|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.115.217.131
In Reply to: RE: Meridian's MQA posted by panhead on April 14, 2015 at 11:08:49
Here we go again. Only this time it looks like they're getting everybody on board.
To me, there is so much wrong with MQA that I'm unsure where to even begin and the hype (dare I say brainwashing?) seems to be overwhelming when one reads between the lines.
But perhaps the worst part about this perceived improvement is that Bob Stuart and Meridian and MQA must become a household name if one desires to hear "higher-rez" music my guess will mostly likely be marginally more musical than today's SACD or other hi-rez which in turn is marginally more musical than Redbook CD.
IMO, if MQA launches, and it looks like the horses are already out of the barn, this is the greatest evidence that from a performance-perspective, the "high-end" audio industry is still very much in its infancy stages, as are the industry's so-called experts.
No, I've not yet heard MQA, but judging from the responses from those who have, for starters I'd like to ask this question:
Fundamentally, besides the billions of dollars in new equipment, licensing, and royalties, what is the difference between Stuart creating a technology based on his neuroscience research findings to see what our hearing likes to focus on and a speaker company upping the treble just a bit to give the listener the impression that their speakers are more musical in a dealer's showroom than the competitors?
From a performance perspective, not only is Stuart & co. barking up the wrong technology tree, we'll be putting a ton of money in his pocket to listen to music contoured to his liking.
Thus far it looks like perhaps every industry "expert" is on board with MQA. The very same who brainwashed us into believing in the early days that SACD and DVD-A were night and day improvement over Redbook CD and it wasn't. More importantly, what did it cost the consumer to discover SACD and DVD-A formats weren't night and day better but only marginally better?
This time around I think the experts need to state clearly up front exactly what they hear with MQA. For example, Harley and Atkinson could be asked:
If no music measures at zero and the live performance or the absolute sound measures at a 10, in comparison, where on that scale:
a. Does Redbook CD fall?
b. Do today's high-rez formats fall?
c. Does MQA fall?
This is important because this will start to hold the experts accountable for any potential promotional escapades. The power of the media and fluoride in our drinking water can be overwhelming.
For example, in the Mar/Apr 2009 issue of the Absolute Sound, editor-in-chief Robert Harley wrote, "I believe that the primary reason reproduced music doesn't sound like live music is some kind of catastrophic loss that occurs at the microphone diaphragms."
To substantiate Harley's statement, about 1 year earlier his senior editor Jonathan Valin wrote, "We are lucky if even our very best playback systems are able to capture even 15% of the magic of the live performance." Paraphrased.
To a lesser degree, Stereophile editor-in-chief John Atkinson substantiated the above when he said something not too dissimilar in the Sep, 2009 issue, "I'm starting to feel that it is something that is never captured by recordings at all that ultimately defines the difference between live and recorded sound."
The point being that these statements were made many years after higher-rez formats had time to mature, yet all of these "experts" were on the high-rez bandwagon from day one.
More importantly, Robert Harley used the word catastrophic and Valin claimed only 15% of the Magic at best was audible with even our very best SOTA-level playback systems and I know some who think that 15% is too optimistic.
These are all serious indictments against industry performance and to the best of my knowledge none of them have since retracted those statements.
Is, Harley, Valin, Atkinson, or even Bob Stuart of Meridian or anybody else claiming MQA resolves this catastrophic performance problem? If not, then what are we really talking about here with the MQA technology?
FWIW, they really can't retract their statements because they and some others know that aside from some incremental improvements, those statements are as true today as they were in 2008 and 2009.
Follow Ups:
You've made some valid points. I certainly have felt that TAS has completely missed the boat for computer audio. Why should I trust their opinion here?
On the other hand this might just be the "game changer" as suggested. Will report back my opinion in only a few days after Axpona where listening to MQA will be on the top of my list.
What really matters is how good it sounds.
Thanks for the note. I think TAS and Stereophile have and continue to miss the boat daily and they are not real leaders at all. IMO, history dictates they are little more than well-equipped co-dependents.Yes, in the end, sound is all that really matters. But here's the problem. With so much on the line and all the powers that be already bought into it, any audio show demo will be guaranteed to "sound better", no matter what it takes. Remember, the horses have already left the barn.
The question will be, is the MQA sound beyond the shadow of any doubt so superior that even one with no discerning ears, can easily hear the greatly improved levels of musicality? Or does one need to pull out the hypothetical stethoscope and strain to hear all the coveted musical characteristics we long to hear?
I'll go out on a limb right now and say I can guarantee no matter what sound they come up with it will not be a night and day difference but only a somewhat small incremental improvement. Based on the technology tree they're barking up, it's simply impossible to achieve anything greater.
With one possible caveat. If per chance Stuart has so successfully tapped into our hearing traits, his codec has doctored the sound of the recordings so much that he somehow managed to give us the perception that without his codecs we perceive we are looking at a 3-D movie without 3-D glasses but with his codec we perceive we now have 3-D glasses.
But just as important are questions like:
1. Bear in mind that with Stuart dabbling into neuroscience, does he potentially open up a whole new can of questionable worms? For which we may not be prepared or equipped to properly measure or judge?
2. If Stuart's codec is only marginally superior but changes the standard for the entire industry, is it possible that his new standard could cripple further performance gains down the road?
Knowing what I think I know about performance and especially performance limitations, my concern is that MQA is little more than smoke and mirror or, a whole lotta' to do about very little but with neuroscience involved, none of us are equipped to refute what we're really hearing.
Seriously, with sound and mastering engineers now being under Bob Stuart's neuroscience umbrella, this could be little more than butchery. But it might take 5 or 10 years and billions of dollars before we discover the truth.
Edits: 04/19/15
"Here we go again."
+1
I will check back in 18 - 24 months after everyone else has invested
( wasted?) money on yet another "flavor of the month".
( Quad sound anyone?)
Exactly, Glad to hear I may not be alone in my thoughts.
Thanks for the note.
You are very not alone. Count me in with both feet.
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: