MQA bails on Rocky Mountain Audio Fest*

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by ls35a, Oct 7, 2017.

  1. Brother_Rael

    Brother_Rael Forum Resident

    Location:
    Scottish Borders
    I'm not surprised that there's a difference.

    The Rega/1042 combination isn't going to be the most open of partnerships. Not unless the 1042 leaves the warmth and bloomy nature of the 1012GX behind and leaves more of the true character of the LP intact.

    No idea what you're getting with the Oppo but I suspect you just prefer the character of the Rega/Goldring pairing than that of the 105.

    But that doesn't really prove anything about DAC technology at the lower end of the scale.
     
  2. Tim Müller

    Tim Müller Forum Resident

    Location:
    Germany
    Now, it is common knowledge that not a single ADC can ever match the sound of a vinyl record. If you do not believe that an all-analogue record is better than a digital source, then why do you discuss here?
    ADC can only come close to a true analogue experience, but will never reach it. That said, it takes the highes high resolution to capture all the fine details of a continuous analog recording.
    MQA is heaing in the wrong direction. We do not need a streaming format that reduces 24 bit recordings to a mere 17 bit and than squashes that into the inferior CD resolution of 16 bit. Instead we ne more bits! 32bit float at 384kHz would be the least required to come close to a true analog sound experience.
     
  3. Dreams266

    Dreams266 New Member

    Location:
    NJ
    The 1042 goes quite nicely with the Rega on my system. The 1042 is very, very articulate with rock music. I would not try to do a critique on female vocal recordings with my setup though. I have plenty of recordings where I prefer the digital over vinyl. There is an obvious improvement in all aspects with the vinyl of the LZ reissues over the hi-res files of same. Nothing subtle that would be considered subjective. The digital loses on all fronts. What you are saying is really just kind of smug, and doesn't seem to have a point other than putting down my setup and saying that my observations are whimsical. The fact is that comparing the digital files used to make a record, with the record itself, is most definitely the best way I can think of to compare a digital a vinyl component.
     
  4. Dreams266

    Dreams266 New Member

    Location:
    NJ
    Are you being sarcastic or do you really think that vinyl is better in all circumstances over digital?
     
    Jaap74 likes this.
  5. Merrick

    Merrick Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland
    It looks to me that he’s saying that an all analog recording, mastering, and production chain will always sound better than a chain where at some point the analog sound is turned into digital. Most vinyl is not produced all analog anymore.
     
    nosliw, Tim Müller and Dreams266 like this.
  6. Brother_Rael

    Brother_Rael Forum Resident

    Location:
    Scottish Borders
    No smugness given nor intended. I responded to your post stating that DACs can't "do" justice to hi-res unless they cost a presumably sufficiently high cost. I could of course argue that that is unnecessarily dismissive, leaning heavily on uninformed.

    And you're entitled to your opinion, but I've had the 1012GX in the past, so I'm reasonably familiar with that sound. I preferred the sound of the Audio Technica AT440MLa however. I didn't think that spoke about the merits of DAC technology at any price, except that it matched my then Linn nicely.
     
    Tim Müller and Dreams266 like this.
  7. saturdayboy

    saturdayboy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chicago
    just read it. don't question the results, but at the same time have a hard time considering it a definitive experiment. for starters, they don't specify what equipment was used, but more importantly digital conversion/reproduction has advanced significantly in the last ten years. plus sacd and hi-res pcm are two different thing entirely.
     
    Tim Müller likes this.
  8. Dreams266

    Dreams266 New Member

    Location:
    NJ
    I haven't heard the 1012GX but the 1042 doesn't strike me as overly warm but there is some bloom in the midrange. That seems to be its weak spot. I wan to try a new cart, preferably a MM but I am concerned about the increase in noise and possible loss in punch. If I could, I would have one system set up for rock and another one designed specifically for jazz, female vocal, etc.
     
    Brother_Rael and Tim Müller like this.
  9. Dreams266

    Dreams266 New Member

    Location:
    NJ
    This would no longer be an audiophile discussion if that study was taken seriously. There is undoubtedly a difference.
     
    Tim Müller and saturdayboy like this.
  10. Bubbamike

    Bubbamike Forum Resident

    Yes, there was a difference between the Emperors New Clothes and his old ones. For sure they were magnificent.
     
  11. Dreams266

    Dreams266 New Member

    Location:
    NJ
    You don't have the ears or the equipment. It sucks but I actually envy your oblivion to that part of the spectrum. You should check out AVS Forums. Lots of people who don't believe there is any difference between different amps, CD players, cables, etc. It's bliss!
     
    Tim Müller likes this.
  12. Bubbamike

    Bubbamike Forum Resident

    No doubt I'm deaf and my Naim/Harbeth equipment isn't up to snuff.
     
  13. McLover

    McLover Forum Resident

    Location:
    East TN
    MQA benefits one entity, MQA, every step in the process is money in MQA's pocket. It does nothing to enhance anything except for MQA's wealth. Yellow Button time on MQA, the one which states the Output of the Bull!
     
    Anonamemouse, nosliw, LarryP and 6 others like this.
  14. Dreams266

    Dreams266 New Member

    Location:
    NJ
    All I know is something is preventing you from hearing the benefits of hi res music. Yes, there is hi res music that sounds bad, and there is low res that sounds better than hi res. However, you can def hear the more open quality in most hi res music that has been properly done over the lower res versions. It's not strikingly obvious but most audiophiles spend a lot of money to just obtain that very thin, but very satisfying upper cream of music. I can only say that there is some instrument on your end that is not hearing it, whether it's your ears or something in your stereo.
     
  15. Bubbamike

    Bubbamike Forum Resident

    We aren't talking about HiRes, we are talking about HiRes which has been through the MQA mangler. There is a difference.
     
  16. Tim Müller

    Tim Müller Forum Resident

    Location:
    Germany
    Yes, but unfortunately they used old 16bit AD/DA converters without dithering, and still the subjects were not able to hear a difference between the Hi-Res audio from SACD, and the 16bit re-sampled version (with these out-of-date converters).

    Or do you mean, SACD was still so bad back then, that it was no better than even then out-of-date 16bit/no dither?


    I guess it's quite a different thing. All the subjects in this AVS study probably were too deaf, or did not have trained ears, or were not experienced with hifi and good sound reproduction, or their equipment was not good enough to reveal the benefits of hi-res audio.

    There was another listening test by Archimago, which compared MQA to true Hi-Res, who gathered his subjects through advertising and anouncements in hi-fi and hi-end forums, like this one here.
    And also, there was no difference found between Hi-Res and MQA.
    So, maybe the equipment of all of the subjects was not good enough to reveal the sonic benefits of MQA.

    I feel, the audio equipment which is good enough to reveal the sonic benefits of MQA is still yet to be invented.
    I also feel, the audio equipment which is good enough to reveal the sonic benefits of Hi-Res audio over standard CD is still yet to be invented.
     
    LarryP and basie-fan like this.
  17. Jim N.

    Jim N. Well-Known Member

    Location:
    So Cal
    GOOD POINT! Another way of saying it: If my gear is not revealing enough to hear the difference then why the heck would I need MQA in the first place? I only listen to music on my gear!
     
    Kyhl, riddlemay, basie-fan and 3 others like this.
  18. Dreams266

    Dreams266 New Member

    Location:
    NJ
    Just to make it known, I was NOT defending MQA as I have no experience with it. People seemed to be making general statements about hi res and digital music that went well beyond MQA. Anyway, even then, I'm off subject
     
    No Static likes this.
  19. saturdayboy

    saturdayboy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chicago
    I meant that digital conversion of 16/44.1 and hi-res are both much improved today compared to ten years ago, so it’s difficult to rely on those results. Technological progress is a real phenomenon.
     
    Dreams266 likes this.
  20. Tim Müller

    Tim Müller Forum Resident

    Location:
    Germany
    You mean that Hi-Res (SACD) a few years ago was so bad that it was not even better than 16bit/44.1kHz (no dither) ?
     
  21. saturdayboy

    saturdayboy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chicago
    Are you saying that SACD players from ten years ago are comparable to today’s best DSD dac’s?
     
  22. Tim Müller

    Tim Müller Forum Resident

    Location:
    Germany
    Oh boy, that was not the question, was it?

    We are talking about the various SACD equipment which was used in the cited AES listening comparison from a few years ago.
    The SACD players were up to then contemporary standards. The 16/44.1 AD/DA loop was not, it lacked dithering (something every serious 16/44.1 converter did have, even then).

    But even in this configuration, with SACD given a few feet advance, the race ended as a tie.

    Now, if we cannot distinguish "hi-res" from CD quality, and if we cannot distinguis MQA from "hi-res" (Archimago's recent listening test), it follows by common sense, we cannot distinguish MQA from CD quality.
     
  23. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your Host Your Host

    I cannot see germs either. Until I can, they do not exist.
     
  24. Claude Benshaul

    Claude Benshaul Well-Known Member

    Tim what you posted is called an Association Fallacy, which unfortunately creeps in Teleoanalysis with which we can prove that baldness cause heart attacks.
     
  25. Scott222C

    Scott222C Forum Resident

    Location:
    ÖSTERREICH
    Religion is a forbidden topic around here :tsk:
















    :D
     

Share This Page