All that is wrong with "HiFi"

This is a subject that has driven me crazy, especially since the obsessive drive for more "detail" has risen to insane proportions. But the departure from "musically correct" reproduction didn't begin there.

No. It actually began with the use of high feedback in the pursuit of vanishingly low harmonic distortion. This inturn led to the focus of designing solely by numbers as a dominating criteria instead of listening to what truly sounds good, and what doesn't. This has proven to be a mistake time and time again, but few have seemed to learn from it.

What I hear when I listen to the majority of modern hifi components and systems is a bright, hard and fatiguing presentation, often bordering on severe stridency while being harmonically distorted and/or threadbare, and noticeably lacking in musically engaging qualities. What you end up with is an over-hyped sonic microscope that is overly detailed and brutally revealing of everything that is wrong with the recording.

The problem compounding this is that nearly all of the so-called hifi components that I have heard over the last 40 years clearly displays one or more of the above traits to the level of distraction, especially since the majority of them often possess distorted and/or unrefined high frequencies. You may not be able to hear it as well as I do, but I am really sensitive to it.

To sum up this rant, I would like to say that I am looking to form a conglomerate of audio-oriented manufacturing associates with the goal of producing more musically correct components at reasonable prices.

 

For the absolute truth on the matter you might wanna check out the Horn / Set section

Meaning Horns+SET amps provide a correct reproduction?

I have no idea

When you know, you know.

 

what is to forgive? Look at yourself, it is you who decided to follow a reviewer rather than trust your hearing. There is a lesson in that...may have been an expensive one, but use it at full value...listen to your ears and not with your ego or any other layer in between your ears and your inner self

 

When you know, you know.

And sometimes you don't know that you don't know

Personally, if I can relax and enjoy the music, that's good enough for me.

 

what is to forgive? Look at yourself, it is you who decided to follow a reviewer rather than trust your hearing.

Huh? Who here decided to follow a reviewer? Also, you didn't even need your hearing to know that MQA is a fraud. You only needed to study a few technical analyses.

Reviewers need to fess up that they were wrong about MQA. They will never do
that, however, because they think this would hurt their "authority" and credibility. But thinking that way they have it precisely backwards. Not fessing up their mistake is what continues to hurt their credibility -- at least among audiophiles who know about the issue, of whom there may not be that many, unfortunately.

 

you didn't even need your hearing to know that MQA is a fraud

I used my ears before I ever saw the technical information, and was promptly guffawed out of the listening demonstration when I made my opinion vocal.

 

I used my ears before I ever saw the technical information, and was promptly guffawed out of the listening demonstration when I made my opinion vocal.

Good for you that you were vocal about it.

Alas too many audiophiles are just sheep who follow the "authority" figures.

 

And sometimes you don't know that you don't know

Personally, if I can relax and enjoy the music, that's good enough for me.

Well, I guess you are done here…

 

True. Maybe forgive, but never forget. Whatever his detractors may say, Robert Harley did write several very good and insightful reviews over the years. However, with his embrace of MQA as revolutionary paradigm shift for the better, rather than recognizing it for the fraud that it is, he has tons of egg on his face. John Atkinson does too when it comes to MQA. I think MQA has exposed some deep rot in the audio reviewing community. If reviews overall were hard to be trusted before, the whole MQA affair made it even harder.

This is a ridiculous statement.

Robert, John, Peter McGrath, and myself all have an opinion that MQA can sound excellent and make an improvement on recordings. You can disagree but our job is to have opinions on sound. MQA hasn’t had much commercial success so far but that doesn’t mean that there is “deep rot” in audio journalism. There is only an opinion different from yours.

dCS found merit in MQA and MQA files sound great on my Rossini Apex.

 

Huh? Who here decided to follow a reviewer? Also, you didn't even need your hearing to know that MQA is a fraud. You only needed to study a few technical analyses.

Reviewers need to fess up that they were wrong about MQA. They will never do
that, however, because they think this would hurt their "authority" and credibility. But thinking that way they have it precisely backwards. Not fessing up their mistake is what continues to hurt their credibility -- at least among audiophiles who know about the issue, of whom there may not be that many, unfortunately.

my post was not intended personal, it was a general comment ;-)

 

Well, I guess you are done here…

Correct. I have reached a point where the system is good enough.

 

my post was not intended personal, it was a general comment ;-)

I see, no problem.

 

dCS found merit in MQA

No, they caved in to "what the customer wants" (the customer deceived by the novelty and the MQA claims, that is), just like MSB, Berkeley Audio Design and other manufacturers did. I lost a good amount of respect for all those manufacturers because of that. It's just weakness that they couldn't take a principled stand.

Schiit on the other hand -- like a few others including Benchmark, Ayre, Linn -- did take a principled stand against MQA back in its beginnings. Did it hurt their business? No, their business has greatly expanded since then.

I do have to say that with dCS I experienced a few great firsts in terms of what digital can do. Fond memories. And I like the sound of MSB. But...

 

No, they caved in to "what the customer wants" (the customer deceived by the novelty and the MQA claims, that is), just like MSB, Berkeley Audio Design and other manufacturers did. I lost a good amount of respect for all those manufacturers because of that. It's just weakness that they couldn't take a principled stand.

Schiit on the other hand -- like a few others including Benchmark, Ayre, Linn -- did take a principled stand against MQA back in its beginnings. Did it hurt their business? No, their business has greatly expanded since then.

I do have to say that with dCS I experienced a few great firsts in terms of what digital can do. Fond memories. And I like the sound of MSB. But...

I heard dCS recently asked Stuart to add MQA to the Varese. They wouldn’t do that if they did not find merit in the format.

I also heard that Benchmark was considering adding MQA to the next version of their DAC.

 

I also heard that Benchmark was considering adding MQA to the next version of their DAC.

Now that's ridiculous. Benchmark were adamantly opposed to MQA when it was still alive. Now that MQA is practically dead, Benchmark has suddenly decided to implement it? Yeah right, who's gonna believe you?

 

Can someone explain to me why the hate for MQA ?
To me it’s not about a format war it plays without total unpacking completely
I don’t have a dog in the fight and
there are many MQA albums that really sound great.
There special sauce does not matter to me but a great sound does
it’s free to use so where or why is the hate coming from?
I’m sorry if I am ignorant to why.

 

This is a ridiculous statement.

Robert, John, Peter McGrath, and myself all have an opinion that MQA can sound excellent and make an improvement on recordings. You can disagree but our job is to have opinions on sound. MQA hasn’t had much commercial success so far but that doesn’t mean that there is “deep rot” in audio journalism. There is only an opinion different from yours.

dCS found merit in MQA and MQA files sound great on my Rossini Apex.

I agree. RH is friend of mine. We both own XVX and we totally agree it is the finest sounding speaker we have ever heard. He is Editor and Chief of TAS, not just some reviewer. I have great respect for him, and he is just a very kind person who is quite humble. I think these folks have a right to their own opinion. I don't know anything about MQA because McIntosh doesn't support the format. I do USB/FLAC with hdtracks mostly 24 bit/96-192K, but also DSD64. This format is quite comparable to SACD. I have plenty of identical albums on SACD's and can compare the 24/96-192 format to them by listening to the same tracks at identical levels. Most of the time it's a tossup or I prefer the download.

I trust McIntosh that they have evaluated MQA and for whatever reason have chosen not to support it, but they have chosen to heavily support SACD and USB/computer audio as well as cd and vinyl. But I also trust and respect Robert, John, Peter and Lee's ears and other's concerning MQA. I honestly don't understand what this argument is all about. I hope that MQA survives, and it probably will although I will unfortunately never hear the format.

Amps: McIntosh: MC3500MKII (2); MC1.25KW (2); MC2.1KW An
Preamp: C-12000 An
Sources: MCD12000 An; MVP881; MVP851; MR87; Marantz 510LV; Lenovo Yoga laptop
Speakers: Wilson Chronosonic XVX
Sub-Woofer: Wilson Thor’s Hammer; Wilson ActivXO Stereo Electronic Crossover
Cables Main System AQ: WEL Signature speaker cables; 24’ balanced IC; balanced 1-meter Dragon IC ; WEL Signature digital, Coffee digital coaxial cables; Diamond optical (2); Diamond USB; Dragon (5 HC, 3 source cords); Thunder & Monsoon power cords
Cables Subwoofer System AQ: Redwood speaker cable; Wolf balanced subwoofer IC; Wind balanced IC to ActivXO; Hurricane HC; Firebird HC; Firebird Source; Dragon HC, power cords
Power Conditioners: AQ Niagara 7000; Niagara 5000 (3); (4) dedicated 20-amp lines.
Isolation: Wilson Pedestals; Bassocontinuo McIntosh Ultra Feet; X-material plinth
Cabinet: Double Custom Woodwork & Design (CWD)
Acoustic Treatments: Room and Echo Tunes

 

This is a ridiculous statement.

Robert, John, Peter McGrath, and myself all have an opinion that MQA can sound excellent and make an improvement on recordings.

With all due respect Lee, this statement is likewise nebulous: you actually are saying that you et aliae believe that your friend's equalising algorithm actually improves the original recording ?
In other words, MQA improved what was originally captured in the recording...

I respect the belief, but may I suggest we do not confuse belief with reality...

 

Alas too many audiophiles are just sheep who follow the "authority" figures.

Are you saying there is a need for more sheepdogs?

 

With all due respect Lee, this statement is likewise nebulous: you actually are saying that you et aliae believe that your friend's equalising algorithm actually improves the original recording ?
In other words, MQA improved what was originally captured in the recording...

I respect the belief, but may I suggest we do not confuse belief with reality...

Correct MQA did improve some recordings. Not everyone can hear the improvement.

 

Correct MQA did improve some recordings. Not everyone can hear the improvement.

How did it improve the actual recording?
Do you mean that you like the MQA equalised sound better than the original?