MQA Doubts?

Atkinson was the editor of Stereophile in the '80's, and the only editor (of Stereophile) to use objective testing and measurements.

 

That was from 86? I was referring to Holt. Back then both Stereophile and The Audio Critic were far more objective than is the case now, even doing their own in house tests and measurements rather than relying on manufacturer claims or lack of complete metrics. The latter mag used to pull equipment apart to report on build quality and value for money.

In fairness to Atkinson he did start out in the Holt tradition, tempering subjectivity with objective testing, but changed as time went on. It is understandable though, what else was he going to do after Carver, criticise their lifeblood of advertisers and sponsors by telling readers that a well designed low cost amp can match or better high end amps at 1/40th of the cost?

 

Changed to what?

Have you read any recent articles?

John's testing results are printed with some reservations for some products.

 

There were never measurements or objective testing under Holt; that started with Atkinson.

 

Have you ever made a purchasing decision based on those measurements? I haven't.

 

Not my point. I haven't made a purchasing decision from the subjective reviews either.

 

I was in the Technics room at Axpona this morning and overheard Michael Fremer say that if CD's had been MQA, he would have been a convert.

Thought that was very interesting.

 

You said it!

 

Why is his uninformed opinion interesting? He thinks vinyl is a higher res format than CDs...

 

Fremer's opinion on MQA is indeed uninformed and uninteresting. Well said.

 

Fremer is right about the CD vs. vinyl. And I say that as someone heavily invested in CD quality digital. And as someone lacking a turntable setup (for now).

 

It's case by case. As someone who has both.

 

I have 1000% more respect for Fremer's opinions about digital audio and what sounds good than I have for Mark Waldrep's opinions about digital audio and what sounds good.

 

Well of course you do, given all your irrational CD hate posts, even those mastered better than hi res releases, and beliefs such as basic digital signalling is just a theory. Putting Fremer in the same company as technical and mastering experts like Waldrep is a bit like comparing Yuri Geller with Steve Hawkins, says it all really.

 

Could you please post some links to Ham Sandwich posts which support your statements.

 

I have no CD hate. Good luck finding a true CD hate post from me posted here or anywhere. I have no hate for CD or digital. I like CD. A lot. I've defended digital and CD a lot here. I own over 3000 of them. I do however like high-res better than CD. I do hear the benefits of high res over CD.

I do have no like or belief of Waldrep's opinion that anything other that pure high res (as he believes it to be) is not high res. According to Waldrep, Steve Hoffman has never mastered a true high res release. Because Steve masters from tape. And nothing from tape can be high res according to Waldrep. Good luck defending that belief here. I have 1000% more respect for Michael Fremer's opinions about digital and about what sounds good than I have about Waldrep's options about digital and what sounds good. Waldrep has never released a recording that I would want to listen to for musical enjoyment. Steve Hoffman has released many. Waldrep is a putz.

 

MQA=money grab. Don't be sucked in.

 

I don't know why you are fixated with Waldrep, but nice strawman nevertheless. Despite the fixation you obviously misunderstand his work or presentations, let alone his stature in the industry.

He has never been critical of Steve Hoffman, indeed if anything I would be surprised if he does not think very highly of Steve. You see, his main point is that the magic is always in the recording and mastering, he even says some of the best recorded and mastered material available is from the 60s and 70s, despite the technology of the era, and not the format. I can see why you see him as a putz because he doesn't preach magical thinking that hi res or MQA has or is going to solve the problems of modern mastering production.

 

I would be surprised if Waldrep doesn't think Steve is an idiot for believing he has ever mastered anything in high-res because Steve works from analog sources. And nothing from analog can ever be high res according to Waldrep. I very much disagree.

I've followed the Real HD-Audio blog, I've watched his YouTube presentations. Like this one. He does not consider recordings transferred from tape or analog sources to be high res. Given that that is what Steve does, it can be assumed that he would consider that anything Steve has done has never been and cannot ever be high res. I do not agree with that. A high res transfer from tape is high res. And I can hear the difference between that and a CD res quality transfer. I do not agree with Wadrep about high res. It's actually surprising to me that I would agree more with Fremer about high res and digital than I would agree with Waldrep about digital. But that's the way it is. Because Waldrep has such a narrow minded opinion about digital and high res. It's shocking that I can agree more with Fremer. If I was on a flight with Fremer on my left and Waldrep on my right I would give Waldrep the middle finger and spend the entire flight talking to Fremer. I have no desire to ever even talk to Waldrep. Because Waldrep is that much of an opinionated close minded idiot about digital. To the extent that I would rather talk to Fremer about digital than Waldrep. This is shocking because I'm very much interested in digital and digital theory. But to me Waldrep is just toxic and Fremer is actually more friendly. Shocking!

 

I question your motives for bringing Steve into this diatribe, when Waldrep has never sad a bad word about him and most likely would consider Steve's mastering as very high quality. It seems to me that your main beef with him is that he exposes a lot of what is claimed as hi res is not hi res. You obviously don't understand what is hi res and on which aspect of production it is useful.

I don't get into Waldrep's music labels either as those genres don't appeal to me. For those that do, at least they are getting what they paid for, ie hi res material, not a remastered and rebadged version of a standard recording which all too often are loud, compressed, with hollowed out mids compared to the originals like Nirvana's Nevermind or ELO or The Animals etc, etc and ect.

 

Still waiting for examples of Ham's "CD Hate."

Also, your post is laden with assumptions and posturing. You don't know what he thinks and at least Ham is providing logic in his assumptions.

You're one of the most biased posters on this board; Ham seems very open-minded and will support whatever sounds "best," regardless what format it comes from. You're bringing a water pistol to a gunfight here, and it's blatantly obvious to anyone who's read both of your posts over the years.

 

There is a case for that. But none the less, Fremer on digital is a non starter.

 

Another solider in the fight. Thank you. Let's kill this this beast.

 

On Analog Planet he posts a video interview of himself from Axpona in which he proclaims that digital is getting "better", and that MQA approaches vinyl goodness. Ugh...STFU.

It is obvious that at his magazine they the "Push MQA" agenda has been handed down by
top brass and he falls right in line. So did Kal Rubinson, unfortunately.

 

I think you mean Stephen Hawking, but I also understand your vehemence. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending ones perspective) Ham Sandwich's personal opinion and preferences aren't the problem.

I think that Mr. Michael Fremer, through his own writing seems to have long ago relegated himself to a well populated psuedo-science niche that a large number of audiophiles regard with justifiable skepticism. That the audiophile press in general is beseiged by monetary pressures that have to be answered is one of the main reasons that so many in that business have caved in to the need to pander to product marketing and possible new technical innovations in order to survive. MQA is one of those alleged technical innovations that isn't really what it claims to be. The audiophile press naturally panders to it, because in order to do the genuinely valuable things the press does it has to regularly get its 'hands' dirty.

If Ham Sandwich has promoted vinyl and its reproduction chain over everything else, it's about the best thing that can happen for the continued growth of LP and turntable sales. Ham Sandwich would be in good company too, because there are lots of vinyl fans who insist, audiophiles all and however technically inaccurately sometimes, that LPs offer higher resolution and greater dynamic range. The point is that they're all thoroughly enjoying their music. Engineers will question the baseless technical arguments, but they won't dare challenge anyone's enjoyment of music whether it's through LP, CD or streaming TIDAL HiFi.

MQA, unlike all of that, has little or nothing to do with the enjoyment of music. It's a licensing scheme designed to extract fees out of producers, labels and distributors, while helping the streaming retailers squeeze more data through existing pipes. Saves money. MQA is a business decision, not a music enjoyment decision. End users like us can safely ignore MQA, secure in the knowledge that we're already getting all of the detail, clarity, resolution, musicality, etc., etc., etc., and enjoyment that humans are capable of physically hearing out of almost all the existing formats except crushed MP3 LoFi.

That TIDAL is rolling out 'Masters' in a jumble - not separated by genre, not searchable by tags - is just the latest in a long string of complaints about TIDAL's dismal search engine and merely average category organization.