Jump to content
IGNORED

Article: MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions


Recommended Posts

Another Bravo. I still fail to see the concept or need for MQA, or even the uniqueness of the approach. The article is very careful and polite, quite elegant. I tend to see the issue somewhat more brutally simple: MQA doesn't and can't differ fundamentally from the impetus for JPG, MP3, CD, GIF, and other practical lossy substitutes for the increasingly high quality, but dense, masters from which they are derived. No matter how acrid or hysterical the hype gets, the concept and many brethren were invented long ago.

 

What continues to strike me is that the subtleties that differentiate original 'high res' from lossy substitutes are an issue discussed heatedly among audiophiles who seem to spend the overwhelming amount of their time listening to music venues in which those subtleties are irrelevant; it's like inventing 4K and better TV's in order to watch and listen to 1950's cartoons to the exclusion of all else. Some things never change. 

Link to comment

It always worries me when I see rhetorical tricks being used to enhance an argument. I see no reason to mistrust the audiophile press on this issue as it is their job to give informed and unbiased reviews and there are clear attempts in this article to undermine trust in these reviews. Claiming that past or previous links to the industry in someway mean that they are incapable of doing their current jobs professionally strike me as a stretch. As to whether they "push" (author's quotes) MQA, well only in so much as they "push" any other product they give a good review to. Additionally just because the author has no industry affiliations does not make him/her somehow more trustworthy or unbiased; personally I trust someone more if they make their name and resume known rather than hiding behind anonymity.

If the author is entirely happy with the recent state of computer audio playback then fine, many of us are not and welcome innovative solutions which offer greater choice. This is my main objection to this article. If I want higher resolution sound and am sensible enough to ask my local HiFi retailer to audition new equipment (and can be trusted to make up my own mind) before I buy then what is the problem? The "internet blind test" put forward as evidence by our author is an insult to our intelligence.

I don't see MQA taking a monopoly position here, legacy codec will still be available and alternative improved products may emerge. If MQA and like minded innovators are undermined and ultimately fail then I fear we will be left with genuinely inferior products.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Chiger Yelam said:

It always worries me when I see rhetorical tricks being used to enhance an argument. I see no reason to mistrust the audiophile press on this issue as it is their job to give informed and unbiased reviews and there are clear attempts in this article to undermine trust in these reviews. Claiming that past or previous links to the industry in someway mean that they are incapable of doing their current jobs professionally strike me as a stretch. As to whether they "push" (author's quotes) MQA, well only in so much as they "push" any other product they give a good review to. Additionally just because the author has no industry affiliations does not make him/her somehow more trustworthy or unbiased; personally I trust someone more if they make their name and resume known rather than hiding behind anonymity.

If the author is entirely happy with the recent state of computer audio playback then fine, many of us are not and welcome innovative solutions which offer greater choice. This is my main objection to this article. If I want higher resolution sound and am sensible enough to ask my local HiFi retailer to audition new equipment (and can be trusted to make up my own mind) before I buy then what is the problem? The "internet blind test" put forward as evidence by our author is an insult to our intelligence.

I don't see MQA taking a monopoly position here, legacy codec will still be available and alternative improved products may emerge. If MQA and like minded innovators are undermined and ultimately fail then I fear we will be left with genuinely inferior products.

Archimago does not have any dog in the show. I mean he is a hobbyist, not a 'professional' reporter. This is what makes the MQA situation so irritating. It is obvious the professionals just swallowed the MQA information hook, line, and sinker. As was pointed out, only one reporter had any skepticism of MQA. 

 

Obviously, you like drinking the kool-aid from the Audiophile press. I have had a huge amount of skepticism for a long time. 

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

Link to comment

Characterizations like "drinking the kool-aid" and referring to people you disagree with as being "brain washed" only serve to further polarize people around this issue rather than inform.  I'm a MQA agnostic myself.  I am beginning to understand some of the technical issues and arguments and certainly the article by Archimago helped considerably in that understanding.  Likewise I think there have been listening observations and comparisons; the results of which are intriguing.  Is there no room for nuance when it comes to explaining and evaluating the listening preferences that have been expressed by people who have compared MQA to non-MQA music files?  Are all reviewers who have expressed a preference for MQA versions just lying to their readers?  Or, are ALL the tests contrived in a manner to favor MQA?  Or have they "just swallowed the MQA information hook, line and sinker?"  I tend to be skeptical of much of audiophilia, though I have indulged in more than my fair share of tweaks and voodoo.  I have a modest MQA capable streamer and have listened to MQA files over Tidal.  Some sound great, some sound pretty good and others not so much.  I have pretty much the same results with my CDs and LPs.  I suspect that if MQA has any long term success it will be far less than the hype that preceded it.  And it could become successful in-spite of it's technical shortcomings.  It wouldn't be the first time.  I kept a Beta video recorder in my system long after it was supplanted by IMO a inferior but more popular VHS format.  The consumer will have a final say in this debate.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, ted_b said:

No reason?  Ad revenue, primarily from audio manufacturers, doesn't cause you to, at least, temper that thought?  I know several of them and trust several, but I also don't trust dozens of them.   It's the same as if CNN were asked to do reviews on Proctor and Gamble products....no way I trust their lack of bias unequivocally.

 

I quoted that. I said there was no reason to trust the press. Even the press I like my attitude is I'll test it my self thanks. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Archimago said:

1. Is it not even a little amazing that MQA is described with all kinds of superlatives; at least ones I have never seen before presented by the media? Comments like... "I come away feeling that I was present at the birth of a new world" (Atkinson).

 

The 2014 article in which I used that phrase can be found at https://www.stereophile.com/content/ive-heard-future-streaming-meridians-mqa

 

I request that CA posters read the full text of what I wrote, in order to comprehend the context.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Archimago said:

The way I see it, the only way MQA can succeed will be in spite of consumer protests, not because of consumer support.

Your comment had me wondering which products have ever succeeded in spite of consumer protests?

 

Pareto Audio AMD 7700 Server --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs

 

i7-6700K/Windows 10  --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's 

Link to comment

Mr. Atkinson,

 

And this one respond to what you wrote.

 

 

Both show how much noise is added to a file from the MQA filtering system.  This can cause audible sympathetic noise in the  audible part of the spectrum. Can that noise be considered warmth and tube-like? I am not sure but since it is not in the original file, that is not what I would think the recording engineers wanted in their masters.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

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...