Home Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Critic's Corner ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

Respectfully ...

To accuse MQA of misleading consumers just because their "Master" files coexist with CD files on Tidal seems to me off-base. Did they ever claim that they were using the same master as the CD-quality Tidal files? On the contrary.

MQA is quite open about the fact that they pursue the best quality masters, and that they're often different from the masters used in (eg) CD releases. I consider this a feature, not a bug--and perhaps the best thing about MQA overall, perhaps the most important contributor to improved sound quality--better masters. The emphasis on using the best possible masters was a point of emphasis in a recent interview I did with Stuart--which unfortunately hasn't been published yet (my fault).

I agree that MQA needs to do a better job establishing the value of their format, by being more forthcoming about the technology, releasing the results of any listening tests they may have done, and facilitating quality listening tests by others. I'm less skeptical of the technology than you and others, but I will admit--indeed assert--that the rationale given for the technology so far is far less than rigorous.

In other contexts, you and other important figures have been OK with this--what rigorous results were presented to demonstrate say, the audibility of pre-ringing and the audible advantages of minimum-phase filters?--another technology that could be claimed to be doing harm to the sanctified signal by delaying highs more than lows. The only listening tests I'm aware of that aimed for rigor were at best inconclusive. People were encouraged not to worry about it. "Just listen. Trust your ears."

Now MQA is doing much the same thing, urging people to "trust their ears."

Yes, there is an important difference, for DACs and CD players at least: They're messing with the source data; DACs and CD players weren't doing that. But similar things have been done on the ADC end, and the fact remains that there's a longstanding tradition in this field of not worrying much, publicly at least, about technical rigor. As a result of that, there's no rigorous foundation for very much of audio's conventional wisdom and key assumptions. So why start now?

I think MQA needs to do better. But their approach so far is very much in the established tradition of high-end audio--an approach that's often advocated by many of its most important figures.

Best Regards,

Jim Austin


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  VH Audio  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
FAQ

Post a Message!

 Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]