Stereophile Series on MQA Technology

[mansr]

17 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.

A Bentley is very different from a Lamborghini.

[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.

[Rt66indierock]

4 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

My interpretation is that if Stereophile is a journalistic publication, then they should cover the pros and cons of any new product or system etc.

 

If they are entering into a technical analysis, then they should also have the capability to understand the subject matter, and report the downsides or errors on the claims by the vendor.

 

Any series of articles should provide a balance. If no such presentation is given, then you have to question if there is bias.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

 

As you said earlier about Jim Austin's article. It is biased. Jim has not shown me he understands the subject matter. He is just checking off boxes on my MQA marketing checklist.

[gmgraves]

2 hours 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.

 

Who has a 43 year old Harman Kardon? My HK990 is only a little more than 3 years old and it is very close to state of the art. It is dual mono from the power supply (two power transformers) to the speaker terminals. It's Class A to 30 watts, 150 WPC into 8Ω and 300 WPC into 4Ω, built-in dual-differential 24-bit/192 KHz DAC, built-in DSP based room correction, balanced analog CD inputs, Multiple coaxial and optical digital inputs, excellent RIAA phono inputs of both MM and MC variety; etc., etc., etc... Find me a 43 year old anything with those features or that sound! I had a 43-year old Harman Kardon (Citation I and a Citation II) 43 years ago, but that was 43 years ago, not now (mistakingly traded "up" to a Dynaco PAT5 and a Stereo 120 solid state amplifier. Boy was that an error in judgement!

[GUTB]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

 

Who has a 43 year old Harman Kardon? My HK990 is only a little more than 3 years old and it is very close to state of the art. It is dual mono from the power supply (two power transformers) to the speaker terminals. It's Class A to 30 watts, 150 WPC into 8Ω and 300 WPC into 4Ω, built-in dual-differential 24-bit/192 KHz DAC, built-in DSP based room correction, balanced analog CD inputs, Multiple coaxial and optical digital inputs, excellent RIAA phono inputs of both MM and MC variety; etc., etc., etc... Find me a 43 year old anything with those features or that sound! I had a 43-year old Harman Kardon (Citation I and a Citation II) 43 years ago, but that was 43 years ago, not now (mistakingly traded "up" to a Dynaco PAT5 and a Stereo 120 solid state amplifier. Boy was that an error in judgement!

 

Sorry, I thought you said HK900.

 

It's very unlikely that a consumer grade class A/B at that price bracket is close to state of the art...but it's a decent weight, so it might be good. Also, it seems that it's out of production...looks like HK tried and failed to sell into the mid-fi market (which doesn't mean the amp sucks, just that HK wasn't successful for whatever reason).

[guymrob]

This is just part of it. Having a time-domain compensation means it needs to use ‘leaky filter’ which causes aliasing problem. This is trade off, nothing is unique here.

As I quote 'However, optimizing the digital chain’s behavior in the time domain involves using a very “short” antialiasing filter at the A/D conversion, and a similarly “short” reconstruction filter when the digital data are decoded. The more you constrain the data in the time domain, the less you can do so in the frequency domain. These filters are therefore “leaky,” as you can see in the measurements accompanying the Aurender review in this issue, and will thus allow ultrasonic images to fold down into the baseband. Such filters are not new ’ by John Atkinson

Read this at:

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-some-claims-examined

 

 

[kumakuma]

20 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Sorry, I thought you said HK900.

 

It's very unlikely that a consumer grade class A/B at that price bracket is close to state of the art...but it's a decent weight, so it might be good. Also, it seems that it's out of production...looks like HK tried and failed to sell into the mid-fi market (which doesn't mean the amp sucks, just that HK wasn't successful for whatever reason).

 

Here's what Kalman Rubinson at Stereophile, who actually listened to the amp, said:

 

Quote

I found that Harman Kardon's HK 990 delivered on all its promises. Its power amp is very strong and agile. Its purely analog performance, from input to speaker, is worthy of the highest-quality sources and signals. Digital sources are handled cleanly and at high (24-bit/96kHz) resolution. But most important, the HK 990 brings modern audio features to a two-channel system by providing useful bass management and effective room/system equalization. I've always believed that, given adequacy in all components, speakers and room acoustics will be the biggest determinants of a system's overall sound. The Harman Kardon HK 990 integrated amplifier not so much refutes as confirms that belief. Unlike purely analog amplifiers, it can actually improve the sound of your speakers in your room. At less than $2599, the HK 990 should be on every audiophile's shopping list.

 

[wushuliu]

On 12/11/2017 at 5:29 PM, Archimago said:

 

Remember @gmgraves, MQA is not similar to MP3 in terms of bitrates.

 

At the highest bitrate, MP3 is 320kbps. At the lowest bitrate, MQA with "hi-res" capabilities is around that of a FLAC encoded 24/44.1 stream or approximately 1,000kbps; I'm actually being very generous here with the amount of compression since the MQA encoding typically results in lower ability for lossless compression. Don't forget that many MQA streams are 24/48 or more like around 1200-1500kbps.

 

So ultimately, yes, streaming MQA better sound "better" than even the highest quality MP3 given higher bitrate (at least 3x). But why bother if we can already just stream "flat" FLAC lossless compressed 24/48 which would sound awesome because it's really capable of 24-bits rather than MQA's ~16-bit resolution, typically compresses better especially if you zero out the lowest few bits to save space, is free of any potential DRM nonsense, doesn't require special hardware, and nobody has to pay a licensing fee?

 

Obviously that "licensing fee" part is beneficial for MQA Ltd.; nobody else really. And that DRM part might be desired by some content providers.

 

Clearly the Stereophile articles have not added anything we don't know, and Jim Austin's article just shows us a few impulse responses we've known about for months if not years. Just more hot air trying to justify the unjustifiable in the eyes of consumers IMO.
 

I've said my piece previously: "Why I Don't Like MQA"; which echoes the sentiments here and elsewhere.

 

If MQA has managed to have me agree with an Archimago post, then it is truly dead in the water.

 

The debate is academic, though. Only the stereophile demographic will pay for MQA, just as they are willing to pay for DSD. No one else is going to be convinced to pay more for less.

[Archimago]

On 12/18/2017 at 4:41 PM, GUTB said:

 

I'm also familiar with Archimago's "work", and most of his objections are based on FUD. Among all the anti-MQA personalities, Archimago is possibly the most openly peddling an agenda.

 

The concept of building a controlled end-to-end music consumption cycle that links the mastering engineer, commercial distribution and the end consumer playback system via a single technology solution is, in fact, elegant.

 

21 hours ago, Archimago said:

Sure, "one format to rule them all" would be elegant. But it's got to be a good format that offers the fidelity of all that came before being replaced! This objectively as far as we can tell ain't MQA.

 

Well, I did write a summary MQA "Simply Put" post. What parts of that are based on FUD? Most of it FUD?

 

@GUTB

 

I don't get it dude... You declare that I'm spreading FUD. I ask you to clarify. And nothing all day about this?

 

Surely if there is any point to having a discussion, then folks like yourself who appear to be supportive of MQA have to engage in some kind of meaningful discussion, right? Otherwise isn't this the proverbial "shilling" for MQA or at least some kind of "trolling"?

 

I have no issue with folks liking the sound of MQA (that's a subjective opinion)... But at least contribute to discussions if there is anything of substance you can add to the debate.

[Rt66indierock]

1 minute ago, Archimago said:

 

 

@GUTB

 

I don't get it dude... You declare that I'm spreading FUD. I ask you to clarify. And nothing all day about this?

 

Surely if there is any point to having a discussion, then folks like yourself who appear to be supportive of MQA have to engage in some kind of meaningful discussion, right? Otherwise isn't this the proverbial "shilling" for MQA or at least some kind of "trolling"?

 

I have no issue with folks liking the sound of MQA (that's a subjective opinion)... But at least contribute to discussions if there is anything of substance you can add to the debate.

 

Read his post January 2nd in the MQA is Vaporware thread. He has slowly succumbed to the dark side this year.

[GUTB]

4 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

 

@GUTB

 

I don't get it dude... You declare that I'm spreading FUD. I ask you to clarify. And nothing all day about this?

 

Surely if there is any point to having a discussion, then folks like yourself who appear to be supportive of MQA have to engage in some kind of meaningful discussion, right? Otherwise isn't this the proverbial "shilling" for MQA or at least some kind of "trolling"?

 

I have no issue with folks liking the sound of MQA (that's a subjective opinion)... But at least contribute to discussions if there is anything of substance you can add to the debate.

 

You know what you’re doing, I don’t need to point it out to you. But since you asked:

 

1. You ignore and dismiss MQA claims, often using italics and air quotes to suggest claims you do quote are suspect.

2. Your community listening test includes non-MQA DACs to skew subjective analysis — this is done purely to spread FUD about the efficacy of MQA.

3. You concentrate large amounts of print on make-believe (DRM) and mere opinion.

4. Repeating criticisms of MQA without addressing the response.

5. Focusing on community claims, and not MQA claims except where you believe MQA claims look bad.

[GUTB]

5 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Read his post January 2nd in the MQA is Vaporware thread. He has slowly succumbed to the dark side this year.

 

Bro, you offered a reward to debunk Stereophile’s MQA article before a single word was printed.

[wdw]

.... ///// ????  should have a feature to simply delete the whole of a post or a thread.......

Most of the these endless MQA discussions are just so debilitating.  

Surely there is no immediate nor apparent need for MQA.  Full stop.

(..and I take the late Mr. Hanson's thoughts to heart and am saddened by his demise).

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

17 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Bro, you offered a reward to debunk Stereophile’s MQA article before a single word was printed.

 

They telegraphed what they were going to do. And I’ve been applying a lot pressure on John Atkinson about MQA since the Los Angles Audio Show. 

[Rt66indierock]

12 minutes ago, wdw said:

.... ///// ????  should have a feature to simply delete the whole of a post or a thread.......

Most of the these endless MQA discussions are just so debilitating.  

Surely there is no need for MQA.  Full stop.

(I take the late Mr. Hanson's thoughts to heart and am saddened by his demise).

 

 

 

The OP and many others are not going to stop until MQA LTD is liquidated and the intellectual property is not in the hands of the majority shareholder or Bob Stuart.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, guymrob said:

This is just part of it. Having a time-domain compensation means it needs to use ‘leaky filter’ which causes aliasing problem. This is trade off, nothing is unique here.

There is no trade-off. That's what the MQA scam is all about.

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

 

You know what you’re doing, I don’t need to point it out to you. But since you asked:

 

1. You ignore and dismiss MQA claims, often using italics and air quotes to suggest claims you do quote are suspect.

2. Your community listening test includes non-MQA DACs to skew subjective analysis — this is done purely to spread FUD about the efficacy of MQA.

3. You concentrate large amounts of print on make-believe (DRM) and mere opinion.

4. Repeating criticisms of MQA without addressing the response.

5. Focusing on community claims, and not MQA claims except where you believe MQA claims look bad.

 

Nice! Now that's the spirit GUTB.

 

1. What claims of MQA are you referring to? Anyone can "claim" something but so far there has been no actual evidence from the MQA side. They have nice graphics, sure. As far as we know, there hasn't even been listening tests and we're still waiting on McGill University and their planned test next year. Without evidence, why should anyone just blindly accept the claim especially in the case of MQA when so much of what is said appears so questionable? Sure, I use italics to highlight points. So what, we all have our style of communication. And what's wrong with quoting (things like Bob Stuart saying MQA is "typically 15.85-bits" I assume)... That's what the guy said and is one of the few objective facts we might want to hang on to!

 

2. Nonsense. MQA-rendering is simply firmware software upsampling/dithering. I did the job for the listeners in creating 192kHz files incorporating a facsimile of what the MQA filter does to the files. Any existing MQA DAC could conceptually be made an "MQA renderer"; everything from cheap Dragonflies to expensive dCS. Just give MQA some money and they modify your firmware to decode. Remember that the blind test also used actual bit-perfect decoding of the MQA files using Audirvana+. So even if you didn't like the upsampling done (a constant), if you heard big differences, then it's from the MQA "origami" unfolding (the variable).

 

3. Make belief DRM eh? Well, I did admit in my article that this is the most speculative part - that's why I said this was "unclear". Remember that MQA has partnered with Utimaco for the cryptographic algorithm (as per this case study). There is a level of sophistication here beyond just embedded CRC to turn on an authenticated blue light. Sure, we can copy MQA now and as far as we're aware, there are no strong DRM mechanisms in place (other than the hassles of using specific software, upgrading hardware and not accessing the full resolution for doing our own DSP). But if as hobbyists, we can imagine a potential to use this infrastructure for DRM, are we to be naive that the company hasn't to extend return on investment and incentivize rights holders?

 

4. What important responses am I ignoring (obviously I can't respond to every comment)? I'm responding to you aren't I?! What response to the fact that bit-depths are reduced? That there's a bunch of aliasing artifacts during playback? That advanced audiophiles who want to use room correction DSP will be encumbered? Did Jim Austin's recent Stereophile article satisfy anyone? Did he even go further to show the 16 different filters the community already knows about? Did I not respond to bizarre articles like the "new paradigm" in TAS?

 

5. Please clarify. I do not understand what "community claims" vs. "MQA claims" resulted in me discounting the MQA side.

 

[PeterSt]

43 minutes ago, mansr said:

There is no trade-off.

 

There is.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

Sorry, I thought you said HK900.

 

It's very unlikely that a consumer grade class A/B at that price bracket is close to state of the art...but it's a decent weight, so it might be good. Also, it seems that it's out of production...looks like HK tried and failed to sell into the mid-fi market (which doesn't mean the amp sucks, just that HK wasn't successful for whatever reason).

 

Your comments show two things: You make a lot of assumptions based upon little to no real knowledge of what you are talking about, and secondly, you are a price snob (as if that wasn't apparent before). The former is just an opinion, but the latter is off putting at best.

[GUTB]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

Your comments show two things: You make a lot of assumptions based upon little to no real knowledge of what you are talking about, and secondly, you are a price snob (as if that wasn't apparent before). The former is just an opinion, but the latter is off putting at best.

 

When it was new in 2011 it was $2.5k, which is about at the top of the consumer price spectrum. I notice it’s less than $1k used today which may make it a smart buy. I merely observed that it’s out of production, and a check of HK’s web site shows they no longer carry a high end amp model.

[Fokus]

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

as far as we're aware, there are no strong DRM mechanisms in place (other than the hassles of using specific software, upgrading hardware and not accessing the full resolution for doing our own DSP).

 

I disagree. In my book the latter all mean a significant curtailing of my digital rights.

 

[semente]

7 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

Sorry, I thought you said HK900.

 

It's very unlikely that a consumer grade class A/B at that price bracket is close to state of the art...but it's a decent weight, so it might be good. Also, it seems that it's out of production...looks like HK tried and failed to sell into the mid-fi market (which doesn't mean the amp sucks, just that HK wasn't successful for whatever reason).

This is the most preposterous thing I've read from you so far:

 

"but it's a decent weight, so it might be good"

 

Do you have any idea of what makes a SOA equipment?  (note: this is not a question, do not reply)

 

I've had the current Modwright integrated with DAC at home. Heavy piece of junk... High-end pedigree.

[semente]

6 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

 

@GUTB

 

I don't get it dude... You declare that I'm spreading FUD. I ask you to clarify. And nothing all day about this?

I recommend that you simply just ignore him.

[mcgillroy]

The quality of MQA-shills truly is lacklustre.

[realhifi]

15 hours ago, crenca said:

 

It is not just that realhifi (let's ignore the irony of his name for a moment  ) would support/purchase equipment made of horse manure if JA/Stereophile told him to (although one wonders), it's that he really is loyal to an industry and hobby in a way that many are not. 

 

You got me. Seems as though you know me better than I know myself. If you knew my ruthless side of equipment evaluation you might not pigeonhole me quite as fast but then again, you know better than me.