good science and sound reproduction..our values.

DaveyF · Aug 31, 2017

In several of the MQA threads, I see a persistent point that several of the more ' scientific ' members post... and that is, if the science doesn't make sense to us, then the resulting sound quality cannot be there, or at least be anymore than an illusion that probably doesn't exist!
Question is, and like I posted on the MQA thread started by Al M, how valid a point of view is this, since the many skeptical posters have never actually heard the piece in question, or the supposed technology at work.
Is it possible that without the scientific aspect being understood by all, that it is perfectly valid to dismiss the gear as nothing more than 'BS' marketing, since the science makes no sense to the scientific community on this forum.
While I agree that the amount of pseudoscience and other 'BS' marketing has been prevalent in this hobby, there was a time when the lowly tube was discounted as inferior to the new fangled solid state amps...with only a few sole hold outs, like WZ Johnson as an example....
Perhaps we are all getting more skeptical of all new gear as it is released due to a) our scientific biases and b) our prior bad experiences with the 'BS' marketers.
Your thoughts??

Mike Lavigne · Aug 31, 2017

I've mostly stayed out of the MQA discussion, as the issues other than what I hear interest me little. I was one who was very skeptical for a number of reasons; Bob Stuart seemed not credible, the early MQA dog and pony shows I attended at shows were offensive to me, the whole vibe seemed a money grab. then there were the statements by various entities as to why MQA was not a thing to pursue. I was pretty negative.

but what the MSB Select II does with MQA is quite remarkable. OTOH I have not taken the time to actually directly compare the MQA files to original digital or vinyl.

listen to MQA with an open mind before you dismiss it. and don't allow the dots not connecting in your understanding to close your mind. what it is or isin't objectively is secondary to what it does.

FrantzM · Aug 31, 2017

DaveyF said:
In several of the MQA threads, I see a persistent point that several of the more ' scientific ' members post... and that is, if the science doesn't make sense to us, then the resulting sound quality cannot be there, or at least be anymore than an illusion that probably doesn't exist!
Question is, and like I posted on the MQA thread started by Al M, how valid a point of view is this, since the many skeptical posters have never actually heard the piece in question, or the supposed technology at work.
Is it possible that without the scientific aspect being understood by all, that it is perfectly valid to dismiss the gear as nothing more than 'BS' marketing, since the science makes no sense to the scientific community on this forum.
While I agree that the amount of pseudoscience and other 'BS' marketing has been prevalent in this hobby, there was a time when the lowly tube was discounted as inferior to the new fangled solid state amps...with only a few sole hold outs, like WZ Johnson as an example....
Perhaps we are all getting more skeptical of all new gear as it is released due to a) our scientific biases and b) our prior bad experiences with the 'BS' marketers.
Your thoughts??

Davey

I don't think the issue is Science , it is that this doesn't seem to be an Apple to Apple comparisons... mastering trumps format differences in most cases. Do you know the provenance of the MQA you heard? As compared to ...

spiritofmusic · Aug 31, 2017

Re MQA, we kinda need a hundred titles chosen at random, pop, rock, dance, electronica, jazz, classical
And compare to non MQA
And see how across the board MQA outperforms

rbbert · Aug 31, 2017

In general, it's not the science that is in question (there isn't any science involved, really) it is the technology. Science would involve double-bind testing, with all that implies both positive and negative. The technology and engineering involved is a different thing. Better understanding of both the science and the technology would probably be helpful, but it's really only the latter that is being discussed.

DaveyF · Aug 31, 2017

FrantzM said:
Davey

I don't think the issue is Science , it is that this doesn't seem to be an Apple to Apple comparisons... mastering trumps format differences in most cases. Do you know the provenance of the MQA you heard? As compared to ...

The MQA demo I heard was given by Peter Mcgraph, he stated he was using the original red book files that he engineered. Peter demoed those files against the same files updated with MQA...I believe by the techs at MQA.
Since Peter was the mastering engineer for all of the files, and should know how he mastered said files, I would think that this issue would be moot in this demo.

Science and technology, I would think that these two go hand in hand. If listeners/members are not understanding the technology, are they not also not understanding the science behind the technology??

If we are talking about the scientific method behind the demonstrations, that is another matter entirely. That has not seemingly been the case, but I would feel that the demo was perfectly valid, for the reason given above.

Folsom · Aug 31, 2017

rbbert said:
In general, it's not the science that is in question (there isn't any science involved, really) it is the technology. Science would involve double-bind testing, with all that implies both positive and negative. The technology and engineering involved is a different thing. Better understanding of both the science and the technology would probably be helpful, but it's really only the latter that is being discussed.

Yes. Audio is engineering 99% of the time. Almost no one at all that is into audiophile stuff actually works on scientific things which is purely about collecting data.

I got a question, is it ok to dump on MQA purely because it's a money grab?

DaveyF · Aug 31, 2017

Folsom said:
Yes. Audio is engineering 99% of the time. Almost no one at all that is into audiophile stuff actually works on scientific things which is purely about collecting data.

I got a question, is it ok to dump on MQA purely because it's a money grab?

Who says it is purely a money grab??
Sure it is designed to make money, like any technology or product, but why is it any more of a money grab than say the latest CD from Adele? Or the latest amp from ARC or whatever...please do inform us..

So no, IMHO it is absolutely not ok to dump on MQA unless one has actually listened to it and in a fully unfolded manner-and heard that it does nothing whatsoever to the SQ. Then, and maybe not even then, ( based on your hearing acuity) it "might" be ok to be a naysayer...assuming that one can respect the fact that possibly others are hearing something that perhaps you are not!

Folsom · Aug 31, 2017

Davey if you haven't read about the money grab aspect, you haven't really read about MQA. There's dozens of articles like this floating around the net - some look like technical talk but point this out too.

DaveyF · Aug 31, 2017

Folsom said:
Davey if you haven't read about the money grab aspect, you haven't really read about MQA. There's dozens of articles like this floating around the net - some look like technical talk but point this out too.

Ok, but understand that not all content has to be heard in MQA. That's a choice that the consumer is going to make. Buy into MQA and you will pay a higher price than the standard redbook format...and judging by my ears, you will get a higher resolution product. Same choice as those who buy into tape vs. other formats. Buy tape and you get a higher resolution format and you pay more for it...( sometimes a lot more, looking at some of the new tape sellers).
But few would argue that the tape sounds superior to the other formats that the piece in question is available on. ( at lower price points).

I think the question here is not so much that MQA will be ( or will not be) a money maker, the question seems to be that many are so skeptical of the increase in SQ.
BTW, when was the last time that you heard that tape buyers were complaining of the price of the new tape releases...while I'm sure that most tape listeners are not pleased by the pricing structure, I suspect that most know that the format is currently a limited market (and as such the price per unit has to be increased). IMHO.

Folsom · Aug 31, 2017

IMO there isn't close to enough good music coming out with a production value worth a damn. I cannot condone trying to get small studios struggling to look at purchasing a bunch of stuff to meet some standards that don't necessarily offer anything at all.

asiufy · Aug 31, 2017

Folsom said:
IMO there isn't close to enough good music coming out with a production value worth a damn. I cannot condone trying to get small studios struggling to look at purchasing a bunch of stuff to meet some standards that don't necessarily offer anything at all.

Who says it doesn't necessarily offer anything at all? You?

KeithR · Aug 31, 2017

Folsom said:
Davey if you haven't read about the money grab aspect, you haven't really read about MQA. There's dozens of articles like this floating around the net - some look like technical talk but point this out too.

Nobody complains about DVD and blu ray licensing fees.

DaveyF · Aug 31, 2017

KeithR said:
Nobody complains about DVD and blu ray licensing fees.

Odd isn't it!

Folsom · Aug 31, 2017

KeithR said:
Nobody complains about DVD and blu ray licensing fees.

Those are not as intrusive. I suggest you read up on MQA. Plus the movie industry is huge and all the "recording" is paid for by the box office and then some (unless it is a total flop). There just isn't much relation.

DaveyF · Aug 31, 2017

Folsom said:
Those are not as intrusive. I suggest you read up on MQA. Plus the movie industry is huge and all the "recording" is paid for by the box office and then some (unless it is a total flop). There just isn't much relation.

I don't know what it is, but am I one of the few to use this term...: IMHO!

Folsom, you do know what this means, correct??

LOL

Folsom · Aug 31, 2017

No idea what you are going on about.

rbbert · Sep 1, 2017

KeithR said:
Nobody complains about DVD and blu ray licensing fees.

Actually, not quite true. Bluray audio licensing fees are commonly mentioned as a big reason that more BD Audio is not released. For example, the Jethro Tull deluxe reissues (usually with Steven Wilson remixes) are on DVD and DVD-Audio for that very reason. And since perversely the licensing fees for BD video can be manipulated depending on content, there are some other (essentially) audio only Blurays that have some added video content and are sold as "movie" BD's (and thus can't be readily played without a monitor hooked to the player, not true for BD-Audio)

good science and sound reproduction..our values.

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Industry Expert/VIP Donor

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Similar threads