• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

paulrbarnard

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2022
Messages
24
Likes
24
Me too. I remember in the late 70's shopping for hi-fi for my older brother (I got his old stuff), speakers would always be chosen on sound, electronics on features.
Record deck and stylus was a very subjective part of the equation back then as well as the speakers. I agree the pre-amp/amp was, for me at least, spec based.
Another point was these items lived in the living room so aesthetics played a large part in the final buying decision.
 

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,636
Likes
7,497
That's exactly the subjectivism I presumed you meant. That's why I referenced the subjective mags I'd expect you would include in that "cult."

As I understand it, the issue was whether those magazines actually had the effect of "driving the hobby" out of the mainstream.

If we are talking about "high end" audio gear it was never "mainstream" to begin with. So what effect did these "subjectivist cult" mags actually have on most people buying audio gear? Not much that I can see. Even people who wanted good audio gear tended to go out and check stuff out for themselves, rather than fully rely on either the measurement-oriented mags, much less the little, tiny subjective rags of the time.

I don't think it's a very good explanation for some mass abandonment of anything, or adoption of anything. If we are talking about actual mainstream behaviour, all sorts of changes in society, culture, technology will influence what people are doing and buying over some little niche audio rags.

I agree that it's oversimple to attribute a large cultural change to just one factor, in this case the high-end audiophile magazines.

Many larger cultural forces were at play - see below if anyone's interested in my $.02 on that.

BUT, I believe there is one important factor in the "subjectivist drift" for which the high-end audiophile press IS directly responsible - and that is the question of CDs and digital music. In the late 1970s and very early 1980s, digital was considered the next stage in the audiophile quest. It's hard to believe in 2022 with the MoFi controversy, but around 1980 or so, LPs cut from digital recordings were considered to be a desirable thing, because one or more generations of degradation from the original recording to the cutting lathe were removed from the process.

But sometime not too long after the first wave of widely-available CD players came out, the myth of "digital sound" arose, and it really cleaved apart measurements from subjective listening reports. IMHO this is where the entire current culture of "worse-measuring gear can sound more hi-fi than better measuring gear" started to become mainstreamed. Yes, you can find positive reports on the first CD players in old Stereophile reviews. And it might well be that TAS, for example, was more responsible for this than Stereophile. But overall, it was the audiophile press and commentators who drove a key segment of the audiophile community off a subjectivist cliff by rejecting CDs and "digital sound."


---

With that said, for those who are interested, here's my take on the larger trends:

Being in my early to mid-50s and having gotten interested in hi-fi when I was about 12 (from my father), I have lived through what has definitely been a major shift in the audio industry, as described by @DonR , @Jim Taylor , @Steve H, and others.

In the 1950s, a combination of factors basically created the hi-fi field and industry as we know it: WWII technical training and GI Bill college educations for millions of American men (alas, mostly white because of institutionalized discrimination, but that's for another conversation); exposure of many GIs to German technology (automotive mainly, but also things like good-quality tape recorders instead of wire recorders); and the postwar U.S. economic boom (approx. 1950-1973) and flowering of the aerospace and computer industries, among other factors.

Because of these factors, the hi-fi field was all about engineering: it was created by engineers, and even the marketing and PR were rooted in real engineering. Yes, the consoles were marketed in part based on their lovely wood cabinets and fitting into your martinis-and-entertaining lifestyle, but when you think of HH Scott, Marantz, Pilot, and others, you think of oscilloscopes, build quality, pretty well-known bills of materials, published measurements, and so on. This culture persisted well into the 1970s, culminating in the receiver wars. (The oil crisis and other factors ended that period, but the shift to lower-power amps and more plastic was defined by an electronic/tech fetishism, not by a move to subjectivism.)

Stereophile and TAS of course existed in the latter part of this period, as @MarkS has noted (as did I, BTW - I was of course not born yet in the 1950s, but I have read back a bit). I don't know as much about TAS back then, but Stereophile was very much grounded in the culture of engineering and measurements in a way it is not now. Yes, Holt's version of the magazine engaged in plenty of philosophizing and subjectivism, and yes, today's Stereophile of course publishes measurements as part of most reviews. But to my knowledge there was not the same level of cultural firewall (or I would even say disconnect) between the reviewers' listening test approach and language on the one hand, and the measurements on the other hand.

More importantly, though, Stereophile and TAS had a different place in the landscape then. They were merely two - and as far as I know fairly small players - among many large hi-fi magazines like Audio, High Fidelity, and of course Stereo Review. These magazines were all engineering-based. Yes, they were full of ads, and yes, many reviewers passed along company marketing claims, but you always saw the measurements inline with the reviews, and in many or most cases it appeared that the reviewer was also the person who did the measurements, or at least coordinated with the measuring technician when preparing the review. People used to make fun of Julian Hirsch at Stereo Review because he praised the majority of gear he reviewed and indicated that most well-measuring gear sounded essentially the same. But it turns out he was right.

Today most hi-fi magazines have gone the way of the dodo because of the triple-whammy of the decline of print journalism, the rise of home theater, and the advent of computer audio and smartphones. So Stereophile and TAS play a larger role than they used to in the industry as a whole, and they are not immune from these changes either, so they likely appeal to an audience that is more made up of quite affluent consumers rather than a mix of wealthy people, hobbyists, engineers, and so on (I am speculating on this point, I admit).

As hi-fi became more niche, it did what most shrinking niches did (like auto sedans have done recently): it went upmarket; what disappeared was the lower end and the mainstream.

Now of course, there has been a modest resurgence in the lower and mid end of the hi-fi market, because of the vinyl resurgence mostly. But this resurgent market's culture has been shaped by the landscape I have described above, so it has largely adopted the subjectivism-heavy culture of the niche high-end, because the more engineering-oriented culture of the old mainstream is long gone. That's the problem as I see it - and of course it's evident everywhere, most prominently in the new mainstream hi-fi medium, which is YouTube: the vast majority of the YouTubers that folks can go to for reviews and info about moderately priced hi-fi gear are more or less entirely subjectivist in their approach, and to the extent they bring in technical discussion, it seems clear they have no ability to discern the truth from the BS, and that they don't really even care to do so most of the time, as the technical stuff is usually mentioned only if and when it appears to confirm their subjective impressions and opinions.

That's why a site like ASR is so important, to bring "balance to the Force." In fact, I guess one way of describing the current subjectivist-objectivist online battle is to say that some people think @amirm is Anakin while others think he's Luke. :)
 
Last edited:

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,200
Likes
11,816
I hope all you guys and gals who have been posting extensively here lately enjoy having such an accurate mental image of your own navels. :cool:

I hope your feeling of being above it lasts beyond the time it took to post that ;)

( Explaining and hashing out ideas happens in discussion forums, strangely enough)
 

Jimster480

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
2,880
Likes
2,032
Location
Tampa Bay
You are absolutely correct, Matt. That's exactly how I chose my first two system, and possibly my third. For most people, it was the only way they had of choosing audio equipment, and dissatisfaction was (reasonably) rare.
However, that's not quite what I mean by the word "subjectivism". Nowadays, we have a certain type of "subjectivism" that is ..... well, a cult, for lack of a better word. It rejects any and all claims that measurements are necessary or applicable. When I was young, there was little access to measurements. If someone could find them, though, they were greatly appreciated, and would be pored over to no end. That doesn't happen in this cult-type subjectivism, though. The words "objective" and "measurements" are anathema to this section of the audio world. Their world is an "ears-only" world by enforced mandate, so to speak, and not by necessity. That didn't exist 50-60 years ago.

So now that you know which type of radical "subjectivism" I'm discussing, would you think that it is a cause or an effect? Did the radicals always exist, but just recently gain in power and numbers? Or did something else cause the radical anti-logic, anti-measurement and anti-science attitude that we see now?

Just wondering. Jim
I think that this is part of the fault of the internet. I believe that these radicals always existed but they just did not have a place to speak the way they do with the internet. These people are controlled by other people who have craftily deceived them. It is hard for them to admit to anything else outside of this.
I have seen the same thing with the following of streamers especially female streamers and people hopelessly buying all of their gear for their room setups just to post pictures to tag the streamer on Twitter or instagram. The saddest of sights to say the least.

The idea that something else could exist or that this person's gear is not worth purchasing; because they are just a person who is basically advertising to you and being paid to do so is not acceptable to these people.

We Face the same thing in the audio world where these other forums create such an atmosphere; driving people to high priced poorly engineered products. The administrators and staff of these forums are paid to push a message and get kickbacks from the manufacturers for doing so. People naively trust the forums and their administrators thinking that because there are a lot of people and the website is large that somehow it is trusted. This is a psychological problem as many people become victims of groupthink.
 

Steve H

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
72
Likes
78
Location
Valley of the Sun
Hi Steve H,

I was attempting to slightly "needle" your reply in a good-natured way. Of course you can wish for whatever you want, and enjoy whatever you want.



I think that is likely to be a rather shallow or incomplete explanation for the status of "Hi Fi." There are likely all sorts of cultural and technological changes over the years that likely explain the changes in what people choose to spend their time on. It's not like the masses were all reading stereo enthusiast magazines, or that decent, affordable stereo equipment suddenly disappeared and became unavailable to anyone who wanted it, when those vile teeny little subjective magazines arose. Even today there's plenty of good, not too expensive audio gear which many people are buying. Most people looking for stereo equipment aren't buying based on TAS or whatever.




Well for one thing I quite enjoy some of the subjective audio press, and have for decades.

So do plenty of other people.

This reminds me of when I see some people declare things like 'vinyl has no reason to exist as a playback medium now that we have more accurate sources' or 'tube amps have no reason to exist or be produced at this stage in audio technology.' This occurs when one isn't thinking beyond one's own current likes and dislikes and goals. I and many others are frankly very happy those options still exist, as we enjoy them.

The question is: why would you want to remove MY choice, or anyone else's, in order to insert yours? If you don't care for, or get anything out of the subjective audio stuff, why not be part of offering an alternative for those who want it, rather than conjoining that to wanting the choice taken away from others and being gleeful to see that choice removed?

Remember the subjective audio press promoted MQA or was only willing to condemn it privately. Good old peer pressure. So, when I got involved to stop MQA in 2016 the first thing was to confirm the rumors about Meridian Audio’s finances, and spread actual financial information about MQA Ltd. Then point out the financial problems of Tidal. By late 2016 I had a pretty good model of the encoder and its problems. All that was left was to write MQA is Vaporware and start questioning the expertise and powers of observation of the subjective press because it doesn’t sound better. At the Los Angles Audio Show it was time to go after the subjective audio press and question their value to the hobby. Andy Quint of The Absolute Sound accused me of wanting to tear down the entire authority structure of high-end audio. He’s right.

“The We Who Oppose MQA Fraternity” as John Atkinson call us is probably the largest audio society in the world but is the Measure, Listen and Discuss Crowd. A 50/50 balance of measurements, consistent reference music and a let her rip subjective test. Archimago calls us Rational Audiophiles. With a clear implication that there are irrational audiophiles. So, I am part of the alternative. We can create a hobby with more objective audio enthusiasts but after the MQA fight there isn’t common ground with hardcore subjectivists.

Finally, Matt there are only properly designed amplifiers and amplifiers that aren’t. As for vinyl, I’ve always said even in the darkest days it was profitable so skip the stereotypes.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,200
Likes
11,816
Remember the subjective audio press promoted MQA or was only willing to condemn it privately. Good old peer pressure. So, when I got involved to stop MQA in 2016 the first thing was to confirm the rumors about Meridian Audio’s finances, and spread actual financial information about MQA Ltd. Then point out the financial problems of Tidal. By late 2016 I had a pretty good model of the encoder and its problems. All that was left was to write MQA is Vaporware and start questioning the expertise and powers of observation of the subjective press because it doesn’t sound better. At the Los Angles Audio Show it was time to go after the subjective audio press and question their value to the hobby. Andy Quint of The Absolute Sound accused me of wanting to tear down the entire authority structure of high-end audio. He’s right.

I've been amazed at the almost religious level of passion some people have devoted to the MQA issue. It's not really my thing I have to admit.

But in any case, I'm left scratching my head as to the relevance. That hardly makes a case for the subjective rags having driven the hobby out of the mainstream. I'm still not even sure what that means. And...some little niche skirmish among some audiophiles, sometimes mentioned in niche magazines...somehow drove the hobby out of the mainstream? I'm an audiophile and even I barely paid attention to that stuff.

“The We Who Oppose MQA Fraternity” as John Atkinson call us is probably the largest audio society in the world but is the Measure, Listen and Discuss Crowd. A 50/50 balance of measurements, consistent reference music and a let her rip subjective test. Archimago calls us Rational Audiophiles. With a clear implication that there are irrational audiophiles. So, I am part of the alternative. We can create a hobby with more objective audio enthusiasts but after the MQA fight there isn’t common ground with hardcore subjectivists.

All this talk about fighting! My goodness!

I don't see how the MQA stuff has anything to do with the long divide between "objective/subjective-based audiophiles." Looks the same to me now than it ever was. With the exception it seems to me more are coming on side with the relevance of measurements, and so..just my impression...I think more "newbies" are less likely to immediately accept audiophile snake oil. (I could be wrong though).

Finally, Matt there are only properly designed amplifiers and amplifiers that aren’t.

Well, I guess I'm not going to budge black and white views like that. But since I recognize people can have different goals, I disagree.
I'm very glad there is more choice in the world than it seems your views would allow for.

That includes the choice to enjoy an amp that isn't built to your defined standards, or sometimes to enjoy reading more subjective-oriented audio mags.
Or...gasp!..even enjoy trading purely subjective impressions of our systems with other audiophiles.

I prefer bridge-builders to bridge burners myself. I'm no no mission to take things away that you like; I have no idea why you make it a mission to take away things other people like.
 

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,636
Likes
7,497
I've been amazed at the almost religious level of passion some people have devoted to the MQA issue. It's not really my thing I have to admit.

But in any case, I'm left scratching my head as to the relevance. That hardly makes a case for the subjective rags having driven the hobby out of the mainstream. I'm still not even sure what that means. And...some little niche skirmish among some audiophiles, sometimes mentioned in niche magazines...somehow drove the hobby out of the mainstream? I'm an audiophile and even I barely paid attention to that stuff.

I agree with you that the MQA fight has not been particularly significant or important in the subjectivist-objectivist debate. In fact, MQA has been quite atypical in a way, because its claims, while bogus, are cloaked in more technical detail and objective-seeming narrative than most of the "innovations" that the subjectivist magazines tend to champion. It also so happens that Amir is not a partisan in the MQA debate, and to the extent he's commented publicly on it has tended to mildly support MQA, or perhaps more accurately to object to many of the criticisms of MQA. So I agree that MQA is a poor example of subjectivism run amok.

However, that said, I'd like to push back on your idea that the level of passion about MQA is "almost religious." The debate certainly has been heated, no doubt about that. But I think calling that heat religious obscures what has motivated it and - no offense - is more about positioning yourself as rational in comparison to the implicitly irrational pro- and anti-MQA fanatics all around you.

As someone who's very much anti-MQA, I feel it's important to note that a major factor in folks' upset about it is that from the outset MQA has aspired to a high degree of vertical integration, to insert itself into the recording, A/D conversion, mastering, encoding, decoding, and D/A conversion processes. The concern has been that a single person's peculiar, baseless, and ultimately subjective preferences - aka Bob Stuart's obsession with "apodizing" filters and 22-26kHz ultrasonics - would become literally encoded into the digital music industry.

Fortunately that has not happened on any large scale. Reasonable people can disagree about how much or how little of a role the anti-MQA "crusade" played in limiting MQA's market penetration. But IMHO it's difficult to argue that anti-MQA efforts online played no significant role at all, precisely BECAUSE the community of folks who really care about this stuff is relatively small and quite passionate.

Even with MQA's apparently quite limited inroads, we have a clear example of the scenario many of us were afraid of and argued against: When Tidal launched its lossy but non-high-ress subscription tier - in other words its 2nd-from-the-top, CD-quality tier - it contained a good deal of "Tidal Masters," which are MQA. But since it was not the top-end, high-res subscription tier, MQA decoding was disabled. So what you got in that tier was undecoded MQA, which hopefully sounds the same as CD but which is clearly inferior in terms of its bit-depth. - and is both unnecessary and undesirable as a format: why have needlessly processed and compromised CD-quality when you can have regular, unprocessed, fully lossless CD quality?

Of course Tidal is a small player, and Amazon and Apple have vividly demonstrated that high-bitrate lossy on the one hand, and non-MQA forms of high-res and lossless on the other hand, seem to be the future. I'm just saying that Tidal's non-high-res lossless tier shows what the concern is about, and it's not "religious" even if the tenor of discussion has been heated at times.
 

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,946
Likes
2,611
Location
Massachusetts
I've been amazed at the almost religious level of passion some people have devoted to the MQA issue. It's not really my thing I have to admit.

But in any case, I'm left scratching my head as to the relevance. That hardly makes a case for the subjective rags having driven the hobby out of the mainstream. I'm still not even sure what that means. And...some little niche skirmish among some audiophiles, sometimes mentioned in niche magazines...somehow drove the hobby out of the mainstream? I'm an audiophile and even I barely paid attention to that stuff.



All this talk about fighting! My goodness!

I don't see how the MQA stuff has anything to do with the long divide between "objective/subjective-based audiophiles." Looks the same to me now than it ever was. With the exception it seems to me more are coming on side with the relevance of measurements, and so..just my impression...I think more "newbies" are less likely to immediately accept audiophile snake oil. (I could be wrong though).



Well, I guess I'm not going to budge black and white views like that. But since I recognize people can have different goals, I disagree.
I'm very glad there is more choice in the world than it seems your views would allow for.

That includes the choice to enjoy an amp that isn't built to your defined standards, or sometimes to enjoy reading more subjective-oriented audio mags.
Or...gasp!..even enjoy trading purely subjective impressions of our systems with other audiophiles.

I prefer bridge-builders to bridge burners myself. I'm no no mission to take things away that you like; I have no idea why you make it a mission to take away things other people like.

Much of the passion in the MQA debate is due to the provably false statements made by MQA marketing and their aggression toward those that measure and to dispel some of the provably false assertions.

Here are some MQA claims are (IMO) in direct opposition to the facts.
  • MQA does not create a single master, streaming needs a compact lossy MP3 type compression for majority of its customers.
  • MQA does not deblur, its filter blurs by leaks aliasing into the audible range.
  • MQA files are not at the PCM rate advertised.
  • MQA does not restore the original master it degrades it.
  • MQA is not right-sized it can be larger. In fact, LPCM at 96khz/18 bits FLAC may best it.
  • MQA does not make obsolete the terms lossy and lossless.
  • MQA can restrict PEQ/REQ in products without dispensation.
  • Simply put, MQA is not HD-Audio, nor is it branded to be.
Basically, MQA has some interesting tech, but it used the audiophile press to evangelize so it is relevant to the discussion.

- Rich
 
Last edited:

Here2Learn

Active Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
112
Likes
113
IMO, both recently discussed viewpoints have valid points.

If you are in the recording side of things, MQA is counter to retaining quality. Since it is a closed system that actually does seem to be lossy, the control over what the customer gets becomes an unknown depending on where any MQA encoding is applied. So it's an assault on the ability to create a known quality/standard of recording. If it generally lowers quality, then why would anybody want it?

Where this enters the objectivist/subjectivist side of things is that the audio press seem to promote MQA as producing nicer/preferable sound quality to their 'golden' ears. This is demonstrably wrong when objectively reviewed and measured. While I advocate that an end user can and should be permitted to alter the sound to suit their preference, MQA is in essence being a preference of one man, hoisted on to everybody else. If it was objectively and indisputably proved it improved the recording chain, or the replay chain, it would have merit and potential wider buy-in. But it does neither.

Since the audiophile press are somewhat complicit in MQA's promotion, they are also complicit in assisting one man override the will of all the recording engineers and listeners who realize that it objectively has nothing to offer. Meanwhile, the subjectivists buying in to it are creating a demand for MQA encoded music. If they prefer it, it's likely to do with psychological priming.

In terms of fighting/battles/conflict between objectivists and subjectivist - it comes from the same place as all forms of conflict: the overriding of your own will with that another (be it an individual or organization) such that you're unwillingly compelled down a particular route.

In this instance, we have MQA (Bob Stuart) and the subjective audio press seeming to do exactly that.

The opposite view is that there simply exists the option to avoid MQA and therefore this is just another sound 'flavoring' that one can adopt or reject. However, that might be a simplistic view if you're just a consumer and not aware of what is happening within recording studios, or with their relationships with streaming services, to be aware of how much 'pushing' of MQA there may (or may not) be.

People's position/opinion on MQA will vary depending on personal situation or audio-related job, awareness of the MQA impact, preferences, examinations of objective evidences, and their own value judgments. If they leverage and use objective data, they are likely against it. If they tend to be subjective and primed by the audiophile press, they're likely for it.

When it comes to MQA, as with any subjectivist thinking borne of psychological biases and lack of objective testing, we need to NOT go to the extent of calling it a battle/conflict between objectivists and subjectivists, as it breeds a them-vs-us mentality with antipathy, apathy and ignorance or failing to understand alternate perspectives. In this respect, I think ...
I prefer bridge-builders to bridge burners myself.
...is apt. It's a mindset we need to have as objectivists. Education over alienation. Explanation over condescension. Helping individuals achieve desired results, rather than citing facts that seem un-relatable for the individual and that they don't know what to do with.

In the case of MQA, the online examinations from Archimago and Golden Sound on the matter are educational, but need wider reading/viewing among subjectivists who may then wish to test more objectively to see if they were hoodwinked. Our job is done once they are motivated to jump on that 'test what the reality is' train.
 

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,636
Likes
7,497
IMO, both recently discussed viewpoints have valid points.

If you are in the recording side of things, MQA is counter to retaining quality. Since it is a closed system that actually does seem to be lossy, the control over what the customer gets becomes an unknown depending on where any MQA encoding is applied. So it's an assault on the ability to create a known quality/standard of recording. If it generally lowers quality, then why would anybody want it?

Where this enters the objectivist/subjectivist side of things is that the audio press seem to promote MQA as producing nicer/preferable sound quality to their 'golden' ears. This is demonstrably wrong when objectively reviewed and measured. While I advocate that an end user can and should be permitted to alter the sound to suit their preference, MQA is in essence being a preference of one man, hoisted on to everybody else. If it was objectively and indisputably proved it improved the recording chain, or the replay chain, it would have merit and potential wider buy-in. But it does neither.

Since the audiophile press are somewhat complicit in MQA's promotion, they are also complicit in assisting one man override the will of all the recording engineers and listeners who realize that it objectively has nothing to offer. Meanwhile, the subjectivists buying in to it are creating a demand for MQA encoded music. If they prefer it, it's likely to do with psychological priming.

In terms of fighting/battles/conflict between objectivists and subjectivist - it comes from the same place as all forms of conflict: the overriding of your own will with that another (be it an individual or organization) such that you're unwillingly compelled down a particular route.

In this instance, we have MQA (Bob Stuart) and the subjective audio press seeming to do exactly that.

The opposite view is that there simply exists the option to avoid MQA and therefore this is just another sound 'flavoring' that one can adopt or reject. However, that might be a simplistic view if you're just a consumer and not aware of what is happening within recording studios, or with their relationships with streaming services, to be aware of how much 'pushing' of MQA there may (or may not) be.

People's position/opinion on MQA will vary depending on personal situation or audio-related job, awareness of the MQA impact, preferences, examinations of objective evidences, and their own value judgments. If they leverage and use objective data, they are likely against it. If they tend to be subjective and primed by the audiophile press, they're likely for it.

When it comes to MQA, as with any subjectivist thinking borne of psychological biases and lack of objective testing, we need to NOT go to the extent of calling it a battle/conflict between objectivists and subjectivists, as it breeds a them-vs-us mentality with antipathy, apathy and ignorance or failing to understand alternate perspectives. In this respect, I think ...

...is apt. It's a mindset we need to have as objectivists. Education over alienation. Explanation over condescension. Helping individuals achieve desired results, rather than citing facts that seem un-relatable for the individual and that they don't know what to do with.

In the case of MQA, the online examinations from Archimago and Golden Sound on the matter are educational, but need wider reading/viewing among subjectivists who may then wish to test more objectively to see if they were hoodwinked. Our job is done once they are motivated to jump on that 'test what the reality is' train.

Great post, well-stated - thank you!

One small addition, in the spirit of agreeing 100% with your analysis here: one other problem with the "consumers can simply choose to avoid or reject MQA if they want" idea is that in most cases consumers cannot actually choose (or reject) MQA. When it comes to subscription-based streaming services, there is no MQA or non-MQA tier offered by Tidal or anyone else. So if someone subscribes to a service that includes MQA content, they cannot specifically include or exclude MQA content: they get a mix of MQA and non-MQA content, and the only difference is whether or not their tier enables them to decode/unfold the MQA content.

In other words, Tidal subscribers can choose between high-res or non-high-res lossless tiers - they cannot actually "vote with their wallets" on MQA; that choice is not available to them.

Of course one can just subscribe to a different streaming service (or to none at all), but even there people are not actually rejecting MQA, since MQA of course has absolutely nothing to do with the decision-making process that 99.99+% of streaming subscribers use for choosing a streaming service.

One can explicitly choose or reject MQA when it comes to buying digital downloads and CDs, but those comprise a truly tiny percentage of all consumed MQA content - streaming is where virtually all MQA content is delivered.
 

Steve H

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
72
Likes
78
Location
Valley of the Sun
@Steve H has a point, though. When I was young, it wasn't that subjectivism was looked down on, it was that it didn't exist.

So ...... is subjectivism a cause, or is it an effect? And if it's an effect, then what caused it? If it's NOT an effect, then doesn't it have to be a cause?

Jim
Gordon Holt created a new vocabulary to describe sound. And would eventually publish a glossary of audio terms.
 

thecity2

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
25
Likes
11
I noticed something interesting lately watching YT reviews of Chinese DACs with those 7 filter modes (slow rolloff, fast rolloff, etc). In every review I've seen so far, not a single reviewer seemed to hear any differences between the filter modes. I find that very strange because the rest of the videos invariably go into great detail about how there's X, Y, and Z subtle or not-so-subtle differences between the DAC under review and some other DACs. Isn't that odd? Those filters are explicitly designed to produce audible differences, and the "golden ears" reviewers can't distinguish between any of them. Huh.
 

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,946
Likes
2,611
Location
Massachusetts
I noticed something interesting lately watching YT reviews of Chinese DACs with those 7 filter modes (slow rolloff, fast rolloff, etc). In every review I've seen so far, not a single reviewer seemed to hear any differences between the filter modes. I find that very strange because the rest of the videos invariably go into great detail about how there's X, Y, and Z subtle or not-so-subtle differences between the DAC under review and some other DACs. Isn't that odd? Those filters are explicitly designed to produce audible differences, and the "golden ears" reviewers can't distinguish between any of them. Huh.

You can test this at home by having someone switch them.
I just go with the most extended, fast roll-off linear filter available.
The Benchmark DAC3 implemented their own filter. That may not matter, but it does sound good.

- Rich
 

DavidEdwinAston

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
754
Likes
566
You can test this at home by having someone switch them.
I just go with the most extended, fast roll-off linear filter available.
The Benchmark DAC3 implemented their own filter. That may not matter, but it does sound good.

- Rich
Rather expensive, the dac3 Rich?
 

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,946
Likes
2,611
Location
Massachusetts

DavidEdwinAston

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
754
Likes
566
More expensive than some, and less than others.
I am happy with the purchase.

- Rich
I'm pleased for you Rich. If my Qutest fails, I might consider an RME product. Certainly, at the moment the DAC3 is cheaper than most other Chord dac's. RME cheaper again.
 

thecity2

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
25
Likes
11
You can test this at home by having someone switch them.
I just go with the most extended, fast roll-off linear filter available.
The Benchmark DAC3 implemented their own filter. That may not matter, but it does sound good.

- Rich
I think you are missing my point. My point was that it's hard to believe reviewers can hear significant differences in the sound profile between different DACs, but can't seem to hear the measurable differences between different filters in the very same DAC. Isn't that weird? Someone explain to me how that works, because it would lead me to believe they are just full of placebo.
 

DonR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
2,971
Likes
5,615
Location
Vancouver(ish)
I think you are missing my point. My point was that it's hard to believe reviewers can hear significant differences in the sound profile between different DACs, but can't seem to hear the measurable differences between different filters in the very same DAC. Isn't that weird? Someone explain to me how that works, because it would lead me to believe they are just full of placebo.
Cognitive bias
 
Top Bottom