THE HIFI FIVE ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION STREAMING LIVE ON YOUTUBE PREMIERING IN OCTOBER!

[Al M.]

Thanks for telling us about your biases. IMO the jury should ignore any of your comments on any brand having MQA. I regret it, you said nice things in the past about dCS ...

I am not as intellectually and emotionally confused as to be unable to separate sound quality from issues of business integrity. dCS has given me several memorable moments in the past about what is possible with digital, and my fondness of those memories is not diminished in any way. And I am sure your dCS Varese sets new standards in digital.

It is curious that many people had similar feelings about SACD in the past - in reality it was a format released mostly to control recordings, avoiding piracy due to its strong copy protection.

I don't think you can compare the two. The SACD format was/is a valid effort and not a technical fraud.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I don't think you can compare the two. The SACD format was/is a valid effort and not a technical fraud.

question; if i have a few dozen streaming recordings where i prefer the MQA version on multiple dacs to various non MQA versions, then how should i view MQA objectively?

and fyi, i view Bob Stuart in a primarily negative perspective relative to his attempts to monetize my music over many years.....related to MLP and MQA. OTOH lots of Meridian gear is pretty good. My first high end gear was a used Meridian Transport and Dac.

 

[Al M.]

question; if i have a few dozen streaming recordings where i prefer the MQA version on multiple dacs to various non MQA versions, then how should i view MQA objectively?

It could simply be that the underlying mastering is better.

and fyi, i view Bob Stuart in a primarily negative perspective relative to his attempts to monetize my music over many years.....related to MLP and MQA. OTOH lots of Meridian gear is pretty good. My first high end gear was a used Meridian Transport and Dac.

Bob Stuart did important pioneering work in digital, and I also owned Meridian gear in the Nineties that I have fond memories of.

That was before he went to the dark side of trying to monetize things whichever way he could, presumably because his companies were in financial trouble.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

It could simply be that the underlying mastering is better.

ok, that is one possibility and.......really......just a deflection.

Bob Stuart did important pioneering work in digital, and I also owned Meridian gear in the Nineties that I have fond memories of.

i dislike what i've heard from his active speakers, and his multichannel efforts, but do appreciate his 2 channel dacs and digital players.

That was before he went to the dark side of trying to monetize things whichever way he could, presumably because his companies were in financial trouble.

yup.

 

[Elliot G.]

What does any of this have to do with the Hifi Five?

 

[Al M.]

i dislike what i've heard from his active speakers, and his multichannel efforts, but do appreciate his 2 channel dacs and digital players.

Yes, I had the Meridian 208 CD player and the 602/606 CD transport/DAC.

 

[Ron Resnick]

MQA is irrelevant to this thread. Please kindly take that topic elsewhere.

Thank you.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

What does any of this have to do with the Hifi Five?

RT66indierock likes to bring up his anti-MQA activities on a regular basis which then triggers the subject. ask him why he does that.

 

[Elliot G.]

RT66indierock likes to bring up his anti-MQA activities on a regular basis which then triggers the subject. ask him why he does

Wow just wow

 

[Lee]

I am not as intellectually and emotionally confused as to be unable to separate sound quality from issues of business integrity. dCS has given me several memorable moments in the past about what is possible with digital, and my fondness of those memories is not diminished in any way. And I am sure your dCS Varese sets new standards in digital.



I don't think you can compare the two. The SACD format was/is a valid effort and not a technical fraud.

I don’t believe MQA is a “technical fraud”. If you listen to the filters in place there is definitely an improvement in sonic performance with MQA encoding. The Stuart Craven AES paper was peer reviewed and highly regarded. In my opinion, their mistake was a marketing claim it was lossless when they should have said it was audibly lossless.

 

[andromedaaudio]

In my opinion, their mistake was a marketing claim it was lossless .

Was that all , lol.

If thats the case you can sue most of the high end industry .

Especially cable companies they re full of ridiculous claims

 

[Elliot G.]

Wow just
[IMG alt="Mike Lavigne"]https://www.whatsbestforum.com/data/avatars/l/0/57.jpg?1690827989[/IMG]

Mike Lavigne​

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member​

• Saturday at 11:31 AM
• 
  
• Add bookmark
• #145

my 2 cents is that this line of A.I. discussion should be continued on it's own thread. i'm enjoying this 'best amp' thread and hope it stays on point. YMMV.

 

[Ricky64]

I am starting to enjoy these shows. At times, they are a pretty rough juxtaposition of personalities. I do appreciate the different perspectives brought by each participant. I really enjoy Danny. I would appreciate it if the hosts would be mindful to tailor their time of participation to match the others (a bit less Danny, respectfully).
In an upcoming episode, I would like to hear a bit about specific sound preferences. An example would be "midrange". What does each participant look for in midrange expression, ie weight, transparency, back, forward, tightly focused, diffuse, fast, natural, etc. If one aspect is improved, does it come at the expense of something else? What songs do they use to demo for equipment selection or setup?
I've loved hearing about the business of gear, and it's evolution, but would also like to hear a bit about sound preferences, how they are achieved, and personal experiences on when they've really hit the mark on this. Thanks
(sorry, no MQA in this post)