Home Critic's Corner

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

Yahbut...

There have been many "over the top" proclamations about MQA being a "breakthrough" and "making hi-res obsolete" and the "birth of a new world" kinds of thing. How does that square with this paragraph from Michael Lavorgna's article in AudioStream?
~~~~~~~~~~
Just how much of an improvement over non-MQA encoded music depended on the recording, and just how wow-inducing these changes were depended on the DAC. For me, when just listening to music I enjoy, MQA was a nice-to-have change in the queue but, and this is an important but, I was not somehow suddenly disappointed with my non-MQA music. Sticking with Mytek's Brooklyn and HQPlayer, I was able to get nice and cozy with all of my music, no problem. Did I miss MQA? For some recordings, like the Doors, sure. But not so much as to get around the fact that for my listening habits, MQA needs to offer a very large catalog of MQA-encoded music before I get really excited.
Read more at https://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-reviewed
~~~~~~~~~~
I believe that much of the answer lies in the "comparisons" that Bob Stuart did for people like Peter McGrath and John Atkinson. Unlike almost any commercial file, these files not only use far simpler recording chains, but every single thing was known about them, including the brand and models of the ADCs, the brand and models of the mic preamps, the brands and models of the microphones, and according to JA, "as well as the mixdown I sent Bob Stuart each of the 3 mike-pair recordings, including an impulse response recording for each, and full details of the mix". (see link below)

It is difficult to find impulse responses of microphones, but I can assure you that they are *far* worse than even the worst digital filter I've ever seen - even a 1/4" high-frequency measurement microphone used to measure up to the 60 kHz range. A typical large diaphragm (1") condenser mic (eg, a Neumann U47 as used by many, including George Martin for most of The Beatles main tracks) will be an order of magnitude worse than any digital filter.

If Bob Stuart is correcting for the impulse response of the microphones (and *clearly* he did for JA's files, else why ask for it?), then *far* more dramatic effects could be created for these files than for virtually *any* commercial release. The same is almost certainly true for Peter McGrath's files.

Bob Stuart is a very eloquent and persuasive person (as can be seen here, where he tells everyone why MQA *should not* be adopted! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdlmp7zpXLM )

This could explain how both perceptions could be "true". ML heard small, yet meaningful improvements as he was listening to commercial releases that only had minor changes to the digital filtering. JA and PM heard *massive* changes to their own personal files as Bob Stuart was compensating for the *microphone's* deficiencies, which are far larger than those of any digital filter. Not a fair comparison in my book, but apparently successful in swaying the opinions of those who supplied files of their own recordings.


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Signature Sound   [ Signature Sound Lounge ]


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.