.

[kumakuma]

14 minutes ago, mansr said:

The articles where they used a tape measure to assess the sound of metadata in FLAC files? That was pure entertainment.

 

I think that was in the second series of "articles" by the same two clowns.

[esldude]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

The articles where they used a tape measure to assess the sound of metadata in FLAC files? That was pure entertainment.

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.  

[PeterSt]

17 hours ago, synn said:

I am very interested to hear @PeterSt's experiences comparing MQA and non MQA heavy metal albums.

 

Well, yes, it has been interesting ...

 

Because I didn't know the album I started out with the MQA version.

 

 

40 minutes later it was still playing, and after the 10:49 minute Sine of The Cross track I thought people in the room should be sufficiently dead already, while I still had to start the normal Redbook version.

And, the sheer fact that I lasted this long, plus nobody blinked an eye about this irregular music for this room, could be telling.

 

Sort of sad thing is that I can't call this metal really, and no guitars belonging to metal were anywhere to be seen. A squashed wall of sound, yes. But nothing much wrong with it really, and I played it at 90dBSPL.

 

I restarted the Redbook at the beginning of Sine of The Cross and right away I noticed the audience.  The audience was far more clear present, an audience btw which sing along each track (as I heard it in the MQA version).

Already 30 seconds into it I wanted to quit it because it did nothing to me. But this is not comparing, so I let it play.

 

Guitars where too harsh and bitchy and nothing sounded good. A poor reproduction system I must have.

At trying to observe it, the MQA version must again have the darker and more punchy tone and I really found nothing wrong with that.

I think I let it play the next track before I definitely gave up.

 

Later I saw that the album compresses 3dB more than my set average, so it's not really the best (Redbook and MQA the same) but still harmless.

An album like this I regard not anything for audiophile judgment, just because of the pumped wall throughout (with a very few quieter exceptions).

 

Another mistake for comparison (read : I shouldn't have done it) is that the MQA version will have been taken from the "DVD rip". So what happened in the end is that I compared a 2ch Redbook with a from 5.1 downconverted to 2ch DVD version.

 

What remains is that the MQA won hands down. But not because of beautiful distortion guitars. So I guess I must try to find something else for that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[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:

 

[esldude]

27 minutes ago, semente said:

 

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

 

Yes.  Don't confuse that with the tripe printed by TAS.  Just because they are measuring image height doesn't make it research in anything approaching the same way.  I was embarrassed for TAS when I first read it. Not when they published the additional parts later.