Can audio component sales personnel play tricks on customers?

[magiccarpetride]

I've been on few occasions in the position where some high end audio store was demoing some systems/components to me, and the back-and-forth switching almost always made for an extremely impressive experience. Like "here is configuration A, give it a good listen; now, here is configuration B -- ta-da!!!"

Those stunts always made me think in the back of my head -- "there must be a trick to this..."

My latest impression: MQA. Listened to John Coltrane "Giant Steps" in MQA format. Sounded bloody awesome! I could easily follow every Coltrane's nuance on the tenor sax, things I've never heard before because of the blinding speed of his playing.

Then listened to the same track in red book format -- the music just collapsed. Everything else remaining equal -- same volume, same configuration. Simply going from MQA to CD the music just died.

How's that possible? Is there a trick to it, or is it really such a genuine improvement?

[walpurgis]

I thought MQA was just a 'luxury' version of MP3? :)

[magiccarpetride]

I thought MQA was just a 'luxury' version of MP3? :)

I thought FLAC was a luxury version of mp3.

[walpurgis]

I thought FLAC was a luxury version of mp3.

Dunno. I was just asking the question. Digital files interest me little. I don't use them (yet).

[magiccarpetride]

Dunno. I was just asking the question. Digital files interest me little. I don't use them (yet).

I've all but given up on digital sound, but after hearing the MQA demo today, I got mighty intrigued. If there was no weird trickery, the MQA playback was really impressive, and sounded absolutely superior to the CD playback.

[walpurgis]

MQA playback was really impressive, and sounded absolutely superior to the CD playback.

That would not surprise me. Bob Stuart and Meridian have always been to the forefront of good digital sound. I don't do 'computer music' so far, but no doubt the day may come.

[struth]

Thought it was a sort of equalisation Plenty tricks can be used of course too

[killie99]

I've got different versions of the same cd, both red book, one sounds shit and one sounds amazing. Shoddy mastering is normally the source of the problem. I'm not saying categorically that's the issue here but I'd want to know the versions of both songs used.

[Macca]

Giant Steps is from 1959 so there would be no benefit from presenting it in a 'high resolution' package, therefore there can only be 2 explanations - different mastering, or some form EQ in the secret MQA processing.

Yes, audio sales people and manufacturers will pull all sorts of tricks in order to sell you. No different from any other industry, much as we would like it to be.

[Ali Tait]

It would be if it was a high res copy of the master tape.

[Macca]

It would be if it was a high res copy of the master tape.

From 1959? Not going to be any frequencies on that master tape higher than 20KHz, probably nothing higher than 15Khz - so what benefit would there be to using a higher sampling frequency?

[Stratmangler]

From 1959? Not going to be any frequencies on that master tape higher than 20KHz, probably nothing higher than 15Khz - so what benefit would there be to using a higher sampling frequency?

Only the knowledge that the playback DAC used will not be brick walling the output, as the higher sample rate negates the need for a brick wall filter.
96KHz playback would require a filter at 48KHz, which is well above anything humans can hear.

[Macca]

That's not likely to be audible in any case and certainly wouldn't account for the big and obvious difference reported in the demo. Different/better mastering would. It's just the exact same scam they pulled with DVD-A and SACD.

[magiccarpetride]

I've got different versions of the same cd, both red book, one sounds shit and one sounds amazing. Shoddy mastering is normally the source of the problem. I'm not saying categorically that's the issue here but I'd want to know the versions of both songs used.

If indeed it was all down to mastering, then hats off to those mastering engineers! Folks, those were not minor, nuanced differences I heard. This was epic. Even though I know "Giant Steps" by heart, have been listening to that album and studying it for like forty years now, I was hearing Coltrane's notes so vividly on that MQA format, that it took my breath away. Plus Chambers's bass was singing so sweetly :)

I would really like to understand what kind of a stunt was pulled on me during that demo. 'Cause it was bloody uncanny.

[magiccarpetride]

Giant Steps is from 1959 so there would be no benefit from presenting it in a 'high resolution' package, therefore there can only be 2 explanations - different mastering, or some form EQ in the secret MQA processing.

Yes, audio sales people and manufacturers will pull all sorts of tricks in order to sell you. No different from any other industry, much as we would like it to be.

No doubt. Although in this case I must say I fail to see what would the sales agenda behind this demo be? It would stand to reason that, from the commerce point of view, the high end audio stores should be shying us away from this tech 'breakthrough'. I mean, wouldn't it be more profitable for them to keep us on an endless treadmill of constant upgraditis with super expensive high end DACs and turntables and cartridges and phono preamps? What would the repeat business model with MQA for them be?

[Macca]

Sell you an MQA enabled DAC?

[magiccarpetride]

Sell you an MQA enabled DAC?

Yeah, the one they recommended was around $500.00; chump change for a store that is pushing $800.00 interconnects, $8,000.00 cartridges, $18,000.00 power cables and so on. The mantra was "sell your TT, sell your CD player/digital transport, sell your DAC, come over to the dark side!" What, so that they can make a one time commission on $500.00?

[Stratmangler]

That's not likely to be audible in any case and certainly wouldn't account for the big and obvious difference reported in the demo. Different/better mastering would. It's just the exact same scam they pulled with DVD-A and SACD.

What DVD-A material and SACD material have you heard, Martin?

[magiccarpetride]

Only the knowledge that the playback DAC used will not be brick walling the output, as the higher sample rate negates the need for a brick wall filter.
96KHz playback would require a filter at 48KHz, which is well above anything humans can hear.

From what I understood after the tech was explained to me, the vanilla analog-to-digital conversion tends to produce a lot of temporal 'smears' (whatever that means). MQA is focused on detecting those smears and rectifying them. Kind of like getting everything to fully snap into focus. It apparently takes a hi-res content and folds it down to a lossy, easily streamable format while interjecting those corrections caused by the smears. Mumbo-jumbo? I haven't got the foggiest. But the results are clearly audible (to my ears).

[Macca]

What DVD-A material and SACD material have you heard, Martin?

Most of the flagship stuff, 'Stones, 'Dan, 'Mac, Sinatra, bought into it heavily when it came out after hearing one of the 'Stones SACD at a mate's. Gave some of them away but still have a few somewhere.

[Macca]

Yeah, the one they recommended was around $500.00; chump change for a store that is pushing $800.00 interconnects, $8,000.00 cartridges, $18,000.00 power cables and so on. The mantra was "sell your TT, sell your CD player/digital transport, sell your DAC, come over to the dark side!" What, so that they can make a one time commission on $500.00?

You don't sell a customer one DAC, you sell him three DACS over nine years (or possibly nine months for some) They start you on the cheapy, but you are already aware that there is better. You'll be back at some point.

[magiccarpetride]

You don't sell a customer one DAC, you sell him three DACS over nine years (or possibly nine months for some) They start you on the cheapy, but you are already aware that there is better. You'll be back at some point.

Sneaky ;)

[Macca]

But the results are clearly audible (to my ears).

Well you heard it sound better but I would be careful about ascribing the reason for that to be what you were told was the reason.

If you don't believe re-mastering can make huge differences compare for example the SACD re-master of 'Let It Bleed' to the original CD issue. Same scam there, make everyone think the huge step up in SQ was due to the SACD - okay so if you wanted the new re-mastering you had to buy into SACD anyway - once you buy it you realise it is a hybrid so will play on a CD player at 16/44 and guess what? Sounds just the same.

Maybe MQA have solved a problem which is generally thought to not exist, i.e 'temporal smearing' and maybe it really does improve SQ massively. But the industry has form in this regard so I would advise proceeding with extreme scepticism.

[magiccarpetride]

Well you heard it sound better but I would be careful about ascribing the reason for that to be what you were told was the reason.

If you don't believe re-mastering can make huge differences compare for example the SACD re-master of 'Let It Bleed' to the original CD issue. Same scam there, make everyone think the huge step up in SQ was due to the SACD - okay so if you wanted the new re-mastering you had to buy into SACD anyway - once you buy it you realise it is a hybrid so will play on a CD player at 16/44 and guess what? Sounds just the same.

Maybe MQA have solved a problem which is generally thought to not exist, i.e 'temporal smearing' and maybe it really does improve SQ massively. But the industry has form in this regard so I would advise proceeding with extreme scepticism.

I hear you. We've been already conned too many times by snake oil salesmen. I personally fell hook, line and sinker for the hi-res con. Only later realized, same as you, that the differences are down to different mastering, not different format.

Heck, I've now even gotten to the point where I'd much rather have a well mastered lossy mp3 than shoddy mastered hi-res 24 bit/192 kHz file.

[Macca]

I hear you. We've been already conned too many times by snake oil salesmen. I personally fell hook, line and sinker for the hi-res con. Only later realized, same as you, that the differences are down to different mastering, not different format.

Heck, I've now even gotten to the point where I'd much rather have a well mastered lossy mp3 than shoddy mastered hi-res 24 bit/192 kHz file.

Yes, agree. My advice was meant generally, for anyone reading, I know you have been in this game a long time. The whole MQA thing interests but I just find the whole pitch hard to believe. Turns out 50 years of digital audio R&D has been wrong all the time and they have discovered why and developed a solution? It is pretty far-fetched. But people love the idea of a magic bullet.

[magiccarpetride]

But people love the idea of a magic bullet.

Exactly. Magic bullet is irresistible! But, as Lester Young said: "Seeing is believing, and hearing is a bitch!"

[Theadmans]

I refer you all to the fabled Steve Hoffman Audio forum :-

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/forums/music-corner.2/

..simply choose the Search function and type in the Artist / Album and tick the Search Titles Only box....

...I guarantee that for your favourite album you will now have enough information to make an informed purchase (it's all in the mastering - mostly mastering earlier than approx 1997 IMHO). Unless of course your favourite album was released after 1997. But I guess that won't be the case for most forum members given the atrocious state of the music industry for the last 20 years !