Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Brinkman Ship

The Brinkman Ship MQA Listening Results

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guess what. Thread torched.

 

It is clear that Pro MQA forces acted quickly to remove the thread.

 

I noticed that most anti MQA threads at Audio Asylum were deep sixed as well.

 

What do they both have in common? Reviewers get tremendous leeway and

preferential treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

It is clear that Pro MQA forces acted quickly to remove the thread.

The MQA thought police are omnipresent.  Reputation management.


NUC7PJYH/AL --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs

 

i7-6700K/Windows 10 Version 1903/HDPLEX 200W/HDPLEX 400W DC-ATX --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoffman poster "Stone Turntable" was the operative called into action. It seems he is a self appointed moderator similar to the ones outed here. He first tried to derail my post with a long winded self righteous spiel which I ignored, then he went with another tactic of posting a hysterical personal attack. I ignored that too, but reported it. Then the thread vanished. He was contacted by posters here. I am sure there are some good guesses as to whom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

There is no doubt that MQA is monitoring the boards. They have gotten every thread that cast MQA

is a seriously bad light removed.

Even threads that don't cast MQA in a seriously bad light are removed. Just today a thread about an affordable $1k DAC was pulled, and no posts stated anything close to saying MQA is a bag of lies. Mostly just about an entry level DAC for a grand will have the masses lapping it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, House de Kris said:

Even threads that don't cast MQA in a seriously bad light are removed. Just today a thread about an affordable $1k DAC was pulled, and no posts stated anything close to saying MQA is a bag of lies. Mostly just about an entry level DAC for a grand will have the masses lapping it up.

 

The new $1000 Mytek MQA DAC thread?  I posted questioning if it was another all or nothing MQA filter solution in the morning.  That one question make it get punted?


Roon Rock->Auralic Aria G2->Schiit Yggdrasil A2->McIntosh C47->McIntosh MC301 Monos->Wilson Audio Sabrinas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Guess what. Thread torched.

 

It is clear that Pro MQA forces acted quickly to remove the thread.

 

I noticed that most anti MQA threads at Audio Asylum were deep sixed as well.

 

What do they both have in common? Reviewers get tremendous leeway and

preferential treatment.

Now you see what I was talking about a few pages back. The mod even banned popcorn munching memes on your thread--you can't make this stuff up. It's unfortunate as I generally like the community there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2018 at 10:37 PM, Brinkman Ship said:

We listened to approx. 50 albums where we confirmed there was both an MQA version, and an official

24 bit digital download  and where we could confirm the mastering was the same.

 

@Brinkman Ship, where's this list of MQA albums and 24 downloads from the same masters?

 

Why are you avoiding answering this? Because you can't perhaps?

 

Mani.


Phasure Mach III audio PC -> HQPlayer/XXHighEnd @24/705.6 -> Phasure NOS1 DAC -> First Watt F5-cloned mono amps -> Tune Audio Anima horn speakers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

@Brinkman Ship, where's this list of MQA albums and 24 downloads from the same masters?

 

Why are you avoiding answering this? Because you can't perhaps?

 

Mani.

 

There was no test.  Just  one of the well established anti-MQA obsessives on this site posting under a new identity.

 

From a month of listening, overall  I am underwhelmed by MQA and  certainly don't consider it any kind of significant positive development.  However, those more fervently "anti" really do themselves a disservice by validating their opinions against sham threads like this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

There was no test.  Just  one of the well established anti-MQA obsessives on this site posting under a new identity.

 

From a month of listening, overall  I am underwhelmed by MQA and  certainly don't consider it any kind of significant positive development.  However, those more fervently "anti" really do themselves a disservice by validating their options against sham threads like this.  

Don't forget that there is  solid proof, both by measurement and mathematics, that it does have audible artifacts, reduces everything to 17 bits at most, and doesn't go beyond 96 though it fools your  non-MQA DAC into lighting up higher, introduces fake 'noise' to match, and is no smaller in most cases than a regular FLAC file.

 

Whether any of this matters or not is a separate issue (my tests so far using Tidal tells me, but  maybe  not everyone else, that it doesn't). But it can't 'improve' anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Norton said:

From a month of listening, overall  I am underwhelmed by MQA and  certainly don't consider it any kind of significant positive development.

 

Yes, I can see where you might be coming from. Here, using a replay filter that works well for redbook doesn't seem to work well for MQA - it makes MQA sound a tad flat and dull. Optimising the filter for MQA makes redbook sound too bright and forward. So I tend to switch between filters depending on what I'm listening to.

 

Sometimes I'm pretty underwhelmed with MQA too. But sometimes I'm really impressed with the sheer 'naturalness' of the sound. It's pretty hard to generalise about MQA, I think. I mean, do we know which different options are available during the encoding process?

 

Mani.


Phasure Mach III audio PC -> HQPlayer/XXHighEnd @24/705.6 -> Phasure NOS1 DAC -> First Watt F5-cloned mono amps -> Tune Audio Anima horn speakers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, manisandher said:

Yes, I can see where you might be coming from

 

I have to confess that my MQA listening was far from objective, noting that not just MQA but both Tidal and XXHE were all new to me at the same time.

 

In the end though I concluded that any good results were down to XXHE and the quality of the master rather than anything intrinsic to MQA.

 

As a newbie to XXHE can I ask what filters you choose for RBCD, MQA etc?  I mostly just stuck with default Arc Prediction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

The best answer I can offer is to seek out those with a demonstrated commitment to technical facts and objectivity and avoid those still heavily invested in the current professional audiophile pundit system.  And I understand if this suggestion is either humorous or disconcerting.  Like I said, I seriously doubt you're asking this because you desire to be open minded to the notion of consumer advocacy vs. industry friendliness.

 

 

That still doesn’t answer my question. If, as you say, we can rely solely on the online audiophile community (which I assume you mean to include this site) then do I simply ask everyone for their opinion (but only listen to the ones I KNOW are committed to technical facts)?


David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, realhifi said:

That still doesn’t answer my question. If, as you say, we can rely solely on the online audiophile community (which I assume you mean to include this site) then do I simply ask everyone for their opinion (but only listen to the ones I KNOW are committed to technical facts)?

 

I gave the best answer I could in good faith.  And I'll repeat that I don't think there's any chance your mind will be changed in this back and forth.  If you have a method for making purchasing decisions that you're comfortable with, great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

I noticed that most anti MQA threads at Audio Asylum were deep sixed as well.

 

I was surprised by this, so I checked. That doesn't appear to be the case. All the most recent threads at the Audio Asylum, with predominantly anti-MQA content, are still there:

https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=critics&m=91543

https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=critics&m=91202

https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=critics&m=90966

https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=critics&m=90532

 

Perhaps you are mistaken, just as you were when you wrote that I "raved" about the sound of MQA files with the Bluesound gear

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I gave the best answer I could in good faith.  And I'll repeat that I don't think there's any chance your mind will be changed in this back and forth.  If you have a method for making purchasing decisions that you're comfortable with, great!

Ok, thanks. Not sure why you need to insinuate (actually not insinuate but flat out state) that I’m not open minded enough to listen to other opinions, I am. 


David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, realhifi said:

Ok, thanks. Not sure why you need to insinuate (actually not insinuate but flat out state) that I’m not open minded enough to listen to other opinions, I am. 

 

If I misunderstood your intent in this back and forth, then I offer my sincere apologies.

 

Perhaps you could clarify how much value you place in equipment reviews made by professional audiophile pundits.  It might help us find some common ground (or not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

I was surprised by this, so I checked. That doesn't appear to be the case. All the most recent threads at the Audio Asylum, with predominantly anti-MQA content, are still there:

https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=critics&m=91543

https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=critics&m=91202

https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=critics&m=90966

https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=critics&m=90532

 

Perhaps you are mistaken, just as you were when you wrote that I "raved" about the sound of MQA files with the Bluesound gear

 

Not only did he correct that bit, but you acknowledged his correction as well.  Which makes the motivation for this particular post at least suspect.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

If I misunderstood your intent in this back and forth, then I offer my sincere apologies.

 

Perhaps you could clarify how much value you place in equipment reviews made by professional audiophile pundits.  It might help us find some common ground (or not).

Not 100%sure what you mean but do you want to know percentages?  Also, could you narrow the “professional audiophile pundits” down to whether you mean print, online, paid subscription, free and of course whether you would include the editor of this site in your “pundits” group?


David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/02/2018 at 10:37 PM, Brinkman Ship said:

The Brinkman Ship has docked and I can report on between 8-10 hours of listening to MQA and Non MQA files

 

(When it is FREEZING out, plenty of incentive to get cozy with music, wine, and a great system).

 

The listening took place at a long time friend's East Side apartment.  The system was beyond reproach:

 

-MSB Reference DAC / Roon / Tidal

 

-VPI Prime table / Audio Research PH9

 

-Audio Research Ref 6 Preamp

 

-Ayre MX-R Twenty Mono Block Amplifiers

 

Wilson Alexx speaker system

 

Wireworld cabling for all

 

Audience power conditioning, Symposium Acoustics isolation devices and platforms

 

My host has a very large digital library stored on a NAS. And a decent size vinyl collection.

 

We listened to approx. 50 albums where we confirmed there was both an MQA version, and an official

24 bit digital download  and where we could confirm the mastering was the same. We listened to quite a few new releases as well.

 

Volumes matched as close as possible.

 

I had my host select albums play MQA streams from Tidal, then the same tracks from his NAS without telling

me which was which, and we turned off the display of the DAC.  We also muted the first 3 seconds of every track.

 

We repeated the process with me selecting tracks from Tidal and his NAS.

 

We also broke things up by playing tracks from his vinyl collection of some of the same albums.

 

Verdict:

 

In each an every, case, without exception, we both preferred the non MQA version. Some by a little, and some it was not even close.

 

The MQA version created a whole in the center and an artificial Left and Right Spread, and a digital sheen that was

off putting to say the least. We both concluded MQA was DESTRUCTIVE to the music.  It was quite an eye opener.

It sounded like what happens when you hit the "3D" or "Loudness" buttons on mid level home theater receivers.


MQA was putting far too strong a stamp on the music.  We even preferred his 24 bit vinyl rips to the MQA versions.

 

MQA screws up the tonality and the soundstage. Period.

 

Bob Stuart, John Atkinson, Michael Lavorgna, Robert Harley, Jim Austin, John Darko (did I miss anyone?)..

you should all be ashamed of your selves.

 

MQA is by far the biggest farce ever perpetrated in "high end audio". 

 

Couple this with all the data presented here, the measurements, and looking behind the curtain at the financials,

the motives, and the players, it is clear MQA is a wholesale fraud.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It sounds like MQA reverses phase in one of the channels.

This needs further investigation.

:P


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...