Stereophile Series on MQA Technology

[#Yoda#]

33 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

RT66indierock, Stereophile is calling you a troll! 

 

They speak about you in promoting their January issue:

 

"JA also kicks off the issue with a look at the controversy raised by MQA. Controversy? Also in the January Stereophile, Jim Austin examines the time-domain performance of MQA-equipped DACs and one Internet troll is already offering a $10 bounty for anyone who debunks one of Jim's findings!"

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/january-already

 

So, it seems that if you have issues with MQA, the people of Stereophile consider you a troll. How nice... 

 

 

 

It seems to me that Stereophile is considering RT66indierock as a moneymaker by increasing their possibly weaken revenue with published paper issues. Clever strategy! 

[#Yoda#]

7 minutes ago, GUTB said:

The article is going to explore time domain factors — something the usual compliment of non-audiophiles aren’t equipped to deal with.

compliment or complement? 

[#Yoda#]

@GUTB I cannot understand why you still insist on your once stated opinion about MQA, regarding the evidentiary facts from many independent and professional specialists (not only the view, who are posting here). Some of them are presumably better equipped with analyzing tools than your reviewer or your editorial department. On the long term, this persist on "alternative facts" spread by Bob Stuart and MQA will not support the credibility of your magazine, IMO.

[#Yoda#]

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". 

[#Yoda#]

33 minutes ago, GUTB said:

What does matter is the quality of MQA. I just listened to the MQA and non-MQA version of Hotel California 40th annervisary expended edition with the Pro-Ject Pre S2; if you can’t tell the difference I don’t know what to tell you. The MQA version sounds like hi-res, and the non-MQA sounds like Redbook.

 

Are you kidding? If you are really Steve Guttenberg as you may suggest, you wouldn't compare Tidal Master with Tidal HiFi streams on a cheap bulk good DAC, even if designed by a respected engineer. I've had the chance to compare MQA with the equivalent HiRes downloads with a Mytek Brooklyn in my own system and at the HighEnd show 2016 the Mytek booth staff conceded that they cannot notice an advantage of MQA compared to the HiRes files. Anyway, my mayor concerns are not about the sound qualities, finally this is like a question of taste. My concerns are from my consumer point of view more on the monopolistic aspects and the basic ability of DRM beside the obvious "alternative facts" that MQA is trying to convey to the public.

[#Yoda#]

@GUTB Sorry, I was not quite with it today and associated Steve Guttenberg with Stereophile, what a shame.

 

Correct would have been cnet.com and I'm not really surprised by your comparisons and posts any more. ?

[#Yoda#]

As I wrote, I'm not quite with it today to classify reviewers to specific HiFi magazines because the US scene seems to be somehow incestuous. Aren't there enough really qualified, talented and independent writers? 

[#Yoda#]

59 minutes ago, barrows said:

1.  The music files must be from the same master, testing MQA vs. a rebook source is absurd in the extreme. Example: use 

     a 24/192 native file vs. a MQA version of the exact same file for the comparison.

The only largely reliable source to get MQA and HiRes from the same Master are the records published by the label 2L.

 

All MQA files from the major labels are not reliable from the same master as the HiRes, even if it is most likely that MQA Ltd. used the existing HiRes files as source for the conversion to MQA (is it still really MQA with the supposed benefits then?), maybe except the view albums that enjoyed a special mastering and are usually used for MQA presentations. 

[#Yoda#]

32 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

You know, I don't doubt for a moment that MQA can have audible side effects, I also don't doubt that it isn't all it's cracked-up to be. But, ultimately, is it better or worse than MP3? Where I see MQA's ultimate worth is as a replacement for for very lossy compression of streaming music - especially over Internet radio. Now, this last summer, the BBC broadcast the annual Proms  concerts live as 16/48 FLAC files to those who had installed the correct web browser to be able to decode them. I was able to compare the broadcasts with the 192kbps MP3 live broadcasts of the Boston Symphony over WCRB's Internet feed. There was no doubt that as listenable as streaming 192kbps MP3 is, that the BBC's FLAC files sounded much better, with no audible artifacts vs the Boston concerts with few artifacts. It was a big step forward. On the other hand, the Proms concerts were still only slightly better than CD quality in a time when streaming high-definition audio of at least 24-bit/88.2 KHz should be available as almost a commonplace occurrence. In my estimation, even if MQA is not good enough to replace current music storage standards, if it turns out to allow high-definition music to be broadcast in the same bandwidth budget that now constrains Internet radio to MP3 or CD-quality FLAC, and without the all too audible artifacts that accompany MP3, then it should be embraced by the Internet radio broadcasters, forthwith and probably over-the-air digital FM as well. 

Probably you missed the conversation in this thread:

JB Radio2, one of my favourite internet radio stations, is streaming their program in FLAC format for more than a year now. The current URL is http://199.189.87.9:10999/flac.m3u. Actually they are sending an upsampled 320 kbps mp3 signal as far as I know, I think because of digital right issues. This example shows that in principle it is possible for internet radio stations to stream in at least cd quality without significant drop-outs, even for a small non profit radio station.

[#Yoda#]

32 minutes ago, semente said:

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

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 important HiFi show to make my own judgements.

[#Yoda#]

The comprehensible concerns about MQA are now elevated by Michael Lavorgna to be a religious statement : "And for those people who want to avoid MQA for religious reasons, Qobuz's Sublime+ is MQA-free".
Read more at https://www.audiostream.com/content/qobuz-prépare-son-arrivée-aux-etats-unis-yes-us#qkoRMIP2FX0d57W6.99

[#Yoda#]

23 hours ago, Em2016 said:

 

For now.... there is always potential for the labels to force all streaming companies to only stream MQA.

 

I guess that's the fear that's been discussed for a long while now on this site - the potential for DRM going to the next level.

 

My gut can't see that happening in 2018 but who knows - that's all crystal ball stuff.

 

 

I agree, but at least, the streaming services are the "gate keeper" and it seems to be that there are other real HiRes streaming options on the horizon that wouldn't support MQA like HighResAudio.com or maybe XStream some day.

 

Streaming services are not the issue for the labels, IMO. They just don't want to sell the real master quality, their "crown jewels" to the customers, finally except to a "reasonable" price in their perception, but "streaming" is not "download" and no steady ownership. 

[#Yoda#]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

And yet—the Inconvenient Truth that MQA sound better is still with us. Last night I bough the 192 and MQA versions of the same album from hiresaudio and the MQA version is CLEARLY better. Since the booklet confirms that the album was mastered in multi-channel 24/192 with a stereo and MQA version also to be released (Japanese audiophile label UNAMAS) we are fairly well assured both versions are from the same source by the same engineer. This was on a Pro-Ject S2 that does native MQA full unfolding.

 

The difference was not small, and anyone with a native MQA DAC has had these experiences. What I’m really interested in knowing is if this is really the result of time domain deblurring or if there’s some form of EQ trick being applied. None of the MQA haters seem to be able to account for this and I hope Jim Austin can.

 

I wonder why you use for you comparison explicit a quite cheap "mass market" DAC, very good for the price, no doubt, but sonically not on one level e.g. with the Mytek Brooklyn, that is for his part not even a "reverence" for digital/analog conversion.

Not really suitable to your self-expressed high end claim.

[#Yoda#]

8 hours ago, firedog said:

 

The files on the server are the inventory.

Do you think there is no cost involved in maintaining and distributing a  library of tens of thousands (or even millions) of files for download (including duplicate/redundant servers) and efficiently serving them to customers (which includes server and bandwidth costs)? Or for the record labels in storing and maintaining them? 

 

There are albums that appear in the high -res download sites in 6-8 versions in various types of hi-res. Some of them are quite large in size. One of the attractions of MQA for the industry is that if it becomes the standard, your inventory would be one file instead of those multiple files you store and sell today 

 

It is quite naive to think that the download stores hold any offered resolution or codec in store. E.g. Qobuz.com offers all files in the main formats and all usual resolutions below the best one (hopefully not upsampled). I'm quite certain, that they store only the best resolution they've got from the labels in FLAC, convert and downsample them, if required, to the requested format and resolution. When you download a different format or resolution than the "original" stored one, you can notice always a delay until the download is available. I'm sure the other providers handle this storage issue similar. An exception to this is for sure MQA because it cannot be simply encoded by providers, MQA files must be stored additionally.