NC Breeze Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 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
Chiger Yelam Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 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. look&listen 1 Link to comment
Popular Post FredericV Posted March 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2018 17 minutes ago, Chiger Yelam said: 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. Spreading FUD. Did you read the article? It's all backwards. With MQA we get inferior file formats. tmtomh, MrMoM, Teresa and 1 other 2 1 1 Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted March 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2018 24 minutes 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. The stated goal of MQA is to become the default format, instead of high res and even CD. That's the big goal if they succeed and apparently the reason the record labels are on board. Then "legacy codec" won't be available. How is a blind test an insult to your intelligence? More so than all the sighted test the audiophile press drools over, where they are told, "here's the inferior sounding file", and afterwards, "and now we will playback the superior MQA file that sounds better because..."? Do you think there is no possibility that all the positive results from such demonstrations result from expectation bias? Do you not find it odd that many experienced audiophiles are indifferent to the sound of MQA, or even find it sometimes inferior to CD or hi-res, yet many in the audiophile press say they've never heard an MQA track that didn't sound better than the non-MQA version, or that MQA is a "revolutionary" upgrade in SQ? How do explain this difference? Personally, I think the lack of critical examination of claims made by MQA and lack of objective/fair listening tests given to MQA by many in the audiophile press before crowning it as the next big improvement in SQ is prima facie evidence that the audiophile press is biased and not to be trusted on this topic. Teresa, mansr, MrMoM and 2 others 3 2 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Popular Post rickca Posted March 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2018 3 hours ago, Chiger Yelam said: I see no reason to mistrust the audiophile press on this issue as it is their job to give informed and unbiased reviews Sure, and I can trust my elected officials to represent my interests because that's their job. Exceptionally naive position. maxijazz, MikeyFresh and MrMoM 1 1 1 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
Popular Post botrytis Posted March 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2018 4 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. This is the problem with many audiophiles think they cannot be lied to by the press. They can and have been lying to us. That is the point, if MQA is as good as they say, why aren't they crowing to rafters? It is not better. It is a way to go end round and get an inferior product in which can be used to control what and how we listen. A blind test IS NOT DISINGENUOUS, your comment about the test it is. This test was one of the only times that the SAME MASTER and resultant MQA vs. non-MQA was actually listened to and then analyzed. For what the test looked at, it cannot be overlooked as anything other than another nail in the MQA coffin. If you want to be a blind audiophile sheep, then listen to the press. If you want to be informed as to what is actually going on and what MQA is really selling, then Archimago and CA has done a service for us. MrMoM and MikeyFresh 2 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
miguelito Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 Thank you @Archimago. Great piece. MikeyFresh 1 NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul system pics Link to comment
Popular Post rickca Posted March 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2018 The article is actually very reserved in tone given the big gap between MQA claims/press accolades and reality. MikeyFresh and miguelito 1 1 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
Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted March 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2018 5 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. Welcome to the forum! It seems you signed up just to post this. I see this derisive post as a positive development in the MQA wars. It seems MQA and their supporters are beginning to take their critics seriously. This post not only defends MQA, but the Professional Audiophile Pundit establishment as well. And those pundits stand to lose much credibility as more becomes known about MQA's and the record label's true intentions. scan80269, mav52, tmtomh and 7 others 5 3 2 Link to comment
Popular Post miguelito Posted March 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2018 5 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. I am not sure what makes you think that the audiophile press has a true commitment to be true to the public and to unbiased reviews. Additionally, their opinions could be manipulated by what exactly is shown to them. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I think you're being naive. I listened to MQA in March 2015 (I honestly cannot remember the year... it was a long time ago) at Meridian in NYC. They played about 10 different tracks, both in purportedly "original" and MQA formats. The MQA tracks sounded remarkably better. But those were their choice tracks. The most stunning example was a 24/192 track that was then played in MQA format - I asked whether the MQA came from the same master or not, and I got some incomprehensible gibberish. After listening to a LOT of MQA over TIDAL (I have a dCS Rossini + Master Clock, which fully decodes MQA in hardware) I can tell you it is at best a mixed bag. I have found no instance in which the MQA file was markedly better than the high resolution version I own, in some cases it is a little different (eg Keith Jarrett's Köln Concert - I have a bunch of versions of this album). I found @Archimago's article true to my experience listening to MQA as well as my read of the facts around it. MrMoM, MikeyFresh, mitchco and 8 others 7 2 2 NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul system pics Link to comment
Popular Post Rt66indierock Posted March 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2018 5 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. Chigar, I see no reason to trust the audio press either. This quote is from my Dear Jim post on Audio Asylum in the middle of November last year. "On October 21, 2017 you (Jim Austin) said you don’t understand the technology behind MQA and yet you are going to write a series about it?" MikeyFresh and MrMoM 1 1 Link to comment
botrytis Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 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. MrMoM 1 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
Popular Post barrows Posted March 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2018 Thank you for this article. Now there is a single place which I can point people to who are interested in MQA, which is well researched and backed up with facts and measurements, rather than the techno mumbo jumbo coming from the big magazines and MQA themselves. I always was of the opinion that MQA was a solution in search of a problem (from a music lover/audiophile perspective, perhaps not if you are a record company type). I have no need for it and prefer to have my high resolution audio files unadulterated My biggest fear is that MQA will result in the absence of native high resolution releases of the music I want, of this I am very fearful and it is why I oppose MQA. Teresa and MikeJazz 1 1 SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers. ISOAcoustics Oreas footers. SONORE computer audio | opticalRendu | ultraRendu | microRendu | Signature Rendu SE | Accessories | Software | Link to comment
randyhat Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 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
Popular Post Archimago Posted March 3, 2018 Author Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2018 8 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. Fascinating comment! A few thoughts... 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 "MQA is the most significant audio technology in my lifetime" (Harley), "I come away feeling that I was present at the birth of a new world" (Atkinson). There's more, but you get the idea. Is this not even a little "pushy" in the sense of a rather strong promotional effort? These are seasoned audiophile magazine writers and editors saying these kinds of statements in the mature world of 2-channel audio reproduction after generations of advancements including vinyl, CD, SACD, DVD-A... 2. I think I've said what I need to say about anonymity. The core of what I write is not about who I am or what qualifications I claim I have. Rather it is about the objective facts presented and logical arguments. If I am wrong, the community of "peer reviewers" will present other facts and data to disprove my claims. If my opinions are unbalanced, rude, unfounded, I am sure audiophiles will be happy to criticize me harshly. In fact, being anonymous makes it even more likely that I be judged without the benefit of a doubt. Over the years I have argued that this hobby is not a "faith" - there are no "high priests" or "gurus" to be found in the press. Debates about what is true or factual need not depend on who a man/woman is, but what he/she does and how he/she thinks. 3. I'm not entirely happy with the state of computer audio. There is of course much in the way of software improvements to look forward to - like more transparent ways to integrate PCM and DSD, ways to incorporate multi-channel for those of us interested, and advanced DSP methods to improve quality. I've in fact written about these things... You see, if MQA as an "innovative solution" were truly "innovative" and provided better resolution, why would I complain!? My point is that MQA actually provides essentially ZERO benefit for the consumer (and much to be cautious about). Yet is being portrayed in the press as some kind of "paradigm" shift in quality! Unless there is some evidence of benefit for audiophiles, then how can anyone looking at the facts speak favorably about this? 4. Internet blind test as an "insult to our intelligence". Well, let's talk intelligently and not make blanket statements. What else would you do? What have you done? How have you tested the claims in a controlled fashion with attempts at being unbiased? I certainly am not claiming that it is the end all and be all of MQA testing... This is why I'm also curious about the McGill study. 5. IMO if MQA fails, it would be a blessing to true innovators and entrepreneurs. The industry will realize that you can't simply "razzle dazzle" the consumer and get away with it. One has to be transparent with intentions and anything claimed to be an "advancement" must be intelligible. A true innovation will be rewarded because the consumers are able to differentiate between products and not just waste money indiscriminately. Just like the market will award good products with success, it must also decline those that provide no benefit. I believe MQA is a "genuinely inferior product". If you believe otherwise, show me why. Not with just opinions or pointing to some other "authority" and his/her opinions. Show me the facts surrounding MQA's superiority - then tell me why you like it... Teresa, mansr, tmtomh and 14 others 10 3 4 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Popular Post ted_b Posted March 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2018 2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said: 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. 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. MrMoM and miguelito 1 1 "We're all bozos on this bus"....F.T. My JRIver tutorial videos Actual JRIver tutorial MP4 video links My eleven yr old SACD Ripping Guide for PS3 (needs updating but still works) US Technical Advisor, NativeDSD.com Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 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
Popular Post John_Atkinson Posted March 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2018 1 hour ago, randyhat said: 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?" You omitted a fourth possibility: that the magazines' writers honesty report what they hear. 1 hour ago, randyhat said: 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. That is pretty much what I have reported in Stereophile, adding that I have not heard the MQA version sound worse than the PCM original. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile HalSF, Teresa and Bill Brown 1 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post botrytis Posted March 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2018 8 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: You omitted a fourth possibility: that the magazines' writers honesty report what they hear. That is pretty much what I have reported in Stereophile, adding that I have not heard the MQA version sound worse than the PCM original. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Mr. Atkinson, I cannot borrow your ears, nor can you borrow mine so what you may like, I may find as an anathema to my ears. I have heard a few MQA tracks and came away unimpressed. Yet, I am interested in technical merits or demerits of the system. That is what people want. Archimago has put up some very critical points about MQA, that should give all audiophiles pause. Your measurements of equipment and speakers are an invaluable resource, which I applaud. Doing as much to discern the positives and negatives of a new audio file encoding/decoding system should have as much in depth review and analysis. Currently, I find nothing positive about MQA or what is proposes to do for this hobby. If as you said, have not heard an MQA version that sounds worse than the PCM version, WHY WOULD I WANT MQA? No one has addressed it other than saying it is the next best thing to sliced bread. I am a very leery when someone says that. Cheers, Dave Teresa, ds58, MrMoM and 1 other 1 2 1 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
Popular Post Archimago Posted March 3, 2018 Author Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2018 2 hours ago, randyhat said: 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. Hello Randyhat, I agree that there is a nuanced argument to be made here. I agree that I don't think all reviewers are lying or trying to deceive. When I did the "internet blind test", I described a subgroup who did consistently (at least with all 3 randomized samples) select the MQA version as preferable. While statistically, it wasn't remarkable, I can certainly believe that for some, it sounded "different" in a preferred way... The issue for me is that while we can all choose what we prefer, taking a step back at evaluating whether MQA is an "advancement", represents "better quality", or is a "new paradigm" for our hobby, we need to understand whether the preference some people might have towards MQA is because MQA represents technical superiority or is it because of euphonic distortion. IMO, it is due to the latter. From what I can tell, MQA adds distortion like group delays, THD+N to the overall sound, and has its own form of dithering applied to however number of bits it's retaining. Some people can find this preferable but is this consonant with the audiophile pursuit? Do we want this "baked in" to all our music and DAC devices? I would argue "no, I do not want these distortions/characteristics added as a default". To me, MQA is a "middleman" that reinterprets the sound to some nebulous "end-to-end" standard (and in the process adds in cryptographic signage, etc.). IMO, even if the "MQA sound" might be preferable for some, we should keep our music format as "high fidelity" as possible because the file format is the foundation from which all sound quality ultimately is derived not just today but going forward with whatever will come. If someone prefers and wants to add up to 1% THD+N, use minimum phase, slow roll-off filtering... then by all means choose devices from manufacturers that provide these options! But there's no need to impose this on everyone else or desire that the same type of processing be applied across the board and represent some kind of "standard" for future music encoding and DAC playback. Yes, we could see MQA succeed despite technical issues as per Beta vs. VHS. But at least VHS had a clear benefit - recording time. MQA is larger than 16/44 lossless but does not clearly provide all the benefits of a true 24-bit file, download files are more expensive, the consumer needs to repurchase a DAC at least for full "rendering" (remember, Beta vs. VHS came at a time when consumers needed to choose something new for the purpose of home recording - we already own devices for music playback!)... What benefit is there for the consumer at all? The way I see it, the only likely way MQA can succeed will be in spite of consumer protests, not because of consumer support. crenca, Teresa, mansr and 5 others 5 3 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
John_Atkinson Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 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
rickca Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 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
Popular Post rickca Posted March 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2018 1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said: I have not heard the MQA version sound worse than the PCM original Yeah, not exactly a WTF moment. maxijazz and MikeyFresh 1 1 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
botrytis Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 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
Popular Post rickca Posted March 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2018 8 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: I request that CA posters read the full text of what I wrote, in order to comprehend the context. OK I read your article again to get the full original context. It's still embarassing. Ran, Thuaveta, MikeyFresh and 1 other 3 1 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
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now