Jump to content

ARQuint

  • Posts

    260
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

Retained

  • Member Title
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

3222 profile views
  1. I did say that, in my opinion, MQA failed because the marketplace decided it didn't have value. That was my personal conclusion. There were rank and files who did like it - but not enough for it to succeed. That is not to say that the arguments against MQA, here and elsewhere, didn't influence the outcome. One last point I'll make—strongly, I hope—before I take my leave until the next time I'm foolish enough to engage with a community where (I'm aware )I'm not especially welcome. My posts at AS are in no way performative, sent up for "friends and colleagues" from the "industry" and I speak for no one but myself. You'll have to take my word on this. No editor or another reviewer has ever said anything to me about my contributions to this site, no surprise as, for most, AS either doesn't come across their radar or, if it has, they've burned enough to stay away. I'm by nature a collegial person in the sense that I love interacting with others with interests and skills like my own. And there's nothing of greater importance to me than music and perfectionist audio—that's why I spend hours every day listening, writing, reading, and corresponding. I seek out people with different approaches because I'm usually rewarded by new knowledge and perspectives in the process. Sure, there are some jerks here, lying in wait for someone with a byline, even a B-lister like me. But most have something to teach me and I do listen. Occasionally, my positions and motivations register fairly with them and I'm grateful for having participated in something like a discussion. Best to all.
  2. Hello Arch Here's an interesting development. It's always possible that I hallucinated the whole thing but within the last 12 hours, somebody named "Spike" (from Germany, I believe) contributed a post to this thread reviling me for (1) a TAS editorial about MQA I wrote 7 years ago and (2) a single sentence in a review of a DAC that mentioned that the product didn't decode MQA, as a point of information. That post is now gone. On the one hand, thank you Chris. Although I have pretty thick skin—I wouldn't keep ringing in here from time to time, rather than just lurking, if I didn't—it looks as though you were maintaining a declared standard for AS, that gratuitous insults won't be tolerated. On the other hand, if it did remain, it would undermine Archi's statement that "Many magazine writers say nothing about MQA or just mention it without extreme claims, and I don't think folks drag those people's names into these critical discussions without cause." And you, Archimago, do not. But this now-departed post was a pretty good example of painting with a broad brush to dismiss me personally as a writer and TAS as a publication. This sort of thing has happened from the very beginning of "Vaporware" and continues to go on even now that MQA is pretty much dead and buried. That editorial from 2017 is the only time I've written about MQA in TAS. I was reviewing an Aurender server that had MQA and I felt, at the time, that there was a marginal sonic benefit for some content. This was, of course, early on in MQA's ill-fated commercial run and I soon concluded that the technology brought nothing to the table. I've never owned a piece of audio gear that did MQA. What's notable, I think, is that the narrative changed at Vaporware from criticisms of the technology (with testimony from such respected engineers as Andreas Koch) to an assault on the ethics of those selling it (and advocating for it.) The Canadian blinded study notwithstanding, sound quality was taken off the table early on. Which is unfortunate. I think that, ultimately, it was the lack of a sonic benefit that sunk MQA, not the outrage of a small group of audiophiles. The market as spoken. If Michael Fremer felt that the MQA version of that Patricia Barber album sounded better, he should be able to maintain that opinion without maligning his ethical core. Call his hearing into question, if you must, but it's not some sort of moral failing. It's just his opinion...about the sound, right? The MQA story was a tiny part of TAS (and even Stereophile) over its brief history. How do you feel about all the equipment and music reviews published in The Absolute Sound these past seven years? Our assessments of audio products have been pretty much in line with those presented in AS though, obviously, our coverage is more expansive (and the packaging more aesthetically pleasing.) No one seems to saying that we usually get it wrong when it comes to the SQ of audio gear and recordings, which is kind of the point of a hobbyist audio magazine. To use the MQA debate as some kind of litmus test for good vs.bad, believable vs.unbelievable, honest vs.dishonest, ethical vs morally lacking is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Andy
  3. I'm pretty sure we're thinking of the same guy. For what it's worth, I think he's the least capable writer at his publication - despite being given the most expensive gear to review. His MQA stance, IMO, is part of a generalized narcissism that informs much of his writing. I don't think he's typical of the staff of his magazine and certainly not of mine. 'Nuff said. If you can find mentions of MQA in TAS over the last 5 years (other than to note it, dispassionately, as a feature of a product) cite them. I read the magazine pretty closely aSnd they're not there. There's another aspect of the MQA rise and fall that I'm willing to discuss openly because I'm honestly unsure of the "right"—as in morally correct—stance. For as long as the issue's been out there, some audiophiles have maintained that a reviewer not savaging MQA was as guilty as being a zealous proponent. I don't think that's fair because an audio publication ought to be able to define what its role is. That role, I feel, can be to inform, entertain, and help with purchasing decisions—that's how John Atkinson explained it to me years ago. Despite the awards and lists of recommended products, we're not Consumer Reports and certainly a consumer protection agency. I've said many times that this hobby, especially the subjective part of it, is about the point of intersection of art and technology, a perspective that CR can't and won't provide. We can provide some leeway and room for discussion of different points of view. If we don't, I think it's a slippery slope. Should the technological basis of Ted Denney's products be reviled? I don't think so but plenty of audiophiles facilely dismiss him as a P.T. Barnum. How about pricey cables? Also a scam? Some people think so. You can see where I'm going with this. For some reason, most audiophiles have been able to say something like "If you don't think $5000 interconnects make a difference, if you feel that a Vibratron is bullshit, don't buy them" and that's the end of the discussion. Hostilities have been avoided. Chris has told us about his friendship with Peter McGrath. I've had a close relationship with him myself. I would have loved to been a fly on the wall on that dreary Minnesota afternoon when MQA came up in discussion. I bet it was civil, I bet it was respectful. Two well-informed and experienced individuals expressed opposing ideas (I assume) and no one stomped out in a huff. Face to face, we can be pretty decent to one another. Andy Quint
  4. As a good friend of mine says, often: "That's for shit sure." Let's get drunk at AXPONA and make a list. 😉 << For a while MQA took over Tidal, the only HiFi streaming service available in some countries. Some of the detestors (is that a word) were proven correct, that it would replace pure PCM. Fortunately the tide receded and MQA is all but gone for those who don’t want it. Those who are fans of it are now without that which birthed a new world. That’s unfortunate. There should be choice.>> I do agree. And within our little world, MQA certainly hasn't been the only threat to choice. To pick a sore subject, I feel the same way about the dumbed-down version of Atmos that Apple is streaming, something they are (currently) imposing because they can - because they're big, because they're a bully.
  5. Someone needs to call out the fake news here for what it is, and it might as well be me. Perhaps it's because the American presidential contest is now (almost) officially set and the strategy of one side depends largely on introducing a false narrative and then using that premise as if it was factual to attack the other side. That, I think, is what's going on here. I use a wide range of reference tracks in my reviews and less than 2% are MQA encoded. That's always been the case. I stream only Qobuz and have exactly one locally stored file on my equipment review playlist that happens to be MQA-encoded. Most of the thousands of CDs and SACDs in my collection pre-date MQA, and I still use LPs to assess gear. This is pretty much the situation for everyone at TAS (though, of course, different writers use very different proportions of LPs, silver discs, and streaming) and I can think of one, maybe two guys at our friendly competition who have cared much about MQA. Please don't conflate the initial misplaced enthusiasm for MQA from several thoughtful and influential editors, eight or nine years ago, with the way those same writers approached the task of reviewing audio equipment, then and now. Discussions about the merits of the technology (or lack thereof) mostly occurred outside the context of an equipment review. No reviews, or certainly very few, elevated MQA-encoded files as a preferred source material for either the subjective or objective consideration of sound quality. For some of us, the MQA "debate" was about the decline in civility within a hobby known for more camaraderie in years past. It's a trivial observation to point out that the Internet has helped make it this way in so many fields and endeavors. Frankly, my sense is that there has always been a small group of hobbyists who need to detest audio writers who have their name on a masthead and get paid for doing something that's super-fun (though, I'd hasten to add, harder work than you might think.) It's about, to use the tile of a book by Tom Nichols that's well worth reading, the death of expertise. MQA has become an irrelevancy—if it ever was relevant, except for a brief moment at the outset. For a bitter subset of audiophiles, MQA was nice while it lasted but these folks surely will find some other reason to hate established audio journalism. And this thread will live on, in spirit, if not in actuality. Andrew Quint
  6. Interesting. Edgar Choueiri (BACCH-SP) is one of several experts I know who have reservations about how room correction is typically accomplished, with readings averaged from several microphone positions. He's developed his own RC algorithm utilizing measurements from the same in-ear microphones that provide the information necessary to generate an XTC filter for a specific listener - a binaural perspective. Could you PM me so we can discuss further how I could help you? AQ
  7. This is system for Atmos playback Sony X1100ES Universal Player - disc transport Apple TV 4K - Atmos streaming Anthem AVM70 - Atmos decoding Anthem AVM70 - DSP room correction Amplification TIDAL Ferios x 2 (Front R and L) Pass XA 60.8 x 3 (Center and surrounds) Pass Aleph 0s (height channels) Loudspeakers Magico M2 (Front R and L) Magico S3Mk2 (Center) Magico S1Mk2 x 2 (Surrounds) Magico A1 x 2 (Height) Magico SSub
  8. The "I would say..." vs. "You say..." versions of my statement regarding the quality of Atmos DD+'s spatiality aren't that different and I certainly don't feel my version rises to the level of "misinformation." It's an opinion, and I think anyone reading the sentence in context would know that. My feature (slotted for the April 2024 issue when nobody will remember this discussion; the immediate feedback aspect of AS is enviable) gives other examples. And understand that I feel that the lossiness of DD+ is the most damaging aspect of the format. To my ears, it can change the character of voices. You call me out for making broad generalizations. << do you see how ridiculous it is to suggest an entire format suffers from choices that aren’t as good?>> How about this one? <<You guys all write with the same style and choice of words in that old paradigm of a box.>> Really? You can't tell Valin from Gader, Cordesman from Kalbach, Seydor from Taffel? If that's the case, I'll paraphrase Chris Connaker, and conclude "then I can't help you." We're getting to the bickering stage now, Chris, and I don't want to end up with my own Elba-like thread like a certain conjurer of note. So I'll bow out for real now and look forward to catching up with you at a show. Andy
  9. Minister of Information", "high horse","entitled" and ""old guard" in a single sentence. I think he's mad again. I'll point out the obvious. Both mixes of "Rocket Man" were made by professionals and yet they sound very different. I feel the one on the SACD is more holographic and involving. I know several mastering engineers well and they workhard to satisfy a paying customer and may tailor a mix accordingly. As one, a good friend who used to work for Bob Ludwig, put it: "When the client says jump, you say 'how high?'" It's very strange that you find it presumptuous of me to have opinions regarding sound quality—that's kind of central to the job description for an audio or music reviewer. I listen and write about what I hear and readers can agree or disagree. Over time, they'll come to understand how I hear things and can use a review of mine, positive or negative, to understand if they're going to like a recording or piece of gear. You do realize that your own reviews also represent informed opinion, right?
  10. Boy, you're testy this AM, Chris. It feels so unnecessary. We both like an immersive approach to recording and playback (and Atmos, specifically). I suspect if Apple TV+ announced this afternoon that they'd be streaming in Dolby HD beginning tomorrow, you'd be as excited as I would. You're trotting out some of your vintage dismissive phrases ("old guard") and some new ones ("minister of information") that are dog whistles for someone to accuse me of "appeal to authority." In fact, you've been strutting your expertise, as you should because of all the hours you've had Atmos up-and-running. But I've had 15 years of experience with loudspeaker-based multichannel and have a context in which to offer an opinion on Atmos as most AS readers will be consuming it. It's just my opinion and if it was offered by someone other than a writer for another publication, I doubt you'd respond with the tone you've taken. Do you really believe that criticism of Atmos comes only from TAS, Stereophile, and John Darko; that "the only people who share [my] point of view are those in the old guard press." I can assure you that that's not the case. You can have the last word, Chris. I've made my points. Best wishes for Atmos, for immersive audio, for you and the AS readership, and for the audiophile endeavor in general. Andy
  11. I'm glad that STC could get you to better understand my point about the immersive mixes that Atmos content creators must make. Indeed, there is no "rule book" and pretty much unlimited choices in producing an immersive mix. I'm saying that quite often, choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats. An example from my TAS article on this subject that's upcoming. Listen, if you can, to the immersive mix for "Rocket Man" from both Apple TV+ and the 2004 Universal Honky Chateau SACD, especially to the way the iconic synthesizer solo during the second verse is handled. The earlier version is far more effective musically.
  12. The lossiness of DD+ files is very significant. It's not like the difference between a 24/96 and a24/192 version of thez same material (which I often find hard to distinguish) and I feel that a suggestion that it's "time to rethink lossless" is disingenuous. The difference in sound quality between a FLAC file even at Red Book resolution and DD+ will be readily apparent to most, even when obscured by the immersive aspect of the sound. We are not contrasting a football and a tractor here. We are comparing the success of two formats in providing a satisfying musical experience and for many audiophiles, the compromises of DD+ will be disqualifying. And a far cry from the phenomenal experience one gets from a True HD version played back from a disc.
  13. We should remember that every so often, Frank makes an insightful observation and it's something he hasn't already remarked 50 times. Frank's proposal is one of the reasons I love multichannel—because of the participatory sense you can get from a surround mix, especially an immersive one. I can feel as if I'm sitting in an orchestra's brass section as I really did decades ago or I'm back in a sweaty basement playing keyboards in a cover band. For me, it's a kind of time travel that results in a very intense connection to the music.
  14. You probably can't kick somebody out just for being annoying. Check the bylaws. Sorry. 😏
×
×
  • Create New...