Stereophile Series on MQA Technology

[Samuel T Cogley]

58 minutes ago, GUTB said:

The real reason why Schiit doesn’t implement MQA is because they’re on such tight margins with thier no-questions-asked return policy direct dealer model.

 

Well, I just learned that you have no problem presenting sheer speculation as fact.  And I thought it was a "fact" that "GUTB will not steer you wrong". 

 

Before you get that foot any further down your throat, you should watch this.

 

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

37 minutes ago, crenca said:

GUTB, are you really Steve Guttenberg?

 

No way.  Check out this review of the Schiit Vidar.  There is none of GUTB's signature vitriol.

 

Quote

 

Staying with German prog rock I played Can's "Future Days" CD, and the hallucinatory soundscapes occupying my listening room made me smile, this 1973 masterpiece still surprises me.

Pair the Vidar with Schiit's smaller tube preamp, the $349 Saga, and that pair together runs just over $1,000. Add a set of $500 ELAC Uni-Fi UB5 monitor speakers, and that would be a hell of a system!

 

 

"made me smile"?  Or "hell of a system" and "Vidar" in the same sentence?  No f-ing way GUTB is Steve Guttenberg.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Didn't the user "witchdoctor" use the term MQA haters ?. GUTB uses this too.

Or is this the usual term as per the facebook group - to call people exposing the truth, as a hater of MQA ?

Regards,

Shadders.

 

WD went out of his way to avoid engaging with anyone who questioned his motives.  GUTB is transparent: "I'm an audiophile and you're not".  On Planet GUTB, MQA is for "emotional" (a.k.a, bona fide, genuine, etc.) audiophiles, so it must be awesome.

[Samuel T Cogley]

8 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

How would you quantify the quality gap between your headphones and HD650 or 400i? Do you know there are many non-audiophiles who mock the very idea of spending that much money on headphones?

 

Some audiophiles might say that the Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 or DF Red aren't worthy of those cans. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

6 minutes ago, GUTB said:

All I'm saying is this: the younger generation has little to no interest in high-end audio. In the headphone world I would describe the high-end as hi-fi (vs lo and mid-fi). In 2 channel setups the quality scale seems broader so I use the high- mid- low- and ultra low-end scale.

 

Remember when you were a teenager and into your 20s you would salivate over exotic cars? You would probably never have one but you loved them anyway. That's our car culture at work. There was such a thing as high-end audiophile culture, but that appears to be dead -- not only does the newer generations not care about it, they actively dismiss and attack it. They could go to a show and listen for themselves but they just don't care to. Millenials aren't spending a few thousand on a VPI, Rega or Clearaudio, they're spending a hundred bucks on some ultra low-end AT, Crosley, etc. and putting them in the corner just to look cool. If they get interested in better audio it typically goes no further than a $200 pair of lo-fi headphones and some USB stick DAC. They won't lust after Utopias or HE1Ks. They won't get excited over the latest Cavelli or Woo amp.

 

Isn't what you're saying here is if they're not like you, they're not legit audiophiles?  If they don't covet what you covet, they're mid-fi?    Your requisite covetousness bar for audiophiles is rather absurd IMHO. And FYI, Cavalli Audio no longer exists.

[Samuel T Cogley]

It looks like MQA's Charm Offensive is trying to establish a beachhead at CA...

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

Let's see how long this one lasts. He doesn't seem quite as hot-tempered as Lavorgna though.

 

I don't think JA came here to answer questions or engage in any dialog.  He came here to explicitly say his publication is not getting paid to say positive things about MQA.  But MQA is an advertiser there, so that's perhaps a bit ambiguous, maybe even disingenuous.  I would be really surprised if he was willing to engage in any back-and-forth that could explore that question in detail.  FWIW, I think Chris made the right call on that ban.

 

While @seldomheard was objectively rude, I suspect many who revere JA perceived an amplified coarseness in that post.  The elephant in the room is the cozy relationship the audiophile press enjoys with manufacturers.  And I suspect that's where @seldomheardwas coming from.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

For the record, MQA has never advertised in Stereophile, though they have occasionally done so in The Absolute Sound.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

Thank you for this clarification.  I wish you well in your MQA rehabilitation project.  You've got a steep climb ahead of you.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Do you really think I'm biased toward MQA and against members of the CA Community, yet I host the largest anti-MQA area on the internet?

 

I'm surprised this seems to be lost on some.  Whenever MQA or their surrogates (like Stereophile) talks about "MQA haters", they're talking about people at CA.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

I even have one of my fans from SABF reporting that I'm defending MQA "as if it gave birth to me".

 

With due respect, I'm really, really hard pressed to believe you have "fans".

[Samuel T Cogley]

6 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Maybe the word sounds nice to you, I don't have an opinion on that. But MQA's approach to digital audio
data encoding, reducing all the stages between the input of the A/D converter to the output of the D/A converter to a transparent "pipe," was a back-to-first-principles approach that I found elegant in the extreme. YMMV.

 

See https://www.stereophile.com/content/ive-heard-future-streaming-meridians-mqa

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

I'm a little surprised someone of Mr. Atkinson's stature would do a "hit and run" post that is really nothing more than an attempt to give Stereophile (and hence, MQA) a voice here that will not engage in discussion or debate.  If I had any doubts that Mr. Atkinson's presence here was to service an agenda, he has vanquished any shred of them.

 

The Atkinson/Stuart cabal seems to be getting desperate.  But I didn't expect anything quite this bold.  No doubt Mr. Atkinson would not tolerate such irresponsible behavior on web sites that he controls.

[Samuel T Cogley]

14 hours ago, esldude said:

Sounds like you haven't spent time reading super best audio friends forum. (SBAF btw not SABF)  Read up about plankton in headphone listening.  Although with all due respect the SBAF moderator accused GUTB of crapping up his plankton thread. 

 

For some reason, whenever I hear "Super Best Audio Friends", I expect to read about Wonder Twins power activating.

 

 

"Super Best Audio Friends" seems like a poor translation from Japanese to English or something.

 

And regarding GUTB's "fans", I have no doubt he inspires a few to be as covetous as he is.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

 

I don't in principle disagree. I don't think most of these people are "shills", which implies being intentionally deceptive...

 

They're only deceptive if they know it's a scam:

 

 

Quote

 

1.

an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.

 

 

To me, "enthusiastic customer" says it all.  A swindler is by definition deceptive, but a "hawker" (which in 2017 is rarely used) is not necessarily.  If Bob Stuart is the hawker, JA and RH (and others) are the accomplices.  I have no doubt they have had what they believe are objectively positive MQA experiences.  But those were controlled experiences.  With Tidal and MQA DACs (i.e., the consumer experience), I certainly haven't had the epiphany that JA and RH claim to have had.  I can get better sound from hi rez audio files by using HQPlayer and a decent DSD DAC.  And I can control the filtering myself for best results without knowing anything about what kind of ADC(s) was using in the recording process. 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

34 minutes ago, crenca said:

Audiophiledom as the culture currently is constituted is full of this sort of thing.  In this hobby there is this kind of belief in the new and progressive - and the feeling of being out front of not only the rest of consumer electronics, but even of science/engineering itself.  The industry promotes this and even relies on it in its typical sales/marketing efforts and customers pay for that feeling of uniqueness and bleeding edge - a kind of "I have what you don't know about and is possibly forbidden"...

 

Sometimes it's more than that.  By some people's logic, if you don't embrace MQA, you're not a "real" audiophile.  JA takes on an almost messianic quality to the "faithful".

[Samuel T Cogley]

42 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Modern cars are seem very much the same. Same-ish. I ride with Uber a lot, and so I see the inside of a lot of cars. I'm telling you, there's not that much difference now between a Kia and a BMW.

 

The same can't be said of audio. An Ayre is going to sound different from a McIntosh. A Pass is vastly superior to a Rotel. And so on. Even class D amps with the same power supplies and modules can sound different based on their designers' voicing. Audio is coming out with something new -- a technology, a technique, a part that better, etc. The cumulative improvement is huge. @gmgraves may love his 43 year old Harmon Kardon, but it's non-competitive with the state-of-the-art.

 

None of this elevates MQA.  This is the tired, "you don't like MQA because you're old" trope.

 

And comparing cars to audio is a slippery slope.  Next comes wine and cigars.

[Samuel T Cogley]

39 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Done but awaiting moderation. I was careful though.

 

In my experience, nothing negative, no matter how polite or courteous, gets through to the comments section there.