Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, lucretius said:

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?

C'mon, you know that Archimago and others would be able to easily evaluate the differences between the pure PCM file and the Master Quack, and more importantly, the rest of us would be able to see if we hear anything close to what Atkinson claims.

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

Why would that be OK? Disrupt an RMAF presentation? You sound as if you think that was clever, justified and well done, none of which are the case. 

 

It wasn't their presentation, though they certainly could have waited until the end and made some comments or questioned whatever they wanted to. But to engage in the level of interruption and unprofessional behavior they did when someone like Jbara is the damn CEO, more is expected of both himself and the band he leads into a public arena that is being captured on video. He couldn't have looked more foolhardy, or done a worse job of representing their brand with that gaggle of jerks.

 

Who the hell do you suggest Ken Forsythe is to "disrupt" an RMAF presentation? Should we for some reason be impressed by his tenure at Meridian, or at HiFi Buys? Lee's buddy?

 

Another pathetic attempt at "clever" revisionist history, I'm amazed at how in each and every post you make here you seem to fancy yourself about the most clever guy around. You've only deluded yourself though, no one else is impressed at all with these periodic ARQ summations, your credibility long ago shot.

Utterly perfect, dead on post.

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

 

First, there is more than one mQa encoder (BS refers to a hierarchy). And do we really need any more technical analysis?  Whether there's 13 or 15 or 17 bits of music, etc. , so what?  iirc, it was mansr who did the technical breakdown.

 

The whole point of the white glove treatment is to present mQa in the best light (not to provide a typical result*).  Noone can be sure what processes mQa limited employed -- perhaps they used some non-mQa processes prior to or subsequent to the mQa encoding.  Also, they are obviously going with the specific mQa encoder (among the various ones they have to choose from) that gives them the best results. Questioning JA's subjective impressions is an act of sheer folly.

 

*E.g. If I were to use a Mytek Brooklyn ADC to produce an mQa file, you know there's no way I could duplicate mQa ltd's white glove treatment.

 

 

 

 

 

Let's try again...I and many others want to know if we heard the Master Quack "magic" JA did-

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-mqa

 

"Amazing Grace: The first of two recordings of mine I used for my comparisons and for which Bob Stuart had prepared MQA versions, this arrangement by Eriks Esenvalds opens and closes with solo soprano, set against a choral vocalise. I've always been happy with the sound of the original 24/88.2 WAV file, but with the MQA version, Genna McAllister's angelic vocal line stands a little more forward from the choral halo, which itself sounds a little farther back than I'm used to. Overall, there was simply less ambiguity in the spatial relationships between the singers and the surrounding acoustic with the MQA version."

 

and

 

"Water Night: The scoring of this choral work by contemporary composer Eric Whitacre is complex and occasionally dense. But with the MQA version, the inner voices were better differentiated. And as with "Amazing Grace," the relationships of each of the singers to each other and the surrounding space seemed better defined. The reverberation tails in the warmly supportive acoustic of St. Stephen's Catholic Church, in Portland, Oregon, faded cleanly into the room tone in both cases, but at one place in the recording the MQA version just sounded more real: About two seconds before the singers start, there is a very quiet noise toward the back of the choir. It sounds somewhat like a generic tick on the original WAV file, more like a sound made by a human being in a real space in the MQA version."

 

Every hifi forum is filled with thousands of threads questioning reviewer subjective impressions of every speaker, component, and cable..so I don't get your reasoning.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Comparisons: I had sent MQA's Bob Stuart the 24/88.2 masters of some of my recordings, for him to produce MQA versions. When he DropBoxed the MQA versions to me, Stuart also loaned me some MQA-encoded hi-rez files that had been used in MQA's demonstrations at the 2016 Consumer Electronics Show, as well as a number of MQA-encoded FLAC files accompanied by the original PCM versions."

 

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander folks.

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

"When he DropBoxed the MQA versions to me, Stuart also loaned me some MQA-encoded hi-rez files that had been used in MQA's demonstrations at the 2016 Consumer Electronics Show, as well as a number of MQA-encoded FLAC files accompanied by the original PCM versions."

 

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander folks.

 

I understood that Chris Connacker, as well as several other writers,  had also been sent the 2016 CES hi-rez files and the corresponding MQA versions that I mention above.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

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

 

I understood that Chris Connacker, as well as several other writers,  had also been sent the 2016 CES hi-rez files and the corresponding MQA versions that I mention above.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

So JA....Please tell us....do you still believe in MQA and all the benefits you previously touted?????

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:

 

 

Well done. 

 

Be careful with the reference to AES paper's about mQa. There is more than one and one may be peer reviewed. There was an issue with this a while back, where "someone" contacted AES because of what he read in this thread, and a representative from AES contacted me etc...

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing The Audiophile Style Podcast

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:


Well that didn't take long......

 

screencapture-audiosciencereview-forum-index-php-2021-05-26-19_45_34.thumb.png.4ec072c174514545acf4f2bf238f21dd.png
 

 

Hrm - very disappointing. This should have the thing that united  ASR and AS.  Argument should be  - hey,  both sides of the audiophile thought discussion agree here, mQa is bad news  - even if for different reasons. Doesn't matter.

 

I do have a related question - do moderators have a duty to be impartial?  Well, I understand that the owner of the forum has the right to regulate content she/he wants on the forum - BUT, talking in general, if someone becomes a moderator, is that a reasonable expectation? I guess I kind of answered my question... so it may be dumb in essence... yet... feels wrong what they did...

 

v

 

 

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...