The Brinkman Ship MQA Listening Results

[crenca]

16 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Thank you for the correction. And perhaps you could now also withdraw your statement that I raved about the sound of MQA files with Bluesound gear.

 

I have no problem with people criticizing me for things I have said or done. But  that doesn't mean anonymous posters can just make stuff up about me.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Streophile

 

 

Mr. Atkinson,

 

I would be interested in your opinion about the sound quality gains MQA allegedly brings to the table. The OP mentions in his listening a digititus (he calls it "a digital sheen" ), and an artificiality to instrument separation and the like that leaves him with a DSP-rocessed-aftertaste.  This is something I and others have noticed from the beginning.  Yet, the writers at trade publications such as yours have failed to note this (correct me if I am wrong with a link).  It is as if their listening tests are first impressions only - 30 second quickies where such processing sounds "lively" and grabs your attention, and then all the loquacious, art and wine descriptors come out (i.e. "elegant" , "intimate", etc.). In any case, that is just a guess.  Given that writers at publications such as yours tend to be extra sensitive to digital sheen, and as a group tend (exceptions of course) to a natural, organic, "vinyl" sound character, this discrepancy is rather stark.  What do you think explains this?

 

 

[crenca]

"....They survive because the ears that write for them have a degree of trustworthiness and experience that keeps people reading...."

 

That is what I find interesting about the phenomena of MQA and its relationship not only to the big two trade publications, but the "high end" industry in general.  The culture (and thus the "trust" to which you refer) of these publications and the industry in general rests on certain assumptions and unstated agreements.  However, MQA has stressed this culture in several ways.  It overplayed its hand and has caused real damage.  Whereas Stereophile and TAS were before viewed by most as at least reliable "sounds like" subjectivist reporting organs (even for the increasingly "objective" audiophile), MQA has shown that they can't even do that - they put the industry (and their relationship to it) first, second and third.  They don't even have a mechanism to understand what actual consumers hear, and how consumers evaluate and judge things overall!  The staff and writers imagine themselves to be just another audiophile, one who happens to write reviews.  However, MQA has revealed them to be so biased and skewed toward the industry (for whatever reasons, known and unknown) they are truly befuddled as to why we consumers can't hear what they hear.  There must be something wrong with us, or it's a political conspiracy of the forums, or it is even uncontained "hate", etc.  DRM, formats - why would real audiophiles be concerned with such things?

 

It is not that MQA will break this culture - it is too entrenched for any one thing to change it, but MQA has certainly stressed it and shifted it.  Consumers now understand just how homogenous the "industry insider" culture is, despite a few rebels like the late Charles Hanson.  We also now have no reason to even trust the trade publications "sounds like" evaluations as they can't even get these almost completely subjectivised affairs right...

[crenca]

28 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

In other words, MQA may be the beginning of the end for these trade rags, and all it took was a silly, lossy, DRM spiked fabricated entity like MQA to expose their true colors.

 

Well, yes and no in my opinion.  It actually took the continuing shift of certain facts in the culture:   a changing demographic - the "jacket and tie" audiophile being (slowly) replaced by the more digitally aware and voodoo averse audiophile who seeks value (something Stereophile and TAS have just about given up on completely).  By being more and more "digitally aware", having grown up with the PC "revolution" and a consumer electronics market littered with the history of semi-magical digital promises that always underdeliver, MQA came in marketing itself as an old school and confidence game "trust us - we are the audio savants, the trusted publications, the real experts - you want this".  It might have worked not all that long ago.  If they had kept it in an actual physical hardware box, it might have worked especially if they had claimed an "analog" component to it.  

 

However, the "high end" will continue on before.  Go to an audio show like RMAF and ask yourself how much of this 5 and 6 figure equipment do they actually sell?  Not much, but at those prices you can sustain and increasingly narrow demographic.  What MQA has shown us is just how incestuous this culture is.  

 

With the rise of the consumer online review (think Amazon) and forums such as this one however, the trade publication industry no longer can control the narrative because there are other sources of information.  That said, most of the online trade publications (think Lee S, Darko, etc.) are no different than the print publications - they are so far down into the industry culture they missed the boat on MQA as well.

[crenca]

12 minutes ago, realhifi said:

Lol!  Yeah, IF readership is down at some of the "rags" as you refer them, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the proliferation of home theater, "Lifestyle" audio products, iPhones, iPods, Bluetooth, etc, etc, etc....

 

Your right, High Fidelity does not capture the attention of many for exactly these reasons.  However his point was that MQA has revealed to current readership just where their loyalties reside - and it ain't with their readers...

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, rickca said:

Mani is neither. 

 

This is a perfectly legitimate question.

 

I like your conclusions because I don't like MQA.  I'm just not sure they are valid without this input.

 

Well he did say he was at a friend's house and that it was his friends collection so he probably doesn't have a list to give.  

 

What I find interesting about this particular question is that it has to be asked of both mqa supporters and detractors.  Why ?  Because it turns out the "authenticated" part of mqa is absolute garbage.

[crenca]

39 minutes ago, HalSF said:

I’m Stone Turntable over at the Hoffman forum. The thing that’s comically misleading about this post is the implication that I support MQA (I don’t, and stated my belief that it’s probably bunk several times in your SHF thread) and that I must be in cahoots with some MQA cabal. Anyone who has a problem with your extremely hostile, aggressive online persona is part of the MQA conspiracy, I guess.

 

You’re also leaving out the fact that I repeatedly *praised* your MQA listening test and was criticizing you for one thing: making personal attacks, accusing people by name of committing fraud and of being liars — in short, of stuff that the Hoffman forum, at least, defines as troll behavior. That’s it. 

 

I realize the culture and the rules here at CA tolerate ankle-biting, eye-gouging, and framing one's debate opponent as History’s Greatest Monster to a much greater degree than over at the Hoffman forum, so I’’m not going to criticize or engage with you for any of that in your thread here,  beyond responding this once to what you’ve said about me and my imaginary iniquity. I had nothing to do with the deletion of the your Hoffman thread beyond publicly pleading with you not to undermine your valuable MQA critique by being such a relentlessly mean bastard.

 

I’m pretty sure you’re probably going the respond to this with maximum suspicious contempt. Good luck with that. I’m out.

 

 

 

 

I sort of feel for you.  On the one hand, you do have your rules that sound "noble".  On the other hand, MQA is not a product like other products.  It is an attempt to change (or more accurately, to own) the very ground of our musical digital lives.  Thus it is a very innoble venture and this needs to be said.  Yet by accurately describing this would necessarily break your rules which are truly designed for a gentler, kinder Audiophiledom that never really existed.

 

THEN, you come here and characterize the culture here in the most derisive and personal terms - something you are rather proud of being above and censoring on your site.

 

Hypocrite.

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, HalSF said:

 

Thanks for the empathy, and thanks for confirming my observation that members are allowed to play rough here, by calling me a low-down sniveling CA-bashing hypocrite.

 

In reality I don’t condemn the culture here at all. “Ankle-biting and eye-gouging” come with the territory — you just did it to me! How is it a libel to accurately mention that there’s a lot of folks whaling on one another here? 

 

Anyway it’s why I mostly lurk at CA and focus on all of the useful positive information and knowledge here, rather than participate in any of the digital acting out..

 

 

Your not a "low-down sniveling CA-bashing hypocrite", your just a plain every day hypocrite.  You honestly think of yourself (and your site) as "standing above" what you morally condemn, but you are not above using the same "low down" language and tactics, and even a bit of internet psychologizing (i.e. "digital acting out").  

 

However, what you are not bringing to the table is how your noble rules are regularly used to enable the worse of Audiophiledom.  Legitimate questioning and characterization becomes "ankle-biting" and "acting out" when it suits your interests.

 

 

[crenca]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

 Could you please provide a link to something I have written where I refer to Computer Audiophile as a "den of deplorables."

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

I am not aware of any such language by you, but you are the editor of those who do use such language.  John Austin led off his recent series with his "nasty" characterization of the forums.  TAS however is the greater offender, reaching for a "political" understanding of why consumers would reject MQA, calling it "bizarre".  All this is revealtory, for it reveals the distance between the trade publications and consumer.

 

However, even HalSF who is allegedly just another audiophile says "...extraordinary hostility and paranoia directed at MQA" which just shows how homogenous and "locked in" this culture is.  Such audiophiles are so acclimated with the extraordinary language used to promote this or that (such as your "birth of a new world", "elegant" "extraordinary", etc.) that when certain others oppose it with the proportional counter of "fraud", "empty", "money grab" (or as I call Bob S, a "Big Fat Liar"), well then it is not very nice and HalSF and others start to wag their fingers.  

 

All this reveals a shift in culture in my opinion.  Here in the USA, we have a President who does not play by the "Presidential" rules, the "dignity of the office" and all that.  The very ones screaming at him (from both the left and the right) are the same ones who have for years broken and manipulated these very same rules for their own ends.  You don't have to like Trump to appreciate that he beats the media at their own game.

 

All this to say that the civility complaint mostly falls flat for me.  Sure, in a "free speech zone" there is always going to be speech off topic, ridiculous, rude, etc.  So what?  Far more important is the fact that a large and important signal is getting through whereas before it was not...
 

[crenca]

1 hour ago, HalSF said:

...All for saying let’s not be assholes.

 

Why do you think you need to finger wag, or why would you think you have some kind of moral high ground from which to finger wag no matter what your position on MQA is?

 

As far as I can tell, you are simply privileging style over substance - a kind of "let's all put our jacket and tie on and be good upstanding Audiophiles".  You are saying "Sure, MQA is a fraud and Bob S and all his sycophants are Big Fat Liars, but we need to have a dignified response".  I call bullshit on that, and on your hypocrisy...

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Siltech817 said:

 

I would like to see that list, but probably only a snowball's chance in hell that Tidal, MQA, or even the record labels would ever cooperate in any way on that subject.

More likely they will continue to ignore it in it's entirety, being the very consumer friendly entities that they are.

The above wouldn't invalidate any/all listening comparisons of course. But it does introduce a variable that can't be controlled for and thus calls into question the superlatives used to describe MQA's sonics by both the audio press, if not others including those on this forum who have repeatedly demanded this list from the OP when they already know Tidal/MQA won't ever provide it.

Maybe @manisandher can describe how he's controlled for this variable in his own listening tests that point to MQA's sonic superiority, or if not then give some estimate on how much the MQA process is contributing to this perceived lift in sound quality vs. any mastering or even tape source differences.

I apologize upfront, for I too have now asked for something that doesn't exist. But I won't do so repeatedly in huge bold typeface and demanding tone.

 

Well stated.

[crenca]

2 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

I am not being disingenuous. You posted that I had written that I had referred to Computer Audiophile as a "den of deplorables."  Your use of quote marks indicates that you are being literal, that these were the exact words I was supposed to have used. I have not done so, nor have I written anything like those words, yet rather than admitting your error, you now pretend that I am avoiding another question. 

 

So, to put your fevered imaginings to rest, my opinion of CA is that Chris Connacker has done a superb job of creating an on-line community. He applies an appropriately light hand when it comes to moderation in order to allow arguments to develop fully.  While I might disagree with some of his policies, as a competitor it is not appropriate for me to discuss such matters on-line.

 

Now that I have answered your specific question, please pay me the respect of admitting that you were wrong to to write that I had described CA as a " den of deplorables." 

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

Yes, but it must be understood that you are editor of those who have explicitly stated very antagonistic things.  I agree with you, Chris C has done a superb job.  Almost all the complaining is from those who want to see the status quo Audiophile culture prevail - the one where consumers are limited as to what they can say by those above them in the hierarchy of confidence.

 

In your defense, I wonder if everyone here has read your opinion piece:

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/more-mqa

 

You get DRM wrong (MQA is not only DRM, it is a good example of it) but towards the end you acknowledge the consumer implications of MQA.  Besides Darko in the beginning (he seems to have completely discounted the cons of MQA now), is there anyone else in the trade publications who has said this?  Positive Feedback did publish the Andreas Koch "interview"...

 

 

[crenca]

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

Doug Schneider has written a couple of fairly critical articles in SoundStage Hi-Fi. Not sure if they covered whatever your "this" refers to.

 

Your right, I was too vague.  I was thinking of anything that could be listed in the "con" side of a pro/con evaluation - and here I have to add an evaluation from the perspective of the actual consumers of MQA...