MQA is Vaporware

[crenca]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/psychology/pages.php?i=201

 

 

 

 

Interesting Jud, but I find it likely that these researches overplay their hand.  It is a common problem in academia as one has to emphasize in the competition for grant money.  In my experience, the differences in SQ assessment (and they are real) are far outweighed by the similarities.

 

All this was more widely understood when people in our Western Civ had more direct experience with traditional instruments and their sound.  Now that people are trying to get an handle on studio recordings and their strong "artificial" elements, a radical subjectivity makes more sense but for reasons I already stated I don't really buy it...

[Jud]

15 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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?

 

We can't.  The only thing I've ever found to work is that you have to listen to a variety of music and see whether you're getting a wide variety of sounds (often on different tracks in the same album, or even within one track - "Good Vibrations" was recorded in four different studios to give different sounds to various parts of the song).  To the extent you are, then your system is being accurate.  To the extent there may be an overall sameness to the sound, that's coming from a sonic signature your system is imposing on the music, and is thus inaccurate.  (Barry Diament and @PeterSt have said much the same thing from time to time.)

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I'm happy to read you've separated my opinion from me personally. All to often people get caught up in combining the two. 

 

Anyway, as an example of what I'm talking about - I was listening to some MQA recordings with the recording engineer who recorded the tracks. He asked for my opinion about the sound when we A/B'd the tracks (MQA and non-MQA). I said I loved the sound, but I had no clue if one was closer to the original live performance. He suggested that everyone knows what a Steinway sounds like and the MQA version was clearly closer to the original performance. 

 

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 as the gold standard, does anyone know how we can tell which version is more accurate? 

 

 

Yep, fewer and fewer people are experiencing a Steinway.  Nevertheless, a Steinway is real and our common humanity is real.  IF we could get "everybody" an appropriate amount of Steinway experience, a strong consensus would develop about which recording is more "accurate", and more importantly this consensus would be real and not merely "subjective" in a radical way...

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, crenca said:

 

 

Yep, fewer and fewer people are experiencing a Steinway.  Nevertheless, a Steinway is real and our common humanity is real.  IF we could get "everybody" an appropriate amount of Steinway experience, a strong consensus would develop about which recording is more "accurate", and more importantly this consensus would be real and not merely "subjective" in a radical way...

 

But when we move the Steinway to a different hall, all bets are off. The environment is the biggest instrument.

 

Was it a Steinway Model A, Model B, Model O, Grand or Upright, etc...?

 

:~)

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

Interesting Jud, but I find it likely that these researches overplay their hand.  It is a common problem in academia as one has to emphasize in the competition for grant money.  In my experience, the differences in SQ assessment (and they are real) are far outweighed by the similarities.

 

All this was more widely understood when people in our Western Civ had more direct experience with traditional instruments and their sound.  Now that people are trying to get an handle on studio recordings and their strong "artificial" elements, a radical subjectivity makes more sense but for reasons I already stated I don't really buy it...

 

Our brains are terrific pattern matching engines.  Think of optical illusions you can't "unsee."  These result from some combination of inborn and trained pattern recognition that overrides the actual light waves hitting the retina.  Same with audio illusions.  These are just illustrations of a larger phenomenon, which is that our genes and our histories lay down patterns we recognize, including patterns for what sounds "right." 

 

I've had Vandersteen speakers for over 25 years.  They have certain imaging characteristics that have become key to my hearing a reproduction as "right."  On the other hand, the same crossover design that allows these imaging characteristics also creates a frequency response hump.  Some people find this intolerable; I completely listen past it.

 

Whether you realize it or not, what you think sounds accurate has to do with who your parents were, the language you spoke growing up, pieces of equipment you've had in your system for a long time, and many other factors unique to you.  Or do you really think people who like equipment you don't just can't hear well? 

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I'm happy to read you've separated my opinion from me personally. All to often people get caught up in combining the two. 

 

Anyway, as an example of what I'm talking about - I was listening to some MQA recordings with the recording engineer who recorded the tracks. He asked for my opinion about the sound when we A/B'd the tracks (MQA and non-MQA). I said I loved the sound, but I had no clue if one was closer to the original live performance. He suggested that everyone knows what a Steinway sounds like and the MQA version was clearly closer to the original performance. 

 

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 would lay real money down the recording engineer couldn't tell either without the labels. 

 

Though not in touch with them recently I knew two people with Steinways.  Not the exact same model, but both were the same size.  One in a huge room below ground.  One in a small suspended floor room barely large enough for the instrument.  The sound of the rooms made identification of which piano by sound alone a joke. 

 

As for picking accurate recordings, that is one of those myths about two channel.  It has limitations.  The closest to fully objective on that front I have seen were tests where different miking techniques were used and listeners asked to rate them, and draw where musicians were.  Most of the differences were left-right position and depth.  The most accurate compared to reality was crossed figure 8s (the Blumlein alignment). 

 

Now if you get away from 2 channel recordings you really are in the wilderness.  Even people like 2L almost always use no less than 4 microphones and blend in room sound to taste. Usually 2L is doing surround recordings and convert to stereo. 

 

Similar tests of miking with surround vs placement accuracy seem to all come to slightly different conclusions. 

 

Think about reproduced sound vs genuine accuracy.  You can provide reasonable illusions under various constraints.  You won't ever be able to fully be accurate as long as the only sources of real sound originate from two or five places in space. 

 

MQA could according to its goals provide you with whatever they wanted the master to sound like accurately.  The idea it is somehow better and sounds more accurate to real life is a fool's errand or a con job. 

[esldude]

21 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

Yep, fewer and fewer people are experiencing a Steinway.  Nevertheless, a Steinway is real and our common humanity is real.  IF we could get "everybody" an appropriate amount of Steinway experience, a strong consensus would develop about which recording is more "accurate", and more importantly this consensus would be real and not merely "subjective" in a radical way...

Do you think people have an appropriate amount of hand clap or human voice experience? 

 

Time to post this again I think:  (I am sure if this was MQA'd it would help....right?)

 

 

[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...

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

21 minutes ago, Daudio said:

 

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...

 

 

Hi Daudio - I'm trying to follow your logic but I'm having a hard time. Some audiophile's may listen to live concerts to train their ears for some reason, but I think it's a fool's errand. Let's say you go to every performance of the Minnesota Orchestra for ten years. What does this do for you? It gives you an idea how the Minnesota Orchestra sounds live in Orchestra Hall. That's it.

 

I also, think people fool themselves by saying they've been to all the Mn Orchestra performances, so they can judge accuracy by playing the recording, of some of the performances they attended, at home. Audible memory doesn't work that way. 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. @Jud has researched this fairly well. 

 

There's also no way to extrapolate this sound / experience to any other performance with respect to accuracy. One may say the violin sounds just like it did when I was at Orchestra Hall, but if it's a recording at Disney Hall, all bets are off. In fact, the violin should sound different. No two halls are the same. 

 

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. In fact, I think it's a disservice to suggest otherwise. 

 

"One can become very good at it with enough practice, being able to distinguish different piano makers and models, violins, venues" - You're recognizing patterns here, not the accuracy of a recording. 

 

I think people are fooling themselves with the realities of the absolute sound concept. The idea is great, but in reality it isn't possible. 

 

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. 

 

 

[esldude]

Yes pattern recognition rather than accurate retrieval.  Our brains work off patterns and fit things close enough to make the pattern.  Not fail something because it was 3% distorted and not accurate enough. 

[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 !

 

[witchdoctor]

15 hours ago, mjb said:

No sir, I haven't. Which I suppose disqualifies me from commenting. 

Well that problem is easy to solve. Amazon gives you a 30 day return policy, get a Bluesound Node for $300 and compare. If you don't like send it back for a refund.
Even streaming redbook this thing sounds better than a PC. All of the masters files from Tidal are at your finger tips too, much better than the Tidal app.
 

[james45974]

Why do we get hung up on "accurate" reproduction when that concept is frankly tilting at windmills and we should instead be debating how "real" the reproduction is!  Accurate is such a loaded term in these parts.  Is accurate in the eyes of the artist, producer, listener, record company, MQA?  All of them are right and wrong at the same time.

 

I would suggest that anything beyond minimal miking, live, one take recording (and no Autotune!) is at some level contrived and fake.  It can probably be reproduced accurately but it can be far from real.  It is similar to using sharpening or auto-contrast in Photoshop, which gives you a contrivance, not the real, original image with warts and all!  

[Ralf11]

It is by no means clear as to whether or not someone could train themselves to accurately recall a particular violin sound over several months.  I am not going to guess either way on that.

 

What is clear is that a short-term comparison is much easier to do in most if not all sensory systems, including visual, hearing and touch.  OTOH, someone would have to test whether feature extraction is sufficient to allow the above.  Also, a good shot of adrenalin and oxytocin while listening would enhance memory persistence.  Too bad they don't allow cocktails in the concert halls. 

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Whether you realize it or not, what you think sounds accurate has to do with who your parents were, the language you spoke growing up, pieces of equipment you've had in your system for a long time, and many other factors unique to you.  Or do you really think people who like equipment you don't just can't hear well? 

 

I don't deny the genetic biological connection - on the contrary I explicitly make use of it.  While there is a kind of diversity on the continuum of High Fidelity, I suggest that this diversity is actually not as wide and "different" as what I call the radical subjectivist position alleges.  It is this very continuum and agreement that even allows us to recognize the (relatively small) differences in the first place.

 

 

[james45974]

To me it boils down to the question of whether MQA is all that much of an advance if all it is giving us is self proclaimed "accurate or close to what the artist intended" reproduction of junk?  What's the point?

[crenca]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Do you think people have an appropriate amount of hand clap or human voice experience? 

 

Time to post this again I think:  (I am sure if this was MQA'd it would help....right?)

 

 

 

 

I do

 

I think there was a certain amount of fidelity involved in that recording

[crenca]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Hi Daudio - I'm trying to follow your logic but I'm having a hard time. Some audiophile's may listen to live concerts to train their ears for some reason, but I think it's a fool's errand. Let's say you go to every performance of the Minnesota Orchestra for ten years. What does this do for you? It gives you an idea how the Minnesota Orchestra sounds live in Orchestra Hall. That's it.

 

 

 

 

Nope, it does much more than that.  The experience is not nearly so relative/subjective as you making it out to be.  Besides, experience of music is never (or should not be) this monotonous.  I have experience of acustic intstruments in many different settings, room conditions, etc.  From this, I am able to identify Fidelity to a reasonable degree - I can hear through any given playback chain an level of "accuracy" of a trumpet or violin and this accuracy is transferable - others can confirm it.  Your simply denying it with a radical subjectivist take on fidelity.  

[james45974]

Merriam Webster Definition of Accuracy:

 

1. 1:  freedom from mistake or error :  correctness checked the novel for historical accuracy

2. 2a :  conformity to truth or to a standard or model :  exactness impossible to determine with accuracy the number of casualtiesb :  degree of conformity of a measure to a standard or a true value — compare precision 2a

Merriam Webster Definition of Reality:

 

1:  the quality or state of being real

[james45974]

  you can be accurate without being real!  Shouldn't we be aiming for realistic reproduction paramount to accurate reproduction?

[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 

 

[james45974]

9 minutes ago, Daudio said:

 

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 ?

 

 

 

That way leads to madness 

 

A radical objectivist, I always thought I was just a curmudgeon!

 

To go back to the Steinway example, you could record the piano from a microphone placed underneath the instrument on the floor and you could accurately reproduce it.  But unless you have had too many Scotch's that wouldn't be realistic!

 

Maybe my current taste in music is the source of my argument, I am currently on a chamber music and jazz trio binge!

[mmerrill99]

24 minutes ago, james45974 said:

A radical objectivist, I always thought I was just a curmudgeon!

Or a disenfranchised subjectivist

[lucretius]

40 minutes ago, james45974 said:

  you can be accurate without being real!  Shouldn't we be aiming for realistic reproduction paramount to accurate reproduction?

 

Sorry, I do not follow.  How is "accurate" different from "real"?

[Jud]

52 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

Nope, it does much more than that.  The experience is not nearly so relative/subjective as you making it out to be.  Besides, experience of music is never (or should not be) this monotonous.  I have experience of acustic intstruments in many different settings, room conditions, etc.  From this, I am able to identify Fidelity to a reasonable degree - I can hear through any given playback chain an level of "accuracy" of a trumpet or violin and this accuracy is transferable - others can confirm it.  Your simply denying it with a radical subjectivist take on fidelity.  

 

This shows something quite different than you think it does.

 

First tell me: Do you recognize these as the same song?  Then we'll go from there.