Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Archimago

  • Rank
    Freshman Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Though I'm not exactly a "CD is PSF" kind of guy (I do appreciate at least the theoretical value of 24/96). The truth is that those guys have always had plenty of evidence on their side...
  2. At best, just a WiFi extender if you're using cheap all-in-one router/modems with poor wireless strength throughout the house. Could help improve speed by boosting the WiFi signal at hard-to-reach places. Not going to improve maximum up/down speed from your cable model or fibre or whatever you're using from the ISP.
  3. @John Dyson, could you perhaps post even just a few minutes of what you've been putting together in FLAC and the LAME encoded 320kbps MP3. Would be great to have a listen for comparison. Thanks...
  4. Nice of him to mention the test :-). Always looking a for a few more entries!!!
  5. I see... Not playing well to the demographic, eh? Actually, if the message doesn't resonate with the audiophile public at LAAS literally from the guru's mouth, it's hard to imagine any other open public forum where the message would be accepted with open arms. As I recall, the message also did not play well at the 2017 AES resulting in Bruno Putzeys' Facebook post - the technical folks clearly not impressed. That was 2017... Hard to imagine much difference in 2019, plus time has gone by and internet speeds have improved even further to not need this kind of data compression. In any event, will be interesting to see if Jbara and team bring with them any new graphs, charts, or if it's all "just so" feel-good stories of the "pioneering revolutionary studio authenticated deblurred perceptually lossless sound" packaged in a box typically with a beautifully reassuring "blue light" :-).
  6. Perhaps I missed it... Please do tell (if you can).
  7. I see this announcement for AXPONA on TAS: http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/mqa-champions-master-quality-sound-at-axpona-2019/ Looks like primarily the Mike Jbara Show... Why doesn't Bob Stuart show up anymore?
  8. Yup, high frequency noise running through it. Even a CRC32 tells us the files are different. Good job in creating identical MD5 hash!
  9. LOL. So the litmus test is "satisfying" you... No surprise I guess. As for web publications, clearly as we've seen by many contributors to this site and elsewhere, the fund of knowledge and experience, while variable doesn't seem any worse than what's on offer with most print magazines. if anything, much of the time, contributors appear much more thorough in their evaluation IMO. What is "unfortunate" as per Collom's quote is actually NOT that web publications are more open, hence standardization more difficult. But that the "official", "professional" mainstream press with wider reach, influence, and one would hope higher journalistic standards itself doesn't have clear accreditation demands! And this shows as we talk about MQA...
  10. 🤣 Somewhat off topic from MQA of course, but important to discuss. "Listening skills" is a tough one to determine isn't it? And yet for purely subjective reviewers the idea that one possesses "Golden Ears" is the basis of presumably why one's opinion has value... As far as I am aware, there is no formal "Minimum Audio Reviewer Test" (MART?) for listening acuity. At least back in 2014, Philips had their Golden Ears Challenge which I did attain the "Golden Ears" level: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/02/musings-golden-earism-philips-golden.html @John_Atkinson , is there some level of minimum listening/hearing competence that must be achieved to be an audio reviewer for Stereophile? Or say regular hearing test results at the very least submitted as "accreditation"? The truth is that one could have been a jack hammer operator for years, can hear up to 5kHz at best, have severe inter-aural imbalance and still talk about the "air around instruments", "natural tonality of the singer", how "fast and jitter-free", and the greatness of the "soundstage" while showing beautiful pictures of the US$15,000 dCS Bartok. At least that's one thought that runs through my mind when I see pictures of aging audiophile reviewers...
  11. Nice. Hope you can... I was tempted to check out AXPONA this year but unfortunately business trip to Toronto around same time :-(. Would have been interesting to see what a major N.A. show looked like!
  12. Hey guys... Unfortunate behaviour from a member of the online audio "press". Interesting discussions around LeeS and the banning. Two quick questions. Perhaps already discussed but given the long thread, I missed the outcome/answers... 1. Who's going to this at AXPONA 2019? Amazing little abstract! Still going after key phrases like "bit perfect" but in the form of "bit perfect playback" instead of making allusions to the music itself being "lossless". And the idea of "ultimate listening experience" - after all this - that's some set of balls. 2. Did anyone mention what fora out there were overwhelmingly pro-MQA? Just curious... Not personally interested in making a stink given that there is quite wide understanding about the issues with MQA from what I can tell. But wondering about the mindset of folks and who are the major influencers in such a milieu. Perhaps related, is that MQA Facebook forum with Peter Veth still running? I would imagine LeeS would be announcing the banning there as a start.
  13. Isn't it remarkable that an audio engineer could be so easily fooled? I mean seriously... To not see that true 24-bit high samplerate resolution stuffed into a "compatible" 16/44 carrier is simply fantasy should be obvious. I simply cannot believe Chesky can't see thru this. If he truly believed that, his understanding of digital is rather worrisome. Alternatively, he may have such low regard of audiophiles that he thinks he can say these things and believes audiophile would just swallow the claims with no questions asked! Either way, this doesn't look good...
  14. Great comment @Shadders. Not "regressing" at all... Rather it strikes at the heart of the problem, doesn't it? In all these years of debates, pages upon pages spent on MQA, bad feelings on either side, real $$$ spent on implementation for Tidal, software like these Android/iOS players, decoders like Audirvana/Roon, the marketing hype, etc... What does this achieve? At best, MQA Ltd. made a few bucks (probably not). Some hardware manufacturers got a chance to claim that the next product refresh "Now decodes MQA!". Maybe a few in the music industry felt that their "crown jewels" were kept safer by not releasing a hi-res bit-perfect copy... Oh yes, of course it gave members of the audiophile press something to write about; eyeballs reading articles and clicks on a website are good for some revenue at least (perhaps some even got directly paid for MQA support... who knows). But beyond the commerce and dollars changing hands, what lies beneath? As your comment implies, all of this is built upon a fantasy. A salve for an ailment that either does not exist, or if it did, absolutely incurable using the MQA snake oil. It has been obvious for awhile now (thanks especially to @mansr and @Miska) that there is no reality-based foundation from which the company is building upon to truly benefit the music lover interested in sound quality or fidelity. There has never been demonstrations of MQA being able to "de-blur" because the "blurring" they speak of as if with authority itself is unfounded. They have never defended the value of "authentication" for end users. The "studio sound" they speak of is meaningless. They were coy about practical A/B demonstrations when they had the chance years ago at audio shows to the public. Bob Stuart started out strong making the rounds with articles in Stereophile, TAS and even here as I recall giving his spiel but has since retreated to silence (and presumably some level of embarrassment). In his stead, we are "treated" with innuendos, opinions, murmurs from questionable actors (specifically those who end up being banned). Undisciplined members of the second-rate audiophile press who appear unable or incapable of understanding basic scientific principles (or apparently even just being decent human beings in their level of discourse as the case may be). And ridiculous company officials who also cannot concede that they have lost the intellectual battle - but just the same are paid to vigorously maintain the hype. This whole sad episode has clearly demonstrated the general ineptness of the audiophile press to speak truth. At least when it comes to MQA, it appears that there is no journalistic integrity left; no ability to speak truth against the power of the Industry nor to independently explore the issue without dragging Industry members to comment. This has only made the hobby appear even more ridiculous than it already is with all its bizarre products, beliefs, and rituals. Well guys, I really hope MQA marks the nadir in some ways for this hobby. Or at least an interesting landmark signalling some kind of change. That maybe the proverbial "silver lining" is that out of this, audiophiles actually learn to take on a more skeptical position. To demand evidence. To recognize that some dude expressing his subjective opinion is the lowest of the levels of evidence - even if that dude has the initials BS and brings with him pages of irreplicable claims. Maybe the Industry takes note that indeed one cannot just come out and make unsubstantiated products without expecting significant scrutiny. Maybe as a community, audiophiles recognize that we are not sheep in a flock of "believers". It has certainly been fun reading these comments over the years . Wowzers, 493 thread pages. Epic... 🙂
  15. As promised, some discussions about the digital filter effects with real music and specifically with the 16/44.1 test and a couple of the devices I used: https://archimago.blogspot.com/2019/02/musings-measurements-on-why-2496.html
  • Create New...