Another major look at MQA by another pro.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

I just want as much truthful information as I can get, which is not easy.

Try listening to those of us who have no financial interest in the success (or demise) of MQA.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

Try listening to those of us who have no financial interest in the success (or demise) of MQA.

Well, I have tried.  But, I have found that disappointing.  I appreciate your efforts, difficult and time consuming as that may have been.  And, I respect you from numerous posts here and elsewhere.  But, though you may think you have delivered a knockout punch,  I remain neutral with too many unanswered questions.  I also still see too much unproven speculation and innuendo from the anti-MQA brigade in general, some of which is spurious, disingenuous even.  Some, may be valid, however.

 

Also, I only know vaguely who you are and what your vested interests might be, even if certifiably non-financial.  Ditto for certain other anti-MQA stalwarts here.  It seems you are connected with SoX, which I happily use on a regular basis. There may be other commonly used tools as well. And, though you might derive no financial gain from them, MQA logically may compete with your creations, if I have this right.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Also, I only know vaguely who you are and what your vested interests might be, even if certifiably non-financial.

I'm sure you can figure out my name and Google it.

[ctsooner]

56 minutes ago, mansr said:

I'm sure you can figure out my name and Google it.

Man Sr?    

[crenca]

30 minutes ago, ctsooner said:

Man Sr?    

 

Ha, let's try mine:  Cre Nca, or is it C Renca?  How about Cranky?

 

Check out:

 

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/06/measurements-audioquest-dragonfly-black_24.html

 

Måns Rullgård (and thus mansr)

[Ralf11]

https://github.com/mansr

 

????

[Fokus]

8 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

 I remain neutral with too many unanswered questions.  I also still see too much unproven speculation and innuendo from the anti-MQA brigade in general, some of which is spurious, disingenuous even.

 

Also, I only know vaguely who you are and what your vested interests might be, even if certifiably non-financial.  Ditto for certain other anti-MQA stalwarts here. 

 

1) If you have unanswered questions, please ask them (again). Perhaps an update is available.

 

2) Any 'brigade', anti or pro, tends to attract people who are, let's say, somewhat diplomatically challenged. And this often to the detriment of the brigade's agenda. Learn to ignore their hate speech or incoherent ramblings.

 

3) I can tell you that I have no connections to the audio or music industry whatsoever (the faint connection I had evaporated over ten years ago, and was not related to digital at all). I have a scientific and engineering background, with published (and apparently appreciated) papers. I am not an audio engineer, but I studied and obtained my degrees because of my life-long fascination with audio. I have zero financial interest in this: I can afford any audio system I like (if only I had the time to enjoy it). So I think I can see MQA for what it is: a cynically disguised attempt at a land grab,  based on shaky research, and this while the prevailing outside atmosphere is one of open-sourcing to the benefit of the many.

 

 

[mansr]

5 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

https://github.com/mansr

 

????

That's me.

[ctsooner]

What is is that you do Mans?  I've never heard of you and would like to know more.  That's the one thing that often gets lost on boards. It's just nice to know where folks are coming from.  

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

8 hours ago, Fokus said:

 

1) If you have unanswered questions, please ask them (again). Perhaps an update is available.

 

2) Any 'brigade', anti or pro, tends to attract people who are, let's say, somewhat diplomatically challenged. And this often to the detriment of the brigade's agenda. Learn to ignore their hate speech or incoherent ramblings.

 

3) I can tell you that I have no connections to the audio or music industry whatsoever (the faint connection I had evaporated over ten years ago, and was not related to digital at all). I have a scientific and engineering background, with published (and apparently appreciated) papers. I am not an audio engineer, but I studied and obtained my degrees because of my life-long fascination with audio. I have zero financial interest in this: I can afford any audio system I like (if only I had the time to enjoy it). So I think I can see MQA for what it is: a cynically disguised attempt at a land grab,  based on shaky research, and this while the prevailing outside atmosphere is one of open-sourcing to the benefit of the many.

 

 

I do not know you either, but no matter.  And, you are certainly entitled to your opinion about MQA, though I disagree.  I do not see the truth in your summary hostile judgement of it. And, like you, I have no direct or indirect financial or other ties to the audio industry.

 

But, this question of identity is interesting.  I have a long, long history as an audiophile.  Therefore, I have known of Bob Stuart for a very long time, though we have never met.  Whatever you may think of him, he is an acknowledged expert in audio and psychoacoustics.  He has published numerous AES papers over many years.  His AES colleagues may disagree with him on some issues.  However, there is no evidence he is anything other than still accepted and well regarded by his AES peers to this day.  

 

His Meridian company has made highly performant, if also very pricey gear, for many years.  Some of that equipment was really very highly innovative in its day. I can cite many examples, though I have never owned any.  I  suppose it is possible, though highly unlikely, that he has undergone a sudden metamorphosis to this money grabbing fraud he is now made out to be here.  

 

So, we have these claims made here by mostly anonymous folks like you (except for Charlie Hansen) that Stuart is a monster, a fraud, a charlatan, that his research is (suddenly) untrustworthy.  Allegedly, reverse engineering by the mysterious mansr "proves" that Stuart has outright lied to everyone here there and everywhere.

 

Sorry, I don't give Stuart the benefit of the doubt.  But, I don't give it to you or mansr or anyone else based on the quality of evidence presented to date.

[ctsooner]

I'm just an audiophile,. I'm not an engineer, but I do understand a fair amount.   I do love to learn.  This whole MQA stuff will shake itself out.  If it's a fraud, then it will not cash on and will fizz out.  If it does catch on, then they've done done a great job marketing.  

 

I was fortunate enough to hear it well before it was released at Meridian shop.  Disclaimer, I would never own their gear, even if it was inexpensive.  Just not my taste.  It was just never natural sounding to me no matter what I played on it etc... and I'm talking about their state of the art gear.  Been listening to their top gear for well over 30 years now as I know a few of their dealers.  I will say that on their system, the MQA recordings sounded much better in all aspects.  I still didn't like what I heard, but it sounded better.  These were recordings that the MQA folks put together.  I assume they were full MQA from recordings all the way through.  I've heard it a few times on other high end systems like the Nyquist and it sounded good, but there were just too many in the room for me to make an long term judgments.  I was speaking with one of the audio stalwarts who is analog all the way and he actually liked the Nyquist playing MQA, but I wonder if it was because the Nyquist is a really good DAC.  Honestly, when I auditioned the Nyquist, we also had my Ayre QX5/20 in the same system and we played the same recording on each and the Ayre was better in micro and macro dynamics, which is something the Nyquist is pretty good at also.  

 

For me, I use my ears and don't care about others reviews.  I will point to them on the net as that's what we all do.  To call folks frauds etc... is really a strong thing to do.  To do it on the net is even worse.  I'm guilty of that at time and not trying to be a hypocrite.  I just don't know why folks are so wrapped up in the MQA isn't as good or it is.  Go listen. If you like it, get gear with it. If not, then don't.  Personally, there just isn't enough content yet to even make it worth while. If they are indeed lying about what it is in their advertising, then I do hope they get called on it as that's not fair, but again, your own ears are the ONLY test.  JMHO

[Ralf11]

17 hours ago, mansr said:

That's me.

 

 

a fine profile - if digitized to a low res bunch of squares, would make an xlnt icon here

[Charles Hansen]

16 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

I do not know you either, but no matter.  And, you are certainly entitled to your opinion about MQA, though I disagree.  I do not see the truth in your summary hostile judgement of it. And, like you, I have no direct or indirect financial or other ties to the audio industry.

 

But, this question of identity is interesting.  I have a long, long history as an audiophile.  Therefore, I have known of Bob Stuart for a very long time, though we have never met.  Whatever you may think of him, he is an acknowledged expert in audio and psychoacoustics.  He has published numerous AES papers over many years.  His AES colleagues may disagree with him on some issues.  However, there is no evidence he is anything other than still accepted and well regarded by his AES peers to this day.  

 

His Meridian company has made highly performant, if also very pricey gear, for many years.  Some of that equipment was really very highly innovative in its day. I can cite many examples, though I have never owned any.  I  suppose it is possible, though highly unlikely, that he has undergone a sudden metamorphosis to this money grabbing fraud he is now made out to be here.  

 

So, we have these claims made here by mostly anonymous folks like you (except for Charlie Hansen) that Stuart is a monster, a fraud, a charlatan, that his research is (suddenly) untrustworthy.  Allegedly, reverse engineering by the mysterious mansr "proves" that Stuart has outright lied to everyone here there and everywhere.

 

Sorry, I don't give Stuart the benefit of the doubt.  But, I don't give it to you or mansr or anyone else based on the quality of evidence presented to date.

 

Hi Fitzcarraldo,

 

This is one of the problems of the corporate press. You think you know a lot about Bob Stuart and Meridian, because of what the corporate press and Meridian brochures tell you. But what you really know about Meridian and Bob Stuart?

 

Thanks to the internet you can now access a lot of information on Meridian, including financial statements required by  UK law that are nearly as strict as what public companies in the US must publish. With a bit of detective work you can find out that Meridian has basically lost money in every single year of its existence. They almost went out of business in 1991, but BS is married to the heiress of a US publishing Empire and her family trust bailed them out. After continuing to lose money for many more years BS finally convinced Luxembourg-based luxury group conglomerate Richemont (Cartier, Dunhill, and so forth, worth about $10 billion) to purchase Meridian. The idea was to sell Meridian hi-fi to the super-rich. After a few more years of losing money, Richemont spun off all of their less profitable "luxury-tech" companies into a sub-corporation called Reinet Investments, S.C.A.(still worth about $2 billion on paper).

 

At this point the story becomes murkier, but it appears that Reinet pumped about $20 million into newly-formed  MQA. The paper deals started with MQA "purchasing" all of the technology from Meridian for around $14 million - apparently the only profitable year for Meridian. I put "purchasing" in quotes as Reinet owns both companies and Bob Stuart sits on the board of both companies, so the distinction is largely clerical.

 

As far as Bob Stuart, he is known to have misled his customers as noted in this early Stereophile review, "Meridian states in their literature that there are no ICs in the signal path of the modified unit. I traced the Meridian circuit with the Signetics linear data book in hand, and the Signetics 5534 op-amps are definitely in the signal path. And op-amps are quite definitely ICs. I have nothing against 5534s they are about the best op-amps around. I only mention their presence because it would seem to contradict one of Meridian's claims for the MCD."

 

Plus Meridian doesn't seem to know a lot about analog circuit design as DIY'er and reviewer George Graves was also able to significantly improve the sound of the Meridian MCD by replacing some coupling caps in the signal path: "From the moment that I saw those two tantalum electrolytics in the output, I wondered if they couldn't be the culprit; one Sunday afternoon I could stand the suspense no longer. I carefully bypassed the two tantalum capacitors, and connected the Meridian up to the outboard box containing the two 20µF polypropylene caps I use for my Magnavox. The Meridian's high end just opened up! The strings became sweet and effortless. The top became light and airy The darkness was gone. Curiously, the soundstage became deeper, while maintaining the extraordinary height and width noticed earlier. Now the Meridian lives up to its promise and is the best-sounding player I have ever heard."

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/meridian-mcd-mcd-pro-cd-players-george-m-graves-ii

 

To be frank, I am baffled at how the "MQA" paper passed the JAES review board. It is truly an embarrassment that should never habe been allowed to see the light of day in the form it was published.  http://www.aes.org/e-lib/download.cfm/17501.pdf?ID=17501

And the material put out to the general public is far, far worse. It was bad enough on the face of it, but now that mansr and soxr have done a lot of reverse engineering, it reveals complete outright lies in the published MQA material.

 

A lot of people heard of Bernie Madoff before, too. Do you remember the name of the guy(s?) who exposed him? Don't let fame (or lack thereof) interfere with facts.

 

Hope this helps,

Charles Hansen

[mav52]

Charles

Quote

And the material put out to the general public is far, far worse. It was bad enough on the face of it, but now that mansr and soxr have done a lot of reverse engineering, it reveals complete outright lies in the published MQA material.

 

A lot of people heard of Bernie Madoff before, too. Do you remember the name of the guy(s?) who exposed him? Don't let fame (or lack thereof) interfere with facts.

 

Maybe mansr and soxr will be MQA version of Harry Markopolos.   In the end, the truth did come out.  But it amazes me how the big recording labels can get duped into this and DAC makers give up their souls to promote MQA. 

[Shadders]

3 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

 Don't let fame (or lack thereof) interfere with facts.

Hi,

Given the superficiality of attitudes in the UK (as an example), and the lack of detailed discussion and understanding of quite simply everyone, then when MQA is adopted by major brands (hifi and smartphones), it is inevitable that it will become a standard.

Testing of red book, vinyl, and MP3 when presenting upmarket hifi on such shows as the Gadget Show in the UK, showed that the majority liked MP3 - not because it is better, but because it was what people were used to.

MQA will be the same, as people will be told it is better, believe it is better, and then get used to the sound as being better.

My only concern is that they will provide CD's with only MQA on it.

Regards,

Shadders.

[The Computer Audiophile]

43 minutes ago, Shadders said:

My only concern is that they will provide CD's with only MQA on it.

 

I'd say this shouldn't concern you too much. They won't even be providing CDs much longer. 

[mansr]

On 8/31/2017 at 2:35 PM, ctsooner said:

What is is that you do Mans?  I've never heard of you and would like to know more.  That's the one thing that often gets lost on boards. It's just nice to know where folks are coming from.

That github link should give you some idea, or google my name.

[ctsooner]

Thanks Charles.  That clears up a lot of stuff I've heard over the years. Even their dealers I know, don't know all those facts.  I always wondered how they kept in business as none of the dealers I know sell much of it at all.  I don't even know why they keep it.  I have never read that review by George Graves, but that's DEAD on how their gear sounds to me.  Dark, cut off, closed in and flat soundstage (or none).

 

As I said above, I believe a handful of folks I know in the audio world, but CH is one of them, so thanks.  

 

I still stand by the fact that what I've heard (limited of course) of MQA, has sounded a bit better.  Lies, politics, personal agenda's and even facts aside.  Why have I heard a positive difference with the MQA auditions I've been invited to?  One other person I have spoken with on MQA who is a world renown designer liked what he heard the first time he heard it and he doesn't like digital AT ALL.  I am a lay person, who wants to understand more.  Not quite as techie as most of you guys. If this is the wrong thread for me to ask, please be honest and let me know.  thanks for letting me play. Pete 

[mcgillroy]

4 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

To be frank, I am baffled at how the "MQA" paper passed the JAES review board. It is truly an embarrassment that should never habe been allowed to see the light of day in the form it was published.  http://www.aes.org/e-lib/download.cfm/17501.pdf?ID=17501

 

 

Yes. But the quality of AES-papers is not too high anyways. It's just a lot of industry-posturing going on. More telling though there have been no follow-up papers, neither from BS or any third party.

 

Given the momentum the topic has and the material now available it shouldn't be to hard to put together a critique of their paper and have it published with AES. Now that would be fun

 

Also thx for the info on Meridians/MQA business ties. Very enlightening. Makes me wonder in how far the audiophile press is tied into this whole mess.

[ctsooner]

49 minutes ago, mansr said:

That github link should give you some idea, or google my name.

Thank you .

[esldude]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I'd say this shouldn't concern you too much. They won't even be providing CDs much longer. 

Yeah okay, but will they only provide downloadable or streamable files in MQA only? 

 

Even if I grant that MQA might do something positive, it could do all those positive things in a slightly different version that was not lossy.  Being limited by a lossy format is one thing that bothers me. 

[d_elm]

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

Yeah okay, but will they only provide downloadable or streamable files in MQA only? 

 

Even if I grant that MQA might do something positive, it could do all those positive things in a slightly different version that was not lossy.  Being limited by a lossy format is one thing that bothers me. 

I think MQA is lossy to get the music producers on board.  Bleak future if MQA only and no 96/24, 192/24, DSD, etc downloads except from specialty web sites.

[esldude]

31 minutes ago, d_elm said:

I think MQA is lossy to get the music producers on board.  Bleak future if MQA only and no 96/24, 192/24, DSD, etc downloads except from specialty web sites.

Yet the lossy quality gets music companies on board because they see they might curtail or eventually eliminate those other download options if they can make MQA work in the marketplace. 

[mcgillroy]

On 8/31/2017 at 0:35 AM, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Well, I have tried.  But, I have found that disappointing.  I appreciate your efforts, difficult and time consuming as that may have been.  And, I respect you from numerous posts here and elsewhere.  But, though you may think you have delivered a knockout punch,  I remain neutral with too many unanswered questions.

 

I undestand your reserve and it would be helpful if you'd list up the questions you see unanswered or only partially answered. Thx!

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Yeah okay, but will they only provide downloadable or streamable files in MQA only? 

 

Even if I grant that MQA might do something positive, it could do all those positive things in a slightly different version that was not lossy.  Being limited by a lossy format is one thing that bothers me. 

Very possible MQA will be the only thing available.