MQA is Vaporware

[Daudio]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm certain that everyone doesn't know what a Steinway sounds like and I'm certain not all Steinways sound alike. I'm also certain that every concert hall is different. Thus, there's no way for me to know if the MQA or non-MQA version is more accurate. I also don't believe there is any objective way to know which one is more accurate. 

 

If we are going back to the original performance a the gold standard, does anyone know how we can tell which version is more accurate? 

 

I recall you making this argument before, and I still have a hard time understanding it, because I have always seen that the audiophile point of listening to live classical concerts is to train ones ear in all the sounds: of single instruments, grouped instruments, the full orchestra, the sound of this hall, and that hall, in this seat, and that seat, both focused and 'grokked'. But never to attempt to memorize one unique performance. It simply isn't realistic, outside of very rare circumstances.

 

That ear training works similarly to the way I suggested that you ear learn classical music. Exposure, absorption, osmosis, a normal, even primitive, human learning mode. Enhanced by directed attention and activities. So then one can compare his/her internal, conceptual, sound of an instrument, orchestra, hall, whatever, to new examples in recorded music. One can become very good at it with enough practice, being able to distinguish different piano makers and models, violins, venues - large and small (just check out the active thread on international music halls here in CA), even different electric guitar amps !

 

Does that help to answer your concern ?

 

Here's more. How soon they forget... the absolute sound

 

You seemed to say earlier in the thread that our memories don't capture sound quality, but I wonder if you didn't hear every little difference in a remaster of your favorite 'Pearl Jam' album, How could you do that if our brains can't remember the sonic aspects of music we've heard repeatedly ?

Just saying...

 

[Daudio]

49 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Humans can recognize patters, but can't remember sounds like the accuracy of a violin from a concert last year. We just can't do it.

 

I disagree. I have seen it in other audiophiles, and to a lesser degree in my own experience, since I'm open to the possibility.

 

49 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

One's "internal, conceptual, sound of an instrument" has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of a recorded instrument compared to the real performance in question

 

The human brain creates 'internal concepts' all the time, from birth, and continually extends them with experience. Consider your concept of a 'chair'. It not only includes the inexpressible essence of 'chair', the shape(s), texture(s), spelling, etc, but also every different instance of chairs you've ever known. A furniture designer or salesman would have a much richer 'concept' of chair then you or I. And similarly our 'concept' of a piano, or violin, or guitar, is based on all of our experience with them. Thus the broader the experience the richer and more useful the concept.

I do not differentiate (much) between hearing SQ patterns and music patterns, as they share so much of the basic machinery of hearing, are affected by attention and learning, etc.

 

49 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Let's say you go to every performance of the Minnesota Orchestra for ten years. What does this do for you?

 

Nice but limited. I try and experience many different sound producers and environments, not even limited to music, all in the advancement of my ears. Like checking out different places in concert venues, smaller performances in unusual spaces. Too bad concerts have become too expensive for my meager budget.

Remember how our internal concepts work, the more varied experience the richer and more 'intelligent' that concept is. Simply reinforcing the same old thing, strengthens it, but doesn't grow it. Kinda like how myths get reinforced, if not debunked.

 

 

49 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I don't believe using memory to judge sound accuracy is a solid practice. I notice the differences between Pearl jam masters, but this has nothing to do with accuracy and everything to do with pattern recognition.

 

I think you are tying yourself up in logical knots here to protect your disbelief in what our hearing is capable of.

 

CA is pretty great when it comes to tech info, but frankly, pathetic when it comes to actual knowledge (as opposed to myths) of how our hearing works and what it can do (and can't). There are lots of geeks around here who just love to trash any thread that starts to get serious about looking further into those 'squishy' fields and questions. I'd like to see that change !

 

[Daudio]

24 minutes ago, crenca said:

Your simply denying it with a radical subjectivist take on fidelity.  

 

Huh ! I didn't get what you meant the 1st time you used that phrase, and now in context it seems to me that 'radical objectivist' would make more sense.  Would you explain please ?

 

 

14 minutes ago, james45974 said:

Merriam Webster Definition of Accuracy:

 

Walking the path to madness 

 

[Daudio]

1 hour ago, Pibroch said:

From what I've read the most commonly reported blind tests of violins focussed on preference of sound rather than identification of make of violin...

 

Thanks  Yes, that's the same way I remember it, and I agree with your take on its significance too.

 

[Daudio]

12 minutes ago, crenca said:

Not sure what this means

 

Me neither ? And then I wonder why you even posted it 

 

I would rather you address my question to you about the meaning of the term 'radical objectivist' which you have used a number of times here without explanation !

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/?do=findComment&comment=667574

 

[Daudio]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

Not sure I ever used "radical objectivist" (if I did I don't recall).  I do use "radical subjectivist"

 

Oops, I cut and pasted the term I thought was more applicable to the example. Sorry for the confusion.

 

1 hour ago, crenca said:

"radical subjectivist" to refer to the idea(s)/philosophy/anthropology behind a certain understanding of High Fidelity that says that even if it is real, human beings can never access/participate in it let alone make an empirical/objective claim in identification of it or having once heard it.

 

Ok, if that is your definition, I am still missing something big, because it seems to me that you are clearly painting a picture of what I would identify as an 'objectivist' !  Or, to use an older vocabulary from the formative years of Hi-End audio, 'Meter-Reader' (as opposed to the 'Golden Ear').

Perhaps a concrete example would help ?

 

1 hour ago, crenca said:

Michael Lavorgna (who is an archetype of the radical subjectivist)

 

Again, Huh ?  I just brushed up a bit on some of his writing, including: https://www.audiostream.com/content/objectivists-are-subjectivists-and-vice-versa

and I don't see what you are talking about at all    he seems to be a pretty level headed guy who could be easy described as more on the 'subjectivist' side of the scale ? 

 

1 hour ago, crenca said:

the presuppositions behind it are not really examined, let alone clearly defined.  I submit it is a largely unconscious borrowing from the zeitgeist.

 

Here I think I see a glimmer of something from you (outside of the questions of polarity)

 

I have long seen deep seated attitudes about the human condition behind these tense and long standing divisions between audiophiles. I think the hard core 'objectivists' positions come from deeper, more abstract feelings, that deny the senses, the body, the humanity, as unpure, flawed, sinful, corrupt, only to be suppressed, fought, controlled, so that the 'ideal' (god, logic, science, the war, whatever) rules and mankind is delivered from... something bad... I haven't researched to see how much of that 'attitude' is nature vs. nurture, but I know that it can be incredibly strong - to the point of martyrdom !  I don't think I need to describe the other side of the coin, other then it's extremes, of gullibility and hedonism, aren't helpful either.

 

Are we getting somewhere ?

 

[Daudio]

39 minutes ago, crenca said:

We will have to agree to disagree about Michael Lavorgna.

 

I don't agree or disagree, I don't understand your point ! An example would go a long way towards resolving that through...

 

41 minutes ago, crenca said:

As a someone who is not very "modern" when it comes to metaphysics/anthropology (essentially, I am a Platonist) I swim upstream to this thinking...

 

You're going too abstract for me to follow   I had a bad experience with meta-physics a long time ago, and tend to view philosophical jargon with suspicion (well, usually dismissal). Surely you can drag your explanation down a bit closer to day-to-day experience

 

[Daudio]

27 minutes ago, crenca said:

Sorry to wax philosophical

 

Yeah, not my cup of tea. I'm interested in learning more about how audiophiles hear the specialized 'things' we do. That and try to fend off the hordes of those who interfere with that pursuit (for many, but usually unhealthy, reasons)...

Guess we're done here

[Daudio]

2 minutes ago, lucretius said:

I assume it's pattern recognition.

 

Ha, that's getting to be quite the meaningless buzzword in this thread 

 

I would suggest 'memory and comparison' for that question.

[Daudio]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I highly recommend you do the research on pattern recognition versus memory (with respect to sound) rather than make yourself look uneducated. 

 

Ha ! That would almost be funny, if it wasn't so insulting.

 

I've been studying the brain and mind (as an educated layman) since the early 70's, then added a closer focus on our hearing systems 5 years later when I got into audio seriously. What were you doing back then ?

 

I do not give you permission to school me on human hearing. Just like I would never presume to lecture you about network design. Fair enough ?

 

How about we start over now ?