MQA Shill Steve Stone Provides a Good Laugh For a Friday...

[firedog]

It seems to be coming obvious that the MQA “magic” consists of dulling trasients, hiding low level detail, and softening the sound of recordings - all while adding artificial “space and air” to recordings. So many listeners like the sound - softened and more space seems more “analog” like and “audiophile“ like to them. 

[firedog]

Andrew-

I haven’t called you and your colleagues shills, but the reason MQA and the mainstream audio press have gotten such a negative reaction here is entirely the fault of the magazines themselves:

First, almost all the early coverage consisted of uncritical parroting of MQA claims and marketing material. For example, how long did it take till it was made clear to us that MQA is lossy? Why was it left to knowledgeable hobbyists to test MQA DACs and reveal that there aren’t really “unique to DAC” MQA filters, as MQA claimed?

 

And all those glowing reports from curated  show demonstrations controlled by MQA telling us about how great it sounded: where was the critical eye? None of you even brought up the possibility that the tests were conducted in a manner full of potential for cultivation of pro MQA results and bias? How is that possible?

 

Articles like Robert Harley’s “Let the Revolution Begin” - just shallow  pseudo scientific ramblings masquerading as something serious. MQA a scientiiic and intellectual revolution, with comparisons to Copernicus and other giants of Science? Really? ... Really?

No knowledeable person could read  that with a straight face - and assuming RH didn’t take money from MQA to write it  - it sure sounds like something written by someone who  did. 

 

Where are the unsighted listening tests and comparisons of MQA SQ by the audio press? When many serious experienced home hobbyists and some industry professionals, e.g., Charles Hansen, and Paul McGowan, questioned the claims that MQA improved sound quality - where was the fair evaluation of those contrary claims? What some hear as an improvement, many others hear as a dulling of transients, a softening of the sound, a loss of micro detail, and an addition of artificial “air”, “space” and a sort of reverb that shouldn’t be there. Where has the mainstream audio press discussed this? Answer: it hasn’t, it’s been left to the forums. 

 

Finally your magazine and others for the most part have either avoided the discussion about the potential for MQA to be a tool for market control and limiting  access to  true master and other quality audio files if it succeeds; or have blithely shrugged that possibility  off with comments that can basicallly be reduced to saying something like  “what’s good for the industry big boys is good for the consumer, so accept it and be happy about it”.

 

But you know what? Many of us “little guy” consumer audiophiles don’t see it that way. We don’t want our choices reduced, and we don’t want a small number of industry professionals deciding for us what sounds good - especially when that decision “just happens” to give them the potential for monopoly profits.

 

And you wonder why many of us feel the mainstream audio press is “shilling” for MQA? I agree with you that the term probably doesn’t apply according to it’s literal definition. But it often seems as if the shilling is going on, even if no cash is being exchanged.

[firedog]

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

(My only meaningful exposure—that is, not a demo at a dealer or a show—was the three months I had an Aurender A10 in my system for a review.  I made the best MQA/non-MQA comparisons I could, coming away with a mildly positive impression.

And were you able to turn off the MQA filters for non-MQA listening? It's an issue with Aurender. 

If the MQA filters don't switch on and off automatically, it's a skewed comparison, and similar to a sighted one. 

 

I know Aurender decided MQA filters make everything sound better. So what? Non MQA files weren't intended to be played back with those filters. Playing them back that way gives an advantage to MQA playback, IMO. If I have other filters I prefer for non-MQA, the real comparison to MQA is using those non-MQA filters for the non-MQA file playback. 

 

As far as a "mildly positive" impression: sounds reasonable. But we keep being told in the audiophile press about how amazingly better MQA is, and how obvious the positive difference is. For some writers, it seems like they only hear a 100% rate of substantial improvement with MQA tracks. 

So, do you see why many of us who have also seriously evaluated MQA at home then react the way we do at what we read in your magazine and others? 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

The general feedback is that intermediate phase sounded best.

Is there another name for intermediate phase? What would a filter like that be called in HQP?

[firedog]

4 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Nicely worded. File his post under SELF RIGHTEOUS BLATHER...

 

Give him credit for a nice little plot with the "newbiie" poster...

 

 

 

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

The "blather" part is an opinion you're entitled to.

But I assure you that I have no idea who emcdade is. That's pretty paranoid.

I have to agree. Your constant accusations of conspiracy and fake user identities - with no supporting evidence- gets rather tiresome and adds nothing to the conversation.

[firedog]

3 hours ago, crenca said:

 

I give this update a thumbs down.  MQA is the "default" version behind which the real 16/44 is a drill down.  This means a minimum of two extra clicks.  It's easier to select the lossless version in the Tidal desktop app now 

The system in Roon has always been that a higher res version is automatically picked as the default; they regard MQA as higher res than redbook. You can change which album is seen as the primary, just as you could before. Not sure why it is a big deal other than that you are very annoyed by anything MQA. Don't add MQA versions to your library and you won't have them appearing as the default.

[firedog]

50 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

It's extra clicks, a step back in UI elegance and usefulness.  I was wrong, it's a minimum of 3 extra clicks.  If the "AAC" version or any other besides what I pay Tidal to deliver was automagically the default in Roon's eyes it would be the same, but your correct in the MQA is a special annoyance .  I never added MQA versions to my library but there they are, because of the default "sorting" decision of Roon to privilege a lossy voodoo codec like MQA over REAL PCM.  Sure, I can fix all this but how many clicks is that???   I did not pay Roon for JRiver complexity!!

 

Heck, the Tidal desktop app is now the rival of Roon as far as browsing goes now....

 

edit:  I will have to give it a bit more time and thought, but I think I will be probably be downgrading Roon from an almost unreserved recommend to a neutral.  Roon's strength is it's strong UI experience.  I like the ease of it's DSP, but the fact is it's functionality is nothing I don't already do with JRiver and plugins.  Factor in the cost of Roon, and it is a bit less compelling than it was the day before yesterday...

I still don’t understand the big gripe. I just added 24\192 MQA files to my library. The non-MQA 24\192 version still shows up as the primary when I group the versions. In another case, I looked for a CSN album that I have in high res and CD. I have the CD defined as primary. In a search for that album, Roon now shows the CD as the primary, even though there is a high res MQA version - both before and after grouping. To me, Roon is behaving exactly as it did before, except that it now it recognizes MQA versions.

[firedog]

6 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

In both of those cases you have a local file, and you are right the local file is sorted "primary" by default.  

 

I am talking about how Roon handles Tidal versions.  This is a primary use case for me, Roon+Tidal+artist/album browsing.  When I play my local files I am as likely to use JRiver as Roon, but yes Roon appears to sort your local file first (i.e. primary).  With my many (many many) Tidal bookmarks, it is sorting the MQA version first (if there is one) - I have to drill down to get to the PCM version.  Also, if I hear of an new artist, or an album from a familiar artist and I want to here it through Tidal, if there is a MQA version that is the version that comes up and you have to drill down to get to PCM version...

Okay I understand now. But Roon is still doing what it always did-prioritizing higher res versions. The difference is that now it recognizes the MQA versions. I get that it bugs you, but at least you can see the MQA version labeled and ignore it. I ‘d just do what I always do-pick the one I want to define as primary. Doesn’t bother me. 

BTW, you can create focus groups based on “format” and exclude MQA files if that helps. Then bookmark the focus group that doesn’t include them. 

[firedog]

You guys are making this way more complicated than it is. For the vast majority of Roon users, with or without an MQA DAC, Roon will "do the right thing"-i.e., do exactly what most listeners would expect and want - no special setup required. Do you not see that? 

You are "special needs" users so for YOU it is a bit complicated. It might take you one whole day to get used to it. 

Life is really tough.

[firedog]

7 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

 

I'm new to Roon (<2 weeks) and nearly so to Tidal (<2 months). Help me be clear with what Roon is doing here. For Tidal MQA files, Roon does the first unfold for my non-MQA DAC? I don't have to do anything else? For non-MQA files, Roon does not apply MQA filters?

 

BTW, does Tidal even have hi-res content that is *not* MQA?

Basically yes, that is the default - unless your DAC can't do 88 or 96k. Or unless you manually change the settings in Roon for MQA.

In a situation like yours Roon will simply do the first unfold and pass the file "as unfolded" to your DAC. Your DAC will simply relate to it the same way it relates to any other 88 or 96k file.  

Roon in any case doesn't apply the MQA filters. That is either done in the MQA DAC, or not at all. 

If you click on the little "signal path" dot  to the right of the name of the selection being played in Roon, it will tell you what it is doing. 
AFAIK, Tidal doesn't yet have non MQA hi-res content. Maybe there are a few scattered tracks I'm unaware of.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

Firedog,

 

According to many MQA is "just a choice" and no threat to PCM/DSD, non lossy real "HiRes", but here we have Roon privileging MQA, all supposedly (they say - you repeat) that it is what "most" users want.  "Most" users want to replace 16/44 with MQA?  Are you sure?  Perhaps so, by default in that "most" don't know better.

 

How long before it is no longer a complicated choice for "special" users - the PCM is just gone?

 

Turns out consumer choice is just lip, the idea is to herd us into a certain direction.

 

 

No, that is not what I said or what Roon said, just an over reaction on your part. Roon isn’t “privileging” MQA, it is allowing it to be seen and played back as a format in Roon. No different than it allowing playback of DSD. Before this it was actually “discriminating” against MQA as it were by not letting us see or use the MQA files from within Roon.  

 

 Roon has a partnership with Tidal and Tidal is full of MQA albums. 

Roon rightly understands that most of it’s users would like the convenience  to see and playback the Tidal files from within Roon instead of using the Tidal desktop app. I’m not an MQA supporter, but I’d also like that ability. That doesn’t mean Roon or me or anyone else thinks we want to replace Redbook. Maybe just curiosity and to hear what the MQA versions sound like. 

Roon, unlike others, gives you the ability to totally turn off MQA. Maybe it’s hard for you to understand, but most users simply want their software to play back whatever formats are there, including MQA. That’s all Roon is doing. 

[firedog]

36 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

This shifts (or can shift) the licensing burden from the DAC manufacturers to Roon. I wonder if Roon will have to make two versions (Tidal/MQA and Qubuz/PCM) to prevent outrage from
customers (like me) who refuse to pay MQA licensing.

I doubt the Roon end is paying that much to MQA; it is probably Tidal who is paying much more licensing fees to MQA. The record labels are invested in MQA, so I'm sure there is some nice complicated royalty scheme among them, MQA, and Tidal. I'd guess Roon pays a significant amount to Tidal, which probably isn't directly related to MQA being there or not.

As far as Roon getting another streaming service on board - it doesn't look good. There seem to be 2 related complicated factors:
 

a) Roon sees it's user interface as it's key selling point and reason for existence - and it isn't willing to compromise it for a streaming service. This means it demands full integration of the streaming service into the Roon interface, on Roon's terms. (And that's one of the reasons we like the Tidal-Roon partnership so much, isn't it?);

 

b) but (a) means that Roon has to have full access to the database of the streaming partner so that it can periodically download the database and integrate it with Roon (it does this once a day with Tidal's database, which is why new releases appear first in Tidal before you can see them through Roon).

 

So far only Roon and Tidal have agreed on the above. The other streaming services are either unwilling for (a) or are willing to do (a), but not (b). 
This has all been stated by Roon at their forum.