The Brinkman Ship MQA Listening Results

[adamdea]

1 minute ago, GUTB said:

There is a large improvement in MQA in that music in which the source I am confident in as well as some high quality Tidal examples. It's way beyond a minor difference that might be in your head -- that part of the OP's made up story is believable, you won't mistake it when you hear it vs non-MQA of the same albums. I will say, though, that of all the MQA DACs I've tried, I couldn't hear any improvement with the Explorer 2 or the Bluesound Node 2 -- both of these are pretty bad DACs. I first heard the promise of MQA with the DragonFly Red, and later with the Pro-Ject S2.

The great thing about things that basically sound the same is that you can say what you like about them, or rather what you think you know tells you you like..

Now the memes are evened out they can do their work in the wild and the sighted evaluations will tend to a similar distribution that the unsighted ones have. But maybe there will turn out to be a pattern after all. let's see.

[Fokus]

39 minutes ago, GUTB said:

I will say, though, that of all the MQA DACs I've tried, I couldn't hear any improvement with the Explorer 2 or the Bluesound Node 2 --

 

In other words: the improvement brought by MQA is so, erm, large that one cannot hear the difference using a DAC created by the inventors of MQA.

 

[Shadders]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

 

Achimago's "work" doesn't prove anything.

Hi Gutb,

If you understand engineering, then you will know that for a signal that has undergone dispersion (temporal blur), that this dispersion cannot be reversed.

So, by your logic, despite MQA Ltd publishing an AES paper stating that they can reverse dispersion, it doesn't prove that they can.

Regards,

Shadders.

[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.....

[GUTB]

Just now, botrytis said:

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.....

 

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 anything about how the deblurring works in specific.

[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.

[GUTB]

2 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

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.

 

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.

[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.

[Fokus]

26 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Archimago is a joke.

 

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.

 

[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.

[Norton]

5 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

Wait, you believe this nonsense story?

 

You are so suspicious.  The OP has clearly just been on a journey of personal discovery, from

 

"As someone who has been enjoying MQA for the past few months.."

 

through to  

 

"... We both concluded MQA was DESTRUCTIVE to the music...MQA screws up the tonality and the soundstage....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".  .. it is clear MQA is a wholesale fraud."

 

admittedly in just a few days.

 

Absolutely no suggestion of brinkmanship here.  Next thing you'll be accusing him of having "..your registered email address (mqatruth@<domain>.com)" and "..obscuring your physical location pretty well"

 

 

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 hours ago, GUTB said:

I first heard the promise of MQA...

 

And that's really the crux.  You're rallying behind a "promise", and swatting away technical evidence with dogma.  Empty dogma, IMHO.

 

Just buy the Vivaldi One already.  Then you can be utterly certain that the "promise of MQA" has been fulfilled.  And you'll have a top of the line DAC.  WIN/WIN.

[mcgillroy]

1 hour 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.

 

GUTB is a joke. All he/she has to offer is trying to devalue other posters without offering anything on his/her own.

 

Come back when you have something to show or stay being a joke.

[firedog]

3 hours ago, Fokus said:

 

In other words: the improvement brought by MQA is so, erm, large that one cannot hear the difference using a DAC created by the inventors of MQA.

 

Exactly. And I'm not at all sure the Dragonfly is better than the ME2. 

If MQA was as great as they say, the difference would be obvious to everyone, all the time.

[Thuaveta]

16 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

 

GUTB is a joke. All he/she has to offer is trying to devalue other posters without offering anything on his/her own.

 

Come back when you have something to show or stay being a joke.

 

I'll just leave this here...

[plissken]

13 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

I also just could not bring my self to believe that the editors of Stereophile and TAS would stake their

entire reputations on something that had no merit..live and learn. This has destroyed their credibility, without question.

 

 

I got to that point years ago.

[knickerhawk]

11 hours ago, esldude said:

BTW, maybe I sounded too dismissive with my post. 

 

I do commend the honest effort you went to in order to discern where the truth lies.  

 

How magnanimous and thoughtful of you...

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

4 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

Achimago's "work" doesn't prove anything.

 

There is a large improvement in MQA in that music in which the source I am confident in as well as some high quality Tidal examples. It's way beyond a minor difference that might be in your head -- that part of the OP's made up story is believable, you won't mistake it when you hear it vs non-MQA of the same albums. I will say, though, that of all the MQA DACs I've tried, I couldn't hear any improvement with the Explorer 2 or the Bluesound Node 2 -- both of these are pretty bad DACs. I first heard the promise of MQA with the DragonFly Red, and later with the Pro-Ject S2.

 

"I will say, though, that of all the MQA DACs I've tried, I couldn't hear any improvement with the Explorer 2 or the Bluesound Node 2 -- both of these are pretty bad DACs."

 

Well, now, that is pretty hilarious. Because "Golden Ears" Atkinson and Lavorgna, as well as Darko RAVED about the sound of MQA through those DACs.

 

Thanks for helping confirm they have no credibility.

 

The only thing made up is your MQA enthusiasm.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, mcgillroy said:

 

GUTB is a joke. All he/she has to offer is trying to devalue other posters without offering anything on his/her own.

 

Come back when you have something to show or stay being a joke.

Classic trolling techniques...

[Brinkman Ship]

3 hours 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.

What is a joke is that little blue light makes you feel all cozy. Regardless of the junk technology.

[Spacehound]

13 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

 

"I will say, though, that of all the MQA DACs I've tried, I couldn't hear any improvement with the Explorer 2 or the Bluesound Node 2 -- both of these are pretty bad DACs."

 

Well, now, that is pretty hilarious. Because "Golden Ears" Atkinson and Lavorgna, as well as Darko RAVED about the sound

of MQA through those DACs.

 

Thanks for helping confirm they have no credibility.

 

The only thing made up is your MQA enthusiasm.

GUTB didn't reply to Fokus's similar comment. I wonder if he will reply to yours?

 

To me the Explorer 2 is a real sticking point for MQA and very funny as well. "Hoist by your own petard"

 

[GUTB]

The Explorer 2 is not a good DAC. Its a little chip on a stick. The DFR is better...its by no means a real DAC, but its MQA implementation resulted in a very obvious improvement. The Pro-Ject S2 took it a step further. I posted about the very albums both Tidal and purchased and my impression of them in other MQA threads.

 

The sonic differences with MQA vs non-MQA are very significant...in one album it was so large I wondered publically if there wasn't some dirty pool EQ-ing going on. Way beyond any change some phase / ringing filter would account for.

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, GUTB said:

The sonic differences with MQA vs non-MQA are very significant...in one album it was so large I wondered publically if there wasn't some dirty pool EQ-ing going on. Way beyond any change some phase / ringing filter would account for.

 

Yes, the term is "remastering".  There's no shortage of examples on Tidal where there is no RBCD equivalent of the MQA version.

[manisandher]

17 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

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

off putting to say the least.

 

[Highlight mine]

 

Interesting. This is the complete opposite of what I'm hearing. If anything, MQA files can sound a tad too dull and flat with the filters I use regularly for redbook playback. But then again, I don't use an MQA DAC so have never heard an MQA reconstruction filter at work.

 

Mani.

[Brinkman Ship]

22 minutes ago, GUTB said:

The Explorer 2 is not a good DAC. Its a little chip on a stick. The DFR is better...its by no means a real DAC, but its MQA implementation resulted in a very obvious improvement. The Pro-Ject S2 took it a step further. I posted about the very albums both Tidal and purchased and my impression of them in other MQA threads.

 

The sonic differences with MQA vs non-MQA are very significant...in one album it was so large I wondered publically if there wasn't some dirty pool EQ-ing going on. Way beyond any change some phase / ringing filter would account for.

On the previous page you posted JUST THE OPPOSITE:

 

"I couldn't hear any improvement with the Explorer 2.."

 

Now you claim:

 

"The Explorer 2 is not a good DAC. Its a little chip on a stick. The DFR is better...its by no means a real DAC, but its MQA implementation resulted in a very obvious improvement."

 

You need to go back to your MQA Club and get your story straight. Thanks for the laugh however.  Do you need

a napkin to wipe the egg off your face?