Well here’s something I’ve never seen before. The MQA version of Lang Lang’s Goldberg Variations on Tidal goes back and forth between MQA and 16/44 depending on the track. I don’t think it allows for a valid comparison, because the MQA tracks tend to be higher volume. Just something weird. . . .
Of course the price and measurements of kit can influence, but Brett suggests Stereophile reviewers changed their opinion based on being paid off.
I question this.
Does anyone still read Stereophile magazine? I haven’t looked at a copy in years. Had much better luck finding interesting equipment combing through audio forums and reading online reviews.
Ok. I don’t think there was any intent to hurt or injure in the original video I watched. He simply set out to see if he could validate MQA claims, regardless of SQ. He was unable to mostly, because of the actions of MQA, Tidal or both and lack of action like not providing any instructions so the ‘music signal’ would fit within the bounds of the encoder.
When I was a kid and into my 20s I knew for a fact that my cassettes sounded vastly better than my best LPs - but only because I could take those cassettes with me on my adventures.
MQA makes claims about saving bandwidth. This has been proven patently false. It’s in some ways a solution looking for a problem. Yes, I’m cynical in that those that created it are and want to create revenue. It’s a business. And yes, I do not for one moment believe that Stereophile owners/managers/editors are not getting something out of the equation.
For me it has nothing to do with liking it or sound quality, rather it’s about choice or the apparent lack thereof. I was quite ambivalent until Tidal started replacing CD-quality with MQA.
I don’t agree with the analogy to DSD firmware. One can choose to run any version they wish.
I have never been impressed with MQA also find it to be a solution looking for a problem. I do not stream so, for me, it is an intellectual exercise.
What are they getting, specifically?
I don’t know. I’ve not seen any published disclosures. Any you can reference?
I don’t mean to support GoldenOne, necessarily, but he’s made it very clear his only source of ‘payola’ is Patreon. No ads, no sponsorships, no monetization of videos.
I don’t believe he has any ill intent whatsoever. He’s a curious chap with far more technical skills than I can even judge but to me he’s very straightforward, clear and complete in his explanations and explorations of technology.
I pay for a Stereophile subscription and I notice anytime a review is done, there’s prominent placement of ads referring to that device or company. Great PS Audio reviews and ads, too, I should add.
The question may be better expressed as, “what are they protecting?”
Nope, but the audio magazines are clear they are not paid to provide good reviews, etc. While I appreciate being cynical, I have never seen anything which reliably indicates otherwise - just people making unsupported claims. Thus, the query for something specific.
I, too, think GoldenOne (I cannot believe I just typed this name ) is curious and wanted to find out what MQA does. Many of us wonder. It is great fun to find out what he learned, even though it appears to be only part of what is going on.
On the other hand, I doubt he would have posted a video of over a half-hour long if what he learned supported MQA’s claims.
I voted with my feet (actually, my wallet) too, I just stopped Tidal. And my new dac doesn’t support MQA. To me, Qobuz sounds better, and their tastes are better aligned with mine (classical music mainly).
That figures. Away from the audio field, my company found that advertising was unproductive unless in an issue with editorial content about our products and services. We therefore advertised only when there was such content.
I enjoy Stereophile, TAS and HiFi News, but I keep in mind that they are conflicted: they are paid (through advertising revenues) by the companies they review.
It reminds me of the rating agencies that were giving AAA ratings to securities while being paid by the issuers. Unsurprisingly, defaults started to happen and we got the global financial crisis around 2009 …
This does make sense; leverage any attention you get.
Side note: Whatever you post, the algorithms reward length and length of engagement. Hence all the videos that could (or should) be 5 minutes that are a half hour.
Yike. I was unaware of this. This explains a lot, including why the content:length ratio is so low.
Let’s jump right in! BUT FIRST…
I am surprised at how many seemingly knowledgeable people are on the MQA bandwagon. They knew streaming was the wave of the future and knew how to make money off of it.
Excellent analogy. I was disappointed at the criticism of GoldenOne, especially when I think back to some of the over-the-top reviews of MQA early on.
I wonder how much cash has been spent on MQA integrations?