|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.54.49.94
In Reply to: RE: How do YOU feel about MQA? posted by Michael Lavorgna on October 27, 2016 at 18:41:27
Hi Mike,I really have no idea what you're referring to exactly. I know we talked in Munich, but I don't recall anything about Peter McGrath's recordings.
In any event, I don't feel too bad about beating any drum because it's important to ask some questions. If you read my editorial from earlier this year, I asked a lot of questions about MQA and, also, exactly what writers at CES 2016 were actually listening to. I believe it's pretty clear that proper comparisons weren't really done back then. As far as my questions go, I never got very good answers, either. And in the time since, I've had many more come to mind, as have others.
Shouldn't someone be asking these questions? Surely, you can see on the forum, that there are a lot of people who have similar questions and concerns.
I think the biggest thing, though, is the lack of proper comparisons. From what I can tell, they're just not being done. And when I talk to manufacturers who have explored it, they're finding the same. It's on the folks at MQA, not us, to provide that.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
Edits: 10/27/16Follow Ups:
Hey Doug,
"I believe it's pretty clear that proper comparisons weren't really done back then."
Are you hard of hearing? ;-)
We had this conversation in Munich in the atrium with Jeff sitting at the same table. In any event, your 'proper comparison' theory has been addressed in any number of reviews and show reports. I realize the appeal of the "I wasn't there" approach, but you have to admit that someone like John Atkinson listening to his own recordings pre- and post-MQA is fairly compelling. No?
> > > > In any event, your 'proper comparison' theory has been addressed in any number of reviews and show reports.Really? Show me where.
> > > > but you have to admit that someone like John Atkinson listening to his own recordings pre- and post-MQA is fairly compelling. No?
As I wrote to John on a thread that's presumably way, way down, obviously doing what he did is what needs to be done. However, I also noted that in his pseudo-blind test he said he identified MQA 5 out of 8 times. To me, that's not very impressive, particularly with your own recordings. Statistically, someone can score 50% just by guessing. If it was 7 or 8 of 8, I'd be more convinced.
Don't forget, this is being touted by some as a "breakthrough" and beyond anything we've heard before.
Doug
Edits: 10/27/16
Really? Show you where?
You are making the claims, Doug. I'd think you'd have the appropriate research to substantiate them. No?
Your reference to JA's "pseudo-blind test" is yet another red herring, Doug. While I understand your desire to shift the subject, the fact remains that JA listened to his own recordings pre- and post-MQA. Your point was no one heard a proper comparison.
Hi Mike,
You're putting up straw-man arguments. Sorry.
My point when I wrote that article was that proper comparisons weren't done. From what I can tell, I was right.
As far as doing my research, I did. Read that article. I read all the articles I could find on MQA and even read the patents. Sorry, no comparisons I could find. That's why I say "show me."
As for JA, yes, finally, someone did. But then he did and scored 5 of 8. I explained why that didn't impress. However, I'm all for more comparisons! But like I said, it's on the ones making the claims.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."
I beg to differ, Doug. I am refuting your claim that proper comparisons were not done. Get it?
Yes Mike, I get it. Now pony up -- show me all those comparisons...
Doug
Pony up? Get along little doggie ;-)
The CES comparisons with Peter McGrath's files. John Atkinson's comparisons with his own files. My comparisons which I detailed in my MQA review.
Are those enough ponies for you, Doug?
Wow, so that's what's in your deck?
Ok, I'll just move along, thanks. We don't have to discuss it anymore.
Doug
My deck?I can see why you'd like get along, little doggie but let's talk about people like Morten Lindberg of 2L. He's gung ho on MQA -- based on his own recordings.
Care to explain the lack of rigor in his comparisons, Doug?
My deck seems to be fuller than yours but please do press the issue.
Edits: 10/27/16
I thought you'd be able to direct me to much more. Frankly Mike, it's OK to just let this go in this particular part of the thread.
Doug
How much more do you need, Doug?
Quite a bit more than that. If you're hanging your raves on those items, go for it. Like I said, let's drop for this part unless there's more.
Doug
My raves?
That is exactly where you cross the line of reason, Doug. But please do stick your guns and promote the "If Doug hasn't heard it, it doesn't exist." thing. Just don't count on me to be a cheerleader.
What he is trying to say, and I think it is pretty clear if you WANT to listen, is that you and other were raving about MQA PRIOR to any comparisons every being offered. Capice?????
He, and the rest of us understand, that later, direct comparisons were done by specific people, some with their own files (Atkinson, McGrath) and some with well known music (Doors, etc).
Please point me to where I was raving about MQA prior to listening, Isaak.
When you fail to produce said link, I won't accept your apology.
You are being argumentative and really disingenuous.I NEVER said you or anyone else raved without LISTENING. I said there was unusual enthusiasm PRIOR to comparisons. NOT before hearing it.
Is that CRYSTAL CLEAR?
I too have sat in on MQA demos. With no comparisons offered. With most of the same files you probably heard early on. Ella, etc.
Edits: 10/27/16 10/27/16 10/27/16
OK. Point to where I was unusually enthusiastic prior to a comparison.
When you fail to produce a link, I won't accept your apology.
"While I'm still attached to the original LP, for any number of reasons, this MQA version is among the most extraordinary sounding digital I've heard. There was a uncanny soft naturalness to Jim Morrison's voice that belied both the digitalness of the format and the relatively modest system in use. Every other musical aspect of "Riders On The Storm" was given the same natural, or perhaps better stated as you-are-there, sound. Stunning."
So Mike, CES report..where is the direct comparison?
Nice, Isaak.
So...you hold no value in listening to a recording for decades in every format. For more than 30 years.
Wow. you got me. I did not directly compare The Doors' "Riders On The Storm" in MQA with the LP, cassette, CD, CD-rip, or high res download that I've been listening to since the '70s.
You drive a hard bargain, Isaak. A silly, nonsensical bargain, but it sure is hard ;-)
If it makes you feel better, you ain't the only sinner..a number of your colleagues were just as "enthusiastic" prior to any direct comparisons.
I bet I can leave us in agreement about one thing..if I understood you correctly, the MQA version was, in your opinion, the best digital version you have heard, but you can't tell me that a pristine, mint vinyl copy, or the recent AP AAA remaster is bettered by MQA or any thing else, aside from the master tape.
A few minutes after The Doors, I went a few doors down and heard direct comparisons. But I can see why you'd want to bypass this fact -- it doesn't fit your story.
I can tell you this -- you and I speak very different languages when it comes to the enjoyment of music.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: