Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community

artto

Regulars
  • Content Count

    3648
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

134 Excellent

About artto

  • Rank
    Forum Ultra Veteran

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Not Uranus
  • My System
    Main Listening Room:

    Dedicated purpose built acoustically tuned room approximately 550 sq.ft / 4400 cu. ft. Additional soundproofing with multiple layers of 5/8” OSB & Green Glue in progress.
    Speakers: Danley Sound Labs SH50
    Subwoofers: Epik Empire (four)
    Subwoofer Processor: Behringer DEQ2496
    Main Source: Toshiba C855-S5350 Laptop. J River Media Center, 192Khz/24bit HDMI output
    Main Amplifier: NAD C390DD using HDMI input.
    Tuner: NAD C446 Digital Media Tuner toslink output
    Turntables:
    Thorens TD126 MKII, SME III arm, Shure V15mr Type 5
    Linn LP-12, Origin Live PS & motor upgrade, Moerch UP4 arm, Decca Jubilee
    Phono Preamp: Audio Research SP6B
    SACD Player: Sony SCD-XA5400ES HDMI
    Tape Decks: Nakamici Dragon, *Tascam CC-222SL MK II, *Sony A7 DAT (*toslink)
    Headphones: AKG K270
    Other: Various vintage Crown, McIntosh MX135 & MC7205, Luxman MB3045 , Wright Sound Lab 3.5 Mono

    Home Theater:
    UHDTV: Samsung HU7200 55”
    Receiver: Onkyo TX-NR838
    Speakers: Klipsch RF-7 II mains, RC-64 II center, RC-7 rear/surround (vertical with horns turned 90d)
    Subwoofer: SVS PC-2000
    DVD/BluRay Player: Sony Playstation 3

    Model Railroad Room:
    Speakers: Klipschorns (1976)
    Reciever: Harman Kardon AVR130
    CD Player: Denon D-600F

    Office: Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 desktop, LG Flatron M237WD

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. artto

    MQA (round two)

    Very true. One of the most gross examples I've seen is a remastered Iggy Pop album. It's not just the "industry". It's sometimes the artist themselves. On the Iggy Pop recording, Iggy made the remaster so "L O U D" sounding the LP sounds much better, aesthetically speaking (IMO). But his objective was to use current technology to fight, be competitive in the loudness wars when played back over-the-air.
  2. artto

    MQA (round two)

    "Passionate"? That may be a little strong. Fascinated is more like it. As I said, I'm sort of "in the business". Not just an audiophile. To me the sound reproduction starts with the recording engineer (me) and ends not with the equipment used for playback, but the room that contains the playback equipment, including the air between me & the speakers. MQA starts with that same premise. What is the loss of musical information between the instrument and microphone? Please read the documentation and patent application. If you're as incompetent as I am, it will probably take quite a few re-reads to start wrapping your head around it. What I heard from McGrath's recordings at AXPONA fascinated me because I heard, and measured, some things that probably should not be. I don't want to get into that now because I don't want to influence anyone's response, nor start making this discussion overly complicated. I'll "spill the beans" at some point in the future.
  3. artto

    MQA (round two)

    A lot, actually. And now I suppose you want me to let the cat out of the bag, at least as much as I know? What I'm trying to do here is prod the naysayers to cough it up with some real knowledge and evidence. All the negative "evidence" I've seem so far, to me, shows an unusual amount animosity towards something that they are not required to use - or pay for - and is supposed to improve the listening experience. Isn't that the whole point of all this? Why are so many up in arms about this? Fascinating.
  4. artto

    MQA (round two)

    Do you have something better to go on? How many recordings of live acoustic music have you made? How many CD have you produced and sold?
  5. artto

    Have You MQA'd?

    The Bobfather, in his The Emperor’s New Encoding” rebuttal said “but what they are really getting is nothing significantly different from the original” Hmm, I can’t imagine what’s wrong with that. Isn’t that the whole point? Or am I missing something? Oh wait, according the Bobfather, it means “By that measure, MQA is a hoax and a big lie!” Really? “nothing significantly different from the original” BUT “By that measure, MQA is a hoax and a big lie!” Ah, the words of true genius!
  6. artto

    Have You MQA'd?

    The Bobfather, in his The Emperor’s New Encoding” rebuttal said “MQA is a paradigm shift only in the sense that it allows Tidal to violate the listener’s privacy.” What? OK Bobby. Please explain how this allows Tidal to violate my privacy.
  7. artto

    Have You MQA'd?

    The Bobfather, in his The Emperor’s New Encoding” rebuttal said “It is a pass-through with simple noise shaping (nothing new in itself) that reduces the apparent signal-to-noise ratio in a way that is good.” OK Bobby, if it’s “good”, what’s the problem? Oh, I get it. Bobby didn’t come up with the idea.
  8. artto

    Have You MQA'd?

    The Bobfather, in his The Emperor’s New Encoding” rebuttal said “It does not work by getting rid of “pre-ringing”. It does not work by “turning Shannon/Nyquist on its head,” though several knowledgeable people that should know better. What? That last sentence is incomplete. Yet some people think he’s a genius! Yes, I’m nit picking. And of course so is Carver.
  9. artto

    MQA (round two)

    Please refrain from referring to MQA as a "format". Is it really that difficult for everyone to understand the difference between a CODEC and a "format"? What you, and others don't seem to understand is that MQA can be had as both lossy, and lossless, depending on how it's received (ie: available bandwidth) and what is used for decoding (or no decoding) on the receiving end.
  10. artto

    MQA (round two)

    Yes, it is. As I have previously stated (but not many people reading apparently) I am not only interested in the playback, but also the recording side of the equation. What I heard from Peter McGrath's recordings with and without MQA - before I ever heard about MQA and had no idea what it is or what it's supposed to do ---> a totally blind listening condition, I was surprised. And I, like Pete McGrath's point of reference is live acoustic music. I don't have the extended experience that McGrath does but I do have a lot more experience at this than almost Forum members.
  11. artto

    MQA (round two)

    Again......you can't hear it. Therefore it's a solution in search of a problem. If you have auditioned MQA and non-MQA versions please state the conditions. Like what were you using? What you are using on the receiving end can and should make a difference as how much or little of an effect MQA has. For example, if you're using the Tidal app on your PC with a Chrome browser you are not going to get the full benefit of MQA regardless of the original recording source.
  12. artto

    MQA (round two)

    Again, for the x100000000 time. MQA is NOT a FORMAT
  13. artto

    MQA (round two)

    Well, I've met and talked with Bobby too, and more than a few occasions. I don't consider him any kind of genius. Perhaps that's because I'm more intelligent than you? Paul Klipsch certainly did not consider him a genius. And that's what my response to your response is about. Please read it (The Paper) if you haven't done so. Furthermore, if YOU don't have any direct experience with MQA, please don't waste my, or other's time by posting responses or links from other individuals criticizing MQA without having done the homework. I'm not interested in a pissing contest. Yes, I think Bob Carver is stupid. He's proved it, on his own, once again. How? Let me pick on his first sentence of what you posted from "the Bobfather". 1. “Human perception is easily fooled into imagining differences that don’t stand up to empirical proof. MQA (Master Quality Authenticated), a new Tidal Music streaming audio format” In Carver’s first sentence, he has already put forth not one, but TWO misleading and untrue statements. One, that Tidal is somehow “in” on the research and development of MQA or is somehow "part of it" and implies that it something exclusive to Tidal and its streaming services (which it is not) And two, that it is a streaming audio “format” (which it is not). It is a CODEC which can be encapsulated with ANY FORMAT, audio or video. If a supposedly educated and certainly well known purveyor of high quality audio can’t even get his facts correct in the first sentence, what am I to make of anything else he has to say on the subject?
  14. artto

    MQA (round two)

    Yep. That's what I did. And I might add, that comparison "test" was about as blind as one can get. I didn't even know what MQA was until after the fact. I just knew that one of each of the three recordings sounded more like the real thing, especially the solo piano piece.
  15. artto

    MQA (round two)

    jjptkd - first my response to Bob Carver: If you really want to get a handle on how ****ing stupid Bob Carver is, and what kind of pitchman BOB is, all you need to do is read Paul Klipsch's dissertation of the "The Ulimate LSH" (Loudspeaker) published in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, March 1974, Volume 22, Number 2, which was also reproduced in the Klipsch Dope From Hope Newsletter Volume 14, No. , April 1974. It's not often that a professional journal such as JAES allows one of it's members to publish such a scathing (but humorous) response to another member "Carver's Law". You can find it here on the Forum somewhere, a PDF called "The Paper", originally provided by yours truly (all the hand writing seen in this copy is my own). I'm not a fan of Bob Carver or his products although I've always loved the way they look. His above dissertation on MQA that you have so kindly provided is incomplete (on Bob's part) and shows he did not do his homework, and what homework he did do is wrong. He is, above all things, a purveyor of hoax himself, so I guess he knows, right? (It takes one to know one?) Next 😎
×