MQA Discussion
- Thread starter still-one
- Start date
I didn't see the Lumin A1 in your signature. Nice!
When I heard the first records with the Beta version of Lumin's MQA firmware, I thought I preferred the MQA version of the file. However, since then there has been a major change in my system, a Denalli 6000T + 2 Alpha NR (I expect another Alpha NR and a Sigma NR). These products of Shunyata, have produced a great diminution of the digital restlessness. I think maybe, that's what makes it, now prefer the version Flac 44/16, which is more "vibrant."
However when I hear Jazz ..... I no longer have it so clear.
However when I hear Jazz ..... I no longer have it so clear.
audio.bill
Active member
The latest round of heated debate... http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/let-the-revolution-begin/
Thanks Bill. It was interesting to read Michael Ritter's comments. I've been following the ongoing debates, shootouts, etc. For the most part, as the guest editorial states, most of the MQA naysayers, have never actually heard full blown MQA in their system. The shootouts are also useless IMO. I've done my own, and wrote about them back in February when MQA was still a twinkle in the eye of many: http://www.audioshark.org/computer-digital-audio-11/my-take-mqa-11498.html
You can't pick three songs and go back and forth and hope people will pick one or the other. I'm not surprised the results are 50/50. Have people listen to three entire albums and make a "tick mark" on a piece of paper when digital fatigue sets in. Do the same with the MQA version. I bet people will see a lot less tick marks on the MQA sheet.
I firmly believe the benefits of MQA are more passive than active. As I stated many months ago, I find myself able to listen to digital a lot longer, not jump around from song to song and no signs of digital fatigue. Those looking for cymbals to jump out and hit them over the head, or a female singer reach out and touch them will be seriously disappointed. That's not the point of MQA, IMO.
One last thing, if people think MQA is total bunk, fine, move on, but before you dismiss it, live with full blown MQA in your system for several weeks/months. I heard the same arguments when SACD and DSD were making strides. Where are those naysayers now? Oh yeah, they've moved on to MQA and still tout the greatness of "perfect sound forever".
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/let-the-revolution-begin/
"Unfortunately, the Internet has given voice to anyone with a keyboard, allowing individuals with absolutely no understanding of MQA’s technology, and no firsthand listening experience, to weigh in, often with vitriolic invective."
"These classic symptoms of Kuhn’s “crisis” phase of a scientific revolution are the result of two distinctly different paradigm shifts on which MQA is based. Bob Stuart and Peter Craven (the British mathematician who co-developed MQA with Stuart) didn’t invent the two emerging paradigms that are the foundations of MQA. Rather, they researched and discovered new ideas in other disciplines (specifically digital sampling in astronomy and medical imaging, and insights into psychoacoustics from neuroscientific advances) and applied those principles to audio. Other fields have been more open to these breakthroughs, but for some reason audio seems to be populated largely by calcified fundamentalists who cling to the past."
"It’s quite astounding that MQA can combine so many virtues, and solve so many problems, in a single stroke. It’s an audiophile’s dream come true."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"Unfortunately, the Internet has given voice to anyone with a keyboard, allowing individuals with absolutely no understanding of MQA’s technology, and no firsthand listening experience, to weigh in, often with vitriolic invective."
"These classic symptoms of Kuhn’s “crisis” phase of a scientific revolution are the result of two distinctly different paradigm shifts on which MQA is based. Bob Stuart and Peter Craven (the British mathematician who co-developed MQA with Stuart) didn’t invent the two emerging paradigms that are the foundations of MQA. Rather, they researched and discovered new ideas in other disciplines (specifically digital sampling in astronomy and medical imaging, and insights into psychoacoustics from neuroscientific advances) and applied those principles to audio. Other fields have been more open to these breakthroughs, but for some reason audio seems to be populated largely by calcified fundamentalists who cling to the past."
"It’s quite astounding that MQA can combine so many virtues, and solve so many problems, in a single stroke. It’s an audiophile’s dream come true."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
CPP
Active member
A couple of Robert Harley’s problems are: he tries to explain and support his published positions through pseudo-scientific arguments, despite having no real scientific qualifications, and his opinions flip-flop frequently, often without his knowing or noticing it, how or why anyone pays attnetion to his writings anymore is beyond me.
I can understand why Meridian and their marketing department might make claims about MQA like the ones in the editorial; I can’t understand why the editor of a journal which purports to serve its readers and the audiophile community would do so. He is not describing a paradigm shift, and Bob Stuart et al are not in any way similar or comparable to Planck, Kelvin or Einstein.
I can understand why Meridian and their marketing department might make claims about MQA like the ones in the editorial; I can’t understand why the editor of a journal which purports to serve its readers and the audiophile community would do so. He is not describing a paradigm shift, and Bob Stuart et al are not in any way similar or comparable to Planck, Kelvin or Einstein.
CPP
Active member
Its about the arguments, the bickering , the fan club, those against, not about the end impact like global warming. You know doubt have read the endless debates on CA, where even Charles Hansen talks against it. A never ending headache if you ask me.
Phishphan
Active member
I think MQA is awesome for streaming. To compress a high res file so I can easily listen over the internet or via Tidal. I don’t think it’s a big deal for content I’m storing on my NAS. I have 12TB there, and 8TB on my Aurender. Storage is cheap.
Is it a leap forward in streaming technology, yes. But that’s where it ends.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is it a leap forward in streaming technology, yes. But that’s where it ends.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In the greater scheme of things MQA just doesn’t matter. Whatever the cause, if global warming continues the Earth will be a very unpleasant place for our children to live. Right now, the only people arguing against doing something are some entitled, ignorant Americans, most of whom won’t be alive to experience the end result of their actions (or inaction). Even China is now taking steps to lower pollution and CO2 emissions.
Agreed. Vinyl has been around 100 years. Digital is still an infant with such potential.
I am new to MQA; new to Tidal and new to Roon. Like DAYS new. Quite the learning curve I have been on the last few days. All I can say is between Roon and Tidal I may never buy another album again. Roon and Tidal is expensive? I have already listened to 2 years payments and fees worth of music in the last 3 days! I feel sorry for HD Tracks and others; I hope they survive for audiophiles sake....
crwilli
Active member
If global warming is proven or unproven in 1,000 years, I am very confident that China will not be a country that turned the tide for the better. The math simply does not allow it. They cannot afford to import enough crude to power their country. They MUST use their coal and while it can be consumed in an environmentally favorably way, the economics today do not favor it. China will be burning coal for many decades into the future as it is the only real hydrocarbon resource they have. They do have or likely have shale gas deposits like the USA, those deposits are in mountainous regions that may prove cost prohibitive to mine.
Always remember the first priority of the Chinese communist party is to preserve the party. Their people are down the list and the environment is unlikely in the top 20.
Kuoppis
New member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2015
- Messages
- 5,203
I think addressing the differentiation of purpose makes sense here. It is hard to argue with the fact that MQA brings a new flavor to streaming. And as with all new formats availability of a compelling catalogue remains key. Then again people will choose to prefer FLAC, WAV, DSD or MQA depending on their system and music taste.
Whether MQA has the ability to topple DSD, vinyl or R2R sound quality, is highly questionable and I am not sure whether that even is the purpose.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
tube-vds
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 347
imo MQA is just a smart new trick from the industry to make good money.
the supply/value chain looks like a typical marketing concept from A to Z.
and i'm sure many expensive upgrades will follow.
good reason to buy more vinyl.
just my 50ct.
regards
andy.
the supply/value chain looks like a typical marketing concept from A to Z.
and i'm sure many expensive upgrades will follow.
good reason to buy more vinyl.
just my 50ct.
regards
andy.