Popular Post Ajax Posted April 22, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 22, 2018 Mark Waldrep from AIX Media Group does not hold back on what he thinks of the article and MQA in general. "Do You Hear What I Hear? AXPONA Part III was heartened to learn from several other vendors that MQA is not a regular topic of conversation and audiophiles aren't asking whether this or that DAC will include this completely unnecessary technology. But I do continue to read discussions and comments posted by advocates for MQA. Steven Stone's recent 2018 Show Report contains a rather curious section that narrows down the conditions under which MQA encoded music sounds best (if it's supposed to sound different from the master at all!). His first universal truth is "if you really want to hear what MQA can do, you must begin with a well-recorded phase-correct recording of instruments in a real acoustic space". Apparently, he liked the MQA process on a variety of Peter McGrath's recordings as played in the Paragon Room through Wilson speakers at the AXPONA show — but only if you sit in the "prime listening position". If his assessment is correct (which is highly doubtful), virtually all of the MQA albums being streamed on Tidal won't benefit from the MQA process because they were produced in the confines of a recording studio. Additionally, listeners have to sit in a single location in order to maximize the sonic benefits accorded to MQA processed material. Wow.As the purveyor of recordings made using high-resolution PCM (at 96 kHz/24-bits) in acoustically rich venues that are indeed phase coherent, my catalog would be a prime candidate for MQAing, right? As I've stated before, the inventor of the technology and others in MQA employ have offered to process some of my tracks and let me experience the "magic" that MQA can impart on my otherwise high fidelity tracks. I uploaded 12 tracks to a mutually agreed on FTP site almost 4 years ago and despite repeated requests haven't heard back from the company about when I can download the MQA tracks. I suspect that the MQA versions will sound different than my high-resolution originals — and I would consider that a degradation of their fidelity — and a violation of the tenants of the process as explained to me by the inventor. All this talk about MQA's "sonic improvements" or its ability to deliver "more readily identifiable soundstaging" or whatever people say they like about it, contradicts the intended design goals of the technique. Robert Stuart told me that the process shouldn't enhance the sound of an original master. It's primary job is to maintain more of the original fidelity through each stage of production — and reproduction. The idea is to lose less fidelity along the way. So those that hear and value the euphonious effects of MQA are actually arguing against it. No change from master recording to reproduced output would be ideal — and imperceptible.As far as I can glean from all of the articles, technical papers, patent applications, and conversations I've had, the advantages of an MQA-encoded file apply only to real high-resolution music recordings when streamed through a bandwidth limited network (wired or wireless). It was not designed to be a sonic enhancement process but rather a bandwidth saving technology — and it does manage that trick although there are other "open source" methods that accomplish the same thing. The record companies that have submitted to the hoax that is MQA don't have catalogs of high-resolution audio with ultrasonic frequencies in need of origami folding. This is my biggest complaint about the MQA myth. If the trick of folding ultrasonic content under the in band content is key to its "better sound" then there better be meaningful amounts of ultrasonic content in the original tracks. The fact is there isn't any and even if there were, your system and ears couldn't process it. The CEA/CTA and its associated member companies continues to promote "hi-res" music as the next big thing in music — they don't realize that taking old content and wrapping it in a large bit bucket doesn't do anything — but it is good for commerce.One recent FB comment dismissed my dislike of MQA by saying that I just don't have adequate equipment or that my hearing is incapable of experiencing the fidelity improvements of MQA. Once again, it's a personal failing that I can't hear the difference. This regular subjectivist retort is tired and completely false. The MQA process is a business that hopes to dominate streaming music by promising the removal of "time smearing" and other digital artifacts for a very limited catalog (maybe 2500 high-resolution titles) for individuals sitting in the "sweet spot" for those with great hearing who happen to own state-of-the-art systems. How is that a real business proposition?" cbee, Ran, Miska and 8 others 8 3 LOUNGE: Mac Mini - Audirvana - Devialet 200 - ATOHM GT1 Speakers OFFICE : Mac Mini - Audirvana - Benchmark DAC1HDR - ADAM A7 Active Monitors TRAVEL : MacBook Air - Dragonfly V1.2 DAC - Sennheiser HD 650 BEACH : iPhone 6 - HRT iStreamer DAC - Akimate Micro + powered speakers Link to comment
Popular Post Ajax Posted April 24, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 24, 2018 55 minutes ago, ARQuint said: This thread provides an opportunity to comment further on an aspect of the vexed relationship between audio publications and their constituents in online communities—a subject I addressed in an editorial that appears in the current (May/June) issue of The Absolute Sound ("Audiophiles Online: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly".) I'm a faithful follower of Computer Audiophile, so I feel I have the right to participate; I'm claiming no special status as an audio writer. The term "shill" has been accurately defined (Wikipedia) as "a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization." As so defined, my colleague Steve Stone (or, for that matter, Robert Harley, John Atkinson, or Jason Serinus) is not a "shill", though a few of the less thoughtful participants on CA forums focused on MQA love applying the term to pretty much any industry person with a positive view of the technology. It's a classic ad hominum attack, questioning the motives and integrity of that person. It's noteworthy that the ire directed at MQA at CA has so easily morphed into a contemptuous dismissal of the established magazines. When it comes to assessing audio equipment, these publications, as well as strictly electronic outlets, and even some blogs that are basically one-man shows, all operate on a very well-established protocol. A manufacturer sends a product, a reviewer attempts to understand its design goals and listens to it for a length of time that varies but is always longer and more comprehensive than a non-reviewer customer could expect, and then writes about his conclusions, incorporating a variable mix of objective measurement and subjective impressions that employ a descriptive language developed decades ago in the pioneering "high-end" magazines. In case you haven't noticed, that's what goes on at Computer Audiophile. A professional journalist assesses a product in an informed and disciplined fashion and produces a cogently written piece that intelligent people will want to read. At CA, that obviously means Chris Connaker, though there may be others that CC compensates for producing content for the site. It's not hard to imagine Chris functioning very successfully as a reviewer for TAS or Stereophile—he is technically savvy and writes fluently and entertainingly. Manufacturers seek out CA, as they do Stereophile and TAS because the publication gets them in front of the customer base they need to be in front of, which is a function of the quality of the content. What strikes me as an illogical and contradictory aspect of the bashing of the established publications in several CA forums is the suggestion that the content in the magazines is merely a platform for advertisers—the possibility that hobbyists actually read the magazines for entertainment and informed opinion is dismissed. The irony, of course, is that tens of thousands of people actually pay to subscribe to TAS and Stereophile. To be sure, advertising dollars are necessary to attract decent writers and to make these enterprises at all profitable, but there is a significant base of income that comes from paid subscriptions. Nobody pays to read Computer Audiophile. All the funds needed to sustain Chris C come from advertisers. And that's where you, the enthusiastic, sometimes unbridled, and largely anonymous posters come in. Many enthusiasts come to the site to participate in or just observe the catfights, takedowns, and general mean-girl posturing that informs many of the forum discussions. Did "MQA is Vaporware" need to run 329 pages? Of course not—it became a repetitive, self-congratulatory echo chamber early on—but the number of views were manna for Chris. It's not a surprise to me that CA forums are so lightly edited, compared to the way that noxious reader comments are dealt with on the TAS and Stereophile sites. So, is Chris Connaker a "shill?" By virtue of the fact that he commissioned Archimago's thorough review of the MQA story, one could conclude that, like many in the industry, he's very skeptical of the benefit of the technology for consumers. On the other hand, he doesn't feel the need to ring in on the merits (or lack thereof) of MQA whenever the subject arises. Take Chris's piece last November on the Berkeley Alpha DAC MQA update. At the outset of the piece, Chris felt it was important to state up front that "…this article is neither a referendum on MQA, nor an endorsement or rejection of MQA." A disingenuous straddling of the fence? A look over his shoulder at the advertisers that have decided to include MQA in the design of their products? Later, Chris admitted "Of course I listened to some MQA material through the DAC but I purposely avoided using that in the review. The topic is too loaded and would distract from the real story that is the firmware update." Fair enough. But by passing on an opportunity to give an opinion regarding the effect of a modification to a top-of-the-heap digital product on SQ, was CC responding to the sensibilities of some of the manufacturers that pay the pills at Computer Audiophile—basically what the "MQA is Vaporware" crowd is so vociferously accusing TAS and Stereophile of? No, Chris Connaker is not a shill. But there's a real tension in play with Computer Audiophile. So much of the content is well informed, helpful to readers, and reflects a sense of a generous and inclusive hobbyist community. At the same time, a small number of intemperate and self-important forum participants are generating a lot of the views that Chris Connaker needs to show advertisers. He does need to keep those advertisers convinced that CA is a productive place to engage potential customers. The risk is that his wonderful site is commandeered by a tiny cadre of single-issue individuals who are very much in love with the sound of their own voices. Andrew Quint Senior Writer The Absolute Sound Hi Andrew, Thank you for taking the time to provide your side of the story, however, I believe you have completely missed the point of the whole MQA analysis as presented by a select group of CA members. I am not one who has referred to your colleagues as "shrills", however, I am extremely disappointed in their unprofessional and incompetent endorsement of MQA. When it was first introduced I was very hopeful of MQA's potential but I have since learnt through the thoughtful and intelligent dissection of the product by mansr, miska, archimago, mark waldrup, Linn, Benchmark Media and others what are farce it is and its potential for disrupting our hobby. I won't repeat the well reasoned arguments against MQA, this has been done to death at nauseam, but you need to understand that the audiophile community are angry at you and your colleagues for abdicating your responsibilities by not properly researching the product before endorsing it. Here you have all failed us and our hobby miserably and IMO deserve all the scorn you have received. Maybe "shrill" is not technically the correct term, maybe you can suggest a better one that more accurately describes a professional journalist who abdicates his responsibilities to his readers and his industry. We inadvertently rely on the press to "keep the bastards honest" and with respect to MQA you have clearly failed to do that. tmtomh, firedog, mcgillroy and 3 others 2 3 1 LOUNGE: Mac Mini - Audirvana - Devialet 200 - ATOHM GT1 Speakers OFFICE : Mac Mini - Audirvana - Benchmark DAC1HDR - ADAM A7 Active Monitors TRAVEL : MacBook Air - Dragonfly V1.2 DAC - Sennheiser HD 650 BEACH : iPhone 6 - HRT iStreamer DAC - Akimate Micro + powered speakers 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