Jump to content
IGNORED

The Brinkman Ship MQA Listening Results


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

In which case, why did you say I did? And in response to your subsequent question, I haven't discussed CA with "other luminaries of audiophilia," other than the recent case of my conversation with Chris Connacker about the Russian origin of the "GFYM" statement.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

Wot's a "luminary of audiophilia"?

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

You posted that I had written that I had referred to Computer Audiophile as a "den of deplorables." 

 I think the quotes have an additional purpose than the one you understood, but your understanding isn't incorrect. 

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, firedog said:

 I think the quotes have an additional purpose than the one you understood, but your understanding isn't incorrect. 

In all seriousness as I respect your postings, what does it mean if it is not meant literal?

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment
49 minutes 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.

It's Tidal's only distinguishing feecher. The last thing they would do is make  direct comparisons easy on their own site.

Link to comment
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.

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
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"...

 

 

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, crenca said:

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"...

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

Link to comment
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...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

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"...

 

 

Brian Lucey, mastering engineer interview. He blew MQA out of the water as a con job. Plus his posts

on Gear Slutz would be considered essential reading. I went through of those last week.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Siltech817 said:

Maybe @manisandher can describe how he's controlled for this variable in his own listening tests that point to MQA's sonic superiority...

 

Have a look here:

 

But to be clear, my experience to date suggests only that MQA has the potential to sound great. In the thread above, I do indeed prefer the sound of the MQA file over the 24/88.2 hires from the same master. But I'd be reluctant to draw any generalisations from that. My main concern is that we may be 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' in dismissing MQA as some sort of con. People who believe it is may well be proved correct, but I'd personally prefer to explore MQA properly before doing so. Ultimately, I'd be quite happy if it became a niche, and redbook files remained the norm.

 

HTH.

 

Mani.

Main: SOtM sMS-200 -> Okto dac8PRO -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Tune Audio Anima horns + 2x Rotel RB-1590 amps -> 4 subs

Home Office: SOtM sMS-200 -> MOTU UltraLite-mk5 -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Impulse H2 speakers

Vinyl: Technics SP10 / London (Decca) Reference -> Trafomatic Luna -> RME ADI-2 Pro

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Have a look here:

 

But to be clear, my experience to date suggests only that MQA has the potential to sound great. In the thread above, I do indeed prefer the sound of the MQA file over the 24/88.2 hires from the same master. But I'd be reluctant to draw any generalisations from that. My main concern is that we may be 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' in dismissing MQA as some sort of con. People who believe it is may well be proved correct, but I'd personally prefer to explore MQA properly before doing so. Ultimately, I'd be quite happy if it became a niche, and redbook files remained the norm.

 

HTH.

 

Mani.

So the cat is out of the bag.."throwing the baby out with the bath water"?

 

Is that a joke? It has been nearly 3.5 years and some very intelligent people have done dirty work

and they have provided all the data needed and have"explored" MQA as much as it needs to be explored.

 

Thanks to @Siltech817 for making you expose your hand. A job well done.:D

Link to comment
3 hours ago, 4est said:

In all seriousness as I respect your postings, what does it mean if it is not meant literal?

Maybe I’m wrong, ask the poster.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment

re:  Bob Stuart and his past products - it was Boothroyd-Stuart; who was Boothroyd and which did what contribution ??

 

I never heard Meridian back in the late holocene, but I thought the idea of piping digital as close as possible to the speaker was a very good one

 

Link to comment
On 2/10/2018 at 1:56 PM, manisandher said:

Have a look here:

 

Thank you, I now recall having seen that thread late last year, but had forgotten about it.

I applaud your far better attempt at serious comparison testing than the U.S. mainstream audio press has managed, in many ways your efforts serve to better illustrate the lackluster approach of the now (infamous?) ML, for instance.

And while your approach is certainly valid and commendable, a few posts in your thread by @PeterSt caught my eye despite their overwhelming length. 

Specifically, he seems to refer to some ability via software etc... to identify likely identical masters based on similar compression and EQ levels (if memory serves, again, these were LONG posts).

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
On 2/10/2018 at 2:37 PM, Ralf11 said:

re:  Bob Stuart and his past products - it was Boothroyd-Stuart; who was Boothroyd and which did what contribution ??

 

Thats a very good question, in my case I had wondered about Bothroyd's ongoing involvement (or lack thereof) based on seeing his name still listed in the Meridian 2016 year end financial statement.

As I recall, he seemed to be listed as the sole holder of Meridian's Preferred shares unless I read it wrong.

 

 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Siltech817 said:
On 2/10/2018 at 2:37 PM, Ralf11 said:

re:  Bob Stuart and his past products - it was Boothroyd-Stuart; who was Boothroyd and which did what contribution ??

 

Thats a very good question, in my case I had wondered about Bothroyd's ongoing involvement (or lack thereof) based on seeing his name still listed in the Meridian 2016 year end financial statement.

 

Allen Boothroyd is an industrial designer who has been working with Bob Stuart since the 1970s. Other than Meridian, he was also responsible for the BBC Computer, the Celestion SL6 speaker, and the dCS Elgar DAC, elegant -looking products all.

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

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

Link to comment

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



×
×
  • Create New...