Stereophile Series on MQA Technology

[semente]

On 10/12/2017 at 9:01 PM, #Yoda# said:

Why should I do? Most members here are doing not as well and it doesn't matter concerning the MQA topic and my posts. But I can assure you, most of my equipment has been reviewed by Stereophile, Audiostream or InnerFidelity very positve and some "Product of the Year". 

Does anyone know the annual cost of a "Product of the Year" award?

[semente]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

But MQA files are not smaller than standard FLAC at equivalent resolution. In fact, they are quite a bit larger.

That must be the authenticated digital signature of the Authenticator.

[semente]

5 minutes ago, #Yoda# said:

I'm buying nothing just because of a review in a magazine or achieved rewards. The only instance I really trust for evaluating HiFi equipment are my ears and the signal processing unit in between. Fortunately I'm living in an area with many well-assorted, customer friendly HiFi dealers and the currently most significant HiFi show to make my own judgements.

Don't worry, I understood your reference to the award in response to Gutburg, since he will take nothing less than high-end or highly touted equipment...

[semente]

5 hours ago, arcman said:

The non MQA hi res version is 24/96 while the mqa version is 24/192. I have same Dac and noticed the MQA version sounds slightly more “spacious”. Is that due to mqa or the extra resolution (96 vs 192)? bTW the 24/96 version is on Qobuz

"Spacious" can very well be the result of artifacts that are correlated with the music programme. Harmonic distortion has that effect too.

[semente]

34 minutes ago, Matias said:

My stance on MQA: just ignore it and it will go away.

 

Are you sure you mean MQA and not GUTB?

[semente]

40 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Schiit doesn’t disrupt anything. They’re a market force because they appeal to millennial buyers by offering very low prices by offering low-cost products and cutting out the dealer network. A few of Schiit’s multibit DACs may be considered high-end in terms of performance but for the most part their products are firmly entry level.

 

There is a very depressing, self-defeating trend in high-end audio which caters solely to well-off empty nester middle aged men going through their mid-life crisis. High-end gear should be priced accordingly, obviously, but I think everyone agrees mortgaging your home to afford it is totally off the deep end. A D’Agostino Momentum is vastly superior to a Vidar, but 35 times the price better? Obviously, no...not even remotely. If that doesn’t slam the door in the face of a coffin-aparartment-living mellenial I don’t know what does.

 

With an S/N ratio of 80dB the Momentum is far from SOTA...not even in the 50s. But, yes, that's high-end.

[semente]

54 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

SOTA does not necessarily mean better components inside the box, it means building your component out of a solid block of metal, that milling cost money.

 

On the other hand:  

 

You should read how the $45K Pass phono amp (the X phono amp cost more than the $38K pre amp!) is constructed......they buff the insides of the wire holes in the high temperature ceramic composite circuit boards..etc etc..that cost money also.  Not $45K worth of course, but still.  (DAGOGO:  Pass Laboratories Xs Phono - Technical background by Wayne Colburn, Designer)

 

High-End doesn't necessarily mean better components inside the box, nor better performance (see D'agostino).

 

I didn't know what SOTA meant so I looked it up:

 

state-of-the-art adjective [usually ADJECTIVE noun]

If you describe something as state-of-the-art, you mean that it is the best available because it has been made using the most modern techniques and technology.

collinsdictionary.com

 

and a better one:

 

State of the art (sometimes cutting edge) refers to the highest level of general development, as of a device, technique, or scientific field achieved at a particular time. It also refers to such a level of development reached at any particular time as a result of the common methodologies employed at the time.

The term has been used since 1910, and has become both a common term in advertising and marketing, and a legally significant phrase with respect to both patent law and tort liability.

In advertising, the phrase is often used to convey that a product is made with the best possible technology, but it has been noted that "the term 'state of the art' requires little proof on the part of advertisers", as it is considered mere puffery.

en.wikipedia.org

[semente]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

 

What does s/n have to do with anything?

You said that

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

A D’Agostino Momentum is vastly superior to a Vidar

 

Vastly superior in which way, fit an finish?

(I had to look up Vidar)

[semente]

I've just run through Sphile's Dan D'Agostino Momentum monoblock power amplifier Measurements

Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/dan-dagostino-momentum-monoblock-power-amplifier-measurements

 

The performance is low-fi at best and the first unit blew up during testing...

What a pile of expensive rubbish.

The comments that ensue are hilarious and shouldn't be missed.

 

Sorry for the off-topic.

[semente]

This one is even worse: Dan D'Agostino Progression Mono monoblock power amplifier Measurements

Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/dan-dagostino-progression-mono-monoblock-power-amplifier-measurements

 

And it also had "problems" that required a second sample to be tested...

Then JA wraps up with one of his gems:

 

The Dan D'Agostino Master Audio Systems Progression Mono is a powerful amplifier indeed, and the measured performance of the second sample does suggest that the first sample I received had somehow suffered during its travels. I was still puzzled by what appeared to be crossover distortion. However, it is fair to note that the Progression Mono measured very similarly to Dan D'Agostino's more expensive Momentum monoblock, which Michael Fremer very favorably reviewed in February 2013 and which I declared to be "well-engineered."—John Atkinson

 

Is this for real?

Do people still read Stereophile?

What a pathetic joke...

[semente]

9 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Some people engineered a better way to deliver hi-res content and are selling the technology to the industry?

 

"Better" as in more "mu$ical"? Ca-ching...

[semente]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

Interesting comment:

https://www.stereophile.com/comment/570532#comment-570532

 

 

So this one:


 

https://www.ayre.com/white_papers/Ayre_MP_White_Paper.pdf

 

And this was in early 2009.

 

Interesting, recently Charles Hansen was underlining the importance of the analogue stage, saying that it accounted more to the overall sound than any other aspect.

 

On 01/09/2017 at 11:44 PM, Charles Hansen said:

Just about everything affect the sound of an audio product, but when it comes to DACs, I would rank (in order or sonic importance the general categories as follows:

 

1) The analog circuitry - 99.9% of all DACs are designed by digital engineers who don't know enough about analog.

 

And yet that QX-5 isn't exactly a stellar performer:

 

Ayre QX-5 Twenty, DAC mode, spectrum of 50Hz sinewave,

DC–1kHz, at 0dBFS into 100k ohms

(left channel blue, right red; linear frequency scale)

 

Ayre QX-5 Twenty, Music filter, DAC mode, HF intermodulation spectrum,

DC–30kHz, 19+20kHz at 0dBFS into 600 ohms, 44.1kHz data

(left channel blue, right red; linear frequency scale)

 

In the case of the QX-5 the analogue output stage accounts for a lot of the sound as it's hardly "transparent".

[semente]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

If you do not understand the technical reasons why those are there, please do not point to the QX-5's analog stage.  All of the artifacts you see there are due to the leaky filter, and have nothing to do with analog stage performance.  The fact that those are there are subjective choices made by Ayre in the development of their filter.  Those artifacts are there as a choice, on purpose.

 

Could make your point more clearly?

I understand that the leaky "Music" filter measures very badly but the "measure" filter doesn't perform much better:

 

Ayre QX-5 Twenty, Measure filter, DAC mode, HF intermodulation spectrum,

DC–30kHz, 19+20kHz at 0dBFS into 600 ohms, 44.1kHz data

(left channel blue, right red; linear frequency scale)

[semente]

1 minute ago, GUTB said:

Measuring tools are insufficient for evaluating subjective sound quality -- which is why real high-end manufacturers design their products via ear. Ayre is a very well-regarded company with a master of the art behind it (sadly passed away, taking a great talent from us). I don't believe there is a single negative thing said about Ayre sound, anywhere, regardless of taste.

You can say that the measurements of the QX-5 are mediocre. And measurements define the degree of accuracy for specific parameters.

[semente]

4 hours ago, barrows said:

For someone to suggest that the Ayre analog stage is poorly designed completely misses the point.  Ayre's analog stage is designed to be this way on purpose, it is doing exactly what they want.

 

Let me rephrase this more accurately (pun intended):

 

Ayre's analog stage is poorly designed to be this way on purpose, it is doing exactly what they want.

[semente]

2 hours ago, barrows said:

This, is a matter of opinion and nothing more.  And your opinion on analog circuit design would carry a bit more weight if you ran a company producing some really good sounding DACs..

 

The problem with your rationale is the "good sounding" part. Good sounding to whom? It's your opinion, not a universally accepted fact.

[semente]

5 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Do you have a MQA DAC?

 

Something High End like a ProJect?

[semente]

Just now, GUTB said:

 

That's definitely not a high end product.

 

What would you recommend? What did/do you use to evaluate MQA?

[semente]

32 minutes ago, GUTB said:

The Zu system is called zu-griewe cabinet loading.

Zu speakers are very low-fi. I'm surprised a connoisseur such as yourself would even mention them.

[semente]

21 hours 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.

Times have changed and this new generation, in fact all those that succeeded the baby boomers', just aren't as well off. Pocket money has been shrinking for decades and the middle class is getting poorer.

Besides they have a broader range of interests.

 

 

[semente]

12 hours ago, GUTB said:

1. There are no MQA supporters on this forum. I'm essentially the only one. Some of you guys have an extrodinarily misplaced sense of oppresaion.

 

2. MQA haters are named such because they have an emotional response against MQA. My support for MQA comes simply from subjective factors. 

 

3. The younger generation not only dismisses high-end audio they also show no interest in mid-end sound unless it can be had for less than $1000 in which case they will sometimes show passing interest.

Hasn't it crossed your mind that perhaps you are preaching to the wrong audience here. No one really bought into your concepts of what Audiophile or High-End means...

[semente]

15 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

I find that when people don’t agree that high end means exactly what the words imply (high end audio) it’s for self-serving purposes. For example, the ODAC is "high-end" because it was designed by some guy that ran a blog who was popular. The popularity of the ODAC was cultural and based on reasons besides sound quality. The issue isn’t that low-end gear like the ODAC or O2 are popular — it’s that the culture that likes the ODAC also rejects the possibility of anything being significantly better. They not only reject the price, they reject the concept of the high-end itself.

 

Anyone who isn’t deaf can walk into an audio show and be exposed to high end sound. I’m 100% confident not a single one of them won’t walk out amazed at the heights of quality that are possible. They don’t want to, however — not because of the price, but because they’re not even interested in learning about high end sound. They aren’t even curious about it. They just don’t care. If the high-end enters thier consciousnesses it’s just to belittle it and re-enforce social and philosophical group norms against it.

Amazing. Do you make that up by yourself?

[semente]

20 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

What’s your explanation for why they don’t believe in or care about high end audio?

I don't know who they are but they're definitely not Audiophiles.

[semente]

58 minutes ago, FredericV said:

I noticed Brian Lucey's posts are being deleted in the comments section of the Stereophile article.
He also was not mentioned in the article.

Brian exposed the fake authentication of MQA, as MQA encodes existing masters not approved by the mastering engineer, and the MQA user will think it's authenticated when the blue light shines. He also exposed the audible degradation, making MQA not master, not quality, not authenticated.

This indicates:

_ stereophile articles are a paid series by MQA
_ otherwise they would not censor the truth

MQA also hired Hans Beekhuyzen for very similar reasons. Hans even pasted emails from Bob in his video's, as if this was proof MQA does not contain any DRM. Guess he did not read the patent which includes the deliberate degrading which MQA offers as a feature.

 

Nothing new there, except for the newcomers and the deluded.

 

Most audio magazines are a profit-driven business and that is fine, but because they're also the most effective way of advertising they make fertile ground for biased "journalism" where, in many cases, some self-appointed gurus to stimulate craving and create misplaced, biased expectations. And they charge dearly for it too.

Those who believe that magazines take the consumer side are misleading themselves.

[semente]

7 hours ago, Sonicularity said:

MQA is a format.  If an opinion about a format creates a pause for anyone to reveal the company they work with or for when this information would otherwise be readily presented, that worries me.  What the hell is going on?  What is it about this MQA format that creates such a consternation?

 

Yes, my comment is purely rhetorical.

 

Any new format means costs for the end user and profits for the industry (magazines included).

Not that audiophiles don't like to change DACs like they change underwear but it's nice to have the option not to...