MQA is Vaporware

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

I just came across the Archimago MQA test results published in Sept.

 

Does anyone know the the actual results for the 6 test tracks ie which tracks were the PCM and which were the MQA tracks (Arnesan A/B, Gjeilo A/B, Mozart A/B?)

 

In the 4 part discussion of the results (on the blog) it mentioned those correctly picking which was MQA vs PCM. I thought you could only nominate a preference for track a vs b. Were you then asked to guess if your preference was Pcm or MQA?

 

Thanks

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 hours ago, adamdea said:

Can you or anyone help with this sentence

“Relaxing that constraint restores the symmetry between the time and frequency domains that was missing from Shannon's theory.”
I’m baffled. It makes zero sense to me.

 

aha , I thought it was just me.

 

I am not an audio/computer professional but at least can get my head around the "folding" of bits into a more compact package requiring less bandwidth. I think I get the master "authenticated" bit, as approved by the artist, albeit a bit misleading IMHO. However the whole "time domain" thing totally eludes me. I just can't find anything in plain English that makes sense. That may well be my failing or perhaps it's a proprietary secret?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

20 minutes ago, adamdea said:

The odd thing about Jim Austin's sentence is that the frequency domain and the time domain are mathematically interchangeable. The Shannon's proof of the sampling theorem depends on this. That relationship is immutable. So how can they not be symmetrical and how can anything restore what can;t be lost?

 

And while we are at it this of course is the problem with saying that one can be wrong in the frequency domain but right in the time domain. 

So obviously (and now eventually BS pretty much concedes this) MQA can only be targetting one sort of time domain characteristc at the expense of another. And how is this set of targets justified? :

 " For a number of reasons based on the auditory science of object detection, it seems very plausible that the first moment is of prime importance to the ear and that higher moments are less important and (importantly) can be shown not to contribute errors such as jitter."

Wow - "it seems very plausible that", well that has me convinced. MQA targets one set of time domain targets at the expense of another because "it seems very plausible" to BS that they are what matters.

But frankly the bit where he exp;lains what he means by time smear is it even more pathetically weak

Stuart: Any deviations that aliasing brings to the "impulse response" (when analog is being uniformly sampled) are quite different from the impact of the filters controlling (and contributing to) end-to-end system response. The latter is there whether or not filtering is adequate to control or eliminate aliasing. Time smear relates to the fact that the "filter" spreads every sample out in time, irrespective of frequency—particularly in the "real world," where we take into account quantization (and sometimes aliasing) effects in A/D, workstations, and DACs. "

So now we know what it is- its the possible maths errors in calculating the impact of each tap of the filter- - but wait- if this is signifcant this will show up in eavery single test signal you ever put through the dac. And how many orders of magnitude lower than the MQA alising are they? If 50 db below the signal is ok for the aliaising then whats the problem with 24 bit quantisation?

I would be happy to be corrected by the really smart people here, but as far as I can tell BS might as well be saying- look I've been talking crap from the word go, but you my friend had better keep eating it because you'll look silly if you stop.

 

Thanks Adam. I can't say I am any more enlightened but I can say that is not your fault

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, adamdea said:

It was as a result of exactly this sort of puzzlement (about pretty much this point) that I ended up embarking on a sort of personal night school about information theory, and electrical engineering, culminating in the purchase of Morrison on Fourier Analysis. At the end of it, apart from mildly surprising some scientist friends at dinner parties, all I achieved was a firm conviction that one should be profoundly suspicious whenever one hears the phrase "in the time domain" in relation to audio. That and the loss of <I shudder to think how much> time I could have been making money, or doing something useful like watching porn.  

Maths does have a certain beauty though.

 

hahaha. Adam I have developed a whole new respect for you ! I can't wipe the grin off my face -porn would have been the better option!

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 minutes ago, mansr said:

If you have something, show it. All you do is defer to Bob Stuart, and when challenged you quickly duck out saying you don't actually know. Why should anyone listen to you?

 

having read the last several pages, I don't think that's completely fair. For me, the arguments against MQA appear compelling. However, I am not against anyone trying to convince me otherwise. The possible exception would be if that someone clearly has an agenda to push - but then again, perhaps even more reason to at least listen.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

28 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

They can join:

 

DCC, Mini Disc, DAT, DVD-A, HDCD, and, last but not least, 8 Track in the scrap heap.

 

It would be nice if MQA could be dismissed this way ie I hope you are right. However the promise of the MQA stamp (my word) making existing standard PCM sound better, even without using MQA hardware (decoding) is far more potentially insidious. I cringe at the prospect of needing to replace my library with MQA treated files. This presumes IF it does *actually* sound better.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, Brinkman Ship said:

"I cringe at the prospect of needing to replace my library with MQA treated files. This presumes IF it does *actually* sound better."

 

No need to cringe. It does not. Your wallet is safe.

 

But that's part of the marketing hype,that even ordinary PCM treated files sound better, is it not? It's the 'got something for everyone' aspect that makes it unlike a purely niche new format like DVD-A or DSD.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Just now, Brinkman Ship said:

...and why would you pay attention to the marketing lies, err, I mean hype?

 

Not me. Its about potential market penetration for the general public.The general public is not interested enough in SQ to replace CD with DVDA. If something promises to make everything sound better including all their existing collection, that is far more appealing.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

24 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

I appreciate your line of thought..but the mass market is not concerned one iota with better quality. Apple, primarily, and other companies have made lossy downloads and streams into "standard" quality.  People are not only unaware there is a term known as lossless, they don't know what the sample rate of a Redbook Cd is, and they would not know a bit from a butt.

 

That is just the way it is.

People don't have to understand it, they just have to be told its better. Which camera will I buy? The salesperson says this has more pixels. What's a pixel and why if at all it matters becomes a moot point for Joe public. As said, I think MQA is far more potentially insidious that way and if it starts to take a large foothold the whole end-to-end monopoly by one company scares me. Is that not at least part of the reason this thread is 351 pages long? If it was no threat would not people yawn and move on after a few pages?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

It is ONLY a threat if that is all that it is offered...meaning all the streaming companies scrap their inventory and only stream MQA. Otherwise, it is a joke.

 

But that's the point, they *offer/promise* so much more. I do hope you are right tho about MQA being dead in the water.

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, Indydan said:

 

We are all neurotypical. 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

13 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

 The "stakes" are that if MQA (a proprietary technology) is widely adopted there's a risk that it will supplant nonproprietary technologies for all audio distribution--as I'm sure has been widely discussed here.

 

I agree

 

Quote

 

if the payoff is high enough--incontrovertibly superior sound--then I personally would be willing to make the sacrifice, and I think a lot of other people are, too. But, as I've written, I consider that to be a not-insignificant cost. Before we substitute a non-proprietary technology with a proprietary technology, there's a high threshold: It has to be significantly better. If it's not, we shouldn't adopt it. 

 

It depends. I am willing to pay for superior sound quality should that be shown to be the case. Indeed I already have spent a lot of money in the pursuit of better sound quality and to an extent that some here would admonish me. However, it is the 'end-to-end' monopoly of that proprietary technology that concerns me, not just one link in the chain as concerning as that may be, but the whole chain. One feels like there is a little of Mr Mistoffelees, the original conjuring cat going on here who is "always deceiving you into believing that he's only hunting for mice". The 'devil' is in the full detailed ramifications and may be better akin to selling one's soul to Mephistopheles in the Faust legend and in Listz's Mephisto Waltz, the dance in the village inn, where Faust is lured by beautiful sound (quality), seductive and intoxicating strains drawn from the violin by Mephistopheles. 

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

care to fill in your Audio System in the member area?  

 

I had it there until GUTB accused me of being an objectivist spy, posing as a subjectivist, implying I was lying about my gear! With that I instantly knew I had struck the right balance but figured people will attack you for anything. I even took down my doggy avatar.

I have mentioned my system components in various threads so it is out there.The relevance re MQA is that I am willing to pay for supposed enhanced SQ if I perceive it to be better. Note that I am not saying expensive is synonymous with SQ.

Also, like the Faust analogy I made above, sometimes the price is not just measured in $$$.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

ok, I'll just assume a direct fed into the vestibulocochlear nerve then

 

It's important to feed only the cochlear neurons of the 8th cranial nerve lest one gets a little dizzy. Vertigo sucks!

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

13 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

With private funding, you can get doctors to say anything..like refined sugar does not cause weight gain.

 

Steady On ! Besides, refined sugar doesn't cause weight gain, eating it does  ?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

The problem is, double blind testing is the standard in science testing. If a person wants flawed or biased testing, then by all means don't use it but it is the best way to remove bias.

 

58 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

JA's speculation is of little value - imagine if medical devices or drugs were not subjected to modern scientific methods before being released on a hapless public

 

53 minutes ago, mansr said:

Then we'd have homoeopathy being peddled to the hapless public. Oh wait...

 

Blinding of testing is required. It is not the only thing that is required of a test.

 

Did @John_Atkinson raise blind testing in relation to MQA specifically ? This is not the same as asking is blind testing relevant to the discussion.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

17 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

 have concluded that reducing the variables in such a test to just the one you are investigating is more difficult than  people appreciate. And if you don't reduce the variables as require by Scientific Method, the results of such a test will be meaningless.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

It is just speculation.  It is unclear to me why you think it is not.

 

Do you have evidence that all variables have been sufficiently controlled to make  blind testing in ABX tests of complex music a valid scientific test? Until such time the only "speculation" is by those that rely on such tests as being valid.

 

9 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

The problem, of course, is that your perceptions are not based only on the sounds coming into your ears, but involve other variables. 

 

You mean, like it is for everyone else. No doubt, the same variables in play in blind testing

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

59 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

not clear why a clinician wants to throw out the scientific method

 I am calling for evidence, not speculation or assumption ie consistent with the scientific method

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

you and HalSF and JA can start a new thread on how to design DBTs properly - in your preliminary Literature Survey, please cite the work done by Magneplanar, JBL, and various famous designers who have used these controlled listening tests

 

Ralph,

you and a few others persist in bringing up DBT's in audio to discredit opposing viewpoints and I reserve the right to reply. I seldom bring up the subject.

 

Your reference above to audio manufacturers and "various famous designers" is nothing more than an appeal to authority, IMO, a shallow appeal as you cite no actual evidence that the test methodology is scientifically validated.

 

I am not arguing against blind abx tests in audio being either  popular or *assumed* to be a valid perceptual test for complex music.

 

I am not saying blinding is not necessary but it is only one variable that needs to be controlled.

 

As I have said before, I am open to the possibility that a valid bind audio ABX protocol can exist, but without knowing even basic measures of  a test itself such as its sensitivity or specificity (and others) it is akin to using an uncalibrated instrument. The folks in the red pill/blue pill thread made some interesting progress regarding a possible scientific methodology but as many argued it fell short. FWIW I think it came closer than most.

 

You are the one apparently claiming that audio DBT's are scientifically valid, you are the one citing it as a useful tool, so you as a scientist I would submit have the burden of proof. Its about remaining objective. If you have the evidence by all means lets hear it.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

37 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I feel no need to defend well proven scientific methodologies or Ohms law either.

 

Evidence Ralph, not hand-waving, there is a difference. I get that you cannot defend your position, enough said.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Don't try to put words in my mouth or mis-characterize my position.

 

I am politely asking you for evidence. The words you most recently used in relation to audio DBT's were " well proven scientific methodologies or Ohms law." IMO bold statements that are unsubstantiated appeals to authority. Show me the "law" of audio DBT's.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

13 hours ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Those interested can find the quoted text at https://www.stereophile.com/content/ja’s-best-sound-ces-vandersteen’s-model-7-speakers

 

If you don't want to visit Stereophile's website and by doing so gift us a page view, please note that shtf selectively quoted me. This is what I actually wrote:

"with an LP of Diana Krall singing Joni Mitchell’s “A Case of You,” the hairs on the back of my neck stood up, so powerfully physical was the presence of the singer in the room.

The Naim/Focal, Marten/Pass Labs, and Sony/Pass Labs exhibits got close to the Vandersteens in absolute sound quality, and all were even better in some respects. But none were quite so musically perfect across the board!"

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

 

A little different when you see the full context.

 

I felt the same way, "But none were quite so musically perfect across the board!" when I first heard the Vivid Giya range, particularly the G2 which I purchased ( I enjoyed your review of the G3).

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 hours ago, Summit said:

The tested records are mad by Ry Coder, Tom Waits and Melody Gardot.

 

3 of my favs and hard to imagine more different artists

 

1 hour ago, Brinkman Ship said:

thanks for that info...fyi..the Tom Waits catalog was just remastered and released in 24/96...

 

Can you link to this?

"One from the heart" (from the movie -soundtrack tom waits and with crystal gayle) is one of my fav albums

 

Apologies for off topic

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

33 minutes ago, Snowmonkey said:

Live in Paris or Wallflower? I'm guessing Live in Paris.

 

It's not on Wallflower ?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

I have the same fears about MQA as expressed by most in this thread. However IMO there is just way too much conjecture in your post to mount a credible argument.

 

I realize it is clearly selective quoting (below) but after highlighting all the conjecture there is little left, just sayin'

 

2 hours ago, shtf said:

 

 I certainly don't recall reading your endorsement the way it’s currently written.  That said, I have to believe that if anybody has the keys to alter past Stereophile articles, you would certainly be one of the keymasters [...]  I don’t recall you correcting Vandersteen ..[....] when I allegedly misquote you .[....].. you and Harley and hence Stereophile and The Absolute Sound did a wholesale sell-out at MQA’s product launch with the intention of using your outlandish performance endorsements.  Giving indication that you and Harley were seemingly only serving your own self-interests while potentially crippling the music industry’s performance and potentially costing us untold millions and potential billions in new products, recordings, licensing fees, etc. ..[....]  potential fraud perpetrated on what you guys apparently presumed to be a naïve industry.....[....]  That Stereophile staff seem prone to take us down as many nonperformance-related rabbit holes as possible perhaps to delay any condemning judgement of MQA ...[...]... When it seems Austin really meant too much was at stake for the magazines, their staff, and their editors-in-chief who sold us out for this 3-legged race horse....[...]  We now have a pretty good idea what MQA Ltd, Stereophile, and The Absolute Sound think of high-end audio entusiasts.  I’m guessing you guys were thinking, easy prey.....[.....]..I still have yet to hear an MQA recording and everything I tried to warn others about then seems even worse (more true) than I first suspected.[....]  Is it even possible for one to be more than 100% accurate?   Maybe I’m just super psychic....[...]   it seems evident that you and Harley actually know very little and/or have wrongful intentions and/or care very little for high-end audio and as a result you as editor-in-chief and Stereophile perform a disservice to high-end audio.  [....] And now it’s your turn to apologize to the high-end audio industry for what some suspect your seemingly inability to be reasonably accurate....[...]  and for your potential breach of your fiduciary duty .....  [...] your apparent participation in this fraudulent MQA scheme ..[...]...since you knew MQA would use your nonsensical MQA endorsements to convince the entire music world MQA is accepted as a superior performing format by the high-end audio sector.