Thoughts on a Method to Compare MQA and Non-MQA Files

[Rt66indierock]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Sorry Jud, but with this one I have to agree with Lee.

We need 3 versions as you mentioned , the original high res file, the non Decoded MQA, and the decoded MQA version. These should be made available via the PM system to prevent abuse or excessive demands by other than interested forum members , and the listening results tabulated.

 

I side with the Beatles on this point. They never even bothered to listen to stereo mixes. Nor did Brian Wilson.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 Which recordings from them exhibit a good illusion of HEIGHT ? 

 Even Frank's speakers won't disappear with them.

 

 P.S.

Using Jud's methodology is almost certainly going to markedly decrease member participation due to it's complexity, when we need as high a member participation as possible with a clear dislike of the MQA versions

made obvious.

 

That's why I mentioned Brian Wilson. See Jud's comment above.

 

P.S. I disagree with you on member participation. The better our information is the better our participation will be. It makes it easier to show how gullible the press was in promoting MQA. 

 

[Rt66indierock]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 The record companies and the proponents of MQA have shown that they don't give a shit about accurate technical analyses 

demonstrating it's failings.

 The vast majority of consumers do NOT read the Audio press. In fact , I doubt that even most members of this forum subscribe to such publications.

 

 

That the people supporting MQA don't care is not a major concern.  They aren't my intended audience.  If they can be beat on til they give up or MQA Ltd goes out of business I'm fine with that. The general public will never know MQA was a new audio format. 

 

If MQA has to to be battled in the mainstream I want to bury anyone claiming the technical analysis is wrong with what is now hundreds of pages of documentation. 

[Rt66indierock]

19 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Speaking of admiring creativity:

 

People objected that the dual-mono test would affect soundstage height. Several mechanisms have now been discussed, and not a single one requires two different channels.

 

Now you propose that 2 speakers with differing material are needed to detect filter ringing, and intermodulation and harmonic distortion.  What possible mechanism would you suggest for this?

 

I'm very happy to hear cogent criticism of the proposed method, or have people try it out versus sequential listening and see where they have more success.  But rank speculation just wastes time.  So please provide a reasonable mechanism (you or anyone else), preferably with some support, or let's drop it.

 

Jud, Lee is here to disrupt any discussion that involves those three letters. Archimago talks about the rational audiophile I wonder if Lee thinks the irrational audiophile needs some representation too?

 

Anyway thanks for this discussion.