The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
MQA
Old 5th April 2017
  #481
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiop View Post
Hold your hats guys as this may come as a surprise..

..a person can be an audiophile and engineer at the same time.

There's nothing mutually exclusive about etiher of these terms.
Of course.

The problem isn't "audiophiles" but those not adopting a rational approach to the subject. However, the lack of awareness among some audiophiles about the recording/production process doesn't help matters, either.

I'm more than happy to call myself an audiophile--if it didn't have negative connotations. :-(
2
Share
Old 5th April 2017
  #482
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
The non-rational points of view were created by manufacturers misrepresenting their products back in the early days of solid state audio. People become skeptical when a device advertising far better specs sounded obviously worse than an older design having worse specs. This was followed by magazines defending their advertisers by making claims that people were delusional based on very very flawed blind tests.
Old 5th April 2017
  #483
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
The non-rational points of view were created by manufacturers misrepresenting their products back in the early days of solid state audio. People become skeptical when a device advertising far better specs sounded obviously worse than an older design having worse specs. This was followed by magazines defending their advertisers by making claims that people were delusional based on very very flawed blind tests.
From "Science and Subjectivism in Audio" by Douglas Self:

"By the late 1960s it was almost universally accepted that the hi-fi requirements would be met by: "THD less than 0.1%, with no significant crossover distortion, frequency response 20-20kHz, and as little noise as possible, please". The early 1970s expanded this to include slew-rates and properly behaved overload protection, but the approach was always scientific and it was perfectly normal to read amplifier reviews in which measurements were dissected but no mention made of listening tests.

"Following the growth of subjectivism through the pages of one of the leading Subjectivist magazines (HiFi News), the first intimation of things to come was the commencement of Paul Messenger's column "Subjective Sounds" in September 1976. He said "The assessment will be (almost) purely subjective, which has both strengths and weaknesses, as the inclusion of laboratory data would involve too much time and space, and although the ear may be the most fallible, it is also the most sensitive evaluation instrument". Subjectivism as an expedient rather than a policy. Significantly, none of the early instalments contained any references to amplifier sound.

"In March 1977, an article by Jean Hiraga was published attacking high levels of negative feedback and praising the sound of an amplifier with 2% THD. In the same issue, Paul Messenger stated that a Radford valve amplifier sounded better than a transistor one, and by the end of the year the amplifier-sound bandwagon was rolling. Hiraga returned in August 1977 with a highly contentious set of claims about audible speaker cables, and after that no hypothesis was too unlikely to receive attention."



Perhaps this does fit in with what you're saying? (Although I think underlying philosophical/cultural trends are also factors.)
2
Share
Old 5th April 2017
  #484
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
It was crazier here in the U.S.
Old 5th April 2017
  #485
Lives for gear
 
FabienTDR's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Interesting read, also found this:

Quote:
It is notable that in Subjectivist audio the 'correct' answer is always the more expensive or inconvenient one.
3
Share
Old 5th April 2017
  #486
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
That's frankly a bit hard to believe considering the endorsements they've gotten.
So I'm lying? Or my ears aren't good? Mytek Chebon was here for the first round of tests, and recent tests concur. Uaing my work and the Manhattan DA.

People want to be on the cutting edge. And corporations are on board. For the ex-Meridian people, they need the income stream post their video biz, and some MEs need to look like they're cutting edge for positioning. (BL the Elder, this means you)

I was offered the opportunity to sit at that table, and so far I can't see why I would. Seems like a temporary fad pushed by corporations on the masses with no musical value. I am opposed to such schemes.
2
Share
Old 5th April 2017
  #487
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
I have to congratulate the Lucey for coming up with the notion and wording that the audiophile "experiences creativity by tweaking the playback."

Fantastic.

I started out as an audiophile and I learned what good, very high fidelity playback sounded like.
Thank you.


I am an audiophile. Yet a very rational one. It's not a derogatory term.
1
Share
Old 5th April 2017
  #488
Lives for gear
 

That's great quote by D. Self (his electronics books are great btw., it was actually my first Kindle purchase)..

Similar thing always come to my mind, when I'm reading some HiFi magazine.. like review of something, which is absolutely inflated out of reasonable technical/value proportions.. eg. pair of RCA cables for $4k, small SET amp with few components for $15k etc., some $8k passive choke power purifier with $5k rhodium terminated power cord.
I usually quickly read through gear introduction, skip reproduced music description passages with adjectives, which I don't understand without English dictionary by hand (sorry to all native speakers here), speculations about imaginary size of Paul Motian's cymbal etc. and then go quickly to conclusion and comparison with other contenders.. well, I always wonder, when someone will say, some cheaper option sounds actually better or that it doesn't bring anything significant to the table, when considered asked price or all accompanying hassle... It simply never happened
Exactly as in this quote.. the more expensive, convoluted and inconvenient - the better.

Michal
2
Share
Old 5th April 2017
  #489
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
... (BL the Elder, this means you)...
Bob has been turning down more work than he does for decades so I seriously doubt that it is even slightly about image for him. Certainly you heard what you heard but I wouldn't assume everything was working properly. Bob's reference has been the Pacific Microsonics converters for a long time.
Old 6th April 2017
  #490
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
5 Reviews written
Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
Interesting read, also found this:

Quote:
It is notable that in Subjectivist audio the 'correct' answer is always the more expensive or inconvenient one.

a19180 - The New Yorker
“The two things that really drew me to vinyl were the expense and the inconvenience.”
Attached Thumbnails
MQA-new-yorker-vinyl-cartoon.jpg  
5
Share
Old 6th April 2017
  #491
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Bob has been turning down more work than he does for decades so I seriously doubt that it is even slightly about image for him. Certainly you heard what you heard but I wouldn't assume everything was working properly. Bob's reference has been the Pacific Microsonics converters for a long time.
I helped Mytek redesign the Manhattan II, and everything in the room was fine. Previously I also heard a flaw in the Bricasti M1 and helped them to make it greater, after years on the market. My room set up is working very well, thank you.

Fact is that BL the Elder, who no one dare critique, has a history of endorsing all kinds of things to save a buck, taking a day off if you're not seen as famous enough, and posturing for his elite position by going into Nashville etc, to sit on panels. I won't get into all that any further, inside dirt is messy and the work I do speaks for itself. I love Bob, don't want to make this personal.

Yet the fact is MQA is not better and not neutral, anyone who has done the tests that has endorsement integrity I respect, hears the same thing. Corporations are getting on board to make money, and people are lining up to get on that gravy train.

I'm fine with any new product clients want to pay for, I just think we need to live in reality. Less data and a filter is not better, and should seem a skeptical claim even without hearing anything. Better than the source, and any kind of "correcting PCM" claims are just absurd.

If they have an AD at 32 bits and full loop with DA, and that's amazing, then we can talk again.
2
Share
Old 6th April 2017
  #492
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
I helped Chebon and Mytek redesign the Manhattan II, and everything was fine.

Look BL the Elder has a history of endorsing all kinds of things to save a buck, taking a day off if you're not famous, and posturing for his position by going into Nashville etc to sit on panels. I won't get into all that any further. The work I do speaks for itself and I love Bob, don't want to make this personal.

Fact is MQA is not better and not neutral, anyone who has done the tests that has integrity I respect, hears the same thing.
i still haven't listened to any of your stuff, recommend me ONE quick example and i'll check it out - to back up the swagger.
Old 6th April 2017
  #493
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timesaver800W View Post
i still haven't listened to any of your stuff, recommend me ONE quick example and i'll check it out - to back up the swagger.
Are you familiar with the internet? Google? See the link in my sig? Come on bro.

Working this month for Shania Twain, Royal Blood, and 40 others.
1
Share
Old 6th April 2017
  #494
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
 

Verified Member
5 Reviews written
The thread and discussion is in-credible. Around and around we go.

Some posts completely change my understanding of MQA. Other posts make me realize that I was confused about its so-called "benefits"

Around and around we go. Then we start over at the beginning.

Bob L.'s endorsement joins the pantheon and museum display of all of his myriad "endorsements" and "raves" for gear and techniques that never panned out. Here we are with yet another one.

Yet, Massenburg, whom I have found to be always on point, is also a part of the MQA truth squad.

What in the world to think??


Not surprisingly, no hedge fund spokesman has appeared here to defend their investment in MQA.
Old 6th April 2017
  #495
Gear Maniac
 
Yuri Korzunov's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
A better sounding D to A up-sampling and filter system has always made existing masters sound better.
It's solving issue of analog filter of DAC. Analog filter better work with high sample rates.

Same things for ADC.
Old 6th April 2017
  #496
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Korzunov View Post
It's solving issue of analog filter of DAC. Analog filter better work with high sample rates.

Same things for ADC.
Only they're all delta-sigma and running at way above base sample rates...
1
Share
Old 7th April 2017
  #497
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Yet, Massenburg, whom I have found to be always on point, is also a part of the MQA truth squad.

What in the world to think??


Not surprisingly, no hedge fund spokesman has appeared here to defend their investment in MQA.
Funny.

Can only guess that GM is enjoying the tech, and the corporations that are on board. He smells money. Maybe he can't hear the artifacts. Or doesn't care.

The struggle with large files and HD space drops by the day, so it's all about what the consumer is told he needs ... for the time being. Meridian now MQA folks are looking to make streaming revenue as the old model is gone for them. Fair enough. yet don't over sell it


This from MQA:

"The MQA encoding process is modelled on many years of listening tests and developments, carried out by listeners from different musical and technical backgrounds, using a variety of music, production and recording styles. Ultimately, the sonic differences between the source file and MQA version will always be subjective, however, we believe they offer improvements in the vast majority of scenarios, and putting the tools in the hands of the mastering engineers will only improve results and increase the benefits for both artists and listeners.

Regarding the file size, you’ll not see much of a reduction at 44.1 or 48k as there is no data folding taking place. Higher sample rate masters are greatly reduced in size once folded down to base rate. We’re not suggesting that the process of folding the audio down and reducing the data rate improves the sound quality. This function was developed to make the audio more convenient for the consumer.

The bit-rate is low enough to stream reliably on a modest internet connection and also requires significantly less space if downloaded and stored locally on a hard drive. Conventional hi-res source files are not currently stream-able and have had limited reach in terms of music consumption – we believe that making hi-res more convenient and accessible will allow a wider audience to hear better quality music."


Contradictory at best.

And anyone who wants a file bigger than 10MB wants the real deal.
4
Share
Old 7th April 2017
  #498
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
Working this month for Shania Twain, Royal Blood, and 40 others.
Damn that diversity says it all, no? Been hurting for new Shania forever, and the buzz is good on it!
1
Share
Old 7th April 2017
  #499
Gear Maniac
 
Yuri Korzunov's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by qwe View Post
Only they're all delta-sigma and running at way above base sample rates...
Yes. At output modern DACs, as rule, used sigma-delta modulator.

But before using sigma-delta modulator need oversample signal.

During the oversampling, PCM is digitally filtered.
For higher sample rates design of the filter is easier.
Because there is more reserve for transient band of the filter.

If sample rate of sigma-delta at output DAC is higher, it also (like for DAC without sigma-delta modulator) good for analog filter. Because modulation noise pushed in higher frequency area, where analog filter have better suppression.
Old 7th April 2017
  #500
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
Funny.

Can only guess that GM is enjoying the tech, and the corporations that are on board. He smells money. Maybe he can't hear the artifacts. Or doesn't care.

The struggle with large files and HD space drops by the day, so it's all about what the consumer is told he needs ... for the time being. Meridian now MQA folks are looking to make streaming revenue as the old model is gone for them. Fair enough. yet don't over sell it


This from MQA:

"The MQA encoding process is modelled on many years of listening tests and developments, carried out by listeners from different musical and technical backgrounds, using a variety of music, production and recording styles. Ultimately, the sonic differences between the source file and MQA version will always be subjective, however, we believe they offer improvements in the vast majority of scenarios, and putting the tools in the hands of the mastering engineers will only improve results and increase the benefits for both artists and listeners.

Regarding the file size, you’ll not see much of a reduction at 44.1 or 48k as there is no data folding taking place. Higher sample rate masters are greatly reduced in size once folded down to base rate. We’re not suggesting that the process of folding the audio down and reducing the data rate improves the sound quality. This function was developed to make the audio more convenient for the consumer.

The bit-rate is low enough to stream reliably on a modest internet connection and also requires significantly less space if downloaded and stored locally on a hard drive. Conventional hi-res source files are not currently stream-able and have had limited reach in terms of music consumption – we believe that making hi-res more convenient and accessible will allow a wider audience to hear better quality music."


Contradictory at best.

And anyone who wants a file bigger than 10MB wants the real deal.
Brian, do you have a source (for example a web link) of that statement (other than the notion that it's from MQA)?
Old 7th April 2017
  #501
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
Funny.

Can only guess that GM is enjoying the tech, and the corporations that are on board. He smells money. Maybe he can't hear the artifacts. Or doesn't care.

The struggle with large files and HD space drops by the day, so it's all about what the consumer is told he needs ... for the time being. Meridian now MQA folks are looking to make streaming revenue as the old model is gone for them. Fair enough. yet don't over sell it


This from MQA:

"The MQA encoding process is modelled on many years of listening tests and developments, carried out by listeners from different musical and technical backgrounds, using a variety of music, production and recording styles. Ultimately, the sonic differences between the source file and MQA version will always be subjective, however, we believe they offer improvements in the vast majority of scenarios, and putting the tools in the hands of the mastering engineers will only improve results and increase the benefits for both artists and listeners.

Regarding the file size, you’ll not see much of a reduction at 44.1 or 48k as there is no data folding taking place. Higher sample rate masters are greatly reduced in size once folded down to base rate. We’re not suggesting that the process of folding the audio down and reducing the data rate improves the sound quality. This function was developed to make the audio more convenient for the consumer.

The bit-rate is low enough to stream reliably on a modest internet connection and also requires significantly less space if downloaded and stored locally on a hard drive. Conventional hi-res source files are not currently stream-able and have had limited reach in terms of music consumption – we believe that making hi-res more convenient and accessible will allow a wider audience to hear better quality music."


Contradictory at best.

And anyone who wants a file bigger than 10MB wants the real deal.
as you know, the data contained within a double or quad sr rate is mostly wasted. small sonic benefit, much bigger file.

if the mqa sounds different than the 16/441, well that means that it's working. you don't want a converter to sound like they all do, cos compared to the analogue, it's ****e. you know this.

low res mqa won't sound transparent, high res won't either (the signal still has to pass the hateful fourier stuff, the usual 'deblurring' we're so used to) , but any step in another direction than the status quo is a positive.

let's get the tech in the hands of the youngsters, let's see what they come up with.

don't playahate, broheim.
Old 7th April 2017
  #502
Lives for gear
MQA DOA

It seems like MQA is redundant before reaching escape velocity:

https://www.whathifi.com/news/qobuz-...ablets-and-pcs

MQA appears to be the better choice for backward areas only where speed is absent.

Last edited by svarthvitt; 7th April 2017 at 11:48 AM.. Reason: Choice of words.
1
Share
Old 7th April 2017
  #503
Gear Nut
There you have it. MQA was 10 years too late at least were bandwidth is not a problem.
I guess Apple should be just around the corner too with
the real deal. Master Quality = the master. Period.
4
Share
Old 7th April 2017
  #504
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timesaver800W View Post
if the mqa sounds different than the 16/441, well that means that it's working. you don't want a converter to sound like they all do, cos compared to the analogue, it's ****e. you know this.
1
Share
Old 9th April 2017
  #505
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by svarthvitt View Post
Brian, do you have a source (for example a web link) of that statement (other than the notion that it's from MQA)?
The "notion"? So you think I'm lying ... jesus dude, get a grip.

I'm in contact with MQA weekly for months. Mytek is tight with MQA and Mytek wants me on board for the West coast, along with BL the Elder on the East coast. I use Mytek 8x192 to feed my desk, and helped Mytek redesign the Manhattan II, even as I'm using the Bricasti M1 SE for DA. Integrity means you can count on my words as true. So the quote was truly from them, and yes, I'm also giving MQA all of my concerns and arguing these same points with them directly. I want to be on board, I like a corporate party for better music.

So far MQA seems to me a way for ex Meridian people to make streaming money lost from their digital video past, and it's being foist on the world through TIDAL and the labels who see money, while also forced on DA companies who pay huge sums to get on board because the consumers are told it's "better' and they want their DA to light up as "authenticated" ... which is a brilliant marketing term I have to say.


A lot of people are posturing to make money here, in telling the consumer what they need, and what is better, while in fact connection speeds increase by the day, people who really care will download the full files ... and average human consumers like mp3s better than 24 bits in some tests because the distortion is exciting!

Once you tell people it's better, and light up an authentication light, they're sold.

Right now I'm very annoyed with the whole mess, as it's about money not music and it's keeping me from working ... and almost as annoyed by your question.
2
Share
Old 9th April 2017
  #506
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
I have to congratulate the Lucey for coming up with the notion and wording that the audiophile "experiences creativity by tweaking the playback."
I've often said the audiophiles listen to gear, not music. That's why there's always a better widget. It's also why many of them have supposed 'audiophile recordings' which feature music they often don't like - it's really not about the music at all. Think peer envy, think trainspotting, think collectors - same obsessions.
Old 9th April 2017
  #507
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
The "notion"? So you think I'm lying ... jesus dude, get a grip.

I'm in contact with MQA weekly for months. Mytek is tight with MQA and Mytek wants me on board for the West coast, along with BL the Elder on the East coast. I use Mytek 8x192 to feed my desk, and helped Mytek redesign the Manhattan II, even as I'm using the Bricasti M1 SE for DA. Integrity means you can count on my words as true. So the quote was truly from them, and yes, I'm also giving MQA all of my concerns and arguing these same points with them directly. I want to be on board, I like a corporate party for better music.

So far MQA seems to me a way for ex Meridian people to make streaming money lost from their digital video past, and it's being foist on the world through TIDAL and the labels who see money, while also forced on DA companies who pay huge sums to get on board because the consumers are told it's "better' and they want their DA to light up as "authenticated" ... which is a brilliant marketing term I have to say.


A lot of people are posturing to make money here, in telling the consumer what they need, and what is better, while in fact connection speeds increase by the day, people who really care will download the full files ... and average human consumers like mp3s better than 24 bits in some tests because the distortion is exciting!

Once you tell people it's better, and light up an authentication light, they're sold.

Right now I'm very annoyed with the whole mess, as it's about money not music and it's keeping me from working ... and almost as annoyed by your question.
Brian,

I am not a native speaker so my choice of word, "notion", was evidently a poor one. Lost in translation, obviously.

I have quoted your posts on another site because I like what you are writing. And your professional listening (i.e. empirical work) adds support to the theoretical hypothesis that a lossy version cannot surpass the original. In other words, the theoretical and the empirical support each other in the case of MQA.

Which - in summary - supports my private view that MQA is DRM.

Back to the notion thing: If I were to quote you on the other site, I think a web source would impress some of the "audiophiles" even more than without such a source.

Personally, I have no problem regarding you as the sole source. I trust you. And I believe we are in TOTAL agreement.

:-)
2
Share
Old 9th April 2017
  #508
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
I want to be on board, I like a corporate party for better music.

So far MQA seems to me a way for ex Meridian people to make streaming money lost from their digital video past, and it's being foist on the world through TIDAL and the labels who see money, while also forced on DA companies who pay huge sums to get on board because the consumers are told it's "better' and they want their DA to light up as "authenticated" ... which is a brilliant marketing term I have to say.
As always, follow the money.
1
Share
Old 10th April 2017
  #509
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Master Quality Authenticated. Possibly the best brand name possible. Grabs people on all fronts. Is not a lie yet not true either. Superb wordsmithery. Less sure about the codec.

Quote:
Originally Posted by svarthvitt View Post
Personally, I have no problem regarding you as the sole source. I trust you. And I believe we are in TOTAL agreement.

:-)
Ah, my apologies for misunderstanding.

I have signed a technical NDA but this was sent to me in conversation long before that was done. And it's their basic PR line. You can say you got it from me, in conversation with a MQA rep.
2
Share
Old 10th April 2017
  #510
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo View Post
I've often said the audiophiles listen to gear, not music. That's why there's always a better widget. It's also why many of them have supposed 'audiophile recordings' which feature music they often don't like - it's really not about the music at all. Think peer envy, think trainspotting, think collectors - same obsessions.
They're creating via the system, so there is no right answer only make colors and layers of investigation.

It's not a crime, but it is what it is. They create nothing, engineer nothing ... so the system building is the satisfaction and joy.
2
Share
Closed

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 3 views: 1667
Avatar for Matt Whritenour
Matt Whritenour 5th August 2008
replies: 866 views: 133837
Avatar for monitor noob
monitor noob 3 hours ago
replies: 25 views: 4104
Avatar for sinisterbr
sinisterbr 21st July 2016
replies: 5 views: 2705
Avatar for Jargonfilter
Jargonfilter 14th July 2017
Topic:
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump