The Brinkman Ship MQA Listening Results

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Again, I respectfully disagree.  The DMP uses Anagram Q5 DSP.  It's rather antiquated by today's DAC standards.

Hi,

Not sure of the importance of what you have referred to.

Can you explain why the reference is important and why the DacMagic IC's used are not adequate ?

Regards,

Shadders.

[Samuel T Cogley]

10 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Not sure of the importance of what you have referred to.

Can you explain why the reference is important and why the DacMagic IC's used are not adequate ?

 

I assume you're aware that the Anagram DSP in the Dacmagic Plus upsamples everything and cannot be turned off.

 

DAC tech moves fast these days.  I firmly stand by my original assertion that the Dacmagic Plus is old tech in 2018 and better sound can be had for less than $500 with current DACs.

 

It's not the Integrated Circuits that are antiquated per se, it's the whole package.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Could you give a link to where I raved about the sound, listening to MQA files with those DACs, please. TIA.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

You are correct, it was with the Meridian Prime initially. I stand corrected. I had a Prime for a short while and found it unsatisfying. Link below for reference.

 

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

[Shadders]

11 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I assume you're aware that the Anagram DSP in the Dacmagic Plus upsamples everything and cannot be turned off.

 

DAC tech moves fast these days.  I firmly stand by my original assertion that the Dacmagic Plus is old tech in 2018 and better sound can be had for less than $500 with current DACs.

 

It's not the Integrated Circuits that are antiquated per se, it's the whole package.

Hi,

OK, so fixed upsampling, where preference is for this to selectable.

I did state with regards to the IC - it uses Dual Wolfson WM8740. Many mid and high end DAC use this chipset.

The unit still gets best DAC reviews : https://www.themasterswitch.com/best-dacs

The issue is that for the price, the components used are as per the high end. In vogue are the ESS DAC's, Just because the features are not all that it could be, a user selectable upsampling is not worth 10x the price difference.

People may subjectively like or dislike a DAC, but high end differences are asymptotic, the law of diminishing returns.

The Cambridge Audio DAC is not the only one at this price, or cheaper. The link provided offers a range.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Rt66indierock]

13 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

And yet, when asked to recommend high performance and not high cost gear you have nothing. In fact no one does. What’s up with that?

 

Best Headphone Rigs vs. State-Of-The-Art Audio Systems

RMAF October 6, 2017 4:45 to 6:00 PM

This seminar became a discussion of just how good a $600 headphone rig and a $1,000 stereo system can be.

 

Paul Seydor and I discussed this at the Los Angeles Orange County Audio Society Annual Gala last December. Some of that discussion will be in my posts about my office system  in "The Best for the Least" thread. One post so far.

 

[GUTB]

36 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

OK, so fixed upsampling, where preference is for this to selectable.

I did state with regards to the IC - it uses Dual Wolfson WM8740. Many mid and high end DAC use this chipset.

The unit still gets best DAC reviews : https://www.themasterswitch.com/best-dacs

The issue is that for the price, the components used are as per the high end. In vogue are the ESS DAC's, Just because the features are not all that it could be, a user selectable upsampling is not worth 10x the price difference.

People may subjectively like or dislike a DAC, but high end differences are asymptotic, the law of diminishing returns.

The Cambridge Audio DAC is not the only one at this price, or cheaper. The link provided offers a range.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

A DAC can be divided into three parts for this discussion: the input, the output and the D/A part. The input deals with clocking and keeping external junk out of the rest of the DAC. The D/A stage does the filtering, re-sampling, and generating an analog signal. The output is responsible for the critical step of amping the analog signal into a useable line-level signal. It’s the output stage that these little DACs fall short on. Anyone can slap together a cheap output stage, and make it quiet for measurements; what everyone CAN’T do is make it sound good. Here is an example of a DAC is with a SERIOUS output stage:

 

 

Just by LOOKING at the inside I can tell this sounds very good. Well, also by the fact that manufacturer is a specialist in high end analog sound. The Nyquist DAC is extremely expensive...so where is the affordable alternative? I’m told over and over and OVER that price isn’t related to quality, that high-end is a scam designed to separate audiophools from their cash. So where is it?

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, GUTB said:

 

A DAC can be divided into three parts for this discussion: the input, the output and the D/A part. The input deals with clocking and keeping external junk out of the rest of the DAC. The D/A stage does the filtering, re-sampling, and generating an analog signal. The output is responsible for the critical step of amping the analog signal into a useable line-level signal. It’s the output stage that these little DACs fall short on. Anyone can slap together a cheap output stage, and make it quiet for measurements; what everyone CAN’T do is make it sound good. Here is an example of a DAC is with a SERIOUS output stage:

 

 

Just by LOOKING at the inside I can tell this sounds very good. Well, also by the fact that manufacturer is a specialist in high end analog sound. The Nyquist DAC is extremely expensive...so where is the affordable alternative? I’m told over and over and OVER that price isn’t related to quality, that high-end is a scam designed to separate audiophools from their cash. So where is it?

Hi Gutb,

It is your subjective view (literally, and metaphorically) of high end DAC's that makes you believe a cheap DAC with the same component types (capacitor, opamps etc) sounds worse than a high end DAC.

Read what you have written - you explicitly state "Just by LOOKING" - this is expectation bias.

High end is a scam due to :

1. They charge a high price for component count that is not a lot more than much cheaper DAC's. 
2. The component's used are the same as cheaper DACs.

The NE5534 opamp has been available for 30+ years, and is still one of the best opamps available, still today. Cost less than £1 each.

What you seem to be inferring is that all high end DAC's sound good, and no low cost DAC sound good.

DAC design is engineering - why are there no books or published papers showing how someone can make a good sounding DAC ? Seems to be as if you are in the lap of the gods if you come up with a design that sounds good.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Samuel T Cogley]

19 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Just by LOOKING at the inside I can tell this sounds very good.

 

You remind me of my childhood when I used to page longingly through the toy section of the Sears Wishbook.

[NOMBEDES]

23 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

Let me fix this for you:

 

Set up a booth in the center of a large city:

 

1. Ask 1000 people "What is an audio DAC?"  You will get maybe 50 to 100 folks who can answer the question.  (this demonstration will indicate how few people give a crap about our hobby)

 

2.  Ask 1000 people to compare a high resolution audio file with a standard redbook file.   You will get a distribution of "no difference" "high rez is better" and "standard rez is better".   (This exercise will show you that few random participants can tell the difference between files.)

 

3.  Play a MQA file and a standard file for the casual listener and you may get the same distribution of no difference to better and worse.

 

Now to marketing:   The entire audio industry is based on the fact that human hearing preferences can be plotted on a bell curve.   Some audio consumers will like cable A over cable B.  If you can sell 25 sets of expensive cables for a 2000% mark up, Bob's your uncle and you have made a profit.  Please note that there is no audio advantage over cable A or B there is only human preference.   MQA is just more of the same marketing;  based upon, "let's make it sound different and will someone will spend money".  Just like cables and other audio/marketing voodoo,  there is no sonic advantage to MQA there is only the fact that some folks will like it and buy it.

 

We have had fully 36000 posts on MQA, all worthless:

 

if you like the sound, it follows that you should embrace the technology, if you don't like the sound, ignore it.

 

  

 

 

@Brinkman Ship.  Does not agree with my post.  He did not take the time to explain why my brilliant examination of the Audio Industry failed.

 

How about this:

 

I lke blues music @gmgraves likes classical music.  Do we hear differently?  Do we experience music in some divergent manner explained by medical science?   Is there a childhood environmental factor that explains a musical preference?

 

I stand by my opinion that humans are the least reliable reporters of the audio experience, because they can only hear through the filter of their own preference.   So if one person likes the "sound" of MQA and a second person does not like what he is hearing, how does that help the ComputerAudiophile come to a rational conclusion regarding MQA?

 

As @Samuel T Cogley has stated, supra, MQA is cables!   (I forgot to give STC my coveted "post of the day award" so I will do so now).  Mr Cogley is truly a national treasure ~ as are many of you. Especially the ones that agree with me.

 

 

 

 

 

[Teresa]

19 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

...10,000 quatloos says he will proclaim that "experts" have assured him that he can be utterly confident of MQA's awesomeness...

 

Quatloos! Nice to see another fan of Star Trek.

 

BTW I found "utterly confident of MQA's awesomeness" very humorous. After reading 1000's of posts and articles on MQA I fail to understand how throwing away part of the music makes it more authentic or sound better. I see no reason not to have full .wav, .aiff, .dff or .dsf high resolution music files with memory being so cheap nowadays? 

 

14 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

And yet, when asked to recommend high performance and not high cost gear you have nothing. In fact no one does. What’s up with that?

 

I missed where you asked for that. I have been pleased with AMC, Yamaha, Teac, Music Hall, and other affordable excellent sounding components. Yes, I have heard mega expensive stuff at audio shows. For example: I loved the sound of my Telarc Pure DSD SACDs played through Playback Designs $17,000 SACD player, but it's not 51 times better than my $330 Yamaha Blu-ray / SACD player IMHO.

 

Of course, I could never afford $17,000 for any component or even an entire audio system. IMHO cost and performance have to be weighed on what one can realistically afford without going into bankruptcy.

 

P.S. GUTB I know you have already said I am not an audiophile and I accept that as I don't lust after what I cannot have. However, I love music and I bought equipment I could afford to make my music as realistic and enjoyable as possible.

[Albrecht]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

Hi Gutb,

It is your subjective view (literally, and metaphorically) of high end DAC's that makes you believe a cheap DAC with the same component types (capacitor, opamps etc) sounds worse than a high end DAC.

Read what you have written - you explicitly state "Just by LOOKING" - this is expectation bias.

High end is a scam due to :

1. They charge a high price for component count that is not a lot more than much cheaper DAC's. 
2. The component's used are the same as cheaper DACs.

The NE5534 opamp has been available for 30+ years, and is still one of the best opamps available, still today. Cost less than £1 each.

What you seem to be inferring is that all high end DAC's sound good, and no low cost DAC sound good.

DAC design is engineering - why are there no books or published papers showing how someone can make a good sounding DAC ? Seems to be as if you are in the lap of the gods if you come up with a design that sounds good.

Regards,

Shadders.

There is very little to nothing of consequence that is "objective" when designing, building, or listening to a component. The "engineering" is often rudimentary. Many great sounding DACs eschew Op-Amps. What he is inferring is, (that in general), a component that has super expensive parts often does sound better than a consumer product. High end is almost never a "scam." What you are seeing by looking (sometimes) is very good workmanship and expensive parts that often add up to 1/2 or more of the retail price of a component. Have you ever looked inside a Piece of Shit Oppo with traces all over the mainboard?  Super Caps, Dueland Caps, Jupiter caps are very expensive, and they have a much lower percentage variance. What components a designer uses whether they are a consumer product designer or a high end product designer are almost entirely SUBJECTIVE.  

[Albrecht]

3 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

You are correct, it was with the Meridian Prime initially. I stand corrected. I had a Prime for a short while and found it unsatisfying. Link below for reference.

 

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

I am not saying that you're doing this, - (as I haven't read every single post in this thread), - but i don't think that you need to sell the fact that high end audio consumers have wholeheartedly rejected MQA. I DO agree that the audiophile enthusiast review publications are largely supporting MQA, - with a big, notable exception in Doug Schneider. What my take is that a fair number of supporters have been bamboozled by some vague, (pro-tech gadget), propaganda. "If it's high tech, it's good."

What MQA is, is akin to a cheap reverb tank.  (Musicians, are very woke or easily awakened to these things). These "digital filters" are just another flavor of formaldehyde cookies.

While running MQA, Meridian, & a cowed media into the ground, - don't forget to add Tidal, the criminal record labels, ISPs, and streaming music in general to the list. All are part of the problem, and all are harmful to the artists and the listeners who love them.

[manisandher]

4 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

How did you do that ?

I like to know 15 Tidal ID's of which you confirmed that the mastering was the same. Thanks.

 

+1

 

Mani.

[Shadders]

3 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

There is very little to nothing of consequence that is "objective" when designing, building, or listening to a component. The "engineering" is often rudimentary. Many great sounding DACs eschew Op-Amps. What he is inferring is, (that in general), a component that has super expensive parts often does sound better than a consumer product. High end is almost never a "scam." What you are seeing by looking (sometimes) is very good workmanship and expensive parts that often add up to 1/2 or more of the retail price of a component. Have you ever looked inside a Piece of Shit Oppo with traces all over the mainboard?  Super Caps, Dueland Caps, Jupiter caps are very expensive, and they have a much lower percentage variance. What components a designer uses whether they are a consumer product designer or a high end product designer are almost entirely SUBJECTIVE.  

Hi,

You have no proof that the very expensive components such as the special capacitors make any difference.

Not sure what you mean by lower percentage variance in regards to them sounding better.

You can buy 1% polypropylene capacitors from Farnell, a few GBP, that meet the most stringent specifications.

If capacitors create a sound you like, then this has to be distortion. Cyril Bateman completed studies on capacitor sound, and effectively, some capacitors do generate significant distortion, and others have such low distortion that it is inaudible. Or not ?. As per the Farnell example, these capacitors will have the lowest distortion and the highest tolerance.

You seem to be equating cost with sound quality.

I am sure that if i paid £10k for a DAC, i would want it to sound better than a £500 DAC, else i would have wasted £9,500.

In addition, we all equate to some extent a higher price means more quality and better product. A study has shown that if there are three wines available at different prices, people will not go for the cheaper, since they do not want to be seen a skin flint, so they go for the middle one. The shops know this, so the middle one costs the same as the lower cost one. More profit.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Albrecht]

55 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

Quatloos! Nice to see another fan of Star Trek.

 

BTW I found "utterly confident of MQA's awesomeness" very humorous. After reading 1000's of posts and articles on MQA I fail to understand how throwing away part of the music makes it more authentic or sound better. I see no reason not to have full .wav, .aiff, .dff or .dsf high resolution music files with memory being so cheap nowadays? 

 

 

I missed where you asked for that. I have been pleased with AMC, Yamaha, Teac, Music Hall, and other affordable excellent sounding components. Yes, I have heard mega expensive stuff at audio shows. For example: I loved the sound of my Telarc Pure DSD SACDs played through Playback Designs $17,000 SACD player, but it's not 51 times better than my $330 Yamaha Blu-ray / SACD player IMHO.

 

Of course, I could never afford $17,000 for any component or even an entire audio system. IMHO cost and performance have to be weighed on what one can realistically afford without going into bankruptcy.

 

P.S. GUTB I know you have already said I am not an audiophile and I accept that as I don't lust after what I cannot have. However, I love music and I bought equipment I could afford to make my music as realistic and enjoyable as possible.

I so agree....

What I like about what you said is that although you can't afford it, - (neither can I), - that doesn't mean that the Playback Designs does not sound amazing. And of course, - all this falls within a CONTEXT. No one is buying a $17,000 player to go with NHT standmount speakers. No one is buying $4000 Cardas cables for a $400 NAD amplifier. If one can't tell the difference between streaming .mp3 and AIFF files over the interwebs with their current system, - then MQA is a foolhardy endeavor....

[Albrecht]

2 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

You have no proof that the very expensive components such as the special capacitors make any difference.

Not sure what you mean by lower percentage variance in regards to them sounding better.

You can buy 1% polypropylene capacitors from Farnell, a few GBP, that meet the most stringent specifications.

If capacitors create a sound you like, then this has to be distortion. Cyril Bateman completed studies on capacitor sound, and effectively, some capacitors do generate significant distortion, and others have such low distortion that it is inaudible. Or not ?. As per the Farnell example, these capacitors will have the lowest distortion and the highest tolerance.

You seem to be equating cost with sound quality.

I am sure that if i paid £10k for a DAC, i would want it to sound better than a £500 DAC, else i would have wasted £9,500.

In addition, we all equate to some extent a higher price means more quality and better product. A study has shown that if there are three wines available at different prices, people will not go for the cheaper, since they do not want to be seen a skin flint, so they go for the middle one. The shops know this, so the middle one costs the same as the lower cost one. More profit.

Regards,

Shadders.

Hi,

""You have no proof that the very expensive components such as the special capacitors make any difference."

Yes,  I do, 100% ironclad PROOF, - whoa boy yesindeedy!!

""You can buy 1% polypropylene capacitors from Farnell, a few GBP, that meet the most stringent specifications.""

Which are what? 30% variance? 40? 50?

""Cyril Bateman completed studies on capacitor sound, and effectively, some capacitors do generate significant distortion, and others have such low distortion that it is inaudible""

What is, (and may be more), important is how a capacitor or resistor choice affects the other parts in the component, the component's final sound, and finally, how all the components and room treatments work together to produce the music.

""I am sure that if i paid £10k for a DAC, i would want it to sound better than a £500 DAC, else i would have wasted £9,500.""

I would hope so, and it would be for everyone.

 

"You seem to be equating cost with sound quality."

Nope, - but better components are often more expensive.

 

""A study has shown that if there are three wines available at different prices, people will not go for the cheaper, since they do not want to be seen a skin flint, so they go for the middle one. The shops know this, so the middle one costs the same as the lower cost one"

 

Somewhat irrelevant to this discussion, - but I do concede that there is psychology at play, and people are influenced by forces outside strictly performance. And in any luxury goods/high performance market, - especially with all unreasonable behavior of its detractors, - poor performing products aren't around for long to "bamboozle."

 

You seem to be writing as someone who hasn't heard very many high performing systems, or compared them to consumer systems.

 

 

[psjug]

2 hours ago, GUTB said:

I’m told over and over and OVER that price isn’t related to quality, that high-end is a scam designed to separate audiophools from their cash. So where is it?

 

I see you've moved on to DACs.  I thought you were going to compare amps but it seems you dropped the ball.

[Shadders]

3 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Hi,

""You have no proof that the very expensive components such as the special capacitors make any difference."

Yes,  I do, 100% ironclad PROOF, - whoa boy yesindeedy!!

""You can buy 1% polypropylene capacitors from Farnell, a few GBP, that meet the most stringent specifications.""

Which are what? 30% variance? 40? 50?

""Cyril Bateman completed studies on capacitor sound, and effectively, some capacitors do generate significant distortion, and others have such low distortion that it is inaudible""

What is, (and may be more), important is how a capacitor or resistor choice affects the other parts in the component, the component's final sound, and finally, how all the components and room treatments work together to produce the music.

""I am sure that if i paid £10k for a DAC, i would want it to sound better than a £500 DAC, else i would have wasted £9,500.""

I would hope so, and it would be for everyone.

 

"You seem to be equating cost with sound quality."

Nope, - but better components are often more expensive.

 

""A study has shown that if there are three wines available at different prices, people will not go for the cheaper, since they do not want to be seen a skin flint, so they go for the middle one. The shops know this, so the middle one costs the same as the lower cost one"

 

Somewhat irrelevant to this discussion, - but I do concede that there is psychology at play, and people are influenced by forces outside strictly performance. And in any luxury goods/high performance market, - especially with all unreasonable behavior of its detractors, - poor performing products aren't around for long to "bamboozle."

 

You seem to be writing as someone who hasn't heard very many high performing systems, or compared them to consumer systems.

 

 

Hi,

You have no proof, only your subjective opinion. The ITU has a standard for assessing the quality of video pictures -  old analogue system. There is NONE for audio, and nor could there be - it is all in our heads. No proof.

Not sure why you keep on about variance, capacitors are specified on their capacitance, voltage rating, tolerance etc. 

One of the best opamps in the world costs less than £1. This is why many people use the NE5534/5532.

If a system is designed properly, then a capacitor will not affect other parts of the system, apart from the function it is designed to do. Your statement that a capacitor affects other parts in the components does not make sense. It does not, it operates as it is designed to do, and may or may not have distortion. This pseudo science statement has no validity in a design.

Again, you associate high cost with a better component, which makes a better system, and hence a high cost is ok. This is not true. High cost of a component, does not mean it is better.

Regards,

Shadders.

[christopher3393]

20 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

The ones of the forum you have to be the most mindful of are the self-appointed Civility Police.  They hold a lot of sway with Chris and can usually get someone banned very quickly.

 

Care to back that up? I think this is completely false and more than a little tin-foil hat-ish.

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Care to back that up? I think this is completely false and more than a little tin-foil hat-ish.

 

Looks like I struck a nerve. 

 

You first.  Publish the PMs you send to Chris complaining of incivility here.

[esldude]

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

A DAC can be divided into three parts for this discussion: the input, the output and the D/A part. The input deals with clocking and keeping external junk out of the rest of the DAC. The D/A stage does the filtering, re-sampling, and generating an analog signal. The output is responsible for the critical step of amping the analog signal into a useable line-level signal. It’s the output stage that these little DACs fall short on. Anyone can slap together a cheap output stage, and make it quiet for measurements; what everyone CAN’T do is make it sound good. Here is an example of a DAC is with a SERIOUS output stage:

 

 

Just by LOOKING at the inside I can tell this sounds very good. Well, also by the fact that manufacturer is a specialist in high end analog sound. The Nyquist DAC is extremely expensive...so where is the affordable alternative? I’m told over and over and OVER that price isn’t related to quality, that high-end is a scam designed to separate audiophools from their cash. So where is it?

RME ADI 2 DAC.  $999. There's one for you.

[christopher3393]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Looks like a struck a nerve

 

It's becoming tiresome. "Struck a nerve" is another standard ploy you use. I've let 2 other posts on my being the self-appointed civility police go by, but you seem intent on turning this into something beyond your own conjecture and speculation.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, christopher3393 said:

 

It's becoming tiresome. "Struck a nerve" is another standard ploy you use. I've let 2 other posts on my being the self-appointed civility police go by, but you seem intent on turning this into something beyond your own conjecture and speculation.

 

So that's a "no" on publishing the PMs?

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

The ones of the forum you have to be the most mindful of are the self-appointed Civility Police.  They hold a lot of sway with Chris and can usually get someone banned very quickly.

Absolutely false. 

 

Name one person who has been banned without good cause? We have rules. Not many of them, but we have them. Anyone breaks them, there is usually a warning or two, then a ban. 

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, NOMBEDES said:

I lke blues music @gmgraves likes classical music.  Do we hear differently?  Do we experience music in some divergent manner explained by medical science?   Is there a childhood environmental factor that explains a musical preference?

 

I don't think so, at least not in my case. My parents weren't really very much interested in music. I mean they listened to the MOR music of the day: Sinatra, Rosmary Clooney, Perry Como, Patti Paige, etc. But they didn't didn't seem to have any particular favorites. I gathered that this kind of music was to them the way rock was to me in high-school: I.E,  while it was a running obligato to my life (after all it was with my contemporaries constantly), I didn't really pay much attention to it because it didn't "send me" like it did most of my generation. Early-on in my life, I discovered a love for the sound of a full orchestra, probably from film soundtracks (I'm still found of good film music: Rozsa, Steiner, Tiomkin, Bernstein (Elmer), Goldsmith, Barry, Williams, Etc.) and just never got excited by the pop music of my day. By the time I was in high-school, I was spending most of my allowance of film soundtrack recordings and increasingly buying classical music recordings. Like I said, I'm not really sure what formed my taste in music (which is actually pretty broad. There are few entire genres that I eschew entirely, and I can usually come up with at least a few performers/musical selections in most genres that I like - even rock-n'-roll (Beach Boys, Roy Orbison, for instance). The funny part is, I didn't pay any attention to them when they were mainstream and current, but in retrospect I enjoy hearing them every now and again.