MQA is Vaporware

[pkane2001]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

If you're talking about the deconvolution technique famously used to enhance images from the Hubble space telescope (before it was fitted with corrective lenses), that's not it. The issue there was that the focusing mirror had the wrong curvature resulting in the focal plane not coinciding with the camera sensor. Since the exact error was known, it was possible to enhance the captured images using a deconvolution process. As there is no such thing as an audio lens, the problem simply cannot occur in a recording, and hence the solution does not apply either.

 

Deconvolution can be done without knowing the exact error. There is a process for estimating it, at least for images. This is called blind deconvolution. But I agree that deconvolution of an audio signal is a stretch, as I really don't see what signals might be convolved that would require a deconvolution.

 

This doesn't mean that a simple sharpening (or even a blurring) kernel may not be useful on some audio signals, except that in all cases this just distorts the signal resulting in artifacts that were not there before.

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

Wiener deconvolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_deconvolution has long been applied to the audio domain (http://www.cnbc.cmu.edu/~samondjm/papers/Recio-Spinosoetal2005.pdf was found offhand as an example) and is widely used as a way to model and correct "error". In image analysis, a 3D model of the error is deconvolved with the 3D image to produce a corrected result. Similarly for 2d or 3d audio domain. The error may be measured from a system impulse response, or estimated. "deblurring" may refer to a sharpening in "linewidth" of fourier series peaks, but since MQA is proprietary who knows. The point I am making is that there are very well known and widely used techniques that are generally called "deblurring". In the audio domain, if one were producing, for example, a sonar map, then such techniques might be employed to sharpen such a map. This is analogous to "soundstage" (as an example).

 

Wiener deconvolution is one of the simplest, many much more sophisticated methods exist. The paper you referenced (on gerbils and chinchilla auditory nerve fibers, really?) uses Wiener kernels as a filter to extract data, rather than for deconvolution.

 

I'm familiar with deconvolution applied to images, but there is no obvious equivalency between optical distortions and audio distortions. What isn't clear to me is what is causing the blurring that requires deconvolving in audio. Convolution is a very specific mathematical function, and it must be shown first that any blurring function is truly mathematically convolved with the signal before you can attempt to apply deconvolution. 

 

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

 

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

and, is HDCD worth ~~ a couple of bits?  or?

 

I'd say it's not worth it.

 

I find that HDCD produced CDs (prior to Microsoft) were overall well recorded and well mastered. I have them all converted to 44.1KHz/24bit FLAC files, fully decoded. They sound excellent overall. I suspect the superior sound quality was not the result of the HDCD encoding process, but rather from the much better controlled recording and mastering chain that was dictated by the Pacific Microsonics license.

[pkane2001]

29 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

The only issue with the difference file might be lack of true alignment - it's a bugger to get right. I did the best job I could, but it may not be perfect. Maybe @pkane2001's software would do a better job?

 

Mani.

 

But of course

 

 

 

[pkane2001]

41 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

 

Happy to give it a go when I have some time.

 

Mani.

 

Here's a report. It's a large HTML file in a zip. Extract the HTML and open it in Chrome browser (or something other than Internet Explorer):

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1nB-pfdGINYYcR4ir8Yb2JU7Px_8s_qJ4

 

Regards,

 

     -Paul

[pkane2001]

9 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Not tonight 'cause it's late, but I want to suggest what may be a better way to listen and compare MQA and original files using @pkane2001's Delta Wave software.

 

Jud, while you can start testing this right now, I do have a couple of additions to the A/B comparator in DeltaWave that might help in the future. It already has a built-in ABX-style blind or sighted comparator, but I want to add two more:

 

1. Pair-wise blind comparator that lets you decide if the two files played in left/right stereo combination are the same or different

2. Subjective blind preference test that measures if there is a statistical support for you liking one track over the other

 

 

[pkane2001]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I can see it now:

 

"Ultrasound can be perceived"

- Audiophile Press

 

All one needs to do is stick a tweeter inside the ear and sit on a subwoofer

 

[pkane2001]

29 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

You are missing the point. The FT article repeated Randi's claim that no audio journalist accepted the challenge. That is wrong as Michael Fremer did accept the Randi challenge.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile.

 

Apparently he accepted it by demanding that someone else do the testing and not Randi. Considering Randi was the great debunker of supernatural claims with a history of setting up and demonstrating fraud, why would he accept the demand to let someone else do the test?

 

Some of Randi’s stunts were a good reason for him not to trust anyone else to do the testing. For example, he had two of his associates convince a set of scientists that they had supernatural abilities, psychic and psycho kinetic. These scientists conducted considerable number of tests and created research, convinced that the effect was real. They even went as far as trying to publish it when Randi disclosed that the whole thing was a hoax. Now why would he let a third party do this cable test for him when he knew how easy it was to fool the inexperienced?

[pkane2001]

17 minutes ago, esldude said:

Someone recently tried to get James Johnston (J_J) to say what SINAD would be sure to be transparent.  His reply was -110 db might do it.  So the other person then wasn't happy thinking less might be transparent.  And I think J_J would agree, but it gets complicated and depends on details of the "error spectrum" according to him.  I think Amir prefers to look for gear with impeccable measurements and then it becomes a non-issue.   I think there is gear with a SINAD of only 80 db which is just fine to listen to and others with the same number that would not be.  Choosing between those gets more complex.  

 

What do you think a delta/null value is between the original source file and one captured from the output of a DAC?

 

If you correct for amplitude and phase errors before nulling, as you can with DeltaWave, you get the more complex SINAD value for a musical recording. That is, RMS value of all the noise and harmonic distortions with all the fundamental frequencies ‘notched out’.

[pkane2001]

21 minutes ago, esldude said:

Well...............maybe.  

 

This brings up a good topic in regards to your software.  I'll continue it in the thread for Deltawave.  

 

The maybe is assuming the software worked perfectly yes.  It is working very good.  I'm not quite sure we could use it only to rank accuracy of DACs.  Part of the issue being we need the perfect ADC for that too.  

 

Right. The software is not perfect, but a perfect ADC is not needed for a comparison, as long as the same one is used. There’s also a way to eliminate the influence of the ADC in measurements, but let’s continue this in the DeltaWave thread...

[pkane2001]

23 minutes ago, rwdvis said:

 

The ASR group are so fearful of losing their site and all the time they’ve devoted to it, I don’t think they care whether it’s an honest, reputable site or not.

 

I refer you back to my initial comment.

 

Regards

 

Regardless of what you think of Amir, the measurements he posts are repeatable and verifiable. They can, and have been, confirmed by others, including me. That part of ASR is a valuable resource to me personally.

 

I don't go to ASR for Amir's worldview, I go there for measurements. I'm confident that I can form my own opinion without his (or your) help about MQA or anything else. Those who are afraid of a contrary view are well-advised to keep to their own, comfortable echo-chamber.

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

That's why I an others come to this comfortable police state that @The Computer Audiophileruns here...at least that's what the likes of Amir and @ARQuinttells me... 😋 (joke people, joke)

 

I do like this place, police state or not  Chris is ultimately fair by letting thread owners moderate their own topics. 

[pkane2001]

8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Lee has since been banned again. 

 

Most of the objectivists asked for their accounts to be closed because they didn't want to abide by the site rules. I guess shouting from the hill tops (in the objective forum) is far less interesting when the subjective leaning audiophiles aren't listening. 

 

If people want to come back, they can contact me just like Lee did. I give people the benefit of the doubt in most cases. 

 

They left for a reason, and it wasn't because they couldn't "shout from the rooftops", it was because they were not allowed to state their opinion in any of the relevant threads in the main forum. Unless that changes, I don't see anyone coming back any time soon, but I guess that was your intent from the start.

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Exactly. Take away the audience they loved to belittle and berate, and they weren’t happy. They loved to save people from themselves, be the big brother nobody needed, and school those of us who seem to exist solely to have our money easily separated from our wallets. I called their bluff. They said, who us? No way. We just want the truth out there etc… I gave them the space to write the truth and even said they could link to that space in a subjective thread. That wasn’t good enough because they couldn’t get in peoples’ faces and “prove” them wrong. 

 

Maybe a few "loved to belittle and berate", but plenty of others didn't. Nearly all are gone now because you decided to fight those few by banishing all. It's throwing baby out with the bathwater, but I guess you didn't want to keep the baby in the first place.

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

From a business perspective I want the whole world here, but not at the high cost of babysitting adults and letting some ruin it for everyone. 

 

You can make whatever rules you want -- your site. Doesn't make it any more fair to those who helped build the CA community for years, did nothing wrong, and yet were suddenly denied participation in the main forum.

 

[pkane2001]

16 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Nobody is denied participation in the main forum. Only specific topics or posts. 

 

Rrrright....so as long as I don't mention my opinions or discuss any of my methods or bring up any science or research, or any measurements, I can participate. 

 

[pkane2001]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

The situation was such that any thread that mentioned cables turned into a fight about cables. Same for other subjectivist "issues" - we all know the list of topics.

If someone posts asking about cable A vs cable B, it's obvious where they stand. They don't need their topic turned into an argument about cables. But the site had started  becoming a place where almost every topic turned into an argument like that. 

I like and respect several of those that left, and wish they were still here to add their positive contributions and technical expertise. 

But not at the expense of the forum becoming one continuous set of arguments about the same topics over and over again. 

 

Baby with the bathwater... but I already said this. This has become a more peaceful place, for sure, but very lopsided, IMHO. 

[pkane2001]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

So yes, we're a bit the less for it, but things feel easier now.

 

Echo chambers often feel more comfortable, no argument :) 

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

I don't think it's an echo chamber. 

If I think some crazy subjectivist thing is written about, I just ignore it. The person writing it isn't going to be interested in me telling him why he's a fool; and the world is okay if I don't express my opinion. 

Doesn't mean objectivists can't express opinions. 

People can express opinions without making it into an argument.

But this is really off topic here, so we should end this discussion in this thread. 

 

When a legitimate alternate opinion cannot be posted in the main forum by the site rules, I'd call it an echo chamber. 

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, JoshM said:

Unfortunately, I think separate sandboxes don’t appeal to people who get a kick out of arguing. 

 

Or to people that would like to have an intelligent conversation with those who may hold a different opinion.

 

There's no need to keep going over this, Josh. Nothing is going to change. And now, back to the regularly scheduled program of MQA bashing :)

[pkane2001]

13 hours ago, Currawong said:

It'd be fine if the other site practiced noteworthy science. But when the owner equates things such as a thermal stability requirement for a piece of audio gear to heating it up with a heat gun before measuring it, evaluates speakers by only listening to one (not the stereo pair) and any criticism of his methodologies result in a ban, it thoroughly deserves its alternate names.

 

Just because ASR has some bad practices, doesn't make AS treatment of objectivists any more fair.

 

People love to have someone to attack, and here, it seems the site-approved target is ASR/Amir, with all the objectivists somehow loped into the same group of intolerant, antisocial, religious zealots who love to belittle and berate others. MQA is the backup target, when there are no objectivists around to attack :)

[pkane2001]

13 hours ago, Currawong said:

 

It already existed before the MQA version -- the regular D90.

 

 

If Amir actually did good science, he wouldn't end up copping the abuse he does.  That's all it is. If there's a problem with audio "objectivism" it is all the loud, antisocial, religious zealots who ruin things. These people are not pro-science, they are just behaving like religious fanatics and don't genuinely have any understanding of what science is, assuming it is some arbiter of truth.   Some of that mindset infected this, and the other MQA threads, and, like I've said before, made it hard to find the actual, useful information. They ruined things for the people who actually had something usefully critical of MQA.

Despite the name, ASR isn’t doing science, and this includes Amir. What he’s doing is engineering measurements that can then be interpreted using scientific research. What subjectivists often fail to understand is that measurements are not science, but science relies on measurements.

[pkane2001]

8 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Measurements needs to be done scientifically and also explained HOW the measurements were done. Most measurements are based on science also. It is an issue when one cannot repeat the measurements, that is when things go into the weeds (like on ASR).

Disagree. A measurement doesn’t require science. Interpretation does. Amir isn’t creating new measurements. And while his subjective interpretations  are also shared, they are neither scientific  nor objective. 

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

It does as the meters, etc. were built based on science and engineering is a science.

 

Going to argue with a Scientist who has worked in R & D for close to 40 years?

Sorry, but I think you are blinded by personal feelings in this matter. Units of measurement may be standard, and of course Amir didn’t invent his own units. So what science is he doing that you object to?

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

 

Well, not many people can afford 100K just to get into the instruments he is using, while Stereophile measurements are not (these can be repeated without not much cost - thanks Mr. Atkinson).

 

More than anything, Amir's attitude is anti-science, that is mostly what I object to. Ever been to a Ph.D. thesis defense? It is the most humbling experience one will ever go through. Scientist put out their data, WITH HOW THEY DO THE MEASUREMENTS, so that others can repeat what they have done. Science based discussions are about collegial and critical discussion of data and ideas. Most explanations are based logically on what the data shows. It can get heated, yes, but people move on after they made their point. Amir goes out of his way to be obtuse. 

 

I am not blinded - I am an analytical chemist by training (worked in the field since 1983) - I do this daily and it is 2nd nature to me.

So a degree in chemistry lets you judge  electronic measurements? Amir provides the details of his measurements, and others have repeated them, and yes, some with $100k+ equipment.
 

You disliking how he communicates on his forum is not a reason to claim anything about the validity of measurements. As a practicing scientist, you no doubt know that the only way to argue against someone’s measurements is by providing your own that demonstrate the error and are  at least as well or better documented and substantiated. So, let’s see these.