The fact that Atkinson showed up here

[Rt66indierock]

8 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Actually, when listening less than casually, hence as (louder) background music, you may notice that it is never too loud at a party - hence, that digital does not disturb where it usually does.

Sorry to spoil the party. 

 

Peter please clarify I'm only reporting what he said and he thanked me in private message yesterday.

[asdf1000]

1 hour ago, mcgillroy said:

Anybody got the link to the Roon-forum-post Austin mentions?!

 

thx!

 

Lol I can’t believe this turned into a Stereophile article. Sigh

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/apple-music-streaming-mqa/35779/10

 

[PeterSt]

Um Stephen, there isn't much to clarify ?

 

Back in summer when the BBQ wouldn't freeze like today, for the first time(S) I could have the door wide open to the terras without or the music disturbing, or the music so soft that I just as well could close the door (outside of BBQ we never play music during dinner).

 

So if there's anything to clarify as such, I would say that all comes across as more natural. Less of what the brain fights against.

I am making up nothing, I have no agenda, I don't  get money for it and I don't even earn money over it.

[Fair Hedon]

2 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

Lol I can’t believe this turned into a Stereophile article. Sigh

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/apple-music-streaming-mqa/35779/10

 

Clearly they are desperate to keep the conversation about MQA going. Keep the readership in a state of fear of missing out..

make that market...ad revenue will follow. "MQA Partners" have already supplied income to the magazine.

 

 

[Albrecht]

19 hours ago, plissken said:

 

People like Hirsch and Holt used to be the norm. That sort of reasoned thinking has now been driven out. 

 

Thankfully forums with really well educated individual are available.

 

 

""Thankfully forums with really well educated individual are available.""

In this case, judging the efficacy of the moving target of "great audio playback" and very experienced investigations of comparative listening experiences; there seem to be very few. Read: a decided lack of real world experiences: of course, = that is not what you mean when you write "forums with really well educated individual are available."   If you mean, electrical engineers, - these folks are the most likely to NOT be conducting meaningful investigations, or in possession of appropriate "knowledge." Indeed that "knowledge" is a DETRIMENT to judging the efficacy of an experience.

 

 Mostly, it is "cult of personality" where most scientific investigation and investigators are absent en lieu of "cult-of-personality," pseudo-authorities who either do not test at all, (reading "theories" on the internet), - or conducting tests that are irrelevant. Straw men builders, and trolls like Archimago are the quintessential examples.

One will never be able to tell how an entire system performs by reading a schematic, or measuring one element of many different aspects of one component.

[asdf1000]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Less of what the brain fights against.

 

I remember Hans Beekhuyzen said the same in one of his YouTube video reviews.

 

He said it was easier to read a book while listening to MQA , for this reason.

[plissken]

13 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

 

 and trolls like Archimago are the quintessential examples.

People know what 'trolls like Archimago' have contributed. What have you?

[PeterSt]

31 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

He said it was easier to read a book while listening to MQA , for this reason.

 

Yes, I saw that too. But I don't listen much to what he says. I only watch to see where he flaws this time.

And I don't read books.

[semente]

9 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Yeah, I notice this with DSD512 and powerful amps (250W in to 8 ohm). One can easily listen it dangerously loud without ever feeling the sound being disturbing.

 

 

For me this is one of the characteristics of a good system. The system that is my reference does it with a CD player.

And you may have noticed that you can start a conversation with the music playing very loud and the background sound is not too disruptive despite the high level.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Albrecht said:

 

 

""Thankfully forums with really well educated individual are available.""

In this case, judging the efficacy of the moving target of "great audio playback" and very experienced investigations of comparative listening experiences; there seem to be very few. Read: a decided lack of real world experiences: of course, = that is not what you mean when you write "forums with really well educated individual are available."   If you mean, electrical engineers, - these folks are the most likely to NOT be conducting meaningful investigations, or in possession of appropriate "knowledge." Indeed that "knowledge" is a DETRIMENT to judging the efficacy of an experience.

 

 Mostly, it is "cult of personality" where most scientific investigation and investigators are absent en lieu of "cult-of-personality," pseudo-authorities who either do not test at all, (reading "theories" on the internet), - or conducting tests that are irrelevant. Straw men builders, and trolls like Archimago are the quintessential examples.

One will never be able to tell how an entire system performs by reading a schematic, or measuring one element of many different aspects of one component.

A straw man post of rubbish projecting the poster's cult of personality.  You don't even see the irony. 

[Ralf11]

 it is NOT quite probable to throw 5 heads or tails in a row - maybe JA meant "possible"

 

IIRC back decades to intro. stats, the P() would be 1/2 to the 5th power, a rather small likelihood 

[Dr Tone]

3 hours ago, Em2016 said:

 

Lol I can’t believe this turned into a Stereophile article. Sigh

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/apple-music-streaming-mqa/35779/10

 

 

Sigh, I feel dirty having contributed to that thread that turned into a Stereophile spun click bait article.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, semente said:

 

For me this is one of the characteristics of a good system. The system that is my reference does it with a CD player.

And you may have noticed that you can start a conversation with the music playing very loud and the background sound is not too disruptive despite the high level.

 

Yes, another button. Why this is so is because the brain does not have to be strongly engaged, to 'filter' out the audible distortion - normal playback suffers from this; your hearing system needs to be working hard to 'clarify' the reproduced sound, and you start feeling stressed with the requirements of the multitasking.

 

The obvious solution is to reduce the audibility of that distortion - MQA is a DSP approach, by making the content 'nicer'; best technique is to evolve the overall integrity of the playback chain to eradicate all disturbing anomalies.

[Abtr]

3 hours ago, semente said:

 

For me this is one of the characteristics of a good system. The system that is my reference does it with a CD player.

And you may have noticed that you can start a conversation with the music playing very loud and the background sound is not too disruptive despite the high level.

 

My system does it with a balanced mains isolation transformer and a specific electron tube for the preamp. When I change the tube or remove the balanced power then the effect is gone. It seems to be a discrete (Boolean on/off) phenomenon. May there be a single critical variable that must be right for a system to sound that good..?  I wonder, if (theoretically) all electrical and digital noise is eliminated then what remaining factor would be most important for good sound? Probably some (analogue) in-phase behavior.. 

[fas42]

37 minutes ago, Abtr said:

 

My system does it with a balanced mains isolation transformer and a specific electron tube for the preamp. When I change the tube or remove the balanced power then the effect is gone. It seems to be a discrete (Boolean on/off) phenomenon. May there be a single critical variable that must be right for a system to sound that good..?  I wonder, if (theoretically) all electrical and digital noise is eliminated then what remaining factor would be most important for good sound? Probably some (analogue) in-phase behavior.. 

 

Very good pickup of what's happening ...the comment about it being a "discrete (Boolean on/off) phenomenon" is spot on.

 

No, it has nothing to do with a single critical factor being right ... and everything to do with having all the critical factors not being wrong! The concept is like making a box, which has to be watertight - if you miss one tiny spot with the sealeant, then, water will leak out. There's your Boolean behaviour: the box either leaks water, or it doesn't - very simple stuff. So, what was the single critical variable, in making the box watertight? ... Same thing in audio ...

 

For good sound? All electrical and digital noise eliminated, yes; all internal misbehaviour of components due to poor parts choices, or careless implementation, yes; all misbehaviour because of parasitic behaviours of materials used, yes.

 

The standard electrical stuff, that everyone worries about? Like phase, FR, blah, blah, blah ... No!

[Abtr]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Very good pickup of what's happening ...the comment about it being a "discrete (Boolean on/off) phenomenon" is spot on.

 

No, it has nothing to do with a single critical factor being right ... and everything to do with having all the critical factors not being wrong! The concept is like making a box, which has to be watertight - if you miss one tiny spot with the sealeant, then, water will leak out. There's your Boolean behaviour: the box either leaks water, or it doesn't - very simple stuff. So, what was the single critical variable, in making the box watertight? ... Same thing in audio ...

 

For good sound? All electrical and digital noise eliminated, yes; all internal misbehaviour of components due to poor parts choices, or careless implementation, yes; all misbehaviour because of parasitic behaviours of materials used, yes.

 

The standard electrical stuff, that everyone worries about? Like phase, FR, blah, blah, blah ... No!

 

Well, Boolean on/off behavior is not leaky, a Boolean variable is either on or off, not somewhere in between. In this case the box either holds water or it doesn't. Everything else being equal, it seems that at some point, a single component in an audio system can cause a discrete SQ jump which apparently involves the complete system..  

[fas42]

6 hours ago, Abtr said:

 

Well, Boolean on/off behavior is not leaky, a Boolean variable is either on or off, not somewhere in between. In this case the box either holds water or it doesn't. Everything else being equal, it seems that at some point, a single component in an audio system can cause a discrete SQ jump which apparently involves the complete system..  

 

The Boolean variable is: the box watertight, or does it leak water; or, is there a discrete SQ jump, or isn't there? The single component, or issue in an audio system that triggers that switch could be absolutely anything - but you or someone has to find it.

 

It's as simple as, a chain is as strong as the worst link - that bedraggled ol' saying ... whichever, tiny, aspect of an audio system is responsible for the SQ not "being good enough", is the sole determinant of whether the auditory trigger happens.

 

Another take is, that you don't add goodness to a setup; you subtract badness.

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

It's as simple as, a chain is as strong as the worst link

 

That is not true at all for audio. Think of the example of high frequency noise and the amplifier with high bandwidth to process it, or not. And what's further down the chain to choke.

Etc.

I hear you say "then kill the high frequency noise".

 

Right on the subject ... 

[Sal1950]

20 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

You are drawing a general conclusion from too small a sample. You are doing what my statistics professor called "data dredging," using a chosen data set to support a predetermined conclusion. I have written elsewhere that the ratio between advertisers and non-advertisers whose products are reviewed in Stereophile is around 50/50. That statement was based on looking at the reviews in a large number of issues. But if you examine just one issue, as you have done, the ratio can be very different.

Ah, now I clearly understand John, we have to look at a bigger picture. I'm figuring what your doing is to add in all the reviews from back in the years when Stereophile didn't accept any advertising. That's where we're missing getting the numbers you have stated. Quite easy when you understand the inside details.

[firedog]

15 hours ago, Albrecht said:

Straw men builders, and trolls like Archimago are the quintessential examples.

Define troll, please. How is he a troll?

 

Seems to me a serious, well intentioned individual who does his best to actually test and compare instead of just projecting so called "theories" about what is happening in audio reproduction. He also allows contrary views at his blog.

You can disagree with his methods. Doesn't make him a troll. 

[fas42]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

That is not true at all for audio. Think of the example of high frequency noise and the amplifier with high bandwidth to process it, or not. And what's further down the chain to choke.

Etc.

I hear you say "then kill the high frequency noise".

 

Right on the subject ... 

 

Not true at all, eh ... . I always think in system terms, and the links in the chain have to be appropriate for the task at hand - the 'wrong sort' of link, for that chain, would be a key blunder - something like combining very inefficient speakers with a low powered amp, say. So, get those sort of things sorted out at any early stage, and then work on refinement.

 

A weak link is not necessarily a component not highly thought of - it will usually be some aspect of a component not done well enough - for example, a power supply which is lacking. My Perreaux amp of decades ago had this very issue, and I went many iterations in sorting this out; Abtr mentions he needed an isolation transformer and specific tube to trigger the desired sound - I had to redo the power supply parts and design, chasing the same goal ... whatever it takes, in the particular situation ...

[Abtr]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

The Boolean variable is: the box watertight, or does it leak water; or, is there a discrete SQ jump, or isn't there? The single component, or issue in an audio system that triggers that switch could be absolutely anything - but you or someone has to find it.

 

It's as simple as, a chain is as strong as the worst link - that bedraggled ol' saying ... whichever, tiny, aspect of an audio system is responsible for the SQ not "being good enough", is the sole determinant of whether the auditory trigger happens.

 

Another take is, that you don't add goodness to a setup; you subtract badness.

 

I hear you. What I attempted to convey is that at some point, if every part of the chain is basically OK, a simple tube (impedance match?) can trigger a new SQ level in a highly non-linear fashion (what I called discrete). It's like the proverbial whole that suddenly seems to be more than the sum of its parts. Of course it is a synergy between all system components, but it must be largely independent of (small) tolerances of individual resistors, capacitors, etc. And it is so radical, involving every aspect of sound, that it makes me wonder what global variables define this threshold. Could (as some suggest) a format like fully unfolded MQA trigger this at the DAC output with its reconstruction filters? If so, it must be measurable..

[John_Atkinson]

3 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

I'm figuring what your doing is to add in all the reviews from back in the years when Stereophile didn't accept any advertising.

 

Oh please. No, I just took the two most recent years in my analysis of how many advertisers vs non-advertisers received reviews of their products. IIRC, that was around 250 products, which was enough to allow a representative analysis. Looking at just one issue, which is what Rt66indierock did, is meaningless. 

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[Markpd]

Many plausibly good reasons are offered here as to why MQA does not actually work in the way MQA suggests, and is simply a deceptive money grabbing exercise. 

 

However, from my self centred perspective I don’t care about the motives of Stuart et al, but only “what’s in it for me.”

 

I very much like the sound of partially or fully decoded MQA music (comparing the same masters at various bit rates courtesy of the Norwegian 2L label). To my ears (and my wife’s ears, who has no interest at all in MQA)   on my Devialet / ProAc system /Meridian Explorer  system   MQA decoded music sounds every bit good as 24/192 PCM. MQA music streamed from Tidal can sound even better, but  re-mastering/different masters could be responsible.

It seems to me that 

1. You must judge that high sample rate/bit depth PCM can offer better sound to care about MQA at all. 
2. Currently high sample rate music has limited availability and is sold at a premium (around 250%)
3. As a consumer there is little or no premium for MQA re-mastered music. The cost is absorbed by the record labels and the DAC manufacturers. Since an MQA file is dual use I fail to see how widespread adoption could enable much, if any, premium for MQA music.

Like a considerable number of people I also prefer the sound of Tidal streamed MQA music. This could be either due to MQA offering real benefits, or as often suggested, due careful re-mastering. No matter, in either case,  the presence of MQA in the music market has resulted in better sound for me to listen to, at little cost to me. 

 

In conclusion, for me, global domination by MQA has no downsides, only upsides.

[Fokus]

37 minutes ago, Markpd said:

To my ears (and my wife’s ears, who has no interest at all in MQA)   on my Devialet / ProAc system /Meridian Explorer  system   MQA decoded music sounds every bit good as

 

How do you play MQA-decoded music through that system without a spurious AD and DA conversion???

 

That is one of the major problems with MQA: it is not compatible with established advanced audio gear that works fully or partly in the digital domain, such as ... Devialet. As such MQA opposes progress, that, or it embraces landfill.