MQA is Vaporware

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

In his head he knows what they sound like; and that's all that matters. Please don't ask for facts or evidence - they are irrelevant.....

Yes. But I actually am changing my position. I don't think hie is a Troll/Shill for MQA.

 

I think he believes what he types. He seems to be very curious about every consumer format, and that curiosity 

leads him down strange paths.  To purchase a CD player etc  just to sample a handful of MQA CDs shows me

he enjoys chasing unicorns, but he is not the only one.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

To purchase a CD player etc r just to sample a handful of MQA CDs

We don't know for sure that he actually did that, just as we don't know that he really purchased those class D amps a while back.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

We don't know for sure that he actually did that, just as we don't know that he really purchased those class D amps a while back.

I'm telling you he may actually be sincere in his beliefs.

 

It is a fact that the most preposterous theory can be introduced to the public and there will be a percentage of people who will believe it. For example..911 was perpetrated by the US Govt or the Israelis, that the Lunar landing was a hoax,....

 

..and the mother of them all...the theory of Time Smear and De-Blurring...😎

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201801/why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories

[John Dyson]

8 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

I'm telling you he may actually be sincere in his beliefs.

 

It is a fact that the most preposterous theory can be introduced to the public and there will be a percentage of people who will believe it. For example..911 was perpetrated by the US Govt or the Israelis, that the Lunar landing was a hoax,....

 

..and the mother of them all...the theory of Time Smear and De-Blurring...😎

I agree --

My guess is that MQA needs de-blurring because it 'blurs' the signal.  There is no 'blurring' in normal filtering unless renaming normal filtering behaviors with eccentric/incompetently used terminology -- I use linear phase filters all of the time, and they all marry together perfectly without weird timing/smearing problems (well, gotta understand DSP filtering to do it correctly.) :-).

The worst misconception from my own opinon (my opinion only) is the idea that 'Gibbs effect' is a kind of energy storage ringing, but as we all know it is just a residual effect.  Sure, it can cause clipping, but that is only because of the missing negative halves of higher frequency (rolled off) constituents of the signal.

There are lots of misconceptions out there -- and I find it odd that more people who actually know about signal processing haven't joined in more often to make the corrections.  Maybe they assume that some people are ripe to be taken advantage of by misleading and inaccurate 'ad-hoc' terminology.

 

John

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

29 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

And your experience with listening to reel-to-reel tapes is...?

I have experience listening to safety masters of Miles Davis, Steve Perry, Bill Withers and many more. I admit that it’s a wonderful sounding experience when done right. However, what’s possible today with digital capture is far better than tape could ever do. Plus, tape shouldn’t even be a consideration because it isn’t a consumer format. You can’t produce 20,000 tapes of equal quality, let alone hundreds of thousands. 

 

I’ve talked to Grammy winning recording engineers about this. Grammy winning as in Steely Dan recording engineers. They couldn’t be happier tape is gone. 

[FredericV]

43 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

It's been a while since I watched this misinformation video. I note that comments have been disabled.

How do you come to the conclusion that this is misinformation?

 

43 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

A sinewave cannot be transformed to and from a square wave without change of data.

 

 
Why would we care about square waves. Show me content except for test signals, where square waves are part of the music content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_phenomenon



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM

 

Explained at 17:45
 

43 minutes ago, GUTB said:

However, when Shannon-Nyquist developed the sampling theorem it was at a time before human's time-domain (and high-frequency) acuity was widely understood.

Watch video again at 20:30. No need for MQA. PCM already has infinite timing resolution


 

[4est]

15 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

1. Part of MQA is based on research into the human auditory system which shows our time domain acuity is far higher than our frequency domain acuity. Do you disagree with that research? Does MQA not improve time domain resolution?

 

2. Another part of MQA is the idea that almost all meaningful music data exists up to around 50 kHz and past that it's mostly just noise. Do you disagree with this? Does MQA not accurately re-construct up to around 50 kHz?

 

3. Undoubtedly the people who developed MQA want to make money off it. Do you disagree with it?

 

4. The point of the Emperor's New Clothes is that no one was willing to point out the Emperor was naked. There wasn't a forum full of anti-Emperor activists posting non-stop about the Empror being naked.

 

5. MQA is intended to benefit listeners by improving sound quality and also to provide wider distribution / accessibility to high-resolution audio. Do you disagree? Is improved sound quality just an incidental unintended effect?

 

I doubt I am the only one that finds this hilarious. What increased sound quality are you suggesting that leaky ringing filters might provide? As much as you go on about some things being less "audiophile", I find humor in that you think MQA is.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I have experience listening to safety masters of Miles Davis, Steve Perry, Bill Withers and many more. I admit that it’s a wonderful sounding experience when done right. However, what’s possible today with digital capture is far better than tape could ever do. Plus, tape shouldn’t even be a consideration because it isn’t a consumer format. You can’t produce 20,000 tapes of equal quality, let alone hundreds of thousands. 

 

I’ve talked to Grammy winning recording engineers about this. Grammy winning as in Steely Dan recording engineers. They couldn’t be happier tape is gone. 

Yes.

 

Although in the 60's and 70's some labels did produce very high quality 7.5 its consumer reel to reel releases in large numbers.

 

I collect them and some are still in super condition after 45 + years. I have found many at garage and estate sales, and eBay etc.

 

Of course these don't compare to 15 and 30 its masters but in some cases they are better than the original vinyl because they are real time dubs of the production master. Later they started doing high speed dubs and it went down hill.

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I have experience listening to safety masters of Miles Davis, Steve Perry, Bill Withers and many more. I admit that it’s a wonderful sounding experience when done right.

DSD256 tape transfers are impressive. 

[crenca]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

Watch video again at 20:30. No need for MQA. PCM already has infinite timing resolution


 

 

Unless I am mistaken, technically only with infinite samples.  In any case, someone upstream asked if consumers understand PCM, sampling theory, and the like and the answer is no.  They rely on the proverbial 'expert', just as they rely on their doctor for their health or their accountant for tax advice.  In walks 'experts' like Bob Stuart, who make much hay of band/time limited PCM specifics such as "ringing" and who package allegedly novel solutions in IP protected black boxes.  Is Bob's solution a real solution, or is the problem he identifies a real problem, and is it relevant given the cost (IP black boxes, DRM, new hardware/software, proprietary lock in, etc. etc.)?  While he is at it, he promises the moon such as an "end to end" solution to the quality problem in "mastering", protection of the "crown jewels" for the labels, etc. etc.

 

In a normal market sector, there would be a relatively independent and functioning "press" to ask these questions and investigate, in addition to a healthy self interest from a diverse and competitive provider base.  

 

Audiohiledom however is not a normal market.  It has no functioning "press", and the provider base is apparently too small and interdependent (or is the word cuckold?) to do anything than 'follow the leader' and 'me too'.

 

Today I am definitely glass half empty.  I don't believe MQA is going to succeed, but its successor probably will...

[mansr]

45 minutes ago, crenca said:

Unless I am mistaken, technically only with infinite samples.

Infinite sample precision.

 

46 minutes ago, crenca said:

the provider base is apparently too small and interdependent (or is the word cuckold?)

I think the word you're looking for is "incestuous."

[jabbr]

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

A sinewave cannot be transformed to and from a square wave without change of data.

 

Utterly wrong. Want to bet? Like $10,000 or $100,000 (but I doubt you are good for it). 

 

Best accept the the fact that you simply don’t understand the math. 

 

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

There is nothing wrong with Nyquist from a mathematical standpoint but only between two arbitrary limits (ie, 20-20k). Liken it to a circle -- no such thing exists in nature, it's a series of lines close enough together that our brains can summarize the shape as a circle, but that is an illusion. However, when Shannon-Nyquist developed the sampling theorem it was at a time before human's time-domain (and high-frequency) acuity was widely understood.

 

 

Just accept the the fact that you have no idea what you are writing. Shannon-Nyquist has nothing to do with the limits of human hearing. 

 

Perhaps humans can hear >20k in some fashion. Ok use 24/96 then. 

 

Your babble about sine and square waves remains nonsensical. 

[Ralf11]

4 hours ago, GUTB said:

human's time-domain (and high-frequency) acuity was widely understood.

 

 

since you understand it, why not explain it to me? 😫

[GUTB]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

Utterly wrong. Want to bet? Like $10,000 or $100,000 (but I doubt you are good for it). 

 

Best accept the the fact that you simply don’t understand the math. 

 

 

 

Just accept the the fact that you have no idea what you are writing. Shannon-Nyquist has nothing to do with the limits of human hearing. 

 

Perhaps humans can hear >20k in some fashion. Ok use 24/96 then. 

 

Your babble about sine and square waves remains nonsensical. 

 

Nyquist is mathematically correct, but it requires an arbitrary limit -- in reference to audio, the limits being between 20 Hz and 20 kHz. In reality, humans react to moments of sound far beyond our frequency-domain acuity would otherwise suggest. Additionally it was shown that humans do in fact respond to high-frequency music information even though we cannot consciously detect high-frequency sound. If our audio sensory system deals with frequency and time-domain elements differently, the reliance on frequency sampling as a way to get to "perfect sound" becomes problematic.

 

This is catching up with the FACT that people can perceive the benefit of high-resolution audio and various types of filtering. I think many people in this thread have heard the benefits of high-resolution audio for themselves.

[GUTB]

48 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

since you understand it, why not explain it to me? 😫

 

Yes. Sound is energy over time. Energy from one peak to another peak over a certain period of time is the frequency, ie, the how many times these peaks arise over an arbitrary period of time (Hz). 20 kHz can be seen in the time domain as 0.05 milliseconds. Humans can react to sound energy in moments of time much lower than that, even though we can't hear the tone as a frequency of sound.

[Thuaveta]

4 hours ago, FredericV said:

Show me content except for test signals, where square waves are part of the music content.

 

 

And also this beauty.

 

If you don't find this brilliant, it's because you're not listening to it on $20k of gear like any neurotypical individual would.

[kumakuma]

14 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Nyquist is mathematically correct, but it requires an arbitrary limit -- in reference to audio, the limits being between 20 Hz and 20 kHz. In reality, humans react to moments of sound far beyond our frequency-domain acuity would otherwise suggest. Additionally it was shown that humans do in fact respond to high-frequency music information even though we cannot consciously detect high-frequency sound. If our audio sensory system deals with frequency and time-domain elements differently, the reliance on frequency sampling as a way to get to "perfect sound" becomes problematic.

 

This is catching up with the FACT that people can perceive the benefit of high-resolution audio and various types of filtering. I think many people in this thread have heard the benefits of high-resolution audio for themselves.

 

7 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Yes. Sound is energy over time. Energy from one peak to another peak over a certain period of time is the frequency, ie, the how many times these peaks arise over an arbitrary period of time (Hz). 20 kHz can be seen in the time domain as 0.05 milliseconds. Humans can react to sound energy in moments of time much lower than that, even though we can't hear the tone as a frequency of sound.

 

I can't figure out whether you are an idiot or just pretending to be one.

[Ralf11]

6 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Yes. Sound is energy over time. Energy from one peak to another peak over a certain period of time is the frequency, ie, the how many times these peaks arise over an arbitrary period of time (Hz). 20 kHz can be seen in the time domain as 0.05 milliseconds. Humans can react to sound energy in moments of time much lower than that, even though we can't hear the tone as a frequency of sound.

 

this is some of the worst gibberish I have ever heard

 

please go back and take some high school science courses - I cannot find even one correct stmt. here tho you are obviously trying to get some sort of view of reality, and I applaud that

[GUTB]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

 

this is some of the worst gibberish I have ever heard

 

please go back and take some high school science courses - I cannot find even one correct stmt. here tho you are obviously trying to get some sort of view of reality, and I applaud that

 

"Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit of time." This is the first sentence of the wikipedia article on Frequency. If it's incorrect please assist the world and make an edit.

[jabbr]

27 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Nyquist is mathematically correct, but it requires an arbitrary limit -- in reference to audio, the limits being between 20 Hz and 20 kHz. In reality, humans react to moments of sound far beyond our frequency-domain acuity would otherwise suggest. Additionally it was shown that humans do in fact respond to high-frequency music information even though we cannot consciously detect high-frequency sound. If our audio sensory system deals with frequency and time-domain elements differently, the reliance on frequency sampling as a way to get to "perfect sound" becomes problematic.

 

This is catching up with the FACT that people can perceive the benefit of high-resolution audio and various types of filtering. I think many people in this thread have heard the benefits of high-resolution audio for themselves.

 

Yes. If you have read my posts, then you would know that I don't accept that CD Redbook necessarily captures all that we experience, and moreover have advocated storing audio at the resolution it was recorded.

 

I have also suggested that cochlear nonlinearities are a possible explanation for ultrasonics having an effect on the audio experience. (see thread).

 

Indeed this is my prima facie objection to MQA throwing out yet more information from the original signal (I would not throw out bit depth nor frequencies > 20k). As I've said over and over, I don't care how "good" a lossy format sounds, I want high resolution audio -- indeed if the audio was mastered as 15 ips tape, then I'd like a DSD256 transfer.

 

I think the application of the term "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" to Fourier time/phase is a bit unfortunate (because they aren't the same when applied to audio) but perhaps what you are getting at wrt CD Redbook, is that the phase differential in the stereo pair is quantized by the reconstruction window --- this is to say, for example, that if a sound in recorded in space, when the auditory system reconstructs the localization from a stereo pair (R/L) then the temporal relationship between the R and L signals are quantized -- there is not an infinite time resolution. As the bit depth and sampling frequency go up, the temporal relationship between R and L can be more precise (time/phase quanta are smaller).

 

Without getting needlessly technical its best to sample at higher than the Nyquist limit -- hence the suggestion of 24/96 (DSD64 is between 24/96 and 24/192). So.... MQA throws out bid depth in order to upsample ... uggghhhh, that's not adequate. That's not 24/96. At some point this is sleight of hand. Just because selected tracks "sound good" doesn't mean this "is good".

 

Similarly one can find perhaps many or even most CDs that are heavily processed and mastered at low resolutions, and it those cases CD Redbook is as good as you are going to get. That doesn't mean that there are other, better, recordings for which 24/96 or DSD64 aren't a better format. Why not stream DSD64? That I'd subscribe to. 

 

 

[Ralf11]

6 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

"Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit of time." This is the first sentence of the wikipedia article on Frequency. If it's incorrect please assist the world and make an edit.

 

You did not say that however.

 

I have far better ways to "assist the world" than by editing wikipedia.

[John Dyson]

14 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

You did not say that however.

 

I have far better ways to "assist the world" than by editing wikipedia.

Best to quit feeding the troll -- he is obviously not intellectually honest or honest about what he/she says.  I have problems when dealing with people who have no integrity -- it is often painful.  My suggestion is to 'shun', and answer with a 'disagree' response.

 

John

[mansr]

33 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

I can't figure out whether you are an idiot or just pretending to be one.

I can't figure out which alternative is worse.

[Paul R]

31 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Why not stream DSD64? That I'd subscribe to. 

 

 

 

Me too.