|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
77.245.70.171
So Michael Fremer joined the MQA Army with his absurd review of the Brinkmann DAC, linked below. This review is so flawed, it is difficult to know even where to begin.
It is also hard to know whether it was an infommercial for MQA or a DAC review.
"Listening to MQA files supplied to me for this review or streamed from Tidal HiFi/Master made two things clear: Those who claim they can't hear a difference between CD-resolution files and hi-rez MQA files either haven't bothered to listen, or don't want to admit that their claims of "CD sound is perfect" are just plain wrong."
First absurdity. MQA claims to encode HIREZ master files, so comparing MQA to CDs is DISINGENUOUS or just plain lazy and ignorant. You can choose.
"MQA has been convincingly demonstrated at Consumer Electronics Shows.."
Really???? Convinced WHOM?
"...and most recently at an event sponsored by New York City dealer Innovative Audio, where Wilson Audio Specialties' Peter McGrath, an accomplished recording engineer, played unprocessed hi-rez files of his simply miked orchestral recordings, followed by the time-corrected MQA versions. The differences were profound, and obvious to all attending: The MQA versions had greater image solidity and three-dimensionality, and wider perceived dynamics"
UNTRUE. It was NOT obvious to all who attended, here is proof:
"I heard a very hi-end demonstration of MQA about a month or so ago in NYC. Peter McGrath did the demo with his own recordings (24/96) that had been MQA processed. We had a chance to hear the original and then the MQA version. The setup was as follows: Wilson Audio Alexx speakers, top-of-the-line VTL preamp and amp. and Meridian DAC (of course). The music wasn't what I usually listen to, however, the difference was very clear to everyone in the room (including Michael Fremer, who was seated next to me). I expected to hear equivalence (i.e. that MQA had done no harm), however, there was clearly a difference. The MQA sounded somewhat brighter and had more presence! It reminded me at the time of the "loudness button" and old amps that I had 30 years ago (I had not seen the May 2017 Stereophile at the time of the demonstration).
I managed to corner one of the MQA guys who accompanied Peter and after some prodding by me he explained that they do DSP of the signal as part of the MQA encoding to "make it sound better". While he did not go into any great detail, he indicated that things are done to try to reduce pre and post ringing that are present in almost all digital audio signals. I can only speculate that this involves some kind of digital filtering of the original signal.
Based on this one demonstration I certainly would not advocate for spending time and money on MQA (and risking falling into the clutches of Meridian). Since my preferred digital is SACD I do not see any need for MQA and I certainly do not want anyone using DSP on my digital data streams to make them "sound better"
If I had been able to vote I would have voted for the following:
I won't use it as it doesn't offer me anything I don't already have
I think we have sufficient formats to manage high quality audio already
I think Meridian are focusing more on creating a revenue stream."
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/meridian-mqa-poll.4349
And this may take the cake:
"As for MQA's ability to "fold" and "unfold" very large files for streaming and playback, hearing 24/96 and 24/192 files streamed through the Nyquist via Tidal was an ear-opener. Had this been CD sound in 1983, I'd still be an LP guy-but I'd also be all in with digital."
Probably the most ridiculous and clueless statement in the review.
Fremer claimed to have a hard drive filled with hirez files. Why NO COMPARISONS with these files?????
And now we have entered, new, territory, maybe the lowest point for Stereophile for MQA...drum roll..MQA bettered an LP...
"For instance, when I played James Taylor's cover of Carole King's "You've Got a Friend," from his Mud Slide Slim and the Blue Horizon (LP, Warner Bros. 2561), through a Lyra Atlas SL or Ortofon A95 cartridge and the CH Precision P1 phono preamp, it didn't sound as warm and full-bodied as did the MQA version through the Nyquist. I'd never before heard Leland Sklar's bass sound so voluptuous, or Taylor's voice so mellifluous, honey-coated, and round-bodied as it did digitally, through the Nyquist."
and
"The same was true of "My Home Is in the Delta," from Muddy Waters's Folk Singer-also an MQA file. The guitar and drums are in greater relief and with better articulation of transients on a vinyl reissue (LP, Chess/Analogue Productions AAPB 1483-45) but would probably not be so when using a Koetsu or other warm-sounding cartridge."
Knock me over with a feather. I did not peg Fremer for a company man and a pathetic shill for Bob Stuart.
Follow Ups:
I agree with Dick's* sentiments regarding Fremer's review of the Brinkman DAC- for a reviewer of his stature, comparing MQA files to CD-resolution files is suggestive of a desperate attempt to prove one's point, even in the face of significant lack of strong supporting evidence.
As for me, the decision has already been made: I will neither purchase an MQA enabled DAC, nor will I pay extra "masters" fee if TIDAL decides to pursue this option. I consider MQA a format/scheme that stands in stark contrast to the spirit of Hi-Fi. Indeed, it is both lossy AND inaccurate....
This is evident from everything that has been written about it, and in fact does not even require a listening test.
If like minded audiophiles support this and take similar courses of action, MQA may fail - a very good thing in my opinion.
* I also agree that his relentless pursuit of Stereophile often gets in the way of his better judgment. I very much disapprove of his Stereophile hate crusade in this forum.
Edits: 08/04/17 08/04/17
"does not even require a listening test"
Of course everything you have in your system was bought without ever listening to them. By the way there is plenty out there where people have listened to MQA and like it. Also there is no charge for MQA files streamed on Tidal. I assume you also buy cars without driving them
Alan
Hi
I am not sure that I was clear enough: I am all for listening tests, but not for lossy formats. Better work harder on hardware (i.e. Dacs) than corrupt the original file a la MQA
Edits: 08/05/17 08/05/17
The kind of signal processing that we're talking about here can likely be accomplished without distorting or adding anything artificial to the signal. It's just being corrected in the time domain.
The additional resolution uses lossy compression but we aren't talking MP-3's here -- done properly, that needn't be audible. And arguably, given a limited bandwidth, lossy compression can always sound better than lossless compression.
I'm not sure why you have a bee in your bonnet over this, or why you think that MQA couldn't potentially better an LP, which is hardly a perfect medium.
Personally I think Garvey missed the boat on the LP comments in Fremers' 'review'.
To me, Fremers' comments relative to LP seemed all about demonstrating how the sound of the Brinkmann so obviously colored.
Sometimes said the turntable sounded better, sometimes not. And his overall reaction seemed positive.
Personally, when I see someone using tubes in a DAC, I tend to suspect that he's going for euphonic coloration. It always seems slightly absurd to me.
What I found really amusing, though, is that when I went to check out the Modern Jazz Quartet album mentioned in the review, I saw that both the CD and MQA versions were on Tidal. So I said "Aha! I can do a comparison" -- but when I went to compare, the channels were reversed!
So I guess MQA fixes channel reversals as well.
Why would tubes in a DAC output stage suggest euphony any more than tubes in an loudspeaker amplifier or preamp (or even microphone) might?
Admittedly some implementations are merely buffers or tone controls, but better implementations are exactly that: better (than a solid state equivalent).
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
based on the application and the review.
The superior overload characteristics of tubes can be advantageous in a power amplifier and a mic preamp, and I've never heard a transistor power amp that has the palpable three-dimensional imaging of tubes. But in a non-equalized gain stage with a well-defined gain structure, tubes seem to me to add coloration without a commensurate sonic advantage.
nt
I'm mostly retired now apart from the occasional consulting gig, but back in the day I was an EE who specialized in pro audio and video facilities design, with side trips in EDTV, HDTV, and 3D TV research, and designing and manufacturing a digital audio editor for the professional market.
Now I that I'm no longer working six days a week I've had some time to go back to my audiophile roots. You wouldn't believe how many audio engineers I know whose personal systems are in a perpetual state of disrepair. :-)
nt
.
Preserving it as close to the signal generator (in this case the DAC) as possible perhaps means more fidelity gets through the rest of the amplification chain? Once this fidelity is lost or filtered out by lesser stages it can't be regained, I presume.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Actually, it's true -- pretty dreadful things happen when you introduce nonlinear distortion early on in the signal chain. Non-linear distortion is in principle not reversible and when you go through multiple stages that each have non-linear distortion, you end up with a fearsome thicket of intermodulation products because each stage distorts the existing distortion products.
So I'd say you definitely want your DAC to be as clean as possible. The DAC itself is late in the chain (most audiophiles would turn pale green if they saw what the typical signal goes through in the typical commercial recording), but it's still before the power amp and speakers, which typically add more nonlinear distortion than anything else.
However, as with all things in audio, it never ends up being quite as simple as it seems. Some distortion products are euphonic or inoffensive and I think we've all heard recordings made in the days of tubes that sound colored but lovely, while recordings made a few years later through solid state equipment make your hair stand on end. The nature of the harmonic spectrum matters -- low order and even order harmonics tend to sound euphonic and the ear is very tolerant of them; conversely, we're exquisitely sensitive to crossover notch distortion and it sounds quite unpleasant.
I think psychoacoustic masking also plays a role here, in that you won't hear distortion through a stage that has similar distortion at a higher level, e.g., a speaker that has higher second harmonic distortion than an amplifer, but you will hear it if the distortion is of a different type. DACs have their own distortion mechanisms that can be different in nature from those of a gain or buffer stage.
The reason I mention that is because sometimes I think it can be advantageous to take advantage of the distortion characteristics of a device by not adding a device that has a different kind of distortion characteristic. Consider that a DAC will generally have very low THD. If I were to add a stage that had high THD, I would be adding a *different* kind of distortion to the characteristic distortions produced by the DAC.
One way of looking at this is that records have ticks and pops, which are annoying. Digital doesn't have ticks and pops, but has other forms of distortion -- preringing, say. If I took digital audio and added ticks and pops to it, I'd be adding a *different* kind of distortion. Or vice-versa. So I tend to think that it's best to stick with the devil one knows, or the strengths that are peculiar to a given medium.
In practice, though, so many factors are involved that it's typically impossible to say whether an approach works without listening. Even then, there's going to be a certain element of preference involved -- I know forex based on experience that I'm not fond of euphonically colored tube equipment (back in the day, my Conrad-Johnson pre went, replaced by a passive preamp I built, when I tried bypassing it and heard just how much it was altering the line-level signal), but others really love it. So even an accurate review can't tell you for sure whether you'll like something unless you're familiar enough to the reviewer to know whether his tastes are similar to your own.
And when you came back after a week, I trust that your MQA obsession will be over. Everyone knows how you feel and now, you're just sounding like a broken record.
Thank you.
-Rod
Has something changed?
-Wendell
No, nothing has changed.Responses to your post doesn't affect editing. That only applies to deleting your post which can't happen after a response if posted. However, there is also a time limit of 24 hours for deleting, but I don't believe there is any restriction on edits other than being logged into your account.
I just edited this post.
-Rod
Edits: 07/27/17
???
-Wendell
Are you seeing your Moniker and a Profile/Logout link in the upper right corner? If not, you don't have an Asylum login cookie. Click on the Remember Me box the next time you post. I'm guessing that you're getting your Moniker and Password auto-filled, but aren't setting a cookie which is required to the the Edit and Delete links in your posts.
-Rod
Thanks,
-Wendell
Hi Rod,
I find it laughable that Isaak has the title Industry Music Professional, it hardly seems apposite. I can think a few titles more appropriate but, at the least, can we change it to Industry Music "Professional".
TiA
13DoW
Nt
the poster is correct in saying
''It is also hard to know whether it was an infommercial for MQA or a DAC review''
The audio review part is patently poor as Fremer didn't really assess the products ability to play uncompressed high resolution sources to any degree of depth and launched his assessment of MQA v CD right from the start.
John Atkinson's measurements, however, did address the unbalance in the audio review and prompts the question ''Why should anyone spend $18000 on this kit on the basis of such an audio assessment''
Fremer should really stick to analog reviews only.
On another issue, why are you complaining about a justified expression of opinion, however, frequently expressed?
Absent objective measurements, his analogue reviews are no better.
Jeremy
Perhaps, this particular post has merit; however, we have been getting comments from many Inmates regarding the poster and the subject as a recurring issue that leads to a contentious thread. It stuck me that his antagonistic attitude toward John Atkinson and MQA borders on an ongoing vendetta which was my reason for taking this action.
Feel free to disagree.
-Rod
Now that we've established that Fremer is a paid shill we can drop all this vinyl nonsense and concentrate on real high fidelity - digital.
I'm no fan of Mr Garvey, even if I agree with him on MQA, but really, The Board lets FMAC run wild, insult others and provoke them with no censure while threatening those he provokes.
When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it. ~ Bernard Bailey
You have a point. Our problem is that the Bored tends to let everyone run wild and we rely on the Inmates to alert us to these problems. We just can't read all the threads and tend to peruse the forums where we have more of an interest.
It's the old squeaky wheel scenario. Often, we unaware of the issues, so alerts get our attention.
-Rod
and those who insist on getting into pissing contests with him have been sanctioned as well (right Abe?)
OK, perhaps not this board, but certainly Computer Audio Asylum.
Fmak provokes and lures others into pissing matches and when HE gets pissed on he cries foul and complains... you know the rest.
Agree completely.
...in fact, he seems to have a very valid perspective.
No, it is the combative, demeaning, and adversarial posts that diminish the community, IMHO. And the apparent baiting of Mr. Atkinson is completely untoward.
The OP needs to just learn to present his views without the cage fighting trappings and we can all get on with discussing audio.
Nt
This DAC is somewhat unconventional, and bound to attract some jeers from the peanut gallery considering it's design, price, and test bench performance. So from the tone of his writing it seems like Michael was having a bit of fun with this review. He does like to stir it up from time to time, so it wouldn't surprise me if he deliberately threw some MQA trigger words in there just to spur some extra back and forth.
NT
I would add, the things that the OP is commenting on are also frequently expressed, thus lending themselves to be commented on.
Rod M has posted nothing of substance on the issue.
(nt)
or are you thanking him NO?
Very confused.
Is it: No, Thank YOU!
Or is it: NO, thank you!
(nt)
or thanking him NOT.
(nt)
nt
you by choice of course.
Anyway, that exchange was nothing - someday the polarity debates will start up again and we'll ALL want (or need) a vacation.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
My apologies to Geoff Kait. I think the Intelligent Chip actually works. Just ask Jim Austin :-)
I doubt if Meridian/MQA's end game is to be a rent collector. They're probably hoping to be bought out by somebody big. Real big.
Daniel
...IIRC, Microsoft bought out Pacific Microsonics of HDCD notoriety.
Mike has torpedoed many pieces he didn't think met his standard. He has lobbied for analog when everyone else was raging about DAC's. He listened to this piece and liked it and it is digital. I'll take him on his word that he really likes it.John gave it less than a glowing review and couldn't reconcile its problems.
Maybe Meridian's algorithm is crap and a hoax or maybe it is not, but regardless, in this review Mikey likes it. Doesn't mean I'd like it, nor does it mean I would buy it. Mike buys tonearms and tables that cost as much as a home in my neighborhood. Doesn't mean I would, either. However, I'm glad he reviews them and much more.
Edits: 08/01/17
....does Mike think MQA is ripe for a tech giant buyout?
The major music labels stand to gain the most. A new format gives them the opportunity to sell their back catalog yet again, while keeping the "crown jewels", i.e. the digital masters, out of the public's hands.
I don't see much in it for a tech giant (Apple, Microsoft, Google, et al.)
...anything can happen. Tech giants tend to have more free cash than music cos.
Edits: 08/03/17
Who knows?
(nt)
He was thanking Rod and I agree.
but...
I appear to be mistaken.
And I think Charlie may have gotten it right and I got it wrong but I'm still not 100% sure.
Maybe MKuller just doesn't care for MQA and/or Fremer?
Mystery to me.
...YOU = Rod.
I wonder how prevalent the "tired of IG's anti MQA crusade" sentiment really is.
Garvey's crusade is tiresome, redundant, insulting and, at this point, worthless. It's the same crap regurgitated for the same handful of sycophants.
Just because you don't see people complaining on the threads doesn't mean they aren't complaining to moderators.Garvey has turned the Critics forum into a joke.
I've been a member since 2000, I left for close to 10 years, as there were a handful of people that made the site an unpleasant experience. I was younger, and made the mistake of engaging, or in some cases defending. I have since learned it is usually best not to engage trolls, and those with a cause or agenda. If there is an anti MQA consortium, Garvey is their shill. We get it, we may even agree on some points, but it is long past the time to let it rest.
When I had money, I was a contributor. I still have 3 Asylum t-shirts that I wear occasionally. When I joined it was the best audio forum online. But once again a handful of people make it a miserable place. If it was my forum, I would just permanently ban the troublemakers. They are small minority with a large presence.
I came back a few years ago, when I wanted to get into PC audio. I received a lot of help from some good people. But the longer I am back, the less time I spend here. Only checking in once or twice a week, more if I get involved in a thread. After reading the latest attack on MQA, I am going to be scarce again. I doubt that very many will care. But it is not a pleasant place to spend time.
I'm not a big fan of MQA, but not because it exists, but the way it has been marketed. I got a 3 month trial to Tidal, right after they added the MQA files. Most sound pretty good partially infolded. I did question a sameness of sound, take The Doors, they all sound very similar, considering they were recorded at different times. When I mentioned it to an audiophile friend, he said our local dealer/Guru liked it. Case closed. Well, I think that is what happened with the reviewers, it sounds better than the CD quality version next to it on Tidal. It took a while for people to question whether we were hearing the same versions, from "the" master. All the early demos were carefully prepared, and provided by MQA. So, of course they choose files that would impress.
If my friend, and our local Guru liked it, it must be better. And they aren't shills for anyone, they just liked what they heard. By the way, the dealer does not sell Meridian.
Well, now instead of correcting timing errors, and deblurring there is DSP, that kind of covers how you would correct things, but we are now finding out that there is also EQ being applied.
I think as long as MQA does not become the only format available, and doesn't eventually bring about a price increase at Tidal, I'm fine with it. Although I would rather have access to Quboz[sp?] and their hi-rez files.
What I am getting really tired of is the personal attacks on Stereophile's writers. I have been a subscriber since 1993. You have to read a lot of reviews to learn a writer's bias and taste. I may be in the minority here, but I like and to various degrees respect the reviewers. I like Fremer, if I won the lottery, I would pay him for his time, to actually hear his system, Art's, Kal's, and John's too. I haven't read the review in question yet, but I already have a short list of digital gear, so it will be read for the entertainment value. If you want to find fault with Fremer, consider that he sits 85" from his big Wilson's. That is too close, in my opinion.
As a music lover who is not ashamed of being an audiophile. My love of music is what has driven my appreciation, and my upgrade path. Money being the only thing standing in my way of owning a much more expensive system. I want to get every last hz and decibel of the music I love.
This may be my last post for a while, I'll check back from time to time, to see if it gets better.
I hope you will contribute more now on the Green Door forum, I love to prove you wrong on everything.
Edits: 08/07/17
You have me mistaken with someone else. I had to do a Google search to find out what the Green Door was. I don't spend time on political sites.
By the way, I could use a hug, just not from you.
Sad!
yep, there is no such thing as 'safe space'
"So, of course they choose files that would impress"
Same thing happened in rollout of SACD, DSD and Hi-Rez . Nothing new here
Alan
...and maybe even create a vacation opportunity hereabouts.
For example, in principal JA could respond to a post that suggested that Stereophile was allowing itself to being co-opted in the promotion and marketing of MQA. Reasons could be given, arguments made. But how could he possibly respond to a post that suggested, it hasn't been suggested, but if it had been, that he was in it for pay to play? At that point, no discussion is possible.I think the mods should be more vigilant, not less, in stamping out personal impugnment.
Daniel
Edits: 08/01/17
Don't see much in favor of it as my DAC will never have it as a feature, nor do I care.
MQA for TIDAL is fine but it requires a computer to unfold so my uRendu won't do it, again, not that I care.
That said, I thing IG goes way overboard on his continuous and personal vendetta against anyone and everyone who supports MQA, including reviewers.
If MQA is doomed on its technical merits, why all the fuss and personalizing of the discussion?
I think what bothers IJK is that Stereophile has been effectively co opted into the marketing efforts of Meridian, and is a participant in its marketing events, including the link JA posted. Just read the quotes, I mean, if you read what Stereophile writers and editor post on AA, it sounds pretty normal, but if you compare to the writing about MQA in Stereophile, that sounds like ad copy. That's not to say it is ad copy, just that it sounds like ad copy. You don't need a deep learning AI toolbox to distinguish the styles. The case is made from the quotes themselves.Daniel
Edits: 07/28/17 07/28/17
All the positive reviews in the world won't save MQA if there is no need for it.
Who's going to make and sell a CD with a proprietary lossy CODEC in order to offer 'higher rez' when they can't even sell SACD which is REAL hi-rez? And that in a market where CDs and SACDs are dying anyway?
Downloads?
Who's gonna pay for a 'hi rez' download that is not REALLY hi rez but a lossy compression that requires a specially licensed DAC to play back?
Unless it's a WHOLE lot less money for that MQA file. And how can that be when bandwidth cost is such a very small cost of delivering a $20 hi rez download?
Are any of the download sellers offering MQA files as 'hi rez' downloads for sale right now?
Anyone plan to? If so, at what price?
MAYBE the TIDAL use case makes sense. The user pay no premium to stream the MQA title over the cost of streaming the same title at 16/44.1 (once you pay your $20 per month). Plus it's unfolded but the TIDAL player software requiring no special DAC.
MAYBE this helps TIDAL sell their service? Maybe? I really don't think it saves TIDAL any money in bandwidth costs over streaming a 16/44.1 title and I don't see it making them additional money or them charging more for the service because a few files in the catalog are MQA 'MASTERS'. OK, yet.
So other than making the TIDAL service somewhat more attractive than a streaming service where ALL of the titles are limited to 16/44.1, it's hardly worth paying the MQA folks a huge licensing fee.
While I have heard MQA, seen and heard the demo at multiple shows, have an MQA capable DAC (Meridian Explorer 2), and agree that TIDAL MQA Masters sound BETTER than the same title at 16/44.1 Lossless FLAC (unfolded by the TIDAL software and fed to my multi-bit ladder DAC without any MQA capability), I still don't see what all of the fuss is about.
And who pays any attention to what the magazine guys say anyway? They mostly rave about stuff most of us can't afford. :-)
The magazine guys have some effect on the conversation. For example, in a recent thread on the Naim forum, one poster replied to sceptics,"A lot of reviews by audio specialists were made, pointing that mqa offers sound improvement. They tested it and compared the sound of mqa/ non mqa files on the sound quality side. I am more confident in reviews of absolute sound, hifi critic and stereophile than speculations of some members who are trying to play specialists"
However, apart from extolling its technical merits, what the magazine guys are also doing is allowing themselves to be co-opted into the promotion and marketing of MQA , by being salivating participants in it's press events, with a tear in the eye and a sock on the floor. In addition, in their reviews, they have miraculously rediscovered the notion of a 'con', namely, "does not support MQA". And they have a new 'pro', positive reception at an MQA press event.
In effect, they are putting their weight behind manufactures like Pioneer and NAD , who are embracing MQA, and against those like Linn and Schiit , who are not. Siding with manufacturers who wish to ride the tide of MQA, and against those who are concerned about a supply chain monopoly and revenue grab, or the aesthetics of adding an MQA idiot light to their boxes.
Daniel
Edits: 07/30/17 07/30/17 07/30/17 07/30/17 07/30/17
This reply brings back memories of a joke told to me by an Englishman, forty years ago: "There were two sailors scrubbing a deck, and one of them said to the other, pass me the soap."
Edits: 07/30/17 07/30/17
Kal, I'm not following you. Did you reply to the correct post? The post to which you replied had conflicting things to say in the subject and the message. If that is the post to which you meant to reply, was your post meant to apply to the subject or the message? I'm confused...
n
I do not necessarily read posts in chronological order and you didn't put quotes around the quoted text.
It could have applied to any number of posts.I am at Tony's, in line for a hair cut. I do "look around". There are no audio magazines. There is a small stack of playboy magazines, which nobody looks at. I don't recall anyone ever looking at them since I've been coming here, which is over twenty years.
Daniel
Edits: 07/31/17 07/31/17
...where he excoriated the audio print magazine's coverage of MQA?
That is why your post (with nt) made no sense to me. The take home message I got was that "Yes, people pay attention to print magazines, but they are foolish for doing so."
"Yes, people pay attention to print magazines, but they are foolish for doing so."
Not what I took away from his post, but it's a pretty good point! ;-)
I took away from his 'look around' post that audio magazines were important because WE are here discussing them (we being those posting here).
That might be a hard point to defend though as we may be about it. :-(
The attention paid here is tacit acknowledgement that people do pay attention the magazines.
MQA, however, is not that important to me.
n
n
Who do YOU think is selling more DACs?
OK, the Chinese, but that wasn't the question. ;-)
That said, the 'Chinese' will likely never license MQA, so there is that.
As far as the 'Magazines' are concerned, I wouldn't expect them to favor NAD over SCHITT even had MQA never been created.
"And who pays any attention to what the magazine guys say anyway? They mostly rave about stuff most of us can't afford. :-)"
If nobody paid attention to the magazine guys they wouldn't still be in business.
Just curious.In high-end audio, I can recall several products that broke sales records because all of the reviewers and press universally sang their praises. Examples include the Audio Research SP-11, the Mark Levinson 30/31 transport + DAC, the Wilson WATT/Puppy Mk III, to name just a few.
How many people still own those products and still cherish them, do you think?
Edits: 07/28/17
lots of folks are gonna buy MQA enabled DACs and never have much use for the feature. Much like the Dolby feature on my old Marantz 2325 receiver from the early 70's.
In which case, production streams become sufficiently co-opted by the widespread insertion of a format of dubious virtue *requiring* future listeners to pay to listen. I think this is Meridian's marketing and business goal.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
If there had never been any coverage of MQA in The Absolute Sound or Stereophile, do you really think that anybody would care about it at all?
Do you think that seeing an ad for MQA would generate as much interest in it as currently exists?
Or what exactly is the mechanism generating the interest? Is it just notices sent out to Tidal subscribers?
Or maybe - just maybe - the fact that for the last ~18 months one cannot pick up an issue of either magazine (or view their websites) without constant exposure to the "Does it have MQA?" question?
"If there had never been any coverage of MQA in The Absolute Sound or Stereophile, do you really think that anybody would care about it at all?"
Short of a few dozen folks that post here, I not sure anyone does.
Just spent two days at the California Audio Show here in Northern California and didn't hear MQA mentioned once. OK, small show (20+ rooms) and Bricasti canceled. :-(
For sure it isn't TIDAL because I still can't find any link on the TIDAL site that will give me the FULL listing of ALL MQA titles.
Sounds to me like the REAL problem here is not that the magazines are 'shilling' MQA, they're just driving the manufacturer crazy by making it a point to mention 'MQA or not MQA' in all of their reviews.
But they did that with DSD as well and we all lived through it.
DISCLOSURE: My two main DACs (main system and headphone system) cost me $2000 each and neither does either DSD or MQA.
Guess that's what happens us poor fools who don't subscribe to audiophile magazines. :-(
I see 3 possibilities:
The ears of some/all of the reviewers in those mags who've highly praised MQA suck.
The praise/publicity has essentially been paid for by MQA's creators/owners and such comparisons as there've been are apples/oranges or worse.
The reviewers who've praised it are experienced listeners who've heard lottsa dacs/filters/files, have at least decent ears and genuinely think MQA sounds *exceptionally* good.
You gonna say which possibility you believe explains the praise?
Door #2.
...and casts doubt on on the value of MQA to the consumer who will ultimately be paying for whatever it ends up costing licensees.
As I have pointed out many years ago, one of the US print magazines is strictly "pay for play". They will not review anybody that doesn't advertise and conversely will literally put a brand new brand on the map if they advertise enough.
As far as MQA, the ultimate cost will be *FAR* higher than just the royalties and licensing fees.
No proper comparisons? You don't say... ;-)
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
nt
I wouldn't mind "lifting her veil"... :-)EDIT: Apologies for the bad sexist joke that only makes sense to Americans unfortunate enough to have been exposed to TV game shows.
Edits: 07/30/17
In this forum and the digital one. On the engineering and the economics.
It even makes me think twice about some of your earlier posts :-)
Thank you,
Daniel
Thanks for the kind words. As with all my posts, I call them as I see them. For whatever it's worth, I've been a hobbyist for over 50 years, a repair tech and DIY'er for over 45 years, a professional designer and manufacturer of loudspeakers and electronics (analog and digital) for over 35 years, and have a degree in physics. I think it's safe to say that my opinions are formed on the basis of more experience than most. It's up to others to judge whether they are biased, based on whatever motive one might imagine.
Strictly my personal opinions, prone to error, and not necessarily those of my employer or guru.
nt
.
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
(Proverb)
n
doth protest too much, methinks.
> "MQA has been convincingly demonstrated at Consumer Electronics Shows.."
>
> Really???? Convinced WHOM?
See link below, Dick.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I would have loved to hear that. I've been listening to MQA off Tidal through an updated Dragonfly DAC but haven't yet had a chance to compare a processed recording to redbook or native high res.
I honestly don't understand why people are getting so upset about MQA.
That is just the human condition. Trying to show how smart you think you are.
If you like MQA then buy into it. If you don't like it then nobody is forcing you to listen to it. I never cared for DSD but I didn't call people who liked it stupid. I bought a few DSD downloads, even bought a dac that would do DSD ,listened for a while and then walked away. Why would anybody care. If you don't like MQA I don't care. Whatever turns you on. I don't get caught up in the technical arguments because my experience shows that technical info seldom tells me what something will sound like. I happen to prefer stuff that does not measure that great. Tubes, ladder dacs and Maggies
Alan
Yeah, arguing on the basis of technology just doesn't cut it.
As an engineer, I'm naturally intrigued by measurements, and understand that they're a necessary design tool. But I learned many years ago that they won't tell you how good equipment sounds, because we either don't have all the measurements that we need, or we don't know enough about how the brain responds to them. Besides which, he didn't /understand/ the technology.
Funny that you mention Maggies, since I've been rebuilding an old pair of Tympani IVA's and they're getting to the point at which I listen slack jawed because they can be so damned natural, even spooky, on acoustical music. Now I can think of some highly-regarded and superb-measuring $100,000+ speakers that are loud, clean, deep, and measure well, but just don't sound real.
I think part of the problem in this case is that we tend to look at the wrong measurements, e.g., quasi-anechoic measurements that don't correspond to what the ear hears in an actual listening room, and so don't reflect the advantages of a well-designed dipole line source.
I was recently reading through an old thread and someone mentioned the uncanny holographic imaging of tubes, which I think we've all heard. He said it seems to occur even in hybrid amps as long as the tubes are used in the output stage. So why the hell do tubes do that? I can't find anything in the measurements or the literature that explains what's going on.
I've also heard many express a preference for ladder DAC's. There's some funny stuff going on in delta sigma/DSD, e.g., the noise shaping, and again, I can see why some might prefer the sonic trade-offs of one technology to another. But how the hell does one quantify the perceptual effects of ultrasonic noise, particularly given that electronics may react differently to it?
Over the years, you begin to tease out some of the relationships between measurements and what we hear, and there's been some good research e.g. on the audibility of distortion or amplitude response aberrations. But our knowledge is still amazingly incomplete and I continue to be puzzled by much of what I hear.
Still, whether one discusses listening or measurement, I think it should be about the audio. Calling a writer a "shill" just because one happens to disagree with his conclusions is uncalled for and reduces the level of the conversation to that of a Congressional sound bite.
.
What exactly is being compared here? The "before and after MQA files"?
From the article:
before/after comparison of McGrath's recording of the Escher String Quartet and pianist Ben Grosvenor performing a Dvorak Piano Quintet.
McGrath's 24/88.2k recording of Michael Tilson Thomas and the New World Symphony performing the start of Mahler's Symphony 5.
Keith Jarrett's famed live 1975 Concert in Köln (recorded in the Opera House in Cologne, Germany). Lucky for us, Stuart had been able to get his hands on a 96kHz transfer of ECM's analog master tape.
Then the Michael Fremer quote:
"The CD of the recording ... " vs "the MQA version"
Fremer's quote suggests that you were comparing CD quality to MQA.
Other parts of the text suggest that you were comparing high definition files to MQA versions?
Thanks,
Daniel
NAME CALLING AGAIN. Classy. Trying to get yet another thread taken down?
What are you afraid of?You clearly suffer from some form of Asperger's.
The fact you let this "review" got to press strips you of all credibility.
You post a link written by one a major MQA shill? Laughable.
What a hack.
Edits: 07/26/17 07/26/17
Calling 'shill' on Fremer is pretty 'dickish' behavior IMNSHO.
For all of his flaws, and Fremer has MANY, shilling for manufacturers ain't one of them.
Telling GREAT stories of other reviewers who have been known to do a bit of 'shilling' might be one of them.
n.t.
when you are just as guilty of name calling.
n.t.
Subject line was of my post was referring to the OP.
Sorry.
n.t.
Gee, you're the one who said asking for good faith and goodwill is a farce. Does it depend on whether it's you or somebody else talking?
Lawyer. Of course.
Nt
I don't think anybody could defend that review, could they? As a review? Regardless of where they stood on MQA.Daniel
Edits: 07/26/17 07/26/17
I love this comment Really cracked me up-
"Digital has finally arrived!
Submitted by AJ on July 26, 2017 - 6:16am
So it turns out after a couple decades, the the missing ingredients that made unmusical digital so cold, harsh and sterile were:
Low frequency distortion and random noise added at playback and then a nice little dose of High frequency anharmonic aliasing distortion "fold"/embedded into the audio band during the encoding stage.
Cool ;-)."
YES, YES, YES !
MQA: disk space and bandwidth saving for TIDAL, losing money because of supposedly better sound for us !
MQA is like a cheap sort of a circus act:
"Do you see a rabbit ?
I will cover this rabbit with my hat....
Abracadabra.... rabbit covered by my hat has disappeared - WOW.
But wait - don't touch the hat !
It's not the end of this trick - abracadabra... and can you see ?
Unbelievable - rabbit again is under my hat !
It's really amazing !!! "
Beautifully said!
I can't believe that The Bored puts up with this garbage, or that any good person would want to be part of a community this polluted. Isn't this supposed to be a forum for discussing our hobby in good faith and with goodwill?
If they write what is effectively ad copy?
IJK does cross the line a bit, he could have left out the last sentence.
I hear you, however, I think it crosses the line when a magazine, supposedly with a mission to serve consumers, publishes disingenuous bunk.
"good faith and goodwill" What a farce.
That sounds like ad copy, a review wouldn't read like that.
Indeed it is marketing copy.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: