Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, LarryMagoo said:

So I guess that JA does not mind that he has BURNT ALL HIS BRIDGES WITH HIS READERS?????

 

To be fair, he is only burning his bridges with some readers that frequent Audiophile Style,

mQa is dead!

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LarryMagoo said:

So I guess that JA does not mind that he has BURNT ALL HIS BRIDGES WITH HIS READERS?????

I don't know that I would make such a sweeping comment. 

 

JA and his body of work over a number of decades with publishing of real, verified and documented test data was a breath of fresh air in the HiFi world where others gave glowing reviews for manufacturers who advertised in their publications.  

 

However, I do believe that if JA has HighRes files of tracks that he has recorded with and without MQA encoding that they would be welcome here for all to review.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, StephenJK said:

I do believe that if JA has HighRes files of tracks that he has recorded with and without MQA encoding that they would be welcome here for all to review.  

 

As I was a contractor for these recording projects and don't own the copyright, I am not free to share the files.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

No. MQA had no involvement in the production of the recordings I have made. After the original release, what they did was prepare MQA-encoded versions for me to compare with the commercially released recordings. They also sent me the MQA and non-MQA files of other recordings that they had sent for comparison to Chris Connacker and other writers.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

But you were one of the small group of anointed team players, er, "influencers" who got files mQa'd. 

 

Seems like a very tiny club.  You originally reported that Master Quack must be "applied at the mastering stage" which clearly was not true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

To be fair, he is only burning his bridges with some readers that frequent Audiophile Style,

To be fairer...there is a good percentage of older Stereophile readers who only listen to vinyl, and really don't know or care about his embrace of Master Quack.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, StephenJK said:

I don't know that I would make such a sweeping comment. 

 

JA and his body of work over a number of decades with publishing of real, verified and documented test data was a breath of fresh air in the HiFi world where other publications gave glowing reviews for manufacturers who advertised in their publications.  

 

However, I do believe that if JA has HighRes files of tracks that he has recorded with and without MQA encoding that they would be welcome here for all to review.  

 

 

Stephen,

 

Sweeping comment?   Well how come JA will not come forth with a CREDIBLE EXPLANATION???   He could save his butt with his readers or FOREVER NOT BE CREDIBLE!!!  He cannot have it both ways....credibility doesn't work like that!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

As I was a contractor for these recording projects and don't own the copyright, I am not free to share the files.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Fair enough.  Thanks for answering, that does make sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LarryMagoo said:

Stephen,

 

Sweeping comment?   Well how come JA will not come forth with a CREDIBLE EXPLANATION???   He could save his butt with his readers or FOREVER NOT BE CREDIBLE!!!  He cannot have it both ways....credibility doesn't work like that!

 

 

Dude.  Take a chill pill, step away from the CapsLock key.  We're just having a conversation here - not looking to storm the castle with our pitchforks to confront the monster.  Right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

To be fairer...there is a good percentage of older Stereophile readers who only listen to vinyl, and really don't know or care about his embrace of Master Quack.

I don't know that anyone here would say that "spinning the black circle" is a bad thing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I would classify myself as an older reader of both Stereophile and TAS.   But I cannot read them if I know the editors are full of crap and that every word they write is disingenuous.....period!    I quit the vinyl religion two decades ago....and yea I had a VPI record cleaner, a hideously expensive TT and cupboards full of MoFi Vinyl.    But digital has come a huge distance in 20 years!  Vinyl is a huge time sync that I don't feel is worth it anymore.  Roon lets me enjoy Music way, way more than I used to with Vinyl. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LarryMagoo said:

Well I would classify myself as an older reader of both Stereophile and TAS.   But I cannot read them if I know the editors are full of crap and that every word they write is disingenuous.....period!    I quit the vinyl religion two decades ago....and yea I had a VPI record cleaner, a hideously expensive TT and cupboards full of MoFi Vinyl.    But digital has come a huge distance in 20 years!  Vinyl is a huge time sync that I don't feel is worth it anymore.  Roon lets me enjoy Music way, way more than I used to with Vinyl. 

Larry, there's no right or wrong, it's all about the music.  I also remember the Enid Lumley days, and know who Julian Hirsch is.  

 

Music playback in our homes continues to evolve, whether with licorice pizza or with digital downloads.  It's all about the music, and for some of us trying to make it sound as close as possible to what we hear in concert. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

As I was a contractor for these recording projects and don't own the copyright, I am not free to share the files.

 

 

49 minutes ago, StephenJK said:

Fair enough.  Thanks for answering, that does make sense.

 

Even if JA could share I'm not sure what that would reveal.  The white glove treatment these recordings received is not representative of a random mQa album found on Tidal.

mQa is dead!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

 

Even if JA could share I'm not sure what that would reveal.  The white glove treatment these recordings received is not representative of a random mQa album found on Tidal.

It would reveal a lot..if you had the lossless master file before Master Quack, and the processed file, there are a myriad of comparisons that can be done, both subjective as to how they sound, and technical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, StephenJK said:

Fair enough.  Thanks for answering, that does make sense.

No, it does not hold water. JA could easily upload 60 second clips of the unadulterated master file and the Master Quacked file.

 

It would be no skin of his back.  It is not that he CAN'T, it is he WON'T.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

It would reveal a lot..if you had the lossless master file before Master Quack, and the processed file, there are a myriad of comparisons that can be done, both subjective as to how they sound, and technical.

But it still not representative of what one finds on Tidal, so what does it really matter? And what mQa processes would be evaluated?  What would it tell us about the sausage maker that Warner's back catalogue is put through or the mQa processes available to studios?

mQa is dead!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...