|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: Just a couple of points posted by DAP on August 16, 2017 at 13:28:59:
Hi,Thanks for the shoutout. I believe I was one of the first (maybe the first) to actually raise questions about MQA. Not taking sides -- just questions that no one seemed to be asking and no one from MQA seemed to really want to fully answer (yes, I spent over an hour on the phone with Bob Stuart about it). Important questions.
Why this all started was after I'd read reports about the amazing sound of MQA at CES 2016. In reading these reports, it left a big question in my mind whether any valid comparisons were being made. For the most part, it seemed as if MQA files were being played on their own. When there was mention of a comparison, it was in relation to source files where it wasn't clear that the master for it and the master for the MQA file were the same. I remember the comment that really stuck out -- Michael Fremer commented on the sound of an MQA file in comparison to a CD release from some years back. As most of us know, that's not a valid comparison at all -- the masters likely weren't the same. Furthermore, I can bring out numerous CDs of the same title and they don't sound the same (mostly, because they're not derived from the same masters). To do real comparisons, you have to begin with the same sources and then VERY CAREFULLY monitor each stage of the file or media creation so you know you're comparing apples-to-apples. For many writers, this seems to have been forgotten (or not known).
So this started me on my quest, after which I wrote the first article. After that article was published, I went to an MQA demo at High End 2016, in Munich, to learn even more. In the room were about 20 members of the press. The MQA demo consisted entirely of ... get this ... only MQA files being played. No comparisons, nothing. It was only Roy Gregory and me (that I know of) who asked Bob Stuart point blank why there was no comparisons done. Once again, there was no real answer.
Afterwards, however, I saw many reports from writers who were in the room -- the same demo as I was at -- about how great the whole thing sounded. Compared to what?
I think the lack of proper comparisons, from the outset, and why so many writers bought in so quickly, is what's going to be the discussion point in, say, two years' time. Why two years? In two years' time, we'll know if this MQA idea sticks and is a core part of the market, or if it will go the way of HDCD, DVD-A, and so on. In two years, I also predict that many of the magazines we have today probably won't be here (such as it is with the publishing world today), but what transpired in 2016 and 2017 over this topic will be an interesting talking point -- and, perhaps, a lesson to be learned from. Let's see...
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
Edits: 08/17/17 08/17/17
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Two Years... - Doug Schneider 07:56:08 08/17/17 (2)
- "many of the magazines we have today probably won't be here" - DAP 10:41:00 08/17/17 (1)
- RE: "many of the magazines we have today probably won't be here" - Doug Schneider 12:55:19 08/17/17 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
