Popular Post mav52 Posted December 12, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 12, 2017 2 hours 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. They put out cheap gear in large quantities. The reason why they don’t implement DSD seems to just be lack of expertise. Most of the high end is embracing MQA simply because thier clientele are much more demanding than Schiit’s or the standard Chinese shovelware users. And you know this magical knowledge how, you work for Schit, you privy to their accounting and design phases. I don't think so. Try again. MikeyFresh and synn 1 1 The Truth Is Out There Link to comment
mav52 Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 49 minutes ago, barrows said: Yeah, and that design info is going to, a direct competitor, Meridian, nuts! Got that right, very one sided to play in the MQA playground. The Truth Is Out There Link to comment
semente Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 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 "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
semente Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 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) "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
Shadders Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, semente said: You said that Vastly superior in which way, fit an finish? (I had to look up Vidar) Isn't he one of the Darths..... Ta boom tshhhh. Link to comment
GUTB Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 The Vidar is the $700 Schiit amp that hums from the speakers. The D’Agostino is so much better than the Vidar that it’s embarrasing to put them in the same sentence. Is the Vidar worth it — sure, if you don’t mind the humming. Is the Momentum worth it — absolutely NOT. Yes the Momentum is a lot better, but 50k for a mono pair is absurdist. In the high end, this isn’t even bad so we can see why the market is culturally dying and people feel the need to espouse bizarre opinions like a Schiit is as good as a Pass, dCS, Esoteric, etc. Link to comment
semente Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 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. MrMoM 1 "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
NOMBEDES Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 Did not you all read our beloved founders post? It is on page 4 of the home screen. All of you Schitt haters should read his article. You do not have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get a high performance system. .The Disruption Continues At Schiit Audio By The Computer Audiophile, in Bits and Bytes, July 17 1 In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake ~ Sayre's Law Link to comment
semente Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 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... MrMoM 1 "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
Popular Post Don Hills Posted December 12, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 12, 2017 4 hours ago, GUTB said: ... The reason why they don’t implement DSD seems to just be lack of expertise. ... Never let the facts get in the way of a good innuendo, eh? Schiit made a DSD DAC some time ago. It didn't sell well so they dropped it. They're perfectly capable of adding DSD to one of their current DACs but they don't believe it will make enough extra in sales to recoup the investment. It's all been explained and debated in great detail in the company's forum section over on Head-Fi. esldude, MikeyFresh and crenca 1 1 1 "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Popular Post barrows Posted December 12, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 12, 2017 2 hours ago, NOMBEDES said: the X phono amp cost more than the $38K pre amp A really good phono stage is much harder to achieve and build than a line level preamp. A phono stage is probably the most difficult analog component to get really fantastic performance out of because the incoming signal level is so low, especially when considering low output MC cartridges. When i said SOTA, BTW, i was referring to performance, not cosmetics semente and 4est 2 SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers. ISOAcoustics Oreas footers. SONORE computer audio | opticalRendu | ultraRendu | microRendu | Signature Rendu SE | Accessories | Software | Link to comment
Popular Post Miska Posted December 12, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 12, 2017 47 minutes ago, Don Hills said: Schiit made a DSD DAC some time ago. It didn't sell well so they dropped it. They're perfectly capable of adding DSD to one of their current DACs but they don't believe it will make enough extra in sales to recoup the investment. It's all been explained and debated in great detail in the company's forum section over on Head-Fi. One of their primary challenges on that front is use of the C-Media USB interface which is limited to max 192 kHz PCM. And since it is hardware implementation, it cannot be modified by firmware upgrade. They would need totally different USB implementation to support DSD (better than DSD64 supported in the past by Loki DAC) or higher PCM sample rates. Don Hills, semente and MrMoM 2 1 Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Don Hills Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 ... so as I said, it would cost more to implement than they would likely recoup in sales. . MikeyFresh 1 "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
beetlemania Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 6 hours ago, barrows said: Right now manufacturers are being pressured by customers to implement MQA; because they read in the journals about MQA's "amazing sound quality". I do not know the exact licensing fees charged by MQA to add it to one's hardware (and if I did it would probably be under NDA) but I do know that the cost is significant. This means DAC prices go up to add MQA or DAC performance goes down in other areas to save cost in order to have enough BOM room for the additional cost of MQA. I would rather not have to pay more for a feature I will never use. This reminds me of the current tax "reform". Only instead of transferring wealth from the middle class to the 1%, MQA transfers $$ from the consumer to Bob Stuart. I guess I might already own my last DAC (luckily it's a good one!) - I just hope we can still buy PCM in the future. Roon ROCK (Roon 1.7; NUC7i3) > Ayre QB-9 Twenty > Ayre AX-5 Twenty > Thiel CS2.4SE (crossovers rebuilt with Clarity CSA and Multicap RTX caps, Mills MRA-12 resistors; ERSE and Jantzen coils; Cardas binding posts and hookup wire); Cardas and OEM power cables, interconnects, and speaker cables Link to comment
Popular Post FredericV Posted December 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 13, 2017 Another article in the series:https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-tested-part-1 They must be very desperate to have a paid series written by stereophile to attack the criticasters. I don't care about their short post-ringing tail. The enforced MQA renderer even with regular PCM makes this dac sound worse than some much more cheaper but excellent dacs. One is the Asus Essence which won EISA awards and exists in standalone and computer version. Sells for a fraction of the brooklyn. So we tested this PCIe card's analog outs and also ran an ultra expensive SPDIF cable to the brooklyn, and have a second run of analog to a second input of a high-end vitus amp. Then we switch inputs. The enforced MQA processing was very obvious, and I had members of the Dutch hifi press present, and they did not like the forced MQA processing either. At the time we did not know 100% for sure the MQA decoder was always processing, but we suspected it. Music did not flow naturally through the brooklyn. Also the Manhattan 2 is not as good as the mk1. mk2 has MQA, mk1 doesn't. So I now believe MQA is deliberately crippling standard PCM when going through an MQA dac by enforcing it through their leaky renderer. I will never buy an MQA dac again. One distributor even send back his mk2 and continues to play with the mk1 as this distributor also found the mk2 harsh and sterile. Last year we won best of show with a mytek manhattan mk1 as part of the system, exact same system with mk2 this year and everyone was complaining that it did not sound natural. So after one showday with a lot of complaints. Same system with a Metrum Adagio and Antelope Platinum + 10M clock and nobody complained. So MQA has successfully crippled DAC's with their forced processing. It's no longer an extra checkbox, but a serious degradation of good products, which have become bad after MQA started to infect these product with their fake highres codec which also tries to fix PCM. Shadders, MikeyFresh, MrMoM and 3 others 3 1 2 Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
GUTB Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 1 hour ago, FredericV said: Another article in the series:https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-tested-part-1 They must be very desperate to have a paid series written by stereophile to attack the criticasters. I don't care about their short post-ringing tail. The enforced MQA renderer even with regular PCM makes this dac sound worse than some much more cheaper but excellent dacs. One is the Asus Essence which won EISA awards and exists in standalone and computer version. Sells for a fraction of the brooklyn. So we tested this PCIe card's analog outs and also ran an ultra expensive SPDIF cable to the brooklyn, and have a second run of analog to a second input of a high-end vitus amp. Then we switch inputs. The enforced MQA processing was very obvious, and I had members of the Dutch hifi press present, and they did not like the forced MQA processing either. At the time we did not know 100% for sure the MQA decoder was always processing, but we suspected it. Music did not flow naturally through the brooklyn. Also the Manhattan 2 is not as good as the mk1. mk2 has MQA, mk1 doesn't. So I now believe MQA is deliberately crippling standard PCM when going through an MQA dac by enforcing it through their leaky renderer. I will never buy an MQA dac again. One distributor even send back his mk2 and continues to play with the mk1 as this distributor also found the mk2 harsh and sterile. Last year we won best of show with a mytek manhattan mk1 as part of the system, exact same system with mk2 this year and everyone was complaining that it did not sound natural. So after one showday with a lot of complaints. Same system with a Metrum Adagio and Antelope Platinum + 10M clock and nobody complained. So MQA has successfully crippled DAC's with their forced processing. It's no longer an extra checkbox, but a serious degradation of good products, which have become bad after MQA started to infect these product with their fake highres codec which also tries to fix PCM. Blame Mytek, that's their choice for lazily pumping everything through the MQA module. Link to comment
mcgillroy Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 16 hours 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. They put out cheap gear in large quantities. The reason why they don’t implement DSD seems to just be lack of expertise. Most of the high end is embracing MQA simply because thier clientele are much more demanding than Schiit’s or the standard Chinese shovelware users. Ok you make an argument about the economics of some hifi-companies business strategy. Plz explain your take on the economics of MQA. Link to comment
Popular Post mcgillroy Posted December 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 13, 2017 8 hours ago, FredericV said: Another article in the series:https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-tested-part-1 They must be very desperate to have a paid series written by stereophile to attack the criticasters. Both pieces indeed carry a strong scent of payola. While Atkinson deserves applause to provide links to the most important critical statements he still comes across as an armchair-MQA-believer angry at the interwebbs. (stuffs pipe) Austins article is rehashing MQA marketing material and offers not much more than technobabble. He should have asked for some external expertise on signal processing. They are fighting on two fronts here: repairing their tainted reputation for having too obviously pushed MQA on an audience better educated than they thought while trying to push back the tide of internet-journals and fora who understood that MQA helps to outmanoeuvre the established audio press. MQA truly has proven to be costly to the established audio-press. It's a war of attrition and as long as they continue to dig themselves deeper in to the MQA-trenches the incoming will keep incoming. All hail to clickbait. crenca, MrMoM, barrows and 2 others 2 2 1 Link to comment
Miska Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 10 hours ago, Don Hills said: ... so as I said, it would cost more to implement than they would likely recoup in sales. . It's their technology choice, nothing wrong with that. Some other companies make most or all their income on DSD features. Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
GUTB Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 2 hours ago, mcgillroy said: Ok you make an argument about the economics of some hifi-companies business strategy. Plz explain your take on the economics of MQA. Some people engineered a better way to deliver hi-res content and are selling the technology to the industry? Link to comment
semente Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 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... MikeyFresh 1 "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
Popular Post FredericV Posted December 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 13, 2017 Interesting comment:https://www.stereophile.com/comment/570532#comment-570532 Quote Look at figures 5 and 6 above. So this one: Quote Now, open a new browser tab or window to here: https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-qx-5-twenty-da-proces... and look at figure 1. If the scale in figure 1 is hard to visualize, try page 4 here: https://www.ayre.com/white_papers/Ayre_MP_White_Paper.pdf (dated February 4, 2009) Who says that you can't learn a lot about audio by reading Stereophile? I'm having a hard time determining the ratio of irony to tragedy in this one. https://www.ayre.com/white_papers/Ayre_MP_White_Paper.pdf And this was in early 2009. Rt66indierock, barrows and MikeyFresh 2 1 Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
semente Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 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". "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
GUTB Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 What interests me are the comments regarding ringing. The first one seemed like a non-English speaker having a fit. The second one is more eloquent (emphasis added): "It's clear to me that MQA's developers see it as an idealistic venture designed to fix what digital broke....." What's more, this 'Part 1' is totally wrong. Testing on 5 uS pulses is meaningless nonsense. Is it meaningless? Isn't impulse response testing a standard protocol? It's not the key area of interest in relation to MQA, but it's still interesting for what it's worth. Does this commentator have any basis for calling an impulse response test "meaningless nonsense?" PUT VERY SIMPLY: ALL 'waves' whatever their shape can be shown to be a build up of sine waves.What you incorrectly call 'ringing' is the waves building up enough for you to notice, hear, or measure. if you used a longer pulse you would eventually see the 'square' wave or whatever it happened to be. As far as I can tell, the scope output shows ringing, and we've always called this behavior ringing. Are these commentators just being pedantic, or is our understanding of what ringing is just wrong? Why aren't they pointing this out in every review Stereophile or anyone else does? Link to comment
Popular Post Fokus Posted December 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted December 13, 2017 There is not a shred of evidence that this so-called ringing, once it appears outside of the audible range, has any impact on perceived sound quality. It is also true that, unless the original signal contained high-level energy at the filter's cut-off point, the ringing as displayed does not appear in the sampled music signal. Impulse response testing is done in digital audio because it is the fastest and simplest method for revealing the nature of the underlying digital filter(s). That is all. No, that is not all ... Impulse response testing is done in consumer digital audio because it is a handy tool for instilling fear and uncertainty in the minds of a techno-illiterate audience. crenca, Don Hills, Rt66indierock and 2 others 3 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now