MQA Doubts?

Superb post. A masterpiece, actually.

One burning question HAS to be answered.

Why are only a small group, mostly Stereophile writers, claiming MQA is a game changer in regard to SOUND quality.

All the while disregarding the money grab scheme, the lossiness, the fact that NO ONE else is hearing what they are hearing, and the fact that this is 100% proprietary.

Something is rotten.

 

Clarity.

 

Robert Harley from TAS was one of the first reviewers to jump on the MQA bandwagon. I believe a few others from TAS have joined him in positive reviews of MQA. The proprietary nature of MQA is disturbing to me. Something has smelled fishy ever since this whole business was announced. No wonder more than a few audio manufacturers have declined in designing a DAC to Meridian's specifications.

 

I never got the memo.

 

I stand corrected.

But no one, and I mean NO one is hearing what you and your crew are hearing.

 

You forgot one point - it's also a DRM/Watermarking scheme. And we know how the record companies love those...

 

Good post Agitater. Agree with your thoughts. If only the audiophile establishment would focus on the production side, ie recording and mastering, we might then see some improvement in sound quality. Unfortunately, the independent "audiophile" press disappeared over a decade ago with The Audio Critic being the last of them standing.

 

Add to my crew more than a dozen unaffiliated visitors.

 

The usual line.

 

So far you have been unable to post links to support the statements you have attributed to Ham Sandwich in post #189 of this thread. Your attribution of "magical thinking" to Ham Sandwich is coming across at this point as a little misplaced. Are you magically thinking Ham has made some statements that were not actually made by him? It's past time for you to support your allegations.

And who, just who, has ever made the claim that hi res or MQA would solve the problems of modern mastering? That statement of yours is coming across as a small carnival of strawmen. Still, I think we'd all concede your point if you can find some "authoritative" person making such a pronouncement. Yes, modern mastering can be seriously flawed...and is flawed, certainly in what can pass as "popular music", a too high percentage of the time. Show us someone who has specifically claimed hi res or MQA is the antidote for bad mastering.

The clock is running. Let us all see what is logically leading to your conclusions.

 

Don't waste your time. He's gone down that road before. The side of trying to point out that any digital is better than analog because the measurements say so. I'm not a fan of that one sided viewpoint.

Example here.

 

True and with the usual suspects.

 

Good post.

Ham Sandwich is one of the most thoughtful and well-spoken posters on the Forum. Casting aspersions on him in any way is just ridiculous.

 

absolutely.

 

So where did I say "any digital is better than analogue because the measurements say so"? While I can understand why you may want to characterise ome that way, but I think you would find that that it is a lot more nuanced than that. It's a bit like saying you think all analog is better than digital because measurements are meaningless, despite it being fundamental to scientists and engineers who designed and built every piece of studio equipment, recording formats and home listening gear.

What I would say is:

• Digital devices and formats measure better providing it is at least 16/44 - you can debate that till the cows come home but it is what it is.
• The measurements reveal the potential, what actually comes out of any format is whether production has taken full advantage of it among other things such as the quality of the recording, mastering etc etc.
• What sounds better is pretty much subjective and measurements cannot capture what sounds good to any one individual because as with all our senses, perceptions vary.
• There is little point in arguing about subjective matters, although an interesting discussion can be had as to why one would prefer say one mastering over another (why do you prefer chocolate over vanilla?), but when it goes into the objective space then it is not much of an ask for objective evidence, particularly when it is at odds with the science.

As for your link, I don't know what that is meant to achieve. That discussion goes way back and I, and many others, respectably disagreed on this aspect from our own studio experience. This link gives an alternative view from several well known producers, including Bob Ludwig. Now you don't have to agree with him but doesn't mean you still cannot hold him with high regard and sit down and enjoy a RL hot mastered Led Zep II LP.

 

I don't feel a need to do anything of the sort. If that is a burning issue for you use the search function.

I have had several to's and fro's from Hammy and we disagree on the basics of digital signalling and (partly as a result) the benefits of hi res as a format. But I'm not going to engage in another debate on human physiology, different masterings, uncontrolled variables and 30 years of testing that has not proved anything.