Jump to content

MQA (round two)


artto

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, glens said:

What I understand is that MQA encoding allows extra bit-depth to be delivered in whatever format (i.e. "container").  If the format is natively at that bit-depth then there's no need for it.  What am I missing?

 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, pbphoto said:

Just want to understand how you formed such a passionate opinion.  It must only take some people 3 songs.  It takes me a lot longer - I must be slow.

 

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was downstairs reading a compiled Q&A with a developer when I was informed by the dogs it was time to eat.  Now I'm enjoying a tobacco treat in the garage on my "phone."  Not yet halfway through that article I'm "seeing" more than anything thus far what amounts to maybe some audio improvement but more as a side issue (that and more revenue streams for the music industry), the main being an ongoing licensing revenue.

 

Lip service seems to be placed on audio quality falling due to lossy formats.  However, anyone who's bought hard copies of music in the last several years can plainly "see" that the industry generally cares quite little about audio quality! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, glens said:

Lip service seems to be placed on audio quality falling due to lossy formats.  However, anyone who's bought hard copies of music in the last several years can plainly "see" that the industry generally cares quite little about audio quality! 

 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, artto said:

 

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.

Schu

You disparage yourself by getting snarky with aarto. 

Just short of 20 years of quality contributions here.

 

Personally I would never mess with a bass player from Chicago.

 

Kingston Mines rocks!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Happy for you that you are loving the MQA experience. Really!

Interesting that rather than answer the opposing perspective raised over and over in your first post about this “ codec” you pretty much just say that anyone who dares to have a different perspective is a misinformed idiot who isnt capable of understanding what you understand. I dont think that starting a new thread changes any of that.  By latest count ( Its entirely possible there are more but I could have missed them ) the people who you believe are idiots and misinformed include : the folks who design and build Schiit audio products, Bob Carver, a well respected audio designer, and John Siau the designer of universally respected benchmark audio products. 

I have experienced MQA and yes it sounds different but different doesn’t mean more accurate or better. It just means different. Much like cables can sound different. 

My offer of selling you cable lifts remains. 

Enjoy! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...