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. . . .
1 Like
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.
1 Like
Understood…
SEE
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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?
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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?”
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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).
4 Likes
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.
4 Likes
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 …
1 Like
This does make sense; leverage any attention you get.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
Yike. I was unaware of this. This explains a lot, including why the content:length ratio is so low.
Thanks
1 Like
Let’s jump right in! BUT FIRST…
3 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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?
2 Likes
MQA at least got most equipment manufacturers (chip manufacturers) to make something to a standard. Which by itself is the best achievement since Philips and Sony launched the CD.
It is the entire music and equipment industry that is to blame for total lack of will to agree on something that is useful to the market.
The industry including PS Audio better get their act together and either stay redbook CD which till date is the best standard or agree on a higher resolution standard.
DSD64, DSD128, DSD265 or even DSD512, than PCM based on a multitude of 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz up to more than 700 kHz, 16 bit, 24 bit 32 bit.
Those formats are part of a premature pissing contest in which manufacturers show off what they have and the music industry is utterly ignorant of what manufacturers do.
The stupid consumer pays the price, for very limited music offerings for extreme prices.
Till the industry comes up with a single high res standard to which the music industry is willing to commit without multiplying the cost like the sample frequency I stay with lossy music, vinyl and redbook CD or any of that converted to 48 kHz.
I also do not really care about bit perfect. A proper file format conversion might sound as good or bad as a DAC that needs to convert their clock with inevitable jitter issues as result.
For example: I can not hear the difference between Blue Coast DSD128 files converted to PCM ALAC and the native DSD128 BitPerfect playback. In both cases it is the recording and mastering that is stunning. I don’t care by what file format it is played.
The hassle and / or cost to try and play native DSD is just too high, while that money spent elsewhere in the system and / or room guarantees a much better return of investment and certainly comfort.
2 Likes