Stereophile Series on MQA Technology

[rickca]

On 12/7/2017 at 11:59 AM, GUTB said:

Life is hard for MQA haters.

The term haters throws people who don't support MQA into the camp of misogynists and racists.  It's just a bit melodramatic.  Do you have some connection with Stereophile, @GUTB?  Life is easy for people who accept the truth.

[GUTB]

5 minutes ago, #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". 

 

I think we all know why you don’t.

 

But you’re right, it’s irrelevent.

 

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.

[monteverdi]

I have quite a problem with how  Stereophile and other publications are very one sided on their defense of MQA. There are lot of questions about different mastering for sound comparison (similar to quite obvious manipulations happening with the different layers of many early SACDs). I don't know whether MQA is sounding better and I have not seen any real data that time domain is better preserved through MQA (i would find that very positive if that could be verified).

The main issue I have how much DSP will be possible with MQA because I really value digital crossover and speaker correction. 

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, monteverdi said:

I have not seen any real data that time domain is better preserved through MQA

What people fail (refuse?) to grasp is that time and frequency are equivalent through the Fourier transform.

[rickca]

On 12/7/2017 at 7:39 AM, mansr said:

The phrase shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind.

Jim Austin is on notice so he is likely to stick to technobabble.  It's hard to refute technobabble.  

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, rickca said:

Jim Austin is on notice so he is likely to stick to technobabble.  It's hard to refute technobabble.  

Refuting it isn't the goal. Showing it is "not even wrong" is, and that can be done with a dictionary.

[#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. ?

[mansr]

11 minutes ago, #Yoda# said:

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

He writes for Stereophile regularly but is not employed there.

[#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? 

[mansr]

1 minute ago, #Yoda# said:

Aren't there enough really qualified and independent writers? 

I don't think there are any at all.

[Rt66indierock]

Calling me a troll is pretty weak. I still laugh to myself when I remember Jason Victor Serinus called me "the most dangerous man in audio" at RMAF 2017. 

 

I've done better reporting and encouraged others to do the same about MQA than Stereophile has. That has to bother John Atkinson.

[Indydan]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

Calling me a troll is pretty weak. I still laugh to myself when I remember Jason Victor Serinus called me "the most dangerous man in audio" at RMAF 2017. 

 

I've done better reporting and encouraged others to do the same about MQA than Stereophile has. That has to bother John Atkinson.

 

Was Jason Victor Serinus serious when he said that? Or, was it just a joke?

 

From what you are saying, some of the Stereophile people know you. Did Stereophile know your true identity when they called you a troll? If they did, that would make it kind of personal...

 

You seem to be in the audio business, probably at the studio level, engineering, etc. But, I admit I don't know your true identity. I don't know if it is common knowledge for other posters. I am not trying to make you identify yourself; that is your business if you do or don't. 

 

 

[beetlemania]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

Calling me a troll is pretty weak. I still laugh to myself when I remember Jason Victor Serinus called me "the most dangerous man in audio" at RMAF 2017. 

 

I've done better reporting and encouraged others to do the same about MQA than Stereophile has. That has to bother John Atkinson.

 

I've been disappointed in Stereophile and John Atkinson regarding MQA coverage. It's stunning that JA gave his raw mic pairs to MQA. And now calling you a troll - lmao.

[monteverdi]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

What people fail (refuse?) to grasp is that time and frequency are equivalent through the Fourier transform.

I quite understand for a pure sine wave f= 1/t etc. But there are that miraculous claims from MQA

PS.: etc.= fourrier transform

[monteverdi]

4 hours ago, #Yoda# said:

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? 

I think once these writer espoused their opinion (got a very good and possibly manipulated press event/listening session) they defend it even in the long term they may be discredited. Objective, critical and unbiased reporting isn't anymore.

I read today the expression: churnalism vs journalism (can't find the link anymore)

[mansr]

6 hours ago, monteverdi said:

I quite understand for a pure sine wave f= 1/t etc. But there are that miraculous claims from MQA

PS.: etc.= fourrier transform

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[MikeJazz]

13 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

I think we all know why you don’t.

 

But you’re right, it’s irrelevent.

 

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.

So you compared a CD resolution with the "sort-of-high-resolution" of the MQA version and preferred the later? What was the point of the comparison? 

To be able to make such a comparison work you would have to make sure both tracks were cumming from the same master, to judge MQA merits on it's own.

I would also prefer to test high resolution music with dac's with good attention to detail in their construction...

 

Maybe the point of MQA, after all, is improving resolution of low and mid-fi systems??

[mav52]

3 hours ago, MikeJazz said:

Maybe the point of MQA, after all, is improving resolution of low and mid-fi systems??

 

Or very low fi like smart phones with ear buds

[psjug]

3 hours ago, MikeJazz said:

Maybe the point of MQA, after all, is improving resolution of low and mid-fi systems??

A chain does not get stronger if you swap out a strong link while keeping the weakest links.  When I listen to music using my phone played on my car stereo I just use 192kbps mp3.  Why bother with anything better on a crappy sound system?

[GUTB]

Here’s the deal. Someone got the MQA code off of a Bluesound and has made assumptions and drawn conclusions based on that. Bluesounds suck — I know because I auditioned a Node 2 for a few weeks. MQA implementations are customized for individual DACs, and some implementations are just going to work better than others. The little Pro-Ject box is a vastly superior DAC to the Node 2, and its MQA implemention may also be much better.

 

Also, I never once in my life heard a filter that makes Redbook sound like hi-res. Let’s get real, there’s actual music content being unpacked from it, not just applying a common filter.

[mansr]

32 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Here’s the deal. Someone got the MQA code off of a Bluesound and has made assumptions and drawn conclusions based on that. Bluesounds suck — I know because I auditioned a Node 2 for a few weeks. MQA implementations are customized for individual DACs, and some implementations are just going to work better than others. The little Pro-Ject box is a vastly superior DAC to the Node 2, and its MQA implemention may also be much better.

The Bluesound "core" decoder output is bit for bit identical to the Tidal desktop app. If you still think it matters, why don't you send me a "good" MQA DAC so I can take it apart?

 

32 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Also, I never once in my life heard a filter that makes Redbook sound like hi-res. Let’s get real, there’s actual music content being unpacked from it, not just applying a common filter.

Not in the "renderer" there isn't. That really is "just applying a common filter."

[monteverdi]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

I am not understanding MQA's claims of time coherence. I can understand that the mastering of a record could be made trying to preserve the timing of the different sources during the recording process but as far as I read it MQA statement is more concerned with DA conversion and then frequency bandwidth describes time resolution.

 

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, monteverdi said:

I am not understanding MQA's claims of time coherence.

I don't blame you.

 

4 minutes ago, monteverdi said:

as far as I read it MQA statement is more concerned with DA conversion and then frequency bandwidth describes time resolution.

Bandwidth is independent of time resolution.

[GUTB]

38 minutes ago, mansr said:

I don't blame you.

 

Bandwidth is independent of time resolution.

 

Can you state that definitively? It's widely known that high bandwidth sounds better. Certainly my own high bandwidth amp is the best I've ever heard in my system...not that I can directly test that obviously.