The fact that Atkinson showed up here

[Samuel T Cogley]

40 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I have to defend Kal on this. Unless he changed his mind he wrote that he could not tell the difference between MQA files and non MQA files listening casually. When critically listening he said it was a different sort of different.

 

I can't find any fault with his position on the sonic merits. 

 

With due respect, this is utterly non sequitur to my post.  I wasn't talking about MQA.  At all.

[Rt66indierock]

4 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

????

 

"However, when I switched from the DXD (native 24/352.8) to the MQA version (24/44.1 decoded to 24/352.8), there was a consistent improvement in the impression of transparency, and the disassociation of the soundstage from the physical positions of the speakers.

 

After listening to all of the multichannel samples, as well as a few dozen stereo tracks, I am confident in saying that MQA, played through Mytek's Brooklyn DACs, made a real and consistent improvement. If MQA can recruit recording companies to offer sufficient, interesting, and new MQA-encoded recordings in multichannel, I don't see how the technology can be ignored. I'd be in with both feet.

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-84-multichannel-mqa-page-2

 

 

Always read stuff backwards.

 

"However, the differences weren't blatant; I couldn't hear them without paying close attention. A visiting colleague said similar things, and although we agreed that MQA's improvements were of the same order that we experience from applying good speaker and room correction, we also agreed that they were a different sort of difference."
 

And of course for him a fatal flaw no DSP.  That is as good as one can do writing for Stereophile.

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

4 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

With due respect, this is utterly non sequitur to my post.  I wasn't talking about MQA.  At all.

 

MQA was  in brackets and I'm assuming you know what he did before he retired. His column is off the reservation of two channel sound but it is a reliable source of bi-monthly column inches and touches on some topics of two channel interest such as "air" this month. 

 

 

 

 

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, Albrecht said:

LOL, - anti-science, anti-audiophile trolls are needed everywhere....

 

who were you referring to?

[fas42]

MQA is Yet Another Tweak, which one can try. Which may, or may not, be helpful in a particular instance - and has no more value than that, full stop.

[Fair Hedon]

16 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Always read stuff backwards.

 

"However, the differences weren't blatant; I couldn't hear them without paying close attention. A visiting colleague said similar things, and although we agreed that MQA's improvements were of the same order that we experience from applying good speaker and room correction, we also agreed that they were a different sort of difference."
 

And of course for him a fatal flaw no DSP.  That is as good as one can do writing for Stereophile.

 

 

IMO, this was just a hedge. In fact, Kal was the only one with sense to include a "however"....

 

Every other MQA drone at Stereophile wrote with the attitude of "MQA is a godsend",  why wouldn't you want it"?

 

When someone says they don't see how a technology can be ignored and that there was a "real and consistent IMPROVEMENT"...it is clear what they their meaning is.

 

I would love to know how CLEAR and CONSISTENT managed to stay in the same article as the differences weren't BLATANT. Editing 101 says you don't allow a a writer to contradict themselves.

[Rt66indierock]

5 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

IMO, this was just a hedge. In fact, Kal was the only one with sense to include a "however"....

 

Every other MQA drone at Stereophile wrote with the attitude of "MQA is a godsend",  why wouldn't you want it"?

 

When someone says they don't see how a technology can be ignored and that there was a "real and consistent IMPROVEMENT"...it is clear what they their meaning is.

 

I would love to know how CLEAR and CONSISTENT managed to stay in the same article as the differences weren't BLATANT. Editing 101 says you don't allow a a writer to contradict themselves.

 

The firm I was with in Washington DC often a problem. Everyone would cite cases and quote something in the middle to support a tax position and I would constantly say but the court ruled the other way you can't use this case. I never could fix the problem I just corrected it. That's why I said read the column backwards. 

 

Part of the fun of reading Stereophile is to catch contradictions. Here's a personal favorite. I had a layover in San Francisco earlier this year and had an issue of Stereophile with me. Every  equipment advertiser had column inches. Just a bit different than John Atkinson reports.

 

Someday I'll tell about a game called trick the editor hidden behind the euphemism "comma war."  

 

 

 

[Shadders]

2 hours ago, Fair Hedon said:

????

 

"However, when I switched from the DXD (native 24/352.8) to the MQA version (24/44.1 decoded to 24/352.8), there was a consistent improvement in the impression of transparency, and the disassociation of the soundstage from the physical positions of the speakers.

 

After listening to all of the multichannel samples, as well as a few dozen stereo tracks, I am confident in saying that MQA, played through Mytek's Brooklyn DACs, made a real and consistent improvement. If MQA can recruit recording companies to offer sufficient, interesting, and new MQA-encoded recordings in multichannel, I don't see how the technology can be ignored. I'd be in with both feet.

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-84-multichannel-mqa-page-2

 

Hi,

Maybe MQA has elements of Q Sound :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QSound

Regards,

Shadders.

[realhifi]

6 hours ago, Norton said:

I would have thought the Explorer2 was the replacement MQA DAC.  From what I can see the Direct DAC is an older, though still available, model that was launched prior to MQA 

Correct.  Here is review from back in 2014.

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/meridian-direct-dac/?page=2

[Rt66indierock]

7 minutes ago, realhifi said:

Correct.  Here is review from back in 2014.

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/meridian-direct-dac/?page=2

 

Odd then that it is suddenly given top billing billing unless the LG partnership is pushing Meridian away from MQA. LG isn't talking about MQA anymore for their flagship phone the V30 either. 

[PeterSt]

11 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Unless he changed his mind he wrote that he could not tell the difference between MQA files and non MQA files listening casually.

 

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. 

[Miska]

16 minutes 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.

 

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.

 

[Miska]

8 hours ago, Shadders said:

Maybe MQA has elements of Q Sound :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QSound

 

QSound though doesn't require any special hardware for "decoding", works fine through normal playback gear. I have only one QSound album, Roger Waters' Amused To Death, Master Sound anniversary gold disc. Also employing Sony's SBM which is also better than MQA and doesn't require special "decoding" hardware and works through normal playback gear.

 

[Shadders]

2 hours ago, Miska said:

 

QSound though doesn't require any special hardware for "decoding", works fine through normal playback gear. I have only one QSound album, Roger Waters' Amused To Death, Master Sound anniversary gold disc. Also employing Sony's SBM which is also better than MQA and doesn't require special "decoding" hardware and works through normal playback gear.

 

Hi,

To clarify, maybe the MQA encoded files have an element of QSound.

Regards,

Shadders.

[John_Atkinson]

13 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Part of the fun of reading Stereophile is to catch contradictions. Here's a personal favorite. I had a layover in San Francisco earlier this year and had an issue of Stereophile with me. Every  equipment advertiser had column inches. Just a bit different than John Atkinson reports.

 

You have said that your career involves financial analysis, Rt66indierock, so I assume you, like me, have had formal training in statistics. Everyone knows that a fair coin when tossed gives 50% heads, 50% tails. But what everyone forgets is that it is quite probable to throw 5 heads or tails in a row. The 50/50 ratio emerges only after a much longer series of throws.

 

Your anecdote illustrates the same fallacy: 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. You are throwing 5 heads in a row and erroneously declaring that the coin is fixed.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[mav52]

14 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Every  equipment advertiser had column inches

 Every mag and news papers uses column inches. When I worked at Florida Sportsman in my college days we used column inches to sell advertising  space to vendors.  Why should Stereophile be different. 

[Miska]

3 hours ago, Shadders said:

To clarify, maybe the MQA encoded files have an element of QSound.

 

At least they seem to have some amount of EQ, so other things like QSound-style processing is also a possibility (encoder side). Although it doesn't sound as strong effect as QSound in my opinion.

 

Since the encoder is largely a black box and seems to be very hard to gain access to, it is difficult to evaluate all the effects it has.

 

[Fair Hedon]

It looks like Jim Austin is floating the notion that Apple has a deal with MQA. Not an official news story,

strictly his speculation-

https://www.stereophile.com/content/high-rez-coming-apple-music

 

"It has long been rumored that Apple was planning a high-resolution streaming service, but nothing has ever been confirmed. Also, anyone who's been following the streaming wars will find the phrase "high-resolution masters" evocative—most likely of MQA, Master Quality Authenticated, the codec from MQA Ltd. So far, among major streaming services, only Tidal has publicly embraced MQA. Has MQA Ltd, now struck a secret deal with Apple?

 

There's no word yet from either Apple or MQA (the company) about any such agreement, and without that, there's no apparent way to confirm or corroborate. Testing whether those files are indeed MQA-encoded would be a start—but that would require extracting bit-perfect output from the Apple Music stream and sending it to an MQA-enabled DAC to see if the blue or green light lights up—but that doesn't seem to be possible without serious hacking"

 

Concluding:

"An Apple Music—MQA agreement would surely be greeted with cheers, cries, and indifferent shrugs—and, for better or worse, ensure MQA's survival for a good, long while. Stay tuned.
 

 

 

[mcgillroy]

6 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

It looks like Jim Austin is floating the notion that Apple has a deal with MQA. Not an official news story,

strictly his speculation-

https://www.stereophile.com/content/high-rez-coming-apple-music

 

"It has long been rumored that Apple was planning a high-resolution streaming service, but nothing has ever been confirmed. Also, anyone who's been following the streaming wars will find the phrase "high-resolution masters" evocative—most likely of MQA, Master Quality Authenticated, the codec from MQA Ltd. So far, among major streaming services, only Tidal has publicly embraced MQA. Has MQA Ltd, now struck a secret deal with Apple?

 

There's no word yet from either Apple or MQA (the company) about any such agreement, and without that, there's no apparent way to confirm or corroborate. Testing whether those files are indeed MQA-encoded would be a start—but that would require extracting bit-perfect output from the Apple Music stream and sending it to an MQA-enabled DAC to see if the blue or green light lights up—but that doesn't seem to be possible without serious hacking"

 

Concluding:

"An Apple Music—MQA agreement would surely be greeted with cheers, cries, and indifferent shrugs—and, for better or worse, ensure MQA's survival for a good, long while. Stay tuned.
 

 

 

 

Interesting.

 

I'd bet against it though. Can't see Apple letting an entity like MQA into their ecosystem.

 

 

[Fair Hedon]

7 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

 

Interesting.

 

I'd bet against it though. Can't see Apple letting an entity like MQA into their ecosystem.

 

 

But you know Austin and the other MQA drones at Stereophile would love an agreement..they could do a temporary victory lap, claiming this validates MQA.

 

In reality, why in the world would Apple just not use their own codecs and compression schemes?

[Miska]

11 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

I'd bet against it though. Can't see Apple letting an entity like MQA into their ecosystem.

 

Only way they could, would be a buy-out of the MQA Ltd. MQA is a control freak, but Apple is even more. And they are not short of money for such small purchases.

 

[psjug]

12 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

 

Interesting.

 

I'd bet against it though. Can't see Apple letting an entity like MQA into their ecosystem.

 

 

I'd bet against it too.  Meanwhile, since the September announcement there has been no news about Deezer offering MQA.  On the Deezer Community forum the Deezer reps are giving wishy washy responses to questions about Deezer /MQA, e.g. "we don't know for sure if and when MQA will be available with Deezer tracks"

[mcgillroy]

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

 

thx!

[mcgillroy]

18 minutes ago, Fair Hedon said:

But you know Austin and the other MQA drones at Stereophile would love an agreement..they could do a temporary victory lap, claiming this validates MQA.

 

 

Yes - MQA on HomePod...

 

Viiiiictory!!!

[firedog]

sorry, someone else wrote the same thing. deleted.