The Brinkman Ship MQA Listening Results

[botrytis]

Interesting reading. Although, the magazines probably got a hand hold tour through MQA vs others. This probably included descriptions from the MQA people. That is not a listening test. To the OP what you did was am listening test.

[botrytis]

To add to this idea. Once a file goes through 'lossy' compression, one cannot magically bring the lost parts back. It was the same with MQA and with MP3. Unless Mr. Stuart has put a unicorn in his filter set.....

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

The concept MQA compression operates on is that there is very little music information above 48 KHz so it uses a scheme to detect the little amount of music data above that point while the rest (noise) replaced with a math-based noise formula to re-create the noise content.

 

The deblurring component is another matter. There is a master side where it is claimed most of the benefit comes from but as far as I know no one has said any tying about how the deblurring works in specific.

 

Well, recent papers out of Japan, on psycho-acoustics say that is nonsense. Specifically, that ultrasonics and near ultrasonics do affect the way we hear sounds. Those same sounds are detected through the bones around the ear, not through the normal hearing process. 

 

All I can say is, keep regurgitating the MQA spiel. You know, if you repeat a lie long enough, maybe it will become true, but we have Archimago and others who test these lies and find them to be exactly what they are, lies. 

 

I also have done a listening test with some friends, with MQA files, and also came to the conclusion that it was much ado about nothing. No one in our test, preferred the MQA files. We found them shrill and constipated. That was enough for me. Then I started researching the question, 'WHY?'. Archimago and others answered my questions.  MQA gave platitudes.

[botrytis]

19 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Archimago is a joke. Did you know his study found no clear preference for MQA -- but here you are with a clear preference. Of course his test included people without MQA dacs -- it was just a hobby horse project to spread FUD.

 

Yes, That IS the point. Why would I choose a MORE EXPENSIVE FORMAT, if it does not give you ANYTHING BETTER THAN is already out there? Man, you must be gullible. If I spend more money on on a product, I expect it to perform/sound better. If it doesn't, then FUHGETABOTIT!

 

hmm - another person who swallowed the MQA line, lock, stock and barrel.

 

The last blog post by, Archimago, really goes to the heart of the matter and WHY MQA sounds worse and what they are actually doing. This is what we are talking about, currently.

[botrytis]

6 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

What then is keeping you from doing a better job? Or at least formulate a better strategy for determining what MQA actually does and does not do.

 

 

He already told us what it does. It was the same nonsense that MQA has been saying all along.

[botrytis]

27 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Look guys. You want to know why pro review publications like everything and hardly ever put out strongly negative opinions? It’s because YOU THE READERS don’t LIKE hearing negativity about a piece of gear you bought or a fan of.

 

Sorry, no. The magazines DON'T want to lose ADVERTISING DOLLARS or be sued and this is especially true in the US. If you read, for example, Auto magazines from the UK, they don't mince words at all. I remember reading one, 5-6 yrs ago on a trip and one review was titled, "Her name is Rio and she is crap!". Very honest and breath of fresh air.

 

If reviewers and magazines were more honest (or perceived honesty) about the reviews, they might find their readership going up not down.

 

We know they fawn over all the big high price brands, but we could use more reviews for the masses. Not all of us want to spend what we pay for a car, to buy a pair of loudspeakers, for example.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

 

I’m sorry, but there’s how many high end audio magazines in print today — two? They don’t survive in this day and age by just shilling for whoever puts up full page ads. They survive because the ears that write for them have a degree of trustworthiness and experience that keeps people reading.

 

There is more than two, if you include HT magazines and European magazines (I do not know the Asian magazines, so no comment there). 

 

Trustworthiness? How many people can afford what they review? Most of the equipment is priced so high that I wonder how can their be trust when we don't own what they are hawking? Just making an observation.

 

I mean, Top Gear, even pans high priced cars. How can these magazines not do that?

[botrytis]

I still read newspapers. It is like the vinyl mayvens, it is a tactile emotion thing. I still read and buy books also.