Yeah and I also note the use of the word "debunked", which has been widely used in describing MQA. Apparently Bob thinks he's clever in returning fire with verbiage that perfectly describes his own garbage "technology".I can't believe he actually used the term, "alternative facts." That's gross.
Add to that there are actually measurements by Archimago and others that show the exact opposite is true, that MQA can only degrade the so-called temporal resolution and add "blur," though by all accounts that difference would be tiny enough as to be inaudible.This is the one that gets me:
"MQA is different from regular PCM for important reasons to do with sound quality. Compared to regular PCM, MQA can deliver higher temporal resolution and lower blur while using less data in delivery."
That is pure marketing hinkiness. That magical file, most likely originally recorded in PCM, somehow gained resolution from the time it was initially recorded. I know Bob swears there's some time domain damage in the ADC/DAC handoffs but nothing backs that up except for him using words like 'blurring'.
In digital audio recordings, sample rate is analogous to the framerate in video. The more sound data (samples) gathered per period of time, the closer to the original analog sound the captured data becomes.
The bit depth determines how much information can be stored. A sampling with 24-bit depth can store more nuances and hence, more precise than a sampling with 16-bit depth.
We know that the higher the sample rate and bit depth, the more similar our digital signal will be to the original analog signal.
A very reasoned and detailed response, so, the exact opposite of the almost comically defensive and threatening MQA respose. The MQA response to the original video made them look even worse in my eyes. The tone of this Goldensound person does not display any of the agenda MQA insinuates. It's pretty embarrassing for them and honestly I'm ashamed that I've defended that at times before here and elsewhere, prior to really doing a deeper dive into what and who they are.The GoldenSound response to the recent Bob Talks "rebuttal":
A very reasoned and detailed response, so, the exact opposite of the almost comically defensive and threatening MQA respose. The MQA response to the original video made them look even worse in my eyes. The tone of this Goldensound person does not display any of the agenda MQA insinuates. It's pretty embarrassing for them and honestly I'm ashamed that I've defended that at times before here and elsewhere, prior to really doing a deeper dive into what and who they are.
Absolutely, and so with the likes of TAS, Stereophile, and others, thats not really journalism per se but a trade publication, their customer is not the reader so much as it is the advertisers. It's been that way for a long time, and while there was still information to be gleaned as a reader, you always had to take the reviews with more than a grain of salt.This was in April of 2016 and I remember reading it then, and how it reinforced my feelings that many audio "journalists" seem to be no more than fanboys of audio manufacturers and service providers. (Journalism is the production and distribution of reports on current events based on facts and supported with proof or evidence.)
I remember that and others did the same (Dr. AIX?), a smoking gun if there ever were one.He wrote more a year later where he revealed that he offered original digital recordings and digital masters to Bob Stuart to encode and send the MQA files back so a true apples-to-apples comparison could be made. He got no response.
Exactly, with the encoder under lock and key, and only MQA's unfounded claims of "deblurring" and greater "temporal resolution" by means of correcting for all flaws in every ADC ever produced, and the emperor simply has no clothes despite what various manufacturers, the trade press, and Bob Stuart might hope you will believe.So for 5 years it has been the same story. If MQA feels their encoded files sound better (whether lossless or not) then why not allow for a true comparison? As it is, I don't have any reason to believe a subjective opinion that MQA sounds better than an original lossless file.
And that really is the threat to the music buying (renting?) consumer, Jbara's buddies at Warner Music Group have followed through with the big 3 label's publicly stated goal of "one deliverable" in removing Redbook PCM on TIDAL, where you can now only get MQA. If the other labels follow suit, or worse yet the same were force fed to the other streaming services, then all consumers lose, not just those subscribing to TIDAL.But it didn’t bother me until I didn’t have a choice. When Tidal almost overnight was saturated with MQA albums and the non MQA albums went away, it became a thing I had to think about as Tidal was my main digital source.