Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Return to Critic's Corner

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Page: [ 1 ] [ 2 ]

Stereophile: Get your story straight on MQA Please

162.250.145.187
Posted on October 30, 2016 at 13:04:39
Isaak J. Garvey
Industry Professional

Posts: 1207
Location: Hollywod, CA
Joined: January 7, 2016
 Dec 2014/January 2015:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/meridians-mqa-one-listeners-impression#02tfU5XzxhKmfeHE.97

"As MQA needs to be applied at the mastering stage in a recording's production, it doesn't improve the sound quality of your existing CD collection. It is really only relevant to downloads."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"MQA need to be applied at the mastering stage".

We know this to be totally untrue, as Warner as batch converted files using MQA. Does anyone one know of a single mastering engineer who has "mastered with MQA"?

"Only relevant to downloads?"

We that to be untrue as the one of the major selling points of MQA is streaming.

"..it doesn't improve the sound quality of your existing CD collection."

Really? Bob Stuart says it magically does:

"Sometimes even a CD rip might indeed be used as a master...

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-and-warner-real-scoop#TPEIubLGUViLvjyS.97

"No, there is no compatibility between MQA and DSD. Which should not be surprising, given that Bob Stuart has always been a very vocal critic of the DSD concept."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"We haven't done the DSD yet, but that should be easy to do."

Bob Stuart, 2016

There is more, a lot more.


 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Stereophile: Get your story straight on MQA Please, posted on October 30, 2016 at 13:51:18
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 Audiostream also.

 

RE: Stereophile: Get your story straight on MQA Please, posted on October 30, 2016 at 14:05:49
Isaak J. Garvey
Industry Professional

Posts: 1207
Location: Hollywod, CA
Joined: January 7, 2016
 The very worst is Robert Harley, who has literally fabricated his own reality, in my opinion.

"MQA starts with the analog signal in the studio and ends with the analog signal on playback. It ties together every element in that chain into essentially a single analog-to-analog system."

WRONG. MQA starts with digital files.

"Master Quality Authenticated emerged. In a single stroke, MQA solves all these problems, from the technical, to the business model, to the sound quality, to the easy accessibility of that sound quality, and to the communication between artist and listener."

And utterly absurd grand statement, with no impartiality, and with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/master-quality-authenticated-mqa-the-view-from-30000-feet/

 

RE: Stereophile: Get your story straight on MQA Please, posted on October 30, 2016 at 14:12:44
Michael Lavorgna
 Hi Fred,

What, exactly, does "AudioStream", i.e. me, have to get straight?

 

RE: Stereophile: Get your story straight on MQA Please, posted on October 30, 2016 at 16:02:13
Isaak J. Garvey
Industry Professional

Posts: 1207
Location: Hollywod, CA
Joined: January 7, 2016
 I am sorry to report that Chris Connaker has become an MQA Zombie. He has put on his MQA armour and is defending it to the death, and in my opinion, repeating grand claims.

"If MQA isn't what our music needs, what does our music need?"

and then fully admits that MQA is a marketing check box for DAC manufacturers, regardless if believe in it because it is "good business"

"I'm willing to bet Benchmark will support MQA because it's a good business decision. Meaning, consumers will pass them by for not checking the MQA box. Right or wrong, this is just how consumers operate. Currently many DAC manufacturers support ultra high DSD rates just to check the box. It's a simple business decision and has nothing to do with technology."

And there is blatant misinformation:

"According to MQA once the final version leaves the mastering engineers hands, it's in the hands of the label and then content aggregators. All types of versions are subsequently made, but not all subsequent version are created from the final master version. It's the wild west. Plus, the decisions used to create the other versions aren't necessarily what the mastering engineer would select. MQA should enable the mastering engineer to provide the version we all hear at home. "

The mastering engineer NEVER EVER chooses the final version. It is the label and the artist. The above statement is beyond nonsense. What ever variations that are created of an album are done by the LABELS. For instances. The Iron Maiden remasters were done at 24/96, but there 24/96 and 24/44.1 versions created because different vendors requested them. For no other reason. The same for the recent Bruce Springsteen remasters.

And lastly, he verified with MQA, that most of the albums were batch converted to using MQA artificial intelligence..

"The MQA artificial intelligence is pretty cool. It can recognize equipment used in the production process, even though the label has long lost the information associated with a title. For example, it not only can recognize A to D converters, but serial numbers of those converters base on a signature (if present) and different generations of converters. So, the batch-type of processing isn't without its benefits."

Interestingly, this is contradictory to John Atkinson's claim that labels keep meticulous records:

"..record companies actually keep good records on what converter was used for the original sessions and/or mastering."

 

RE: Stereophile: Get your story straight on MQA Please, posted on October 30, 2016 at 17:47:42
ahendler
Audiophile

Posts: 5151
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Joined: January 24, 2003
 Robert Harley when he review the Meridian explorer2 in the same issue as the Meridian CD player with MQA said the $299 explorer2 when playing MQA material was indistinguishable from the $18000 cd palyer when playing MQA. I am sure Meridian was delighted to hear that
Alan

 

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/8/84563.html, posted on October 30, 2016 at 22:51:44
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 This kind of angry, egocentric postings that seek to discredit views which don't tally with yours/Audiostream's, rather than to discuss and debate the formats's pros and cons with regard to the concerns raised by inmates who are consumers.

Doug's postings have been rationally framed and he has a right to be heard above your noise floor.

And don't think for a moment that ''they say, we write'' and ''I typically do not go to forums'' are valid approaches to reviewing and writing about new products.

 

RE: Stereophile: Get your story straight on MQA Please, posted on October 30, 2016 at 22:54:11
Isaak J. Garvey
Industry Professional

Posts: 1207
Location: Hollywod, CA
Joined: January 7, 2016

Robert Harley would never claim that..

 

Thanks Fred, posted on October 31, 2016 at 05:46:47
Michael Lavorgna
 My responses to Doug pointed out that he was misrepresenting the facts by claiming no valid MQA comparisons had been done. This is odd for a number of reasons, the least of which being I had this very conversation with Doug in Munich where I told him he was mistaken and why -- based on my own experience.

Yet here we are talking about the same thing. When I gave some specific examples in my comments here, Doug dismissed them. He also made reference to my "raves" even though he said he's never read anything I've written.

All told, I would suggest your re-telling of this exchange where you say I "... seek to discredit views which don't tally with yours/Audiostream's", is also misrepresenting the facts.

So let me thank you, Fred, for reminding me why I typically do not read forums, especially this one.

 

Dreaming in Technicolor..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 06:06:37
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Hi Michael,

I wouldn't have contributed to this thread, but since you brought up my name and something blatantly wrong, I have to respond.

There were two people in Munich very vocal about MQA doing no valid comparisons. I was one of them, and since the other reviewer isn't part of this discussion, I won't bring him in. And when I did ask for a comparison in Munich, from Bob Stuart himself, he sent me to Daniel Weiss's room, where there was no comparison.

And, at that point, no valid comparisons I knew of were done. Just the debacle now known as the CES 2016 Demos, which I think you were part of.

So I can't help but think that this supposed conversation you had with me is simply you dreaming in Technicolor. Fantasizing you talked about it. Believe me, you didn't.

As I said before, please go carry on -- but without making up stuff like this.

Doug
SoundStage!

 

RE: Dreaming in Technicolor..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 06:16:51
Michael Lavorgna
 Doug,

Ask Jeff, he was sitting to your left. You joined me at a table in the Atrium. I can understand if you'd said you forgot, but this charade of yours is too much.

"Just the debacle now known as the CES 2016 Demos." There you go again. You weren't there, you didn't read all of the reports wherein it was explained that some of the source files were Peter McGrath's so there is *no question* as to their provenance, but you continue to make this misleading characterization. At others expense.

Here's a suggestion for you Doug. You are a reviewer right? Since MQA capable DACs have been available for 6 months and there's a few hundred MQA recordings available, why not review MQA? This way you can listen for yourself and share *your* experience, instead of calling into question other people's experience.

I'd think this would help move the conversation along in a more positive direction.

 

RE: Dreaming in Technicolor..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 06:26:34
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Hi Michael,

Yes, I remember you there, but you're talking specifically about comparisons and, sorry, I brought it up to various people, probably you, that no valid comparisons were done -- and as far as I could tell, they weren't. That's why I asked Bob Stuart to do one -- and he wouldn't.

These non-comparison demos were so important to me that I brought Brent Butterworth along to judge for himself, and he wrote the article below.

So as I said, this conversation about you pointing out valid comparisons -- sorry, didn't occur. In fact, it couldn't have occurred as there were none! I mean, it's well known that there hasn't been proper comparisons done. Even when I talked on the phone to Bob Stuart, he told me they had no interest in doing them. So how could've they been done.

Now, I did have the thought just a few minutes ago that it is possible that you don't know what a valid comparison would be like -- that it isn't simply picking a CD off the shelf and comparing it to some new file being played. Or that it isn't just taking someone's word for it who said, "oh, it's better." Maybe that's it.

Just for the record, valid comparisons would have very careful and transparent authentication as to what you're listening to as source files and then going from there (there'd have to be some hardware considerations too). What a comparison ISN'T is simply playing a version of "Riders On the Storm" and not knowing where it came from and having everyone simply go "oh, wow, that's the best I've ever heard."

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

RE: Dreaming in Technicolor..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 06:35:24
Michael Lavorgna
 Hi Doug,

I explained to you about Peter's recordings used in the CES demos. Which I just explained again. Which I wrote about in my show report.

Yet you respond with this: "I did have the thought just a few minutes ago that it is possible that you don't know what a valid comparison would be like -- that it isn't simply picking a CD off the shelf and comparing it to some new file being played. Or that it isn't just taking someone's word for it who said, "oh, it's better." Maybe that's it."

Since you haven't read my review of MQA, and by your own admission you've never read anything on AudioStream, I'd suggest when you get another 'thought' like the one above, give it some thought before making it public. Otherwise you may come across as being nothing more than .ill-informed and catty ;-)

 

As for Reviewing..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 06:37:13
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 As for reviewing...

When I talked to Bob Stuart in the spring, he said they'd send me an Explorer2 DAC. Never came. I made the offer to digitize those files from the Canadian engineer that go decades back, but that appeared of no interest, so never happened.

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

RE: As for Reviewing..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 06:40:11
Michael Lavorgna
 I'd recommend reviewing the Mytek Brooklyn DAC.

For my MQA review, I used the Explorer2, the Meridian Prime, and the Mytek. I mention this because I just had the thought that you might not know how to review MQA (Meow ;-)

 

RE: Dreaming in Technicolor..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 06:51:57
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 So I actually put some work in here and found an article on your site. Is it this one linked below.

It appears you did do a comparison of sorts. Way to go!

But from what I can tell, it's two songs you used? One from Peter McGrath, the other Keith Jarrett. That's it.

There's little information you give, so let me ask:

1) Was this done blind, even to the point of what JA did?

2) I noticed they were played one after the other. The MQA second, from what I can glean. About 18 years ago it was demonstrated to me that if you play the same song twice in a row for someone, the second time almost always sounds better. Why? Familiarity to it. Our brain gets accustomed. This was astonishing for me to learn -- play the same thing twice in a row and the second time sounds different and better. I wonder what would've happened if you played the MQA first and the non-MQA second. Or if you did what JA did and played them randomly and tried to identify which was which. Nope, here's the song, here's the next one. Wow, doesn't #2 sound better?!?!

3) 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? You attribute the changes to MQA only. But how do you know that's all that was applied to the second track? Watch a mastering engineer work and the subtlest changes in, say, the high frequencies can change the perspectively wildly. I'd guess it's "track 1, now track 2." Believe me, I wouldn't be betting the farm on a demo like that.

That's why, with this latter point, we wanted to send files and then get them back and do proper listening (blindly, repeatedly) and analysis.

Back to your article. You listened to two tracks, back to back, and thought the second sounded better. It's not clear as to whether this was blind or not, or if you simply tried to identify one or the other over repeated trials. The MQA track was always the second track. Just two songs, hand-picked, played for you. Is this all correct? This is your "comparison"?

Doug

 

RE: As for Reviewing..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 06:57:14
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Someone else suggested I contact Mytek. So Mytek has to send me a DAC so I can assess MQA. Somehow I don't feel that's fair to them. But besides, what would I use for source material for MQA -- and what to compare it to. Besides the 2L files... ?

Doug

 

RE: As for Reviewing..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 07:07:47
Michael Lavorgna
 "So Mytek has to send me a DAC so I can assess MQA."

Not exactly since you'd also be assessing the DAC; there's no way around it. That's why I reviewed three different DACs for my MQA review. I think readers are interested not only in MQA but whether or not it makes the associated DAC less important.

As was reported in RMAF, there are over 200 MQA recordings available online. MQA have also made other recordings available for review purposes as you know from John Atkinson's use of his own files for his review. I was provided a number of recordings that I already own, using the same source files.

 

RE: As for Reviewing..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 07:12:16
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Hi,

So you used Mytek and two Meridian DACs? I have to find multiple DACs now. Which, there are only a handful of.

Let's see -- companies makes big claims, offers no comparison, but reviewer has to jump through hoops to make comparisons by borrowing thousands of dollars worth of gear, and you're supposed to use files found online.

As I said, keep on going your direction. This is where I need to leave off... again.

Doug

 

RE: As for Reviewing..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 07:18:02
Isaak J. Garvey
Industry Professional

Posts: 1207
Location: Hollywod, CA
Joined: January 7, 2016
 Doug I am interested in your opinion on the comparisons done in these write ups.

DAR:

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/06/an-inconvenient-truth-mqa-sounds-better/

And

 

RE: As for Reviewing..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 07:24:31
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Hi,

I don't want to get into all that. Michael Lavorgna deliberately asked me, so I responded on his. But the rest, I don't see the point. Most reviewers are trying their best.

I'd rather concentrate on what we're doing. Meridian hasn't sent me (or any) of our writers a DAC, and MQA (they're separate entities now, from what I understand) haven't been forthcoming, such as in the spring when we wanted to send those recordings. So it is what it is...

Doug
SoundStage!

 

I typically do not read forums, posted on October 31, 2016 at 07:25:08
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 So, why linger on this one to gvent personal vitriol?

Or is someone else using your computer?

 

RE: As for Reviewing..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 07:27:05
Isaak J. Garvey
Industry Professional

Posts: 1207
Location: Hollywod, CA
Joined: January 7, 2016
 Actually, I was not actually looking for a harsh critique, but a neutral opinion of the coverage. But is you want to pass, that is fine. In other words, I was not looking for you to slam your colleagues. I just wanted to illustrate there are several other published comparisons, but there seems to be no set methodology in doing so.

 

RE: Dreaming in Technicolor..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 07:29:08
Michael Lavorgna
 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.

 

RE: As for Reviewing..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 07:33:55
Michael Lavorgna
 You don't *have* to do anything, Doug. I was merely making a suggestion.

As I said, there were comparisons at CES 2016 and also at RMAF 2016 in multiple rooms/systems. Did you get to hear any of the RMAF comparisons?

 

Cute, Fred., posted on October 31, 2016 at 07:37:49
Michael Lavorgna
 I've explained why, in detail - to correct misinformation directly aimed at the work I do on AudioStream.

But you know all that.

I think you may have me confused with the guy who kicked your dog ;-)

Have a great day, Fred.

 

RE: Dreaming in Technicolor..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 07:45:15
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 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!

 

RE: As for Reviewing..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 07:46:37
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 I might read it over, but right now we're getting our next issues online and I'm preparing to go to Poland for the big show there!

Doug

 

RE: As for Reviewing..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 07:47:28
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 I didn't go to RMAF. Was at Tokyo (one tiny MQA demo, no comparisons) and will be in Poland next week for their show -- we'll see.

Doug

 

Show Report v Review, posted on October 31, 2016 at 07:49:46
Michael Lavorgna
 I'd imagine you understand the difference.

In any event, have a nice day, Doug.

 

Another example-This is your "comparison''?, posted on October 31, 2016 at 07:53:16
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 I am struck by the recent review of a $400 power supply against a $50 one, which seems to be part of a recent u-Rendu rig.

Whatever the claims for the smps supply, it is obvious to technically capable users that it is not a superior power source. In fact, I took a listen to one 2 years or so ago and confined it to my storage box. I believe that I might have posted about it in favour of a high performance linear super regulator.

Anyone can make a comparison of two products. But what was the point, and how does this inform or help consumers?

 

RE: Another example-This is your "comparison''?, posted on October 31, 2016 at 07:54:48
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 You lost me here...

Can you explain more?

Doug

 

RE: Another example-This is your "comparison''?, posted on October 31, 2016 at 08:13:30
Michael Lavorgna
 The iFi supply was the least expensive option offered by Sonore for microRendu buyers. They offer a number of more expensive supplies including their own Sonore Signature power Supply ($1300).

When I reviewed the mR, I used both the iFi and Sonore supplies. After the mR review was published, I purchased the mR. I had already purchased the iFi for the review so I used it in my system.

I was looking for a better solution, and a less expensive option than the Sonore, so I purchased the UpTone Audio UltraCap LPS-1.

My review of the LPS-1 went through all of this and I noted up front that I bought it for use in my system.

As far as value to the reader goes, I certainly have my ideas but I see no point in sharing them since the work I do, this review included, should stand on its own. I'd suggest reading the comments/responses to the review to get some idea of how other people reacted to it.

 

RE: Another example-This is your "comparison''?, posted on October 31, 2016 at 08:19:29
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 He compared 2 different units powering the microRendu; the iFi Audio iPower and the UpTone Audio LPS-1 with its SMPS. What's the problem?

 

RE: Dreaming in Technicolor..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 09:04:15
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 4045
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 >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
Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

RE: Another example-This is your "comparison''?, posted on October 31, 2016 at 09:28:42
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 It's abut the standard of reviews, as your post alludes to.

 

RE: Dreaming in Technicolor..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 10:11:04
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 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

 

About Comparisons..., posted on October 31, 2016 at 10:18:22
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 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

 

You can't please everyone, Fred., posted on October 31, 2016 at 10:21:17
Michael Lavorgna
 I take it you are saying the standard of my reviews are not up to your standards. So it goes, Fred.

Cheers.

 

Passive-aggressive behavior, posted on October 31, 2016 at 15:44:08
Michael Lavorgna
 "...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."

 

RE: You can't please everyone, Fred. -well, posted on October 31, 2016 at 22:53:22
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 If you wish to review the taste of apples against that of oranges to you, and post this for free, fine.

But do not attack others for asking relevant questions about why and how, using other peoples' forums so liberally instead of your own website and forum.

 

RE: You can't please everyone, Fred. -well, posted on November 1, 2016 at 04:19:17
Michael Lavorgna
 If an apple and orange could power the microRendu, I'd be happy to review them too.

As to your other comments, our daughters, when were little children, used to say "You're not the boss of me" which seems a fitting response.

 

aggressive behavior, posted on November 1, 2016 at 05:05:57
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 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

 

I am here..., posted on November 1, 2016 at 07:48:20
Michael Lavorgna
 ...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.

 

RE: Stereophile: Get your story straight on MQA Please, posted on November 1, 2016 at 16:16:01
Jim Austin
 Your questions reveal that you understand the technology you criticize very poorly, and that you're arguing in bad faith--trying to save face, or show others up, instead of engaging in an honest disagreement.

I can't speak for JA and won't try to, but I will try to correct your false assumptions. This is the last time I'll be replying to you.

##################################
>>"As MQA needs to be applied at the mastering stage in a recording's production, it doesn't improve the sound quality of your existing CD collection. It is really only relevant to downloads."
- John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"MQA need to be applied at the mastering stage".

We know this to be totally untrue, as Warner as batch converted files using MQA. Does anyone one know of a single mastering engineer who has "mastered with MQA"?

"Only relevant to downloads?"

We that to be untrue as the one of the major selling points of MQA is streaming.

"..it doesn't improve the sound quality of your existing CD collection."

Really? Bob Stuart says it magically does:

"Sometimes even a CD rip might indeed be used as a master...<<
#####################################

I'll start at the end. Bob Stuart--obviously--said no such thing, unless you twist his words beyond recognition. JA's point here--and this couldn't be plainer--is that MQA won't help CDs sitting on your shelf. Bob Stuart is saying that when there's nothing else (or nothing better) available, a rip from a CD can be used as a master file to create MQA files for streaming or download. In using the word "download," JA was distinguishing music that starts out on a server somewhere and music on a disc sitting on your CD shelf.

########################
>>"No, there is no compatibility between MQA and DSD. Which should not be surprising, given that Bob Stuart has always been a very vocal critic of the DSD concept."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"We haven't done the DSD yet, but that should be easy to do."<<
######################

I direct this comment not to the poster but to anyone else who might be reading this, as clear evidence that he's arguing in bad faith. Below you'll see the comment thread (on a Stereophile post) that this comment (directly above) is drawn from. How likely is it, do you think, that the poster did not read down a few lines and see JA's NEXT reply?



Good day.

 

I bought mine, posted on November 1, 2016 at 18:36:40
Jim Austin
 They're widely available, and cheap.

 

there's an obvious alternative. , posted on November 1, 2016 at 18:38:53
Jim Austin
 Just don't express an opinion.

 

RE: Stereophile: Get your story straight on MQA Please, posted on November 2, 2016 at 04:32:33
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 4045
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 >Does anyone one know of a single mastering engineer who has "mastered
>with MQA"?

I asked Bob Stuart which engineers have used MQA in their mastering and
he mentioned Bob Ludwig, Alan Silverman, and George Massenburg who have
been using an MQA encoder in experimental masterings. In particular, he
said that George Massenburg was responsible for the Steely Dan MQA file
that I mentioned in another posting.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

RE: Stereophile: Get your story straight on MQA Please, posted on November 2, 2016 at 07:36:13
Isaak J. Garvey
Industry Professional

Posts: 1207
Location: Hollywod, CA
Joined: January 7, 2016
 Yes, I saw Ludwig mentioned it in an interview last month.

"And there's a new development called MQA [Master Quality Authenticated] made by Meridian [Audio]. It's a way of packing high-resolution audio into much smaller files."

 

Why not?, posted on November 2, 2016 at 08:11:01
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Hi Jim,

If you've read any of the articles and posts, I've never commented directly about the "sound" of MQA because, for a long time now, I've asked for a proper comparison to be done in order to comment directly.

However, the one article I wrote about it asks a lot of questions from a more technical perspective. My background is computer sciences, which I studied in the 1980s and worked exclusively in from graduation to the late 1990s, which is when SoundStage! really got going. So from a technical perspective, there is a lot to talk about, particularly since there is material such as the patents, etc. I feel it's this kind of work audio writers should do.

Doug

 

RE: Stereophile: Get your story straight on MQA Please, posted on November 2, 2016 at 08:22:58
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 4045
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 >>MQA needs to be applied at the mastering stage.
>
>We know this to be totally untrue...

I thought it was clear that I was referring to new recording projects,
like the one linked to below, not to producing MQA versions of existing
catalog.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

RE: Another example-This is your "comparison''?, posted on November 2, 2016 at 08:29:48
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 Pl just reread what I said.

There is something else which is serious. A $50 smps ps was compared to a $400 battery/low noise ps, and a Gretest Bit award was conferred at a stroke.

What about all those other high quality linear or battery supplies that were not listened to or put aside?

Someone else needs to review 'Reviews' like that.

 

RE: Stereophile: Get your story straight on MQA Please, posted on November 2, 2016 at 08:31:56
Isaak J. Garvey
Industry Professional

Posts: 1207
Location: Hollywod, CA
Joined: January 7, 2016
 No, that was not clear to to me, but thanks for clarifying.

 

RE: Why not?, posted on November 2, 2016 at 08:54:13
Jim Austin
 Doug, I had not read that article. I just skimmed it. You seem to have overlooked what's probably the most useful source (IMO): an article in JAES in which Stuart and Craven outline both the general schema and the technology. I believe it was a conference proceeding. (Note that 'MQA' does not appear in the article, so don't search for that.) I think you'll find it useful, although the technical part is more suggestive than detailed. I don't have a link handy but it's not hard to find.

A couple of answers from my perspective, which aren't likely to be news to you 6 months after that was written. Sure, the time-smear-repair aspect of MQA can surely be separated from the origami part; indeed, some of the advantage of the anti-smear technology is effective--this is my understanding--even when you don't use an MQA converter; that is, the basic PCM your DAC receives has been improved, even if your DAC can't "unfold" the file. If my information is correct, and I think it is, that's proof of sorts.

As for the importance of the small file size, I think it matters. On the user side: I live in NYC (just down the street from a Gbit Google kiosk, one of many in the city) and get my broadband from Columbia University. Yet, there are places in this pre-war apartment--heavily built with thick walls--where it's hard to get a strong (wireless) signal. Sure, I could pay a big chunk to have them add ethernet throughout, but it's a rental, so I'm not inclined to. Streaming video in much of the house is dicey, because of the wireless. There are still plenty of pockets in this country that don't have decent broadband, and while much of the world is ahead of the United States in broadband dissemination, much of it isn't, and some of it is metered, so compression saves significant cash. On the other end of the line, I'm sure there are significant savings for the streamer/retailer. I suspect that this advantage on the business end is a bigger deal than the advantages for consumers.

>>I feel it's this kind of work audio writers should do.<<

Great, no disagreement here. I think JA has done more of this than anyone. I've done a bit too--and I feel sure that the understanding, such as it is, that we have of the technology is a big part of the reason we're perceived as supporters of MQA: It hangs together, and the basic premise--that temporal response really matters--rings true. I do think we (and especially you editors) need to keep our readers in mind--they don't want to see a lot of equations--but if we're doing our jobs well, we should explore the technical questions. I would however point out that while Soundstage and Stereophile both, I think, still do measurements, which is wonderful, they're both (as I don't need to tell you) solidly in the subjectivist realm. It is standard procedure to express opinions without scientifically rigorous procedures. It's what we do and what most of our readers expect. We're judged according to how well we do it--and the extent to which we keep readers informed and entertained. Which is to say, I wonder if you and your writers give similar critical attention to other technical issues in audio, like whether deta-sigma is best, or the technical merits of DSD, or the frequency response of cables--as you're giving to MQA.

Best,
Jim

 

RE: Why not?, posted on November 2, 2016 at 09:17:46
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Hi Jim,

Glad we're in general agreement. But what you bring up raises precisely the kinds of questions I asked before. However, before I get to that, know, I didn't see that paper. I'll look for it.

As for the time-smear fix. From what I understand, they're basically correcting the impulse response of the ADC and DAC. But many engineers have asked: "What if multiple ADCs were used to record a single track? And what about cascading DACs?" How can one possibly correct for all of that?

And what does this time-smear fix "sound" like. This is where comparisons are in order. Real comparisons. Plus, why not make a very simple recording using a worst-case scenario ADC that smears time, as MQA puts it. Smear the hell out of it, then "unsmear" it. Exacerbate the problem all you want my smearing certain instruments, even test tones. There are ways, with loudspeakers, you can exacerbate issues with high-order slopes, for example (or even low-order ones). Let's do the same here and prove that it works.

Now to your problem -- my past life installing networks would say: "Ok, that's a problem for you and we might have to reduce the bandwidth - for YOU." (Providing other solutions don't work.) But what about me and countless others who don't have the issue -- why do we want to use a lossy compression scheme when we really don't have to?

Doug

 

On subjects other than MQA, posted on November 2, 2016 at 09:24:34
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 >>>>I wonder if you and your writers give similar critical attention to other technical issues in audio, like whether deta-sigma is best, or the technical merits of DSD, or the frequency response of cables--as you're giving to MQA.

To answer this question, I'll say this: we've given LESS space to MQA than many other publications. I've written one article (the one I linked), Brent Butterworth wrote two (about how poor the MQA demo was at High End 2016 and a subsequent follow-up with listening comparisons done at Newport). So in all this time, three articles -- that's it. I can easily point to print magazines that had more than that in one issue. And bloggers who talk about it almost monthly. It's played a very minor role in our editorial content -- and a lot of it has to do with the lack of comparison material to really evaluate it. To me, that was an issue very early on and continues to be.

On other subjects (with me, in particular, about loudspeakers), we've talked about much, much more.

Doug
SoundStage!

 

RE: Stereophile: Get your story straight on MQA Please, posted on November 2, 2016 at 09:29:24
Isaak J. Garvey
Industry Professional

Posts: 1207
Location: Hollywod, CA
Joined: January 7, 2016
 I'm sorry, but on second thought this makes absolutely no sense.

How does MQA distinguish between "new" recordings, and 5 year old, ten year old, or 20 year old recordings. Except that a new recording can be marketed as "MQA".

MQA comes into play with digital master files, so please explain how this PR video illustrates how you meant that MQA must be applied at the mastering stage, for "new recordings".

 

RE: Why not?, posted on November 2, 2016 at 09:35:45
Isaak J. Garvey
Industry Professional

Posts: 1207
Location: Hollywod, CA
Joined: January 7, 2016
 Yes, Doug, we just finished mastering an album by an artist who recorded their album at 5 different studios, with probably half a dozen ADCs, with some songs even bounced to tape for a "sound". What then?

MQA claims to have "artificial intelligence", which Chris Connaker gleefully called "pretty cool" without any basis.

Then how about a very recent high profile vintage multi track remix, bounced to multi track digital, then mastered at another location.

For purist two channel recordings, non of these questions would come up and that may be where MQA belongs, like DXD, and DSD128/256.

 

RE: Why not?, posted on November 2, 2016 at 09:38:58
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 And I think this is far more common than audiophiles would think (or like). But it's reality. I am not about to say it's "unfixable"; rather, I'd put this back to those who claim you can: "EXACTLY how can you fix that?" And I mean EXACTLY.

Doug

 

RE: Another example-This is your "comparison''?, posted on November 2, 2016 at 10:28:55
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
"What about all those other high quality linear or battery supplies that were not listened to or put aside?"

What about them? Take the review for what it is; not what you felt should have been covered. No one can satisfy this expectation of yours. But hey, you are entitled to your views.

 

RE: Another example-This is your "comparison''?, posted on November 2, 2016 at 10:55:30
Michael Lavorgna
 Hi Fred,

I can understand wanting more comparisons. If you read the review in question, from start to finish, you'll see I explained why this review was "unusual".

Back to the subject at hand, you said, "Audiostream too." indicating that we need to "Get our story straight on MQA". I asked you to explain this comment and you have not. Instead you've commented on the tone of my comments, ignored the fact that Doug was wrong re. the lack of A/B comparisons at CES, and now you've moved on to talk about my review of the UltraCap LPS-1.

It appears as if you are more interested in *me* than AudioStream and what we actually write. This appears to be a (bad) habit of yours.

If I add all this up, interacting with you has, again, proven to be a waste of my time.

 

RE: Why not?, posted on November 2, 2016 at 11:05:07
Jim Austin
 >>But many engineers have asked: "What if multiple ADCs were used to record a single track? And what about cascading DACs?" How can one possibly correct for all of that?<<

A reasonable question, to which I can only provide a schematic (not exact) answer. I suspect a schematic answer is the best you're going to get (not that mine is the best possible). The MQA folks refer to their work on such projects as "white-gloving," the meaning of which is, I think, obvious. Bob and I talked a lot about this, especially in the context of early digital recordings. He said they've been studying a large cache of albums--about 10,000 high-res and about 10,000+ at CD resolution. In this way, they've learned a lot about what typical albums look like from a time-smear perspective and what problems arise. (Bob didn't say, to me, that their algorithm uses "artificial intelligence," although he did use the phrase. He said--I didn't check the transcript, but this is the gist--that it was sort of like artificial intelligence.)

I suspect though that the correct answer is, you can't correct for all of that, but you can correct for some of it. Which is to say, you can create a version of the recording that sounds better, not perfect.

As for your proposed "demo" track: that certainly would be interesting. Way back in February, I requested (not sure who I was communicating with then--possibly Stuart) graphical evidence: Show me what a transient, in real music, looks like before and after. I don't remember what the response was, but I never got the plot. However, something very close to that was published on the Stereophile site in the Q&A with Bob Stuart; look at graphs 8-13. Those plots are made using a DAC emulator because there's a basic measurement problem: To get a real signal out, you'd need to use an ADC and then reverse its characteristics.

Anyway, maybe we'll see something like that someday, but satisfying the skepticism of a few audio writers probably is not at the top of their to-do list.

>>Now to your problem -- my past life installing networks would say: "Ok, that's a problem for you and we might have to reduce the bandwidth - for YOU." (Providing other solutions don't work.) But what about me and countless others who don't have the issue -- why do we want to use a lossy compression scheme when we really don't have to?<<

Ah, I see your point. You're worried about the fact that it's not lossless, strictly speaking. I think this is a reflection of a shift of emphasis from the technicalities of the format to what's actually happening in the music. To worry about a bit of loss in the compression algorithm is to assume that every bit is equally important. As noted in several MQA documents, above a certain frequency there's no real information anyway--no information related to the music. Compressing that in a lossy way doesn't do a lot of harm. (I recall shaking my head the first time I saw the phrase "partial zero-emission vehicle" on the side of a Subaru. Compression in MQA is kind of like that: Partly lossless, partly lossy.)

Anyway, you can't always get what you want. I'm going to not finish the Stones reference. That would be too cute.

jca

 

Not a question of space, posted on November 2, 2016 at 11:07:58
Jim Austin
 You misunderstood my question, which was, do you give equal technical scrutiny--demand the same degree of rigor--in other aspects of your publication? Like the frequency response of cables?

 

Link to JAES paper, posted on November 2, 2016 at 11:24:11
Michael Lavorgna
 This link was included in a follow-up MQA article on AudioStream, post-CES.

Note: page 2 of that AS article is a response from Bob Stuart where he details all of the tracks used during the CES demos, including the microphone and ADC (where known).

 

Thanks Michael (nt), posted on November 2, 2016 at 11:25:26
Jim Austin
 .

 

I am reviewing the review, posted on November 2, 2016 at 12:30:35
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 and if the two of you think it is a waste of your time, then why bother responding.

 

RE: I am reviewing the review, posted on November 2, 2016 at 12:38:54
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 I didn't think it was a waste of my time. I just questioned why you felt that it needed more comparisons to be valid when the review just focused on the two supplies. I compared 3 power supplies in my review of the microRendu. I could have compared far more.

Again, you are entitled to your point of view.

 

RE: I am reviewing the review, posted on November 2, 2016 at 12:59:51
Michael Lavorgna
 As I've pointed out to you numerous times, my involvement here was to correct misleading and factually inaccurate information related to AudioStream. You brought up another review, here, so I responded.

 

RE: Not a question of space, posted on November 2, 2016 at 15:29:16
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Well, we don't measure the frequency response of cables, but we measure loudspeakers, amplifiers, and preamplifiers. Bascom King handles the electronics. I'm in charge of the loudspeaker-testing program, which is done with Canada's National Research Council. I can speak to the fact that those test are extremely rigorous and, actually, have had profound impacts on the design of various speakers and drivers over the years. So, yes, if you're wondering if the rigor and scrutiny are there, 100%.

Doug Schneider
SoundStage!

 

RE: Not a question of space, posted on November 2, 2016 at 15:45:05
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Hi Jim,

I like your responses (you explain your rationale well). I actually just landed in Warsaw, so there's not time for me at the moment to talk about your first points, but to the final one, about me worrying about it not being lossless, isn't quite right.

Bandwidth is increasing, data speeds are constantly getting faster, and on and on. Perhaps someone might think me "wasteful," but why not use the bandwidth if we have it? And we do (in most cases). But in places we don't, compress away. To me, though, MQA is, as someone put in a forum elsewhere, a solution looking for a problem. The problem it solves is irrelevant.

Back when I started looking closely at MQA, I called on some of the foremost experts in digital processing in hi-fi. The sources are going to be withheld (the gave me their candid feedback, but for my own education, not for publication), but I'll say that none of them are impressed, and insofar as the compression aspect goes, only one of them called it "relevant" -- then he added, "six years ago." He, too, sees little benefit. Why do it at all? Likewise, in Tokyo last month, I gathered a couple digital designers and go their take. They said "MQA is good... for your phone." Again, reducing the data transfer can have some benefits in that arena.

This is probably a point we can agree to disagree on. I see no benefit any longer with regards to the compression -- and it will become less relevant as every day progresses. In 2005 to 2008, maybe. 2016 and beyond, no. Others might, but I'll say this: When in the history of computers have we worked to consumer LESS space. Hard drives get bigger, RAM grows larger, networks get faster, simply to handle the constant increases in data use -- that will continue to increase.

Doug

 

RE: Not a question of space, posted on November 2, 2016 at 15:46:41
Jim Austin
 I was referring to this sentence in one of the more recent SoundStage cable reviews:

"Victor's last task was to balance the low, mid, and high frequencies of each of his analog cable models."

I'm not commenting on the efficacy of cabling, and yet, from any remotely scientific standpoint that's an ludicrous claim, repeated uncritically.

(To be clear what I'm saying, the frequency dependence of cables is easily measured to very high accuracy, and all reasonable cable designs are flat through the audio band to very high precision. A small number MAY have capacitance sufficient to cause interactions with the impedance of the components they're connected to, but usually not, or not to a measurable extent. Even cables with "network boxes" tend to roll off in the MHz range, if memory serves, or at least in the high 100s of kHz--much higher than any tweeter can reach.)

My goal is not to humiliate anyone but to point out that we all function routinely, to varying degrees, in a pretty subjective mode, which is as it should be: We're reviewing experiences after all. Some reviewers ignore science altogether, including some of my favorite audio writers.

It's completely reasonable to question MQA's claims, but then it's completely reasonable to question a lot of things. MQA's rigor and efficacy are far better established, in my view, as some of what passes as doctrine. Not that that's a bad thing.

Jim

 

RE: Not a question of space, posted on November 2, 2016 at 15:59:36
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 I 100% with you.

Just like if you put "on-axis frequency response, +/-1dB, 20Hz to 20kHz," there's a pretty standard way to verify it that the audio industry accepts. You put "lossless" in front a file-compression scheme, there is likewise standardized ways to test/measure that (compress, uncompress, all day long if you wish).

MQA definitely isn't being picked on. They simply put some claims out there that raised the eyebrows of people, including me.

Furthermore, I think what many people have objected to is the over-the-top coverage that some publications (print and online) have given it. As I mentioned, though, we have given it very little.

Speaking of very little, while traveling here I looked through "Sound on Sound" magazine, which is about 5X as thick as the thickest hi-fi print magazine and seemingly close to a bible for recording. But I couldn't see one mention of MQA in all of their articles in this issue. Could it be that all the hype is a small segment of the audiophile press -- and we all know how small that segment is and how much of an impact that will have on acceptance (basically, nothing).

Doug

 

RE: Not a question of space, posted on November 2, 2016 at 16:06:27
Jim Austin
 Thanks Doug. Re: the amount of coverage: If we're right, and it catches on, it's a very big deal and it should have been covered heavily. If we're wrong--especially about its efficacy--then it shouldn't have been. If we were right about its efficacy but it isn't embraced by the market, then an opportunity was lost, but hey, we tried.

Cheers,
Jim

 

RE: Not a question of space, posted on November 2, 2016 at 16:14:09
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Hi,

I apologize, but I actually edited my previous post about reading "Sound on Sound." Even with a few magazines pushing it as hard as they can, it will amount to little because in order to get anything accepted these days, it needs MUCH broader appeal.

Besides the questions of its usefulness, I also think that when you compare how the computer world has been development with open-source-type products, this goes straight away against that. To me, their model looks like one that would've maybe sold 15 years ago. Times have changed. Interesting article below, that looks at it from a completely different perspective.

I guess let me end this with the following -- in a year or two we'll know what happens with it (it'll catch on or it won't), so it would be interesting to discuss again then.

Doug

 

RE: Not a question of space, posted on November 2, 2016 at 16:16:56
Jim Austin
 You might be right; we'll see. If the music industry supports it--and there's some evidence that's happening--it might have a shot. Anyway, as Niels Bohr said (repeating something that someone else said first), it's hard to predict, especially the future.

jca

 

RE: Not a question of space, posted on November 2, 2016 at 16:20:05
Doug Schneider
Reviewer

Posts: 881
Location: North America
Joined: April 16, 2005
 Definitely, let's see what the future brings.

What my future is bringing right now is covering this Polish Audio Video Show, which seems to be a REALLY big deal nowadays. See link.

Doug
SoundStage!

 

RE: Not a question of space, posted on November 2, 2016 at 16:23:22
Jim Austin
 Would love to attend that some day--or maybe just go there when there's no audio show.

 

Sound On Sound..., posted on November 2, 2016 at 16:42:10
Michael Lavorgna
 ...covered MQA in August. Here's a quote from their conclusion:

"From the marketing and user convenience points of view, MQA seems to tick all the compatibility, convenience and practicality boxes for both consumers and vendors, and it appears to be able to deliver an astonishing level of time-domain performance never before seen in conventional digital systems."

 

RE: Sound On Sound..., posted on November 2, 2016 at 17:14:53
Isaak J. Garvey
Industry Professional

Posts: 1207
Location: Hollywod, CA
Joined: January 7, 2016
 You beat me to it. Was just gonna link. Been subscribing since day one.

This is the only article they have done on MQA. As compared to the coverage noted on all these threads.

On their forum, a few readers asked the aut

Any whoo.he claims they should be getting some encoding tools by years end and they will post pre and post samples. What a shocking idea. :)

 

RE: Sound On Sound..., posted on November 2, 2016 at 17:22:49
Michael Lavorgna
 ...is a great resource.

At the risk of opening yet another can of worms, when you say:

"This is the only article they have done on MQA. As compared to the coverage noted on all these threads."

Are you saying that the *least* amount of coverage is best when it comes to a new technology?

 

RE: Sound On Sound..., posted on November 2, 2016 at 17:32:09
Isaak J. Garvey
Industry Professional

Posts: 1207
Location: Hollywod, CA
Joined: January 7, 2016
 No, no hidden meanings.

As Doug said, the amount of coverage on the hifi side is disproportionate by a huge margin.

SOS is for pros who have a job. Get an artist's vision on tape, hard drive, etc, then getting it to the mastering engineer. They are not interested in concepts and theory, but proven working solutions.


 

How many threads..., posted on November 2, 2016 at 17:40:38
Michael Lavorgna
 ...have you initiated re. MQA?

As Doug has displayed here, he has no idea of the amount of coverage on MQA or its content. While I can see the appeal in warming up to anti-MQA sentiments while trying to demean the work of others, I'd suggest that ignorance is a hard sell to all but the willing.

We agree on SoS.

 

RE: How many threads..., posted on November 2, 2016 at 17:47:43
Isaak J. Garvey
Industry Professional

Posts: 1207
Location: Hollywod, CA
Joined: January 7, 2016
 I've read all your write ups on MQA, and the numerous show posts by othes at Sphile.

My quick summary, as to what MQA appears to me and many others..a solution in search of a problem.

-bandwidth saving...a non problem

-for improved lossless streaming....when lossless streaming has an incredibly unstable future

-post processing of master files...not remastering

-proprietary format, a specific fact which is only good for one entity...MQA/Meridian

Not to mention the need to invest in new hardware etc.

And, what has raised eye brows, is the over the top hyperbole by the hifi press. When John Atkinson says MQA is the most significant development in digital audio in 40 years, what would you except.


 

RE: How many threads..., posted on November 2, 2016 at 17:56:46
Michael Lavorgna
 My quick MQA summary is it makes music sound better and can be implemented by streaming services.

And no one *has* to buy anything.

You are confusing John Atkinson with Robert Harley. I know, all us audio reviewers look alike ;-)

 

Jsut curious..., posted on November 2, 2016 at 17:59:14
Michael Lavorgna
 Would you call this over-the-top hyperbole:

"[MQA] appears to be able to deliver an astonishing level of time-domain performance never before seen in conventional digital systems"

 

RE: How many threads..., posted on November 2, 2016 at 18:23:40
Isaak J. Garvey
Industry Professional

Posts: 1207
Location: Hollywod, CA
Joined: January 7, 2016
 "In almost 40 years of attending audio press events, only rarely have I come away feeling that I was present at the birth of a new world.

And in early December, at Meridian's New York offices, I heard Bob Stuart describe the UK company's MQA technology, followed by a demonstration that blew my socks off."

All that was missing were the tears (Peter McGrath supplied those) and the speaking in tongues, etc.

 

RE: Jsut curious..., posted on November 2, 2016 at 18:29:00
Isaak J. Garvey
Industry Professional

Posts: 1207
Location: Hollywod, CA
Joined: January 7, 2016
 Somewhat.

 

RE: How many threads..., posted on November 2, 2016 at 18:30:43
Michael Lavorgna
 This may come as a surprise Isaak, but some people who write for a living actually care about not only what they've written, but what is attributed to them. If you think that:

"When John Atkinson says MQA is the most significant development in digital audio in 40 years"

And

"In almost 40 years of attending audio press events, only rarely have I come away feeling that I was present at the birth of a new world"

Mean the same thing, I'd suggest you need to brush up on your basic English.

But I get it. Your mind goes all fuzzy when it comes to subjects you are passionate about. Like when you say I said that all of Sony's catalog would be available in DSD (I never said that).

The risk you run with your run-on nonsense is the "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" only not as important.

 

RE: How many threads..., posted on November 2, 2016 at 18:39:38
Isaak J. Garvey
Industry Professional

Posts: 1207
Location: Hollywod, CA
Joined: January 7, 2016
 Side note. You many find it amusing that Wikipedia used the same quote, and also dissected at head-fi.

 

RE: Jsut curious..., posted on November 2, 2016 at 18:40:08
Michael Lavorgna
 "SOS is for pros who have a job. Get an artist's vision on tape, hard drive, etc, then getting it to the mastering engineer. They are not interested in concepts and theory, but proven working solutions."

 

RE: How many threads..., posted on November 2, 2016 at 18:41:27
Michael Lavorgna
 No, I don't find this piddly nonsense amusing.

 

Not paying attention, posted on November 3, 2016 at 04:31:39
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 4045
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 >[Isaak J. Harvey is] confusing John Atkinson with Robert Harley.

Again :-(

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

RE: Sound On Sound..., posted on November 3, 2016 at 04:35:34
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 4045
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 >...covered MQA in August.

Like the comparisons at CES, if Doug hasn't experienced something
personally, it never happened :-)

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Sound On Sound...I can't recall, posted on November 3, 2016 at 08:45:55
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 this magazine ever saying anything but 'good' in equipment reviews. They don't go deep either.

 

You clearly have not read..., posted on November 3, 2016 at 08:54:22
Michael Lavorgna
 ...their article on MQA since they say much more than 'good'.

 

RE: You clearly have not read..., posted on November 3, 2016 at 10:14:54
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 Clutching for straws to reinforce your mojo?

Do it somewhere else.

 

RE: I am reviewing the review, posted on November 3, 2016 at 12:14:28
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 If you are reviewing the urendu, then what you say can be true, and, if I remember correctly, your review was on the mark. However, if you are reviewing a power supply, then the price and type factors that II commented on come into focus, especially in the light of an award being made on the power supply's performance against a 'rival' at 1/8 of the price.

 

Correcting you..., posted on November 3, 2016 at 13:55:26
Michael Lavorgna
 ...yet again.

Do you ever grow tired of posting nonsense. (rhetorical)

 

RE: Correcting you...What is to correct, posted on November 4, 2016 at 22:53:55
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 about your egoistic and rude posts in someone else's forum?

You have broken this forum's rules countless times. The decent thing for you is to move all this onto your own, and the more you post in this fashion, the more it exposes the inability to accept views from others.


 

"The definition of insanity..., posted on November 6, 2016 at 10:04:54
Michael Lavorgna
 ...is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."

;-)

It's been real, Fred.

 

RE: "The definition of insanity..., posted on November 6, 2016 at 10:17:05
SpotcheckBilly12345
 Lavorgna,

I'm not worried about the definition of insanity! This is, after all, an Asylum.

However, there's no room for egotistical right-fighters here. You've worn out your welcome.

Be gone!

SB

 

Page: [ 1 ] [ 2 ]

Page processed in 0.047 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]