|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.198.63.158
In Reply to: RE: Dreaming in Technicolor... posted by Doug Schneider on October 31, 2016 at 06:51:57
Thank you for actually reading something I wrote! Almost.In that same show report, I talk about listening to another MQA-encoded recording - streamed over Tidal - using the Mytek Brooklyn and headphones. This recording was from 2L and you can read about the encode process on their site.
Since you read the show report, I see no need to address most of your questions since they are clearly rhetorical. It was not the case that the MQA file was always second. Besides, the differences were obvious, i.e. not subtle.
"This brings out the cynic in me, but it's necessary if you're going to look at things critically -- were you able to analyze those files?"
No I did not analyze the files. I was CES, remember? ;-) However, as I've said now too many times, one of the files we compared was from Peter McGrath who was present in the room. I spoke to Peter, both at CES and after in a follow-up phone call, to understand his take on MQA as well the process used to produce the CES demos. This is how I know nothing was applied to the second file.
On that last note, you are suggesting that MQA may have willfully deceived people by manipulating the MQA files used in their demos. While I can understand a certain amount of skepticism, I try to be careful about making accusations of this sort without having any proof whatsoever. But that's just me.
I could also question every show report ever written using this same logic by raising the question - how do you know the recordings used were not manipulated to make the system sound better?
It's also worth noting that we are talking about a show report and listening impressions. This is not a review. If you read my review, I know too much work ;-), you'll get a much better idea of my position on MQA.
Edits: 10/31/16Follow Ups:
> as I've said now too many times, one of the files we compared was from
> Peter McGrath who was present in the room. I spoke to Peter, both at CES
> and after in a follow-up phone call, to understand his take on MQA as well
> the process used to produce the CES demos. This is how I know nothing was
> applied to the second file.
This was what I was told also. Although Doug Schneider continues to insist
that there were no comparisons at the 2016 CES, the comparisons performed
for the press at CES included some of Peter McGrath's recordings in both
the original hi-rez PCM and MQA versions. See our report at the link
below; people might think that these comparisons were not performed as
they would wish, but that does not mean that there were _no_ comparisons.
It is also relevant to note that Peter had performed these comparisons in
an earlier public event at New York dealer Innovative Audio, at which I
was present. Sequencing in those tests was A-B-A or B-A-B, so that the
advantage given the second file played was compensated for.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"...passive-aggressive behavior can resemble a behavior better described as catty, as it consists of deliberate, active, but carefully veiled hostile acts which are distinctively different in character from the non-assertive style of passive resistance."
All I can see is aggressive behaviour from you and another associate in someone else's forum (here).If you really want to discuss MQA issues openly and without malice, go back to your own website and forum and invite Doug or anyone else to discuss in a polite, measured and fact based manner.
I have to laugh about all this MQA promotion when Onkyo download in the UK is attempting to sell MQA music at £16 each. £16 for the original wav file plus MQA maybe, but I cannot see sensible consumers at this stage paying that much on top of a new DAC. If the MQA consortia were to sell music on the basis of source file plus MQA ones, then there will be no debate as to whether it is worth its salt and the market will then decide.
But this is not how monopolies work!
Edits: 11/01/16
...to point out inaccuracies related to comments made by you and others related to AudioStream.Unfortunately, they mostly appear to have fallen on biased ears. Points of fact:
A/B comparisons were performed at CES 2016 (and RMAF 2016) where the provenance of some of the source files were verified by their creator.
In my post titled, "Ask AudioStream: MQA", I did not, as you suggested in another thread, "back[t]rack". My stance in that post is the same as I expressed in my MQA review.
Since Isaak's "MQA Pimping" post is gone, I don't have to address the inaccuracies and outright fabrications he included.
I have no interest in further conversation with Doug because he a) cannot accept a fact as fact, and b) I am not interested in playing the role of accused to his role of accuser. In my opinion, Doug is being unprofessional by making unfounded accusations and trying to turn Show Reports into a personal manifesto while disregarding everything else that has been written since. I also find it troubling that a reviwer who finds so much to write about what others have written about MQA, has not managed to *listen for himself*.
I'm not a fan of high-priced downloads, either. As I've written, MQA's appeal is, for me, tied to streaming.
Edits: 11/01/16 11/01/16
John,I fully agree with what you did months following -- get your files MQA'd and do comparisons of that. Now, we've talked before about those results, but, regardless, they were done.
This is all I am arguing for -- more comparisons. It was painfully obvious in Munich this year, the company didn't really want to do them -- and didn't. Furthermore, they're trumpeting sonic improvements, but not willing to go the distance to back it up. Is it too much to ask a company making these claims to back it up? Hardly. Should reviewers be pressing for this? Definitely.
You measure loudspeakers, I measure loudspeakers. We know company claims about measurements and actual measurements can differ wildly. I never take a company's loudspeaker-measurement claims at face value. Why would I here? Why wouldn't I say, "Ok, it's better you say. Let's hear it -- before and after."
Doug
Edits: 10/31/16
Hi John,I have been clear on this. I am going on what was written. Subsequently, I followed up with Bob Stuart about the topic of comparisons -- and we all know that in Munich at High End 2016, in the MQA demo, they were not done.
That said, going by what was written on Stereophile.com (see link below). In it, there's a mention of a "before/after" comparison of a Peter McGrath track. So, yes, appears a comparison.
Then there is the confusing part about Keith Jarrett, where Michael Fremer seemingly talks about a CD. It's your site -- read for yourself.
So this was the extent of the comparisons? Or were there more that weren't written about?
Doug
Edits: 10/31/16
I can see why you wouldn't want to address those points. So you use three tracks then?The way your article is written, it's seems clear the MQA track was always second.
Also, if the differences are that obvious, it should be a snap to pick them out blindly. But way below, we have that person from an audio society saying that out of 20 people, 15 couldn't hear any difference and the 5 that could said it was extremely subtle. This was a test they controlled. I would think that if the differences were really obvious, public comparisons would be easy to do.
And no one is making accusations. It's just knowing every point about what is involved before hanging your hat on something and endorsing it. I can't remember which one, but years ago there was a hybrid SACD out where people were saying that the SACD layer sounded markedly better than the CD layer. It was later found out that the two layers were from two masters.
It's just in my nature to question things. Shouldn't it be yours and every reviewers'? And when you do, sometimes the differences you uncover are worth noting -- I know this from our experience doing loudspeaker measurements with Canada's National Research Council. Very telling.
In the end, if you're satisfied with the rigor you've put in, so be it. As I said, carry on. As it stands now, the company's own lack of willingness to do comparisons in the demonstrations has left me unconvinced.
Doug
SoundStage!
Edits: 10/31/16
I'd imagine you understand the difference.
In any event, have a nice day, Doug.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: