Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

My point about "Really? Photos?" is that I'm much less concerned about appearance than about reviewers having some minimal amount of technical chops, or the writing undergoing a technical review before publication.  There's a dearth, at least in what I've seen on newsstands, of any discussion of MQA at the technical level on occasion seen in this forum, and that's a pity.

 

And that's of course what I (agreeing with @John Dyson and others) think is where this thread and others do their best work, when we're given technical info lacking in the magazines. Sniping I can find anywhere; I'm here to learn.

Agree completely. Debating about gear and room photos is too much of a tangent.😎

Link to comment

@ARQuint Thank you for your thoughtful reply.  I see some of the covers online, and occasionally I spot one in the magazine rack at a bookstore.  Way back, didn't TAS have non-audio-related photos taken by HP on the back or inside-back cover as well?  It's been a while, so I may be wrong.  Front cover photos are generally original with most of the magazines, although I think a few of the odd ones used to do a collage of stock photos of gear that was featured.  I'm thinking of a magazine with 'choice' or 'plus' or something like that in the title?  Not one I subscribed to, so I can't recall after all these years.  I did enjoy my subscriptions to your magazine and Stereophile back in my Navy days, when out to sea with no access to a decent system, so the magazines were good fantasy material haha!  I'm glad that you see the value in adding original photos and make that effort for the readers who care about such things.

请教别人一次是5分钟的傻子,从不请教别人是一辈子的傻子

 

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Hugo9000 said:

Way back, didn't TAS have non-audio-related photos taken by HP on the back or inside-back cover as well?

 

I "liked" your post (and liked your memories of looking at photos when far away from audio), but couldn't resist excerpting this, because I have a feeling the reason for those back cover photos was to be able to claim his Leica as a business expense for tax purposes.  😄

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

Ask sandyk how well I passed his evil test :-).  It was tricky, but apparently I did pretty well.   (The difference was something like what I deal with on the DA decoder, so I just happened to be tuned to the sort of difference that was in the test.)

 

John 

Thanks for chiming in , but I wouldn't have named you.  Admin's jibe was uncalled for .

 

Kind Regards

Alex

 

 

 

 

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

@Rt66indierock Good comment at Stereophile regarding the Pro-Ject review. You would think that a comment about MQA sounding louder would set off alarm bells. I can’t say I’m impressed with any of the newer writers, and JA should have caught that one. I suspect the slide will accelerate under Jim Austin. I intend to watch that unfold as a former subscriber.

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
5 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

 

🤣

 

Somewhat off topic from MQA of course, but important to discuss. "Listening skills" is a tough one to determine isn't it? And yet for purely subjective reviewers the idea that one possesses "Golden Ears" is the basis of presumably why one's opinion has value...

 

As far as I am aware, there is no formal "Minimum Audio Reviewer Test" (MART?) for listening acuity.

 

At least back in 2014, Philips had their Golden Ears Challenge which I did attain the "Golden Ears" level:

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/02/musings-golden-earism-philips-golden.html

 

@John_Atkinson , is there some level of minimum listening/hearing competence that must be achieved to be an audio reviewer for Stereophile? Or say regular hearing test results at the very least submitted as "accreditation"?

 

The truth is that one could have been a jack hammer operator for years, can hear up to 5kHz at best, have severe inter-aural imbalance and still talk about the "air around instruments", "natural tonality of the singer", how "fast and jitter-free", and the greatness of the "soundstage" while showing beautiful pictures of the US$15,000 dCS Bartok. At least that's one thought that runs through my mind when I see pictures of aging audiophile reviewers...

 

You're right, Archimago.  Listening skills are important to discuss.  And yet, for the last few decades it's the one thing most taken for granted in this audio-only industry.  In fact, I've little doubt it's the number 1 reason why not a single industry controversy can ever be put to rest because everybody is all over the map.  Hence, whenever a new thread pops up comparing formats or analog vs digital or tube vs SS, etc  it's just deja vu all over again without a consensus ever being reached.

 

1.  It seems these days many/most believe that listening skills are inherited at birth rather than a skill that develops over time.  But that would be like saying we're all born to be connoisseurs of fine art because most of us were born to see and we've all visited an art gallery or two.  I don't get out much these days but even when I did, I can only think of a handful of professionals and enthusiastics who possesed well-enough trained ears. 

 

2.  That said, and to be consistant, most likely any Golden Ears type of event would follow suit as IMO it has a far greater probability of the blind leading the blind rather than led or oganized by those who really possess some reasonable level of listening skills.  The odds just don't support another conclusion.

 

3.  IMO, reaching out to Stereophile to discuss listening skills and litmus tests is not unike reaching out to  Al Capone about tax laws.

 

4.  I can tell you what Atkinson's litmus is as he already answered this for us in another forum when pressed several years ago.  He assured us that all of Stereophile's reviewing staff were trained listeners because every last one of them either sang in a choir or played a musical instrument at some point in their lives.  Some of us couldn't help but snicker (Charles Hansen was there too) as that made it quite clear to some of us that Atkinson didn't have a clue what it takes to develop listening skills.

 

5.  Yes, one's hearing can be impaired but still be able to discern / interpret what they hear.  But again, it's a developed skill.

 

Anyway, I made the statement earlier that your technical expertise seemed invaluable but that you were not necessarily known for your keen listening skills or at least I was not aware that you are known for that. 

 

So I'll just ask you point blank.  What are your thoughts on component performance differences before and after full burn-in?  And can you provide an example or two?

 

 

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
26 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

I suspect the slide will accelerate under Jim Austin. I intend to watch that unfold as a former subscriber.

 

I would hope (but not necessarily expect) the opposite, this is a chance at a clean slate of sorts, perhaps Paul Miller recognizes that despite JA's claims of more business as usual.

no-mqa-sm.jpg

Boycott HDtracks

Boycott Lenbrook

Boycott Warner Music Group

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

I would hope (but not necessarily expect) the opposite, this is a chance at a clean slate of sorts, perhaps Paul Miller recognizes that despite JA's claims of more business as usual.

I hope I am wrong. Stereophile has been head and shoulders above the other print mags for many years and that’s before considering the measurements. But Jim Austin was a dubious choice, IMO. In the context of this thread, look no further than his MQA series. And his inability to sonically distinguish DACs from different manufacturers, using different toplogies, should be disqualifying for the Editor of Stereophile.

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
7 minutes ago, fung0 said:

 

On this rare occasion, I must disagree. Perhaps you've never worked as a freelance writer? Or maybe it's been too long?.

 

Personally, I'm always painfully aware of the 'editorial stance' of publications I work for. Being a pig-headed cuss, I often try to push that boundary. But I know from experience that if I push it too hard, I increase the likelihood of my next story pitch being rejected, and my emails going unanswered.

 

You say writers are "distributed and independent," which is obviously true. But it is also demonstrably true that writers who are outspoken in their dislike of MQA are not likely to get a lot of work from the big audiophile publications. There are no emails to leak, just rejection slips.

 

Absolutely.  Conspiracies abound and are everywhere.  For example.  Operation Mockingbird was started in the 1950's and last time I checked it's stronger than ever consuming every last one of us.

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
17 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

More misstatements. No-one at Stereophile is paid by the word. (... )

 

Whoosh.

I thought I'd made that clear in the sentence after the one you quoted.

"People hear what they see." - Doris Day

The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

That’s really a bummer to read. I only know how I operate with a team of independent writers. I ask for them to write whatever they want about any subject they want. If one of our writers wishes to publish a pro-MQA piece, I’ll publish it as long as it’s credible. 

 

Are you sure you would? The hate and attacks here against anyone who breathes a word complimentary of MQA can be brutal. That isn't a healthy environment. Why stir it up more?

 

Not that the issue is likely to come up soon - there doesn't appear to me much good about MQA for audiophiles. Other populations, yes, but not audiophiles. Saying "I liked this track better in the MQA version " is like opening a key to WWIII- 

 

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
11 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Ask sandyk how well I passed his evil test :-).  It was tricky, but apparently I did pretty well.   (The difference was something like what I deal with on the DA decoder, so I just happened to be tuned to the sort of difference that was in the test.)

What test are you referring to?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mansr said:

What test are you referring to?

There was a test with a contrived checksum.  It was meant to confound.

 

1 hour ago, mansr said:

What test are you referring to?

No test -- I was fooled.  This is exactly one of the problems with comparisons -- even someone who can hear differences will sometimes hear differences when they do not exist.

 

I admit a screwup!!! :-).

John

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

LOL. So the litmus test is "satisfying" you... No surprise I guess.

 

As for web publications, clearly as we've seen by many contributors to this site and elsewhere, the fund of knowledge and experience, while variable doesn't seem any worse than what's on offer with most print magazines. if anything, much of the time, contributors appear much more thorough in their evaluation IMO.

 

What is "unfortunate" as per Collom's quote is actually NOT that web publications are more open, hence standardization more difficult. But that the "official", "professional" mainstream press with wider reach, influence, and one would hope higher journalistic standards itself doesn't have clear accreditation demands!

 

And this shows as we talk about MQA...

Hi,

I find it very funny that given the amount of noise on the output of a class-D amplifier, which is an approximation of analogue signal, that they get fantastic reviews, yet the bona fide audio reviewer somehow, cannot hear it, or the impact of it.

 

Yet, they will review a cable having an affect on the sound, when electrically, the changes caused by the cable are of the order of 0.02dB worst case at high frequencies.

 

When you challenge people who can hear changes with cables, you get the usual, your system is not resolving enough, you did it wrong, you are purposefully not hearing the change, or you system is not costly, or the system has been set up wrong, the cable is not expensive enough etc., etc., etc.

 

Maybe the audio magazine reviewers have some sort of God complex. Maybe this is why they have lauded MQA, as they believe themselves to be "better" than everyone else, and they are there to tell the plebeians what they should hear and the best equipment to hear it on. Going back to the beginning - they laud class-D amplifiers with all that noise and approximation, which they cannot hear.

 

We as consumers should not listen to the views and reviews of the self proclaimed bona fide reviewers, as they clearly are not the golden ears that they proclaim to be. If they cannot hear the rubbish output from a class-D amplifier, they certainly cannot hear the high frequency, high resolution information - and given MQA poor audio engineering, they certainly cannot hear that it is the "new world order". Far from it.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[p.s. I do feel a lot better now, i got that off my chest].

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

There was a test with a contrived checksum.  It was meant to confound.

Differing files crafted to have an md5 collision, or identical files with headers/padding altered to produce different checksums?

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, mansr said:

Differing files crafted to have an md5 collision, or identical files with headers/padding altered to produce different checksums?

I was wrong -- I was told something and believed it (after thinking that I heard something different -- I fooled myself there, and do it all of the time, must be very careful.)   I ran a complete check of the file, and both versions were 150% identical.

Mark one up for my own lack of being careful.

 

John

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

You'd think a professional magazine would use a Hasselblad at least, instead of a miniature format...

 

How do you know they are using a miniature format ?   you have a link

 

The Truth Is Out There

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Paul R said:

Are you sure you would? The hate and attacks here against anyone who breathes a word complimentary of MQA can be brutal. That isn't a healthy environment. Why stir it up more?

 

Not that the issue is likely to come up soon - there doesn't appear to me much good about MQA for audiophiles. Other populations, yes, but not audiophiles. Saying "I liked this track better in the MQA version " is like opening a key to WWIII- 

 

 

I would hope free press is still active in the United States., which it is if you view the local news and national stations and papers.     There are AS readers who like and there are AS readers who don't like. You can't please all 100% of them all the time, its like that on any product that has ever been released. .

The Truth Is Out There

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...