Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

10 hours 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.

 

 

You are misinterpreting the results of Archimago's test.  He forced people to choose which sounded better - MQA or PCM.  He did not give a third option to let people vote that they sounded the same. He then also asked them their confidence level of the difference in sound, one option of which was "Essentially no difference".

 

As he wrote in the posting of the results: "With the data from all the tracks put together, whether unweighted or weighted with confidence data, it's pretty much a 50:50 "guess" along with "An exact 50:50 coin toss even within the group of listeners who thought they heard significant differences to a moderate or obvious degree. Again, there is no preference towards MQA Core or just standard hi-res PCM playback."

Link to comment
6 hours ago, notron said:

Usual patronising circular  argument from those who try to set the agenda and admit of no other view: if I like  MQA it must be because I don’t understand it... if I don’t understand  it my liking must therefore be invalid.

 

I like it simply because, given a choice of music  across a wide range of formats, MQA often provides  me with a particularly satisfying approximation of live music, which seems a reasonable stance for  an audiophile site.   By contrast, I find the notion that an audiophile would dismiss MQA without significant listening because of a received theoretical “understanding” of the technology as inexplicable as you seem to find my opinion.

 

 

Problem is, much of the music I have heard MQA encoded WAS NOT RECORDED LIVE, it was all done in the studio. Therefore, the music sounding live is not accurate.  I want the music to sound the way it was recorded not some nonsense dreamed up by someone.

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

Link to comment
9 hours ago, crenca said:

 

 

Well yes.  However, this forum already has rules on this subject.  Norton went beyond this, and implied that such a thing would be common, and explains the consumer reaction to MQA (i.e. that it is not really a consumer reaction at all, but rather a whisper campaign from industry insiders).  Thus, he started making something out of nothing...and you joined him ?

 

I am not sure what rules you are referring to exactly, maybe that anyone can remain anonymous, just like you and I.

 

That does not change a potential double standard whereby an unidentified poster with a vested interest and conflict of interest can mount arguments against an identified competitor.

 

All of which is somewhat moot as Norton, IIRC, requested that posters declare if they had any industry affiliations. I said No. I didn't identify who I was. Conversely someone could just say for example, Yes I work for a competing trade publication or I am a manufacturer of a DAC, whatever. I don't know of any rules that prohibits declaring you don't have a potential conflict of interest. Do you?

 

I totally disagree that this is making something out of nothing. IMO people unwilling to declare no industry affiliations must be assumed to hold them until proven otherwise and the motivations for their opinions therefore suspect. Hell, that has been one of the major recurrent themes in this thread, industry figures misrepresenting MQA for self serving purposes.

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I am not sure what rules you are referring to exactly, maybe that anyone can remain anonymous, just like you and I.

 

That does not change a potential double standard whereby an unidentified poster with a vested interest and conflict of interest can mount arguments against an identified competitor.

 

All of which is somewhat moot as Norton, IIRC, requested that posters declare if they had any industry affiliations. I said No. I didn't identify who I was. Conversely someone could just say for example, Yes I work for a competing trade publication or I am a manufacturer of a DAC, whatever. I don't know of any rules that prohibits declaring you don't have a potential conflict of interest. Do you?

 

I totally disagree that this is making something out of nothing. IMO people unwilling to declare no industry affiliations must be assumed to hold them until proven otherwise and the motivations for their opinions therefore suspect. Hell, that has been one of the major recurrent themes in this thread, industry figures misrepresenting MQA for self serving purposes.

 

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.”

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
19 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.”

 

Of course people can lie online and often do, no doubt.

 

Everyone in this thread could be lying including you...and me. Brinkman may actually love MQA! However, there has to be some presumption, however tenuous that may be, that people are calling it the way they see it in order to have a meaningful debate. The way they see it of course can be biased and that's the point about conflict of interest.

 

So it doesn't change the principle involved here about conflict of interest. It doesn't change that if a poster is unwilling to state they have no industry affiliation their opinions should IMO be held suspect. If they state they have no affiliation, yes they could be lying but embarrassing for them if they get caught out, depending who they are.

 

For the record, yes, it would be my preference that industry posters declare their identity. Others have done so and they stand behind their name and reputation, just as you do Chris.

 

Edit: Bob ?

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Of course people can lie online and often do, no doubt.

 

Everyone in this thread could be lying including you...and me. Brinkman may actually love MQA! However, there has to be some presumption, however tenuous that may be, that people are calling it the way they see it in order to have a meaningful debate. The way they see it of course can be biased and that's the point about conflict of interest.

 

So it doesn't change the principle involved here about conflict of interest. It doesn't change that if a poster is unwilling to state they have no industry affiliation their opinions should IMO be held suspect. If they state they have no affiliation, yes they could be lying but embarrassing for them if they get caught out, depending who they are.

 

For the record, yes, it would be my preference that industry posters declare their identity. Others have done so and they stand behind their name and reputation, just as you do Chris.

 

Edit: Bob ?

It has always been our rule that people with an industry affiliation specify that affiliation in their signature line. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

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.

 

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

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I believe there needs to be all interpretations and viewpoints considered to appear balanced to the outside world.

 

Why?  If we deal fairly with the major assertions and central facts of MQA why would we need to consider "all" possible interpretations and viewpoints?  How could one possibly do this in subjectivised Audiophildom, where everything is just reduced to "opinion" and where all viewpoints are equally valid, excepting those by recognized authorities (i.e. "audio savants" and trade publication writers) who in fact hold opinions that count more than any mere consumers?

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Fair enough point. Which is why the follow-up question was one of magnitude of difference heard.

 

Track #1 - 66% said either they heard no difference or slight ("Subtle and hard to tell apart!")

Track #2 - 73%

Track #3 - 67%

 

So basically the majority of people felt the difference was either absent or minimal. The other options were "moderate difference" and "clear" difference. In none of the tracks did >10% of people think there was a "clear" difference. And in every one of the cases, those who said "no difference" easily outnumbered the "clear difference" group by >2:1.

 

Ultimately I think that's a far cry from obvious differences being reported by the typical audiophile magazine writer or Darko's "inconvenient truth" that MQA sounds better.

 

Would be interesting to see the results of the vanilla vs. chocolate test when asked how many people thought there was no difference in taste or the difference was subtle even if preference for one or the other is 50:50 in the general population ?.

 

I'd love to see the text of the McGill University study:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19396

 

While the methodology is of course different, sounds like the result is similar with listeners unable to overall significantly discriminate MQA vs. unprocessed file.

 

 

I agree the difference stats do not support obvious differences. It would have been interesting to further test the cohort that nominated clear or moderate difference in a straight up ABX comparison to see how they fared but understandably beyond the scope of what could be achieved . That said I am on record as challenging the scientific validity of such test methodologies (as yet) but am open to the possibility. Kudos on what you did achieve, there should be more taking the time and effort to establish objective methods.

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, crenca said:
38 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I believe there needs to be all interpretations and viewpoints considered to appear balanced to the outside world.

 

Why?  If we deal fairly with the major assertions and central facts of MQA why would we need to consider "all" possible interpretations and viewpoints? 

 

I feel like you have answered your own question Crenca. We need to consider all viewpoints to show that we have dealt fairly with the major assertions and central facts.

 

 

19 minutes ago, crenca said:

How could one possibly do this in subjectivised Audiophildom, where everything is just reduced to "opinion" and where all viewpoints are equally valid, excepting those by recognized authorities (i.e. "audio savants" and trade publication writers) who in fact hold opinions that count more than any mere consumers?

 

Well clearly this is tongue in cheek.

 

Besides, appeals to authority work both ways

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I wonder where MQA would stand in the old guard press if it was introduced to HiFi by a no-name Chinese or Indian engineer. I know some brilliant savants form China and India who are fully capable of this type of DSP. 

 

Anyone venture a guess as to what the initial articles would have said in TAS or Stereophile?

 

That's easy. 

 

If Indian savant, पहली बार सुनें कि इंजीनियरों ने रिकॉर्डिंग स्टूडियो में क्या सुना है

If Chinese savant, 第一次聽到工程師在錄音棚裡聽到的聲音

 

I suspect it would depend entirely on how much financial backing the “old guard” perceived the savant had to bring product to market.  Because that’s where’s its chance of success lies.  Once the “old guard” got out their crippled risk mgmt. calculators, the results would probably be much the same.   Especially if the “old guard” received private communications from the savant early in the game.   

 

IOW, just like with Stuart, I suspect the “old guard” would have done their absolute best to make it happen and would have helped strategize a market penetration / influence scheme. 

 

That includes initial cows jumping over the moon performance endorsements, deflections, running interference, circling wagons, leading us down rabbit holes, name calling, delay tactics, attending and reporting on carefully staged demo's, avoiding further discussions about performance, pleading with to us to wait for real "experts" for their "professional" judgement, etc..  Directing certain staff to do the same while perhaps allowing other less-trained staff just go along with it because they have faith in their superior’s judgement.

 

Gotta’ remember that in the “old guard’s” eyes, they are the “experts” and the adult supervision.  And in an industry where the end-game is entirely subjective, with no common target on the wall, and where a good percentage of the participants, including themselves, have insufficient or no training, a clever one couldn’t really ask for a better sandbox to play business in.  Perhaps the very same reasons that caused them to ultimately become so reckless.   

 

As mentioned earlier, in a perverted way I really am thankful for MQA’s introduction because otherwise their fun and games would have continued for another 20 years.  High-end audio quantitative and qualitative growth and performance has suffered greatly because of this and had MQA succeeded, I'm convinced it would have actually taken performance further away from live music or the absolute sound, or at least until MQA Release 43.9 became available, not that they would care. 

 

Obviously, it took something as absurd as MQA to expose this charade or at least bring it to the forefront where we can collectively deal with it.

 

This business model might have worked 30 and 40 years ago when almost nobody ever heard of high-end audio.  But I attest it is this same business model that has kept high-end audio near its infancy stages i.e. on life support while dying a slow death.

 

It’s all fun and games until somebody loses an eye, right?

The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait.  It's all just variations of managing electrical energy.  -Me

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

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

 

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!

Roon ROCK (Roon 1.7; NUC7i3) > Ayre QB-9 Twenty > Ayre AX-5 Twenty > Thiel CS2.4SE (crossovers rebuilt with Clarity CSA and Multicap RTX caps, Mills MRA-12 resistors; ERSE and Jantzen coils; Cardas binding posts and hookup wire); Cardas and OEM power cables, interconnects, and speaker cables

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...