MQA is Vaporware

[Rt66indierock]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Who are you Perry Mason 😁

 

Nope but there sure was a lot activity before MQA Ltd was funded and a lot of promises made to David Chesky before licensing agreements with labels were announced. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

It's as preposterous as this:
 

and this is from MQA's own site ...

Some recording -> MQA encoding -> some Brinkmann dac -> vinyl .... yes as absurd as putting MQA on R2R

Absurd. But then again audiophiles are the most gullible sheep.

[Paul R]

50 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

John a couple of points,

 

When I researched whether high resolution audio would benefit listeners in 2009 and 2010, I looked at David Blackmer’s work. I found his analysis, opinions and evidence unpersuasive.

 

HDTracks.com, LLC is suing 7digital for failure to provide a streaming platform for them. In a June 1, 2017 email David Chesky states “Everyone we want to know about the service knows about it already.” Were you one of them?

 

1. High Resolution clearly benefits at least some listeners. Perhaps not everyone, but to a small market segment without question. HDTratcks was a welcome service when it debuted. 

 

2. I knew about it, and if I did, it had to be pretty common knowledge.  But what in the world can it possibly matter? 

[Rt66indierock]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

1. High Resolution clearly benefits at least some listeners. Perhaps not everyone, but to a small market segment without question. HDTratcks was a welcome service when it debuted. 

 

2. I knew about it, and if I did, it had to be pretty common knowledge.  But what in the world can it possibly matter? 

 

1. We shall see how many some are. HDTracks claimed only revenues of few million dollars in the complaint. That isn't many albums or customers.

 

2. Did you know about HDTracks Streaming before the 7digital press release in June of 2017?

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Has anybody spotted the "screenshots" or posts of this week's shill anywhere? Seems he was here for about 15 posts then

declared he was "unsubscribed" lol.😎

[Paul R]

28 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

1. We shall see how many some are. HDTracks claimed only revenues of few million dollars in the complaint. That isn't many albums or customers.

 

2. Did you know about HDTracks Streaming before the 7digital press release in June of 2017?

 

For a niche business? You bet that a few million dollars is significant.

 

I knew they were working on being the first service to stream high resolution music. I did not know any proprietary details or have any “inside” information, nor was I involved with the project. It was not exactly a secret you know. 

[Rt66indierock]

21 minutes ago, Paul R said:

I knew they were working on being the first service to stream high resolution music. I did not know any proprietary details or have any “inside” information, nor was I involved with the project. It was not exactly a secret you know. 

 

Before or after SXSW in 2016?

[John_Atkinson]

5 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

When I researched whether high resolution audio would benefit listeners in 2009 and 2010, I looked at David Blackmer’s work. I found his analysis, opinions and evidence unpersuasive.

 

Given David Blackmer's track record as an innovative audio engineer, I suggest you study his article more carefully. And on the subject of high-resolution recordings offering an audible benefit, in 2015 Josh Reiss performed a meta-analysis of previously published blind listening tests that indicated that people could indeed detect the advantages of high-resolution recordings:

http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20190703/18296.pdf

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[Rt66indierock]

36 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Given David Blackmer's track record as an innovative audio engineer, I suggest you study his article more carefully. And on the subject of high-resolution recordings offering an audible benefit, in 2015 Josh Reiss performed a meta-analysis of previously published blind listening tests that indicated that people could indeed detect the advantages of high-resolution recordings:

http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20190703/18296.pdf

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Sorry John, Josh Reiss supports my position and shows a bias. Nobody is interested in publishing a study that shows no difference.

[psjug]

3 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

in 2015 Josh Reiss performed a meta-analysis of previously published blind listening tests that indicated that people could indeed detect the advantages of high-resolution recordings:

http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20190703/18296.pdf

 

Ignoring the possible flaws in that analysis (and flaws of the studies drawn upon), do you really find the conclusion very compelling?  

 

Overall, there was a small but statistically significant ability to discriminate between standard quality audio (44.1 or 48 kHz, 16 bit) and high resolution audio (beyond standard quality).

[jabbr]

25 minutes ago, psjug said:

Ignoring the possible flaws in that analysis (and flaws of the studies drawn upon), do you really find the conclusion very compelling?  

 

Overall, there was a small but statistically significant ability to discriminate between standard quality audio (44.1 or 48 kHz, 16 bit) and high resolution audio (beyond standard quality).

 

Thats what this hobby is all about. My iPhone & earbuds are pretty good. We are looking exactly for small but meaningful differences.

 

My cellphone usage is unlimited as is my 1Gbs fiber to home. I’m not concerned about audio compression, heck I’m happy to have 8k or whatever movies.

[psjug]

5 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Thats what this hobby is all about. My iPhone & earbuds are pretty good. We are looking exactly for small but meaningful differences.

 

My cellphone usage is unlimited as is my 1Gbs fiber to home. I’m not concerned about audio compression, heck I’m happy to have 8k or whatever movies.

In the analysis I see the small, not the meaningful.

[jabbr]

17 minutes ago, psjug said:

In the analysis I see the small, not the meaningful.

That’s everyone’s own decision. I see a ton of stuff around hear that isn’t even proven, not that I’d say meaningful. I’m happy to consider anything small but proven to be meaningful to whomever thinks so.

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, jabbr said:

That’s everyone’s own decision. I see a ton of stuff around hear that isn’t even proven, not that I’d say meaningful. I’m happy to consider anything small but proven to be meaningful to whomever thinks so.

 

I am not so sure.  I suspect meaning is not so radically subjective 😉

 

I think in this hobby there is much that is different (in this case, a small number can "discriminate") but that still does not mean it is meaningful toward a higher fidelity...

[psjug]

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

That’s everyone’s own decision. I see a ton of stuff around hear that isn’t even proven, not that I’d say meaningful. I’m happy to consider anything small but proven to be meaningful to whomever thinks so.

In general, I'm not sure I have a different POV from you or not.  But regarding the meta study:, do you find it compelling?

[jabbr]

16 minutes ago, crenca said:

I am not so sure.  I suspect meaning is not so radically subjective 😉

 

Radically subjective? That’s sounds political 😂 Ummm ... I break things down into physically possible & verified vs physically possible & unverified vs not physically possible & unverified ... 

 

The last I don’t bother with. The first I’m fine with. The second doesn’t bother me. 

C’est la vie!

 

13 minutes ago, psjug said:

In general, I'm not sure I have a different POV from you or not.  But regarding the meta study:, do you find it compelling?

 

I’m not easily compelled but I’m fine with storing as close to the recording/mixing as possible — I don’t trust other people’s filters so have an open mind at this point as to whether it’s HD per se or the absence of conversion filters 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

Neither do I find the so-called proof that human beings can’t experience >20kHz compelling.

[Ralf11]

maybe he meant  subjectively radical?

 

this, and the other, Reiss papers on the topic invite further research - one would like to know the quality of the audio systems in the subsidiary studies for example

 

for that matter, I'd like to know what system Reiss has...

 

for me, there will not be much music on HiRes but I look for the SACDs and quality masterings of my favs (while continuing to amp up my power supplies by removing noise from magnetic monopoles)

[John Dyson]

I see Blackmer as more as a really innovative semiconductor audio applications EE, who understood the details of transistor (and diode) behavior.  When I think of Blackmer, I think of his innovative  semiconductor audio applications work, and some understanding of the *very good* concept of the 'RMS' scheme that DBX style compressors used.  (The DBX style of RMS is NOT the same as what a non-audio EE normally thinks of as RMS.)

On the other hand, he might have some insight into other areas, but I am not convinced of usefulness of any high frequency material beyond 20-22kHz other than at very high powers to destroy/damage things.   There are also some nonlinear effects whereby above 20kHz sonic energy that can be used to produce audio from intermod...

So, yes, above 20kHz can be detected, but no -- they are not useful for music (unless 'music' include heating/physical damage/ or using intermod to produce pin-point audible sonic effects.)

 

John

[Paul R]

12 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Before or after SXSW in 2016?

 

Honestly, I don’t remember. I think I heard about it first around the Austin City Limits crew though. SXSW that year was a bit of a mess.

 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I see Blackmer as more as a really innovative semiconductor audio applications EE, who understood the details of transistor (and diode) behavior.  When I think of Blackmer, I think of his innovative  semiconductor audio applications work, and some understanding of the *very good* concept of the 'RMS' scheme that DBX style compressors used.  (The DBX style of RMS is NOT the same as what a non-audio EE normally thinks of as RMS.)

On the other hand, he might have some insight into other areas, but I am not convinced of usefulness of any high frequency material beyond 20-22kHz other than at very high powers to destroy/damage things.   There are also some nonlinear effects whereby above 20kHz sonic energy that can be used to produce audio from intermod...

So, yes, above 20kHz can be detected, but no -- they are not useful for music (unless 'music' include heating/physical damage/ or using intermod to produce pin-point audible sonic effects.)

 

John

 

You don’t agree that ultrasonics are handy for noise shaping? I think they are a great place to push noise into and subsequently, easily filter out. It is why DSD can and often does sound so superior to redbook. 

 

Going on about people being being able to hear ultrasonics or not is just a great big whale sized blue herring. 

 

[lucretius]

17 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Given David Blackmer's track record as an innovative audio engineer, I suggest you study his article more carefully. And on the subject of high-resolution recordings offering an audible benefit, in 2015 Josh Reiss performed a meta-analysis of previously published blind listening tests that indicated that people could indeed detect the advantages of high-resolution recordings:

http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20190703/18296.pdf

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[lucretius]

13 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

My cellphone usage is unlimited as is my 1Gbs fiber to home. I’m not concerned about audio compression, heck I’m happy to have 8k or whatever movies. 

 How big is your cell phone? ☺️

[mansr]

14 minutes ago, lucretius said:

http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20190704/18296.pdf

[jabbr]

8 hours ago, Paul R said:

You don’t agree that ultrasonics are handy for noise shaping? I think they are a great place to push noise into and subsequently, easily filter out. It is why DSD can and often does sound so superior to redbook. 

 

Going on about people being being able to hear ultrasonics or not is just a great big whale sized blue herring. 

 

 

Whether you hear them directly or hear the nonlinear effects doesn't matter to me. That's why this issue that the cochlea doesn't respond >20 kHz doesn't matter to me: obviously the system responds otherwise there would be no need for a LPF and every DAC uses an output LPF!

 

Interestingly take a look at the spectrum from a HDTT (high def tape transfer) at DSD256 ... you don't get the near ultrasonic bump so perhaps the benefit of e.g. DSD256 is that the noise can be pushed further out where it can be even more effectively filtered out ... 

 

In my own listening, the benefit of HD vs Redbook seems to significantly diminish with upsampling so yeah...

[Ran]

Decca Records drank the kool-aid. Now with MQA CDs:

 

https://shop.decca.com/British-Jazz-Explosion/*/The-Complete-Fontana-Albums-1961-1969/66FO00000Y7