The Brinkman Ship MQA Listening Results

[Albrecht]

42 minutes ago, 4est said:

If I were you I would quit wasting my time. It is apparent that Shadders is lost and has no interest in finding the way. Methinks it is bias by intent in the hope that there is not actually a difference. That appears to be a popular meme around here these days. To suggest that a passive part such as a capacitors are all the same based on capacitance value alone is particularly foolish. There are distinct reasons why different types of dielectric are offered by the same manufacture to provide parts for different uses.

Thank you. Good advice to be sure. And, that is why I am now out. Reminds me of Chris' well stated words that no one will be changing any minds around here....

Cheers,

[Shadders]

57 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Degrees of evidence and degrees of proof....  Your definition of "proof" is based on impossible objective criteria for task

All choices in a subjective goal are subjective.

If you believe that all systems sound the same, - and that there are no differences in performance between systems, -  then you are wrong, and there is no point in discussing further.

An NHT standmount speaker with 5" woofers is simply not capable of the performance a floor standing speaker with 15" woofers. These speakers perform differently, - the degree to which this performance is proven to you and what your preferences are, - is entirely subjective. (and is decidedly NOT [investigative] science).

""Both are designed to meet a specific performance.""

That is true, and better designers design better components.

 

"It is engineering. It is engineering that allows people to design goods."

of course engineering knowledge is needed, - but it is the subjective questioning of "what if i use this instead of that" (subjective) that helps designers design BETTER components. The goals and process to reach them are almost entirely subjective.

 

The difference between a $300 CD player and a $7,000 Esoteric, VRDS Neo player is proven by scientific listening comparisons all day long. In a world of subjective experiences, the designers of the VRDS-Neo said, "what if error correction doesn't sound as good as a magnesium clamping mechanism?, - let's try it." Or, they said, "what if AKM 4750 DACs sound better than the Burr Brown?"

These are all subjective questions, and subjective choices for subjective results that enhance the listening experience. Designers, manufacturers and listeners are willing to pay for these things, and they all agree that they are worth it to them. If they were not better, - people would be buying Sony boomboxes.

The evidence is massive to the tune of a dramatic high percentage of listeners.

If I may ask, are you not curious why nearly everyone here asserts that there are indeed BETTER performing systems? I would wonder why would you not want to investigate why they say what they say? You are participating on a website that has audiophile in the name, why would you not be curious as to the subject that is being discussed?

Hi,

Again, there is no proof in subjectivity. No one can prove one painting is better than another - it is just opinion.

 

I did not state that all systems sound the same. I stated that expensive components are no guarantee that they are better than another cheaper one. Again, get the specification sheet of a capacitor you like, and pass across so it can be discussed.

 

You stated : "Better designers use better components". A design is created to meet a specification, and if a designer wants to use a £100 capacitor on the output stage - then of course they will claim this, as they will want the purchaser to know how much has been spent on the design. Doesn't make it sound better. Too many times, people have thought the better looking component produces the better sound. Example - Hifi News - reviewed a CD player - cost many thousands, built like a tank, and reviewers thought is was a fantastic sound, words used commensurate with the look and build of the CD player. Under blind conditions, they all stated the sound was thin, unengaging. Its simple. If you are told something is expensive, and has super duper capacitors, expectation bias means you will think the sound is super duper.

 

The differences in DAC's and IC's - this is down to the output filters used, whether the inbuilt IC filter or external digital filter. Agreed - this changes the sound. Super duper capacitor don't. Unless they are flawed and add distortion.

 

Curious - i pick up tips of what can be done to improve systems - engineering wise - on here there are some good engineers. Whether a system is better performing - then i examine the specification for amplifiers, but now i will only listen to my own builds - i can ensure it meets the specifications i want. For a DAC - filters make the difference, not super duper capacitors, or a specific opamp. For speakers - then this is where there are significant differences. Depending on their design, then the amplifier choice is important - can the amplifier provide enough current if the speaker is a low impedance. Can the amplifier deal with a capacitive load if the speaker has a ribbon tweeter.

 

I am building my own active transmission line speakers. The drivers i am using are same as per any high end speaker circa £5k. When you have to design the speakers, amplifiers, active crossover etc., then everything is an engineering decision. There are no subjective rules or subjective design options. Maybe the colour of the paint on the speaker.

 

People like whatever they like, if someone does not like my speakers, then ok - maybe someone will like them. I have seen comments where people have gone to a hifi show, heard a top of the range system, £50k etc., and did not like it. You can't please all the people all of the time - but maybe, if you tell them it has fantastic opamps, super duper capacitors, and a luverly case, then they will more often or not, like it. Subjectively.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

Hi,

Not meaning to labour the point, have a read of the article below :

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/8987/op-amps-horrible-truth/p1

The comments section is a really valuable read.

Regards,

Shadders.

[John_Atkinson]

9 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

 

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

[Brinkman Ship]

38 minutes 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

Yes, it was Jim Austin who raved about MQA with the Explorer 2. Not you.

 

Actually I was trying to attribute the Bluesound (and Explorer2) rave to a group of reviewers: John Darko, Michael Lavorgna, and others,  WHO DID use them , and it seems I did not do this correctly.

 

For the record, you clearly did not use those units, but the Prime and the flagship Meridian DAC in your MQA write ups.

[MikeyFresh]

10 hours 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 second this, in it's entirety.

 

 

[MikeyFresh]

10 hours ago, Teresa said:

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.

 

And that is after all, the name of the game. Always has been.

[MikeyFresh]

On 2/6/2018 at 4:49 PM, Rt66indierock said:

In Lee's case his financial analysis is some of most entertaining stuff I read.

 

Me too, and I expected much more of a McKinsey consultant.

 

Clearly he didn't even read those financial statements at all, or the reading comprehension just isn't there.

[Ralf11]

or... he really isn't a McKinsey consultant

[PeterSt]

4 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

and it seems I did not do this correctly.

 

Same as you guys did not find nor use 50 MQA albums with a "confirmed" same master.

[Spacehound]

6 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Yes, it was Jim Austin who raved about MQA with the Explorer 2. Not you.

 

Actually I was trying to attribute the Bluesound (and Explorer2) rave to a group of reviewers: John Darko, Michael Lavorgna, and others,  WHO DID use them , and it seems I did not do this correctly.

 

For the record, you clearly did not use those units, but the Prime and the flagship Meridian DAC in your MQA write ups.

Doesn't matter who it was.

 

They are all singing the same tune, conducted by the editor,  because staff on magazines get paid via advertising, and while mild criticisms are allowed as it makes them look 'sincere',   they all know where their pay comes from. The industry must not be offended, criticise any one of them you have criticised them all. Goodbye pay, goodbye getting a job in the industry, goodbye getting a job on another magazine.

 

It's different on forums because WE do most of   the criticism/praise. And we have nothing to gain or  lose by doing either.

 

Also forum membership  increases  while magazine readership goes down. They  don't like that, obviously, thus the vitriolic anti-forum comments from magazine editors and staff (which are always great fun to read).

[Norton]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Same as you guys did not find nor use 50 MQA albums with a "confirmed" same master.

 

I note there was no response for the list of Tidal album IDs used.  Regardless of individual's personal evaluations of MQA, I suspect everyone really knows this thread is a sham.

 

Someone who was (apparently) enjoying MQA via Tidal for  months (apparently) has to go to their affluent friend (call to authority) to do listening tests they could easily have done on their own system in those months and is suddenly converted to the diametric opposite view of MQA and feels the need to start a thread on CA.

 

I'm no more taken in by this  version of the OP than I was by the previous one.

 

 

[Spacehound]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

or... he really isn't a McKinsey consultant

He was never a McKinsey consultant. He just attempted to imply he was.

 

Looking at his comments they wouldn't employ such an ineffective person. He couldn't  even understand a formal annual report (as required by the UK gubmint and available in full  on the UK gubmint site), as we can see from his 'car audio' and 'USA division' comments about the MQA Ltd report. Even when we gave him a link to the report he had to be told where to look for the summary and then he didn't know what 'consolidated' meant.

[Thuaveta]

1 hour ago, Spacehound said:

He was never a McKinsey consultant. He just attempted to imply he was.

 

Unless there's a subculture similar to the fake SEALS bunch that get off by posing as distinguished suits, I'd say it's likely you're mistaken there. His posts here don't exactly put McKinsey's analytical capabilities in a good light on the face of it, though I'd kindly remind everyone that it's extremely likely his thinking, in terms of finances, is much more evolved than in terms of audio and takes into account complex financial structures.

 

Always keep in mind that Meridian's matryoshka-like structure of parent companies are world-class at tax optimisation when reading Lee's posts on the financials, and that while the numbers do look bad, in the end, there's relatively little we know about them.

[Hifi Bob]

Hifi Bob’s law: the significance of a claimed improvement in SQ is inversely proportional to the number of forum posts debating the claim.

 

Add up the total number of posts on MQA (including other forums), then take the reciprocal...

[Spacehound]

44 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

 

Unless there's a subculture similar to the fake SEALS bunch that get off by posing as distinguished suits, I'd say it's likely you're mistaken there. His posts here don't exactly put McKinsey's analytical capabilities in a good light on the face of it, though I'd kindly remind everyone that it's extremely likely his thinking, in terms of finances, is much more evolved than in terms of audio and takes into account complex financial structures.

 

Always keep in mind that Meridian's matryoshka-like structure of parent companies are world-class at tax optimisation when reading Lee's posts on the financials, and that while the numbers do look bad, in the end, there's relatively little we know about them.

To me  his total inability to understand a fairly short and simple  financial report demonstrates quite clearly that it  is unlikely he worked for any 'business consultancy', let alone McKinseys. He couldn't even understand the standard terminology.

 

Most of these 'consultancies' are totally clueless anyway. Its a fool company that contracts out their  'thinking' to such outfits, who have never even seen the 'front line', let alone been on it,  and don't have to answer to their clients shareholders.

 

And he posts utter BS about everything else so why not that too?

 

He's just an industry   'hanger on'. I suspect those he calls his 'industry friends'  treat him with contempt when his back is turned.

 

And as you can see, his 'efforts' don't even work. Not to the slightest degree.

 

As for Meridian they are 'invisible' in their home country, always have been, and have never turned a profit in their 40 years of business, being entirely propped up by his wealthy wife (presumably to get him out of the kitchen). Stuart's previous effort, Lecson Audio, was also a quick disaster. He couldn't  design a paper bag.

[mansr]

2 hours ago, Spacehound said:

To me  his total inability to understand a fairly short and simple  financial report demonstrates quite clearly that it  is unlikely he worked for any 'business consultancy', let alone McKinseys. He couldn't even understand the standard terminology.

What makes you believe other/actual such "consultants" are any better? Remember the Bobs in Office Space? It's a fairly accurate portrayal.

 

 

[Thuaveta]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

What makes you believe other/actual such "consultants" are any better? Remember the Bobs in Office Space? It's a fairly accurate portrayal.

 

 

 

Or equally fitting...

 

 

[Spacehound]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

What makes you believe other/actual such "consultants" are any better? Remember the Bobs in Office Space? It's a fairly accurate portrayal.

 

 

What's an "office"? I'm at the coalface. As in:

 

"Can I borrow a monkey wrench?"

 

"Sure, large, small, or watchmakers?"

[Samuel T Cogley]

49 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

What's an "office"? I'm at the coalface. As in:

 

"Can I borrow a monkey wrench?"

 

"Sure, large, small, or watchmakers?"

 

Thanks for this.  Just learned what "at the coalface" means.

[kumakuma]

6 hours ago, Thuaveta said:

Always keep in mind that Meridian's matryoshka-like structure of parent companies are world-class at tax optimisation when reading Lee's posts on the financials, and that while the numbers do look bad, in the end, there's relatively little we know about them.

 

Meridian's finances, corporate structure, and ownership are not complex.

 

Tax optimization is only necessary if you have profits that you owe taxes on. Both Meridian and MQA are losing money.

[Rt66indierock]

11 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

or... he really isn't a McKinsey consultant

 

The answer is on Lee's LinkedIn page.

[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?

 

 

[GUTB]

Look guys. You want to know why pro review publications like everything and hardly ever put out strongly negative opinions? It’s because YOU THE READERS don’t LIKE hearing negativity about a piece of gear you bought or a fan of.

[Shadders]

8 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Look guys. You want to know why pro review publications like everything and hardly ever put out strongly negative opinions? It’s because YOU THE READERS don’t LIKE hearing negativity about a piece of gear you bought or a fan of.

Like religion, then ?