Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 65

Thread: Further thoughts on MQA....is it all it seems???

  1. #21
    Member Sponsor Addicted to Best!
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Marina del Rey, CA
    Posts
    2,391
    Quote Originally Posted by ack View Post
    Davey, congratulations on being so open and honest about a potential change of heart - not too many are brave enough to do this. I'll just briefly repeat what I said in other threads:

    1) I was not as impressed during my recent MQA demo of original hi-rez material from 2L on the Berkeley Ref2 a couple of weeks ago, as I was with top plain RBCD from dCS and Spectral last year, with effectively the same rest of the hardware, if not a later/better revision of the Cygnus speakers in the MQA audition

    2) It still seems to me MQA is meant to be nothing more than "great sound for the streaming masses". We audiophiles have true hirez, if we need it, albeit the wasteful data sizes
    No offense - but your demo was all out of sorts. I wouldn't glean anything from it.

  2. #22
    Addicted to Best! DaveyF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    La Jolla, Calif USA
    Posts
    4,603
    So, to those who think that I am unreasonable or being ironic, I say this....

    I still stand entirely behind what i heard that night. The MQA demo's were eye opening. The SQ of the MQA vs. the standard file was VERY easy to hear...and was a clear advance across the board! Now, for some the fact that using one's ears is not enough. I get that...now. However, my frustration with many members on this board and others, is that they will play arm chair quarterback without having actually ever heard the gear in point or the resulting SQ. I did not ask my a'phile friend IF he had ever heard an MQA demo, this perhaps I should have. However, here's the interesting thing--- he agreed that the MQA files would have absolutely sounded better! The point that he brought to my attention...which I did not see brought up by any members here, was that the same results in SQ can be had by a simple up- sampling. I have heard demo's in the past wherein up-sampling was utilized ( from redbook) and could clearly hear the differences as the sample math increased ( although to a certain extent, at a certain level, the differences between the sample rates began to diminish!)
    Did I post this thread to be flamed and blamed...not really ( it's ok, i have a pretty strong flame suit, LOL), but i did because it occurs to me that at this point, there can be some validity to what my 'expert' friend stated. Is it an absolute that he is correct and MQA is nothing more than a scam??...that-- as I think I stated above, remains to be seen. What is NOT in contest is the fact that all in attendance, including myself, were a) highly impressed by the increase in SQ ( and all of the descriptors that are typically used to describe SQ) and b) the enthusiasm and belief that the demonstrators had for the technology the night of the demo.
    If the technology ( or lack thereof) proves to be bogus and the demo was in fact somehow 'gamed'; then all I can say is that is a serious shame and would not play well on the participants. OTOH, and this is what i would prefer to believe, either a) my 'expert' friend is somehow wrong ( although his explanation seemed to be quite apropos) or b) the participants were and are as enthusiastic as I was and yet they too are being hoodwinked. Again, time will tell.

  3. #23
    VIP/Donor [VIP/Donor] microstrip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    11,962
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveyF View Post
    So, to those who think that I am unreasonable or being ironic, I say this....

    I still stand entirely behind what i heard that night. The MQA demo's were eye opening. The SQ of the MQA vs. the standard file was VERY easy to hear...and was a clear advance across the board! Now, for some the fact that using one's ears is not enough. I get that...now. However, my frustration with many members on this board and others, is that they will play arm chair quarterback without having actually ever heard the gear in point or the resulting SQ. I did not ask my a'phile friend IF he had ever heard an MQA demo, this perhaps I should have. However, here's the interesting thing--- he agreed that the MQA files would have absolutely sounded better! The point that he brought to my attention...which I did not see brought up by any members here, was that the same results in SQ can be had by a simple up- sampling. I have heard demo's in the past wherein up-sampling was utilized ( from redbook) and could clearly hear the differences as the sample math increased ( although to a certain extent, at a certain level, the differences between the sample rates began to diminish!)
    Did I post this thread to be flamed and blamed...not really ( it's ok, i have a pretty strong flame suit, LOL), but i did because it occurs to me that at this point, there can be some validity to what my 'expert' friend stated. Is it an absolute that he is correct and MQA is nothing more than a scam??...that-- as I think I stated above, remains to be seen. What is NOT in contest is the fact that all in attendance, including myself, were a) highly impressed by the increase in SQ ( and all of the descriptors that are typically used to describe SQ) and b) the enthusiasm and belief that the demonstrators had for the technology the night of the demo.
    If the technology ( or lack thereof) proves to be bogus and the demo was in fact somehow 'gamed'; then all I can say is that is a serious shame and would not play well on the participants. OTOH, and this is what i would prefer to believe, either a) my 'expert' friend is somehow wrong ( although his explanation seemed to be quite apropos) or b) the participants were and are as enthusiastic as I was and yet they too are being hoodwinked. Again, time will tell.
    DaveyF,

    IMHO if you want to post anonymous "expert" opinions you must be able to understand them fully, present them clearly with some detail and discuss them. What you posted is IMHO meaningless. I have a DAC that can up-sample to any format and the differences are listenable, but at level of preference, not to the scale you are referring. People have been using digital format transponders for long and know what are their effects - the small improvements they show are normally due to better matching the DAC, no miracles.

    BTW, Bob Stuart is a know member of the professional audio community since long, with a long and prestigious CV, http://www.aes.org/events/137/presenters/?ID=2425 and recently won the CEDIA's 2015 Lifetime Achievement Award (According to the press release: "The CEDIA Lifetime Achievement Award recognizes an individual who has exhibited outstanding, creative, innovative, and visionary leadership in the growth and advancement of the residential electronic systems industry. Nominations are submitted by industry professionals and are evaluated on the basis of achievement and service within the industry).
    Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/...CVsrw4PtMkV.99".

    Just to say I would suggest some contention when debating MQA.
    Under construction around a pair of Wilson XLF's , Forsell Air Force One, ARC Phono 2SE and a DCS Vivaldi 2.0 stack : cj GAT + cj LP275m's, TA OPUS MM2 +TA XL digital, TA XL gen V power cables ...

  4. #24
    Member Sponsor Addicted to Best!
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Greater Boston
    Posts
    3,027
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterA View Post
    Good one Marc. I have asked this very question in the past of those who defend RBCD. Perhaps ever increasing bit rates and word lengths was an attempt to improve the sound of digital while we waited for the implementation of standard RBCD playback to improve.
    That is mostly how I see it, yes. High bit rates are useful for mixing/ mastering to prevent losses of resolution during these processes, but I am not convinced that they are needed for delivery of the final product.

    As for the MQA issue, I agree with the praise for Davey's intellectual honesty, but also with the criticism of his attitude towards those who were skeptical from the beginning.

    I have had problems with Davey's idea that only MQA allows digital to get closer to the performance of analog. As someone who has heard spectacular, incredibly natural sounding RBCD performance that is in many ways competitive with analog, and for some sonic aspects even makes me wonder if analog can match them (hopefully), I found Davey's claim highly incredible, literally.

    Also, Davey's findings that MQA made such a great difference are not universally shared. In some cases even negative effects on sound quality have been reported.

  5. #25
    Member Addicted to Best! NorthStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
    Posts
    17,100
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveyF View Post
    Today, I had a very enlightening conversation with a former WBF member, who one might consider an expert in the digital audio field.
    Who exactly is he, Davey? ...If I may ask.
    All the Very Best, - Bob --------- "And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison --------- AudiophileAudition

  6. #26
    Member Sponsor Addicted to Best!
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    London
    Posts
    6,818
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterA View Post
    I wonder if that someone once went by the name of Blizzard or Amirm.
    No, he said digital experts, not analog experts.
    Audition recordings: Zero Distortion Link; Reference Components: Zero Distortion Link; Own: Lampi GG One-day-to-get: Apogee Scintilla, or a horn (with Tenor 75 OTL ), Preamp to be fit in to suit the gain and drive the power amp. Analog: TBD

  7. #27
    Member Sponsor Addicted to Best!
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,276
    There's nothing gamed or bogus, other than your friend's "explanation".

    For the record, I've tried all sorts of upsampling on the MSBs, using what's possibly the best upsampling engine out there (HQplayer), and native sounded better every single time. And I can easily and repeatedly demonstrate that. So if you (or your friend) think MQA is just some fancy upsampling, maybe that would've worked on other DACs, like Meridian's, that wouldn't have benefitted the MSBs at all.

    I honestly fail to see the point of this thread...
    Disclosure:
    Alma Music and Audio - La Jolla, CA
    Aqua Hi-Fi - Audio Research - Audioquest - Audionet - Audiopax - Auralic - Aurender - Bergmann - Brodmann - D'Agostino - darTZeel - Devialet - DEQX - ELAC - Evolution Acoustics - Hegel - iFi - Innuos - IsoTek - Kii Audio - Koetsu - Kronos - Kubala Sosna - Kuzma - Larsen - Linn - MSB Technology - Music Hall - Ortofon - Roon - Solid Steel - Sound Galleries Music Server - Technics - Wharfedale - Wilson Audio - YG Acoustics
    [ http://almaaudio.com ]

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by asiufy View Post
    There's nothing gamed or bogus, other than your friend's "explanation".

    For the record, I've tried all sorts of upsampling on the MSBs, using what's possibly the best upsampling engine out there (HQplayer), and native sounded better every single time. And I can easily and repeatedly demonstrate that. So if you (or your friend) think MQA is just some fancy upsampling, maybe that would've worked on other DACs, like Meridian's, that wouldn't have benefitted the MSBs at all.

    I honestly fail to see the point of this thread...
    MQA TRUTH:

    The absolute FACTS about MQA:

    1-Bob Stuart and Meridian have lost over THIRTY MILLION dollars since the inception of the company in 1977.

    2-Bob Stuart married an incredibly wealthy heiress whose family pumped millions in to the business.
    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02710631

    3-The company is currently financed by a outside investment company.

    4-MQA fired their US based PR firm after one year, because they had effectively
    co-opted the audio press. This was part of their business plan, to use "influential
    journalists" to convince consumers that MQA was a valid technology. Robert Harley,
    and John Atkinson and his crew have done absolutely no critical reporting in regards
    to MQA.

    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09123512

    5-MQA is lossy, and distorts the frequency spectrum. It is 13-17 bits maximum, with no valid musical
    information about 48 kHz. Completely unfolded MQA to 24/96 or 12/192 is in the form of upsampling.

    6-MQA is proprietary DSP. It is an applied digital filter. It is a post processed version of the mastered file, removed by one generation,
    and distorted.

    7-MQA was marketed on numerous lies.

    -It must be applied at mastering: lie
    -it is necessary, to save bandwidth: lie
    -it is "authenticated" by the artist, the producer, and the mastering engineer: lie

    8-To date, only two human beings have had their "master files" encoded by Bob Stuart.
    Peter McGrath and John Atkinson. Numerous others have asked have not been accommodated.

    9-The following have publicly spoken out against MQA:
    Charles Hansen, Ayre Acoustics
    Andreas Koch, Playback Designs
    Jason Stoddard, Mike Moffat, Schiit Audio
    James Tanner, Bryston
    Doug Schneider, Soundstage
    Paul McGowan, PS Audio
    Mark Waldrep, AIX

    plus, many, many more.

    The following companies have spoken out:
    Benchmark Media
    Linn

    MQA is a disgusting money grab.

  9. #29
    Member Sponsor Addicted to Best!
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    E. England
    Posts
    4,266
    Here we go...

  10. #30
    Addicted to Best! awsmone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Canberra Australia
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by spiritofmusic View Post
    Here we go...
    +1.....their polluting my vital bodily fluids by a fluoride conspiracy

    MQATruth is an interesting character....joined on 14th of Sept and has one post and no personal details.....
    "An audiophile is only done when they go to the great brick and mortar store in the sky"

    [/B]
    [I]Monaco tt 1.5 triplanar/Xv1
    Bakoon two box phono; step up Cinemag, Altec, FR, RCA
    Halcro DM 8 running current mode
    Bespoke server Roon and HQplayer at dsd2
    Atomic clock to USB aes interface
    Meitner DA2
    Lamm m1.2 or Goldmund 29M
    Morel Fat Ladies
    Bespoke active crossover 5 Subwoofers
    Sony PSX9 XL55 Bakoon phono
    Pioneer PLL1 DV XV1s Esoteric E03/CO2 as output
    Stealth cabling

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Accuphase DP-900/DC-901...thoughts?
    By NMMark1962 in forum Digital Audio Forum: DAC, Transports, Digital Processing
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 12-12-2016, 01:14 AM
  2. Some Initial Thoughts
    By Steve Williams in forum T.H.E. Show At Newport Beach
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: 06-13-2013, 02:37 PM
  3. First thoughts on the DMA-400
    By ack in forum Spectral Audio Amplifiers, CD transports and Cable Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-10-2013, 07:41 AM
  4. Thoughts on Relationships
    By MylesBAstor in forum Off Topic Forum-Anything Goes
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-04-2012, 06:04 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •