MQA is Vaporware

[lucretius]

8 hours ago, firedog said:

My impression is that Stereophile reviews a fair amount of reasonably priced products. You see them listed  in their yearly recommended components.  Those products have all been reviewed in the magazine. In loudspeakers, for instance, they even have a category for "LF restricted" speakers, which generally translates to reasonably priced. 

 

LF restricted means low frequency restricted and would include desktop in addition to some bookshelf speakers - not necessarily reasonably priced.  Apparently, they think that reasonable priced speakers are OK for your desktop -- just don't use them for your main system, yada, yada, yada..

[lucretius]

39 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

You really need to read more before you post. See https://www.stereophile.com/taxonomy/term-p/141

- plenty of affordable speakers reviewed that will shine in a regular system, as well as a dedicated desktop speaker system like the impressive Vanatoo.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Thanks. I didn't know you had a section entitled Budget Component Reviews. But you have to admit, it's a bit sparse. For example, 7 items in 2018 (2 items were speakers), 12 items in 2017 (4 items were speakers), and 11 items in 2016 (4 items were speakers).

[lucretius]

23 minutes ago, firedog said:

hose desktop speakers you refer to include Klipsch Heresey and some pretty good standmounts. Most are definitely not “desktop” models. In all categories there are numerous components under $2k and even $1k.some substantially under $1k.  Most  are perfectly fine audiophile components

 

I didn't say that LF Restricted loudspeakers were all desktops.  And, BTW,  the Klipsch's are in 'Class C' (I also see a Class D, E,and K, LOL); who buys class C?*  Not much in Class B.  Rarely anything in Class A .

 

*Actually, I did once. Turned out to be a huge mistake.

 

[lucretius]

31 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

You clearly don’t read Stereophile or you wouldn’t make that statement. However, this being the internet and all, you go ahead and express your opinion anyway on a subject you have no knowledge of.

 

Can't you simply disagree?  You remind me of the Apple fanboys.

[lucretius]

18 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Danko just doesn't know what he's talking about

 

No kidding. Besides the inaccuracies, Darko (I like "Danko" better) missed some obvious issues with the Dragonfly Cobalt.  I received one the other day, then after testing it out, promptly returned it.

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I guessed JVS before I even clicked the link. 

 

P.S. I'm not talking bad about him, but recognized his writing. Those how live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. 

 

What, no comments on his "world-renowned" whistling?

[lucretius]

50 minutes ago, mansr said:

Care to elaborate?

 

1. The lights do not change color as they should*:

   Green = 44.1:  Yes, this works.

   Blue = 48:  Yes, this works but see below.

   Amber = 88.2:  No, this does not work – instead you get a blue light.

   Magenta = 96:  No, this doesn’t work – instead you get a blue light.

   Purple = MQA:  Yes this works – regardless of the MQA rate (44.1, 48, 96, 192, etc.), you get the purple light.
   
   *Tested on both PC and Android phone.
    

2. The Dragonfly Cobalt is not recognized by the AQ Device Manager (Windows 10).
    
3. The Dragonfly Cobalt sounds the same as the Dragonfly Red in the context for which the device was intended.  For example, connected to a cell phone and using in-ear headphones that do not cost more than the cell phone,  you will not notice a sound difference. However, the Dragonfly Cobalt does use a little less power (for a given sound level) than the Dragonfly Red; therefore, for some headphones which are a little harder to drive, the Cobalt may do a better job.
    
4. The build quality of the Cobalt is inferior to the Red. You could wiggle the USB type A connector and feel the board inside move as well as hear it click. I wonder how long this device would last in regular use. The Red seems a lot more robust.

 

[lucretius]

47 minutes ago, mansr said:

Maybe the manager needs to be updated. 

 

That's probably the case.

 

 

47 minutes ago, mansr said:

Did you honestly expect to notice a difference?

 

As per the hype, I was at least expecting the noise level to be reduced -- but not so.

 

 

47 minutes ago, mansr said:

I don't think it's any less robust than the Black or Red. At $300, however, a wiggle-free fit really isn't too much to ask.

 

I could wiggle the USB Type A connector much more so in the Cobalt than the Red. It seems the one end of the PC board is held into place solely by the 3.5mm jack.  Since the board in the Red/Black is longer than the one in the Cobalt and since the Red/Black has a narrower container throughout much of it's body, the Red/Black appears to better hold the board in place. I'm thinking AudioQuest should have filled the body of the device with epoxy.

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Speaking for my self, there are countless ways I would rather spend $300.😃

 

Yeah, that's what she said.  ☺️

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

I’m confused: does the Nordost USB cable unfold MQA when you unroll it?

 

As is typical of Stereophile when reviewing "low brow" equipment, the cables used cost more than, by orders of magnitude, then the equipment under review. It's hard to take that kind of review seriously.

[lucretius]

delete

 

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, KeenObserver said:

The Chinese are not allowed full access to the web.  They are allowed a carefully screened version.

Now, with MQA, they will not be allowed access to full resolution audio. Sad.

 

The Great Firewall and the Great Lie. ☺️

[lucretius]

22 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Reverse engineered, copied, distributed ... done deal, who cares?

 

Don't need to reverse engineer MQA in order to copy files and distribute them (at least now without the DRM code to prevent playback of copies).  In any case,  if some DRM code is applied that would prevent playback of copies, then MQA CD's would not be playable on most disk players in existence. And as along as non-MQA files/CDs are available,  then who needs MQA anyway?

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

I tend to have faith in scientists that use established scientific methodology and come to conclusions based on accepted scientific principals.  When a number of them independently come to the same conclusion that MQA's claims are bogus,  I tend to believe them.

 

Not meaning to be facetious but I wasn't aware that scientists had any research interest in MQA.

 

And why listen to only scientists?  What's wrong with engineering practitioners, for example?

[lucretius]

51 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

Also not being facetious, but are engineering practitioners not also scientists?

 

I would say no*. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist

 

*Not that there's anything wrong with that. ☺️

[lucretius]

29 minutes ago, firedog said:

Engineering deals in applied science. Engineers are not scientists. Do you want your bridge design to be an experiment? 

 

That's still better than the Marketing Department designing the bridge. ☺️

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

Planet Claire has pink air. 

All the trees are red.

[lucretius]

10 hours ago, crenca said:

Thanks.  Audiophile descriptive language such as "clarity", "resolution", and the like (to say nothing of descriptors like "musicality") are so variable as to be almost useless. 

 

This is the language of a subjectivist fiction.

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, John Dyson said:

'Remastered' could be good or bad, but most often per my experience, 'remastered' is a very bad thing.

 

This is the case as per my listening experience too!

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, crenca said:

Add to that the out of phase-i-ness of the upper frequencies and (depending on the recording) a grain/"digititus" added as well.

 

Did you get permission from the subjectivists to use their language?  ☺️

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

One thing for sure. Virtually NO ONE on planet earth heard what Austin, Atkinson, Fremer, Harley, et all heard. 

 

NO ONE>

 

Virtually no one on planet earth has ever heard what these gentlemen have heard (MQA or not). It baffles me how these aging gentlemen, usually with age-related hearing loss, manage to do it. They've got to will those ears to the Smithsonian.

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

With some benefit of hindsight, I view the early demos of MQA a little differently.  In essence they were trying to show us, that a lossy format that presents itself like 96 khz can degrade the sound of a CD less than converting it to an MP3 does.

 

Not to mention the comfort of seeing that blue light to let you know that everything is better.

[lucretius]

7 hours ago, Paul R said:

I would say that, except it would generate such a spewing from the hide behind an anonymous handle idiots that it is not worth it.

 

Who are you?  ☺️

[lucretius]

57 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Almost like  we’re back to the original post.  There is no master of “Riders on the Storm.” 

 

Lost?  Burned in the fire?

[lucretius]

8 hours ago, Paul R said:

My music is either high res PCM, DSD, or redbook. And I doubt very seriously if I will be rebuying any of the thousands of albums in my collection.

 

Buying MQA versions is risky.  It won't be long before all software that decodes MQA is either eol'd or the MQA functions are deprecated. Similarly, the hardware decoders will disappear from the market.  Then what will you do with your MQA music?