|
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: Dreaming in Technicolor... posted by Michael Lavorgna on October 31, 2016 at 06:35:24
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
Edits: 10/31/16Follow Ups:
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?
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?
Edits: 10/31/16
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.
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.
Edits: 11/02/16 11/02/16
"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.
and if the two of you think it is a waste of your time, then why bother responding.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You lost me here...
Can you explain more?
Doug
It's abut the standard of reviews, as your post alludes to.
I take it you are saying the standard of my reviews are not up to your standards. So it goes, Fred.
Cheers.
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.
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.
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: 10/31/16
> 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: