2. digital
  3. 129747-231

MQA according to new Stereophile "loudness button" and "tweaking EQ in presence region"

Stereophile’s May 2017 review of the Mytek Brooklyn DAC (Herb Reichert) states that "in every comparison, MQA made the original recording sound more dynamic and transparent, but only sometimes more temporaly precise."

Seems positive, right? But the next sentence reads....

"After a while the MQA versions began to remind me of those old Loudness Contour buttons on 1960’s receivers, which used equalization to compensate for loss of treble and bass at low listening levels."

Now for the bombshell.....


"Consistently, MQA sounded as though it was tweaking the EQ in the presence region."

"I also noticed that most of the MQA versions sounded rounded off and smoother than the originals."

My opinion is that we gullible audiophiles have been fooled in the past by supposed new technologies, similar to what supposedly early mobile fidelity pressings did with EQ to make listeners think they were hearing an improvement.

In my mind, an alteration of the source is distortion.

Just as TV’S in stores set to torch mode are often preferred on first glance, and speakers that at first grab you with some spectacular aspect can become tiresome over time, as accuracy and neutrality become preferred as one's ear becomes more refined.

The frightening thing is that 2 major music entities have signed on, seemingly to make MQA the defacto standard of how music will made available.


While I haven’t been able to do this comparison myself, reading a highly regarded golden ear admit this in print is warning enough for me.


Just like the sugary drink that tastes so good on first experience, our advanced society knows that consuming it regularly leads to diabetes, heart disease and worse.

Does this revelation reveal MQA to be the parlor trick that it appears to be?
emailists
tomic601's avatar
tomic601
13,178 posts
 
how many of you have one or more A to D converters and have listened to discern the often massive differences between them ? In my live recording work i will almost always take two converters...I would love to learn what Bob is actually doing..but then that is his intellectual property that he developed..
we live in a world where everybody wants everything for free...and yet defend the capitalist as deserving of fair rents at every turn,,,
which is it ?
me, I will pay of better...to my ears it is better

ya everybody has an axe to grind. My DAC manufacturer for whatever reason is silent on the matter..even tho it is FPGA so change should be relatively easy..any of you flat earthers want to buy my Pandora Sig ???? Has some wicked Nos tubes in it...
oh thats right not all the respected believe in tubes..

As for throwing out the many respected are against it list, there are just as many respected in the pro MQA camp including Brinkman and DCs, MSB....

enjoy the music

i hope I have offended none, that was not my intent


mr_m
1,900 posts
 
+1, tomic601.
ncarv
983 posts
 
Regarding, " . . . an alteration of the source is distortion," it was my understanding that MQA supposedly offers the truest source, as it backs out subsequent alterations to the sound imposed by equipment and/or production. Am I wrong about this?

This raises the question of whether or not alterations by the sound engineer or others from the original source are valid. Is the finished product the source? Or the raw version as first recorded?

 Or, am I talking out of my a$$, because I really don't know what I'm talking about . . . A real possibility!
jl35
4,201 posts
 
Version the musician wanted or engineer or studio or record label...
emailists OP
923 posts
 
Tomic, from what I’ve read as far as another DAC with fpga, getting compatible with MQA is not exactly easy, and have to make sure they don’t compromise the sound of other codecs, and requires back and forth with Mqa including code so they approve it.

i read early reports of mastering engineers saying running signal through mqa  sounds "better" than the master.

In my mind this is highly suspect. Just like the DBX expander I used to use on my system in high school.  Sure it was supposed to expand the dynamics Osee back to reality, but like countless boxes over time promising to enhance the original, they eventually sit collecting dust. 

However, Something like the Plangent process, on the other hand looks at carrier tone of analog masters and digitally slows or speeds to account for tape wow and flutter. The results are excellent, but they are not changing or enhancing the sound in any way other than timing fixing. IMHO this is the process that major labels should have considered, for their analog sourced releases.

The springsteen remasters used this (grateful dead were early adopters) and I can hear the solidity in general and steadiness of piano sustains, etc..


More to discover