JVS Cheerleads an MQA CD..Sis Boom Bah!

[realhifi]

33 minutes ago, mav52 said:

 

Lol!  Yes, he is one of my heroes. 

[Spacehound]

 

Stereophile's still at it.

 

 I commented entirely  factually and politely, on Serinus' report about  the  'Reich' recording he reviewed.

Serinus totally lost his cool and did a Lavorgna impersonation. Also mathematics and measurements are now both opinions. EG:

 

"all the good and righteous people in the universe who are staunchly committed to upholding the laws of physics "

 

So I replied to that too, politely, suggesting Atkinson  might do some measurements for him.

[Indydan]

7 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

 

Stereophile's still at it.

 

 I commented entirely  factually and politely, on Serinus' report about  the  'Reich' recording he reviewed.

Serinus totally lost his cool and did a Lavorgna impersonation. Also mathematics and measurements are now both opinions. EG:

 

"all the good and righteous people in the universe who are staunchly committed to upholding the laws of physics "

 

So I replied to that too, politely, suggesting Atkinson  might do some measurements for him.

 

JVS should whistle « Ave Maria ». It will soothe his nerves.

[Spacehound]

3 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

JVS should whistle « Ave Maria ». It will soothe his nerves.

I thought it  was terrific.

An attributed  'snip' is now in my signature 

[Brinkman Ship]

57 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

 

Stereophile's still at it.

 

 I commented entirely  factually and politely, on Serinus' report about  the  'Reich' recording he reviewed.

Serinus totally lost his cool and did a Lavorgna impersonation. Also mathematics and measurements are now both opinions. EG:

 

"all the good and righteous people in the universe who are staunchly committed to upholding the laws of physics "

 

So I replied to that too, politely, suggesting Atkinson  might do some measurements for him.

We have entered an era where the bigger the charlatan they are, the more they think they are masters of the universe and voices of authority.

[realhifi]

4 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

We have entered an era where the bigger the charlatan they are, the more they think they are masters of the universe and voices of authority.

[MetalNuts]

On 2/20/2018 at 9:05 PM, mav52 said:

Did you intentionally covered up the right corner.  Front cover bottom right  MQA and an article page 51 by Austin

MQA shills have copies of different covers and the "MQA" is already imprinted into their brain.  LOL!

[Spacehound]

4 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

We have entered an era where the bigger the charlatan they are, the more they think they are masters of the universe and voices of authority.

His comment doesn't even make sense. Does he want them done away with?

[Rexp]

On 2/19/2018 at 10:35 PM, Brinkman Ship said:

JVS:

 

"Now that I've heard the MQA-encoded FLAC files courtesy of Nonesuch (owned by "Big Three Major" Warner Music), I can attest that there's every reason in the world to hear this disc in the best-sounding format available to you.

 

Switch to MQA (mastered by Robert C. Ludwig in Portland, ME), and everything opens up. The more realistic vibrancy, color, and body of the instruments themselves, and their markedly increased, natural-sounding resonant interaction with the hall are impossible to miss, even through headphones.

 

 

(and more realistic and convincing with MQA),"

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/first-major-label-mqa-cd-steve-reich-nonsesuch#z5AS5hHCcmXMga26.99

 

________________________________________

 

He makes a very misleading statement above, trying to imply that standard download was mastered one place,

and the "special" MQA versionwas done by Bob Ludwig. I have the 24/96 download, and it comes with a digital booklet, and Ludwig is listed as the only mastering engineer.

 

I will compare.  But in the meantime, go out and buy this  CD, and don't forget your MQA DAC!!! Run along!

Did you compare the 24/48 v the 16/44 tidal versions, 24/48 sounds better, right?

[Spacehound]

21 minutes ago, Rexp said:

 Did you compare the 24/48 v the 16/44 tidal versions, 24/48 sounds better, right?

It's supposed to be 'authenticated' by the performers. according to MQA, They never even heard it. He 'added' MQA later, and 4000 miles away. And they aren't some 'manufactured ' pop group  made by the record label for pre-pubescent schoolgirls,  they are experienced 'classical' musicians.

[Brinkman Ship]

30 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Did you compare the 24/48 v the 16/44 tidal versions, 24/48 sounds better, right?

The correct comparison is the MQA stream and the 24/96 without MQA.

[Rexp]

Avoiding the question I see..

Anyone here think the flac stream sounds better than the unfolded MQA stream? As things stand, Audiophiles without MQA dacs should be happy that they're getting better sound from MQA albums.

[Ralf11]

better??  than what?

[Rexp]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

better??  than what?

In general, Tidal MQA is better sounding than Tidal flac, do you agree?

[church_mouse]

34 minutes ago, Rexp said:

In general, Tidal MQA is better sounding than Tidal flac, do you agree?

In my system, to my ears, when I tested MQA using Audirvana unfolding, the MQA sounded different and worse - in fact it was tiring to listen to a whole MQA a!bum.

 

I am not making a general statement that MQA is worse, just a contrary experience to your statement that in general MQA sounds better.

 

If the industry allowed MQA to exist simply as a clearly marked alternative, then I would have no qualms. The possibility it may become an enforced standard would end my acquisition of new music based on my current experience.

[MetalNuts]

30 minutes ago, church_mouse said:

If the industry allowed MQA to exist simply as a clearly marked alternative, then I would have no qualms. The possibility it may become an enforced standard would end my acquisition of new music based on my current experience.

 

I am afraid that MQA is very ambitious that it is not just aiming to be an alternative coexisting with the others. 

[Rexp]

37 minutes ago, church_mouse said:

In my system, to my ears, when I tested MQA using Audirvana unfolding, the MQA sounded different and worse - in fact it was tiring to listen to a whole MQA a!bum.

 

I am not making a general statement that MQA is worse, just a contrary experience to your statement that in general MQA sounds better.

 

If the industry allowed MQA to exist simply as a clearly marked alternative, then I would have no qualms. The possibility it may become an enforced standard would end my acquisition of new music based on my current experience.

Try the album discussed in this thread without the unfolding, interested in your opinion.

[church_mouse]

26 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Try the album discussed in this thread without the unfolding, interested in your opinion.

Ever inquisitive, so I will happily give it a go today.

[Spacehound]

2 hours ago, Rexp said:

 

Avoiding the question I see..

Anyone here think the flac stream sounds better than the unfolded MQA stream? As things stand, Audiophiles without MQA dacs should be happy that they're getting better sound from MQA albums.

Trying to skew the answer I see. So your question wasn't worth answering.

You 'skewed' it in MQA's favor, as Brinkman Ship said. Dumb we are not, sorry.

 

FLAC is much better.

 I don't like the distortions that MQA introduces. It can give  the music a false 'lively'  sound that can be attractive at first but becomes tiring. Like church mouse says.

So yes, straight FLAC every time. With or without MQA switched  on. My DACs got both.

 

And you are trying to 'skew' it again. We are no dumber now than at the beginnng.

"Audiophiles without MQA dacs should be happy that they're getting better sound from MQA albums."

That's 'loaded ' You (falsely) think you know the answer before we got started  and have 'prompted us.

 

 

 

[Spacehound]

1 hour ago, church_mouse said:

In my system, to my ears, when I tested MQA using Audirvana unfolding, the MQA sounded different and worse - in fact it was tiring to listen to a whole MQA a!bum.

 

I am not making a general statement that MQA is worse, just a contrary experience to your statement that in general MQA sounds better.

 

If the industry allowed MQA to exist simply as a clearly marked alternative, then I would have no qualms. The possibility it may become an enforced standard would end my acquisition of new music based on my current experience.

Straight FLAC is much better than MQA.

 

So  MQA isn't an "alternative", which is a choice between two similar things. Not between a good apple and a rotten one.

[Spacehound]

2 hours ago, Rexp said:

In general, Tidal MQA is better sounding than Tidal flac, do you agree?

That's a loaded question too. Such 'prompting' won't work  here. 

[church_mouse]

@Rexp

My report on my very subjective listening to the Steve Reich Pulse/Quartet MQA/non-MQA album. Let me be clear that this is my system, my ears, my subjective sound preferences and is a polite reply to Rexp, who very nicely asked me to have a listen to the album.

I listened over speakers and through my headphone set ups.  I streamed the MQA from Tidal and the non-MQA from Qobuz using Audirvana.  I applied no upsampling.

Pulse is not a piece I know and, having listened to it so many times today, definitely will not be going on to my favourites list.  Quartet I do know, and was lucky enough to hear a local live performance of it a few years ago.

A general observation is that the MQA version came across as somewhat louder and more forward, with a "blooming" at the lower end - most noticeable on Pulse, where the start and end of individual bass note changes seemed to get lost a little.  However, listening through speakers to Pulse I did not have any aversion to the MQA track, but I preferred the less forward non-MQA presentation.  This preference was greater when listening through headphones - the Pulse track seemed a bit more strident in MQA. Something else I noticed through headphones on all the tracks - the non-MQA produced a more even balance across the soundstage.

For the Quartet movement, especially the Slow movement and the second Fast movement, my preference for the non-MQA was far greater.  There was an unpleasant harshness and un-naturalness to the vibraphone in my listening set up, with the Slow movement being particularly difficult to listen to in MQA (especially through my headphone set ups - in fact, I had to stop listening to the MQA Slow movement during my final headphone listening session; it was giving me a "MQAgraine" headache). Certainly, in the live performance I heard, the vibraphone did not "klang" as I was now hearing it via MQA.

So, for me, MQA still seems to be a "no thank you".  MQA may well sound fantastic through other systems and other ears, but my ears can't be changed and I have no current desire to change my system either.

[Spacehound]

29 minutes ago, church_mouse said:

@Rexp

My report on my very subjective listening to the Steve Reich Pulse/Quartet MQA/non-MQA album. Let me be clear that this is my system, my ears, my subjective sound preferences and is a polite reply to Rexp, who very nicely asked me to have a listen to the album.

I listened over speakers and through my headphone set ups.  I streamed the MQA from Tidal and the non-MQA from Qobuz using Audirvana.  I applied no upsampling.

Pulse is not a piece I know and, having listened to it so many times today, definitely will not be going on to my favourites list.  Quartet I do know, and was lucky enough to hear a local live performance of it a few years ago.

A general observation is that the MQA version came across as somewhat louder and more forward, with a "blooming" at the lower end - most noticeable on Pulse, where the start and end of individual bass note changes seemed to get lost a little.  However, listening through speakers to Pulse I did not have any aversion to the MQA track, but I preferred the less forward non-MQA presentation.  This preference was greater when listening through headphones - the Pulse track seemed a bit more strident in MQA. Something else I noticed through headphones on all the tracks - the non-MQA produced a more even balance across the soundstage.

For the Quartet movement, especially the Slow movement and the second Fast movement, my preference for the non-MQA was far greater.  There was an unpleasant harshness and un-naturalness to the vibraphone in my listening set up, with the Slow movement being particularly difficult to listen to in MQA (especially through my headphone set ups - in fact, I had to stop listening to the MQA Slow movement during my final headphone listening session; it was giving me a "MQAgraine" headache). Certainly, in the live performance I heard, the vibraphone did not "klang" as I was now hearing it via MQA.

So, for me, MQA still seems to be a "no thank you".  MQA may well sound fantastic through other systems and other ears, but my ears can't be changed and I have no current desire to change my system either.

I thought  exactly  the same.

 

It's "imaging distortion" caused by the   'aliasing' inherent in the MQA. process.  It is inevitable whether you have an MQA dac or not.

It's not in the 'original'  and won't be in any non-MQA version  either. 

 

 Put simply, MQA is malware   (though I am not the first person to say that)

 

 

 

[Rexp]

3 hours ago, church_mouse said:

@Rexp

My report on my very subjective listening to the Steve Reich Pulse/Quartet MQA/non-MQA album. Let me be clear that this is my system, my ears, my subjective sound preferences and is a polite reply to Rexp, who very nicely asked me to have a listen to the album.

I listened over speakers and through my headphone set ups.  I streamed the MQA from Tidal and the non-MQA from Qobuz using Audirvana.  I applied no upsampling.

Pulse is not a piece I know and, having listened to it so many times today, definitely will not be going on to my favourites list.  Quartet I do know, and was lucky enough to hear a local live performance of it a few years ago.

A general observation is that the MQA version came across as somewhat louder and more forward, with a "blooming" at the lower end - most noticeable on Pulse, where the start and end of individual bass note changes seemed to get lost a little.  However, listening through speakers to Pulse I did not have any aversion to the MQA track, but I preferred the less forward non-MQA presentation.  This preference was greater when listening through headphones - the Pulse track seemed a bit more strident in MQA. Something else I noticed through headphones on all the tracks - the non-MQA produced a more even balance across the soundstage.

For the Quartet movement, especially the Slow movement and the second Fast movement, my preference for the non-MQA was far greater.  There was an unpleasant harshness and un-naturalness to the vibraphone in my listening set up, with the Slow movement being particularly difficult to listen to in MQA (especially through my headphone set ups - in fact, I had to stop listening to the MQA Slow movement during my final headphone listening session; it was giving me a "MQAgraine" headache). Certainly, in the live performance I heard, the vibraphone did not "klang" as I was now hearing it via MQA.

So, for me, MQA still seems to be a "no thank you".  MQA may well sound fantastic through other systems and other ears, but my ears can't be changed and I have no current desire to change my system either.

Thanks for the feedback, I can enjoy the whole album in MQA, sadly I can barely get through one track in flac, cheers

[Brinkman Ship]

JVS has had to correct him self numerous times after his initial post because he literally just made stuff up.

 

Here is is latest embarrassment-A PORTION of his last comment.

 

"Mastering Engineer Robert Ludwig explains to me that the way records are made follows this progression: Recording, mixing, mastering, and distribution. While the non-MQA files sounded a bit dry to me, Bob thought the sound "lovely and totally appropriate to the music.

 

For the record, John Kilgore mixed the two pieces with Grammy Award-winning producer Judith Sherman and Steve Reich sitting right next to him. Both approved the mix, and were happy with what they heard. Bob says, "As usual, I try to take everything that is given to me and make it sound better. So I mastered it as I have done for every Nonesuch project in my career." In other words, every mix of this recording has been mastered by Bob.He continues, "After mastering it, I thought that there was one more thing that it needed, and that was something I cannot do by myself, and that was to have MQA de-blur added to it."

https://www.stereophile.com/content/first-major-label-mqa-cd-steve-reich-nonsesuch#wa5wjBWkgg4AHMoo.03

 

We have a definitive statement that Bob Ludwig did NOT IN FACT "master" the MQA version. There ARE NO MASTERING TOOLS FOR MQA.

 

He had to have the process done AFTER THE FACT..to the files that the artist and production team PREVIOUSLY approved.

 

MQA is a total lie and it is ADDITIONAL UNNECESSARY PROCESSING.