MQA is Vaporware

[botrytis]

8 minutes ago, firedog said:

It's called an ad hominem attack. Attack the messenger, so you don't have to confront the message. Deflection. Cancelling.

 

So MQA is part of the 'Cancel' culture wars....

[botrytis]

35 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:

 

 

Thank you - you have answered them w/o snark. This is what we need from MQA which I doubt they will do...

 

 

 

[botrytis]

53 minutes ago, mfsoa said:

BS made a wine analogy a few pages ago which got me thinking what the true wine analogy would be if we were to put it in MQA terms-

 

- Meridian has developed a chemical treatment which is claimed to improve the storage and transportation of wine - something about deblurring the taste caused by the storage and transport process, but no info is released about the chemical they use or the effects it has. Despite no one in the world ever complaining of their wine being blurry of having any issues with storage or transport.

- To make this happen, 1% of this chemical will be added per volume of wine, costs to be transferred to consumers. 

- In order to use this process, vineyards must agree to not sell the unadulterated product - better to keep these Crown Jewels so that they can be sold at higher prices to wealthier customers a few years later. 

- Surely, some consumers love the taste of this adulterated product and wonder why ANYONE would ever want to drink that old style wine that only those snobby "purists" want to drink. But many purists think it tastes like crap and would like to have a choice.

- Since this adulteration is good for everyone (tastes better, easier to transport), the push is on for ALL vineyards in the world to use this process. Nevermind that a third party has wiggled their way in to the process so that they get paid each time you drink wine. Surely this a GOOD THING!!!  What could go wrong? How dare you seek to drink "real" wine - This is the future, man, get on board.

- Of course you could have always added whatever you wanted to your wine, go for it if you want. There are already dozens of wine deblurring chemicals out there to try for free. But maybe I don't want to add anything - oops it's already there, you have no choice but to drink the wine (kool aid) that Meridian says you should drink.

 

I'm sure I missed lots of things but it got me thinking - What other product would society allow to have adulterated, without their control, while greatly limiting their choice while offering no benefit to the consumer that they could not achieve for themselves, while enriching the company that foisted this scheme on us?

 

It's unimaginable (oops, the last administration happened so maybe not so much anymore) that such a scheme would ever be accepted.

 

Sorry if this makes no sense - it's been in my head lately...

 

Actually to me it is more like the companies who are trying to develop a quick aging process for whiskey, without taking into account all the other chemical reactions that occur. Some of them take years to happen. As a biochemist, that worked in the distilling industry, the quick age whiskeys, miss the subtle flavors that occur from other reactions.

[botrytis]

Or synthetic vanilla versus real vanilla. Real Vanilla has over 250 compounds that attribute to the flavor and fragrance of Vanilla. Imitation vanilla is made from paper making waste streams and is just one compound Vanillin. It has the a fragrance kind of like Real Vanilla but does not really have the taste of it.

 

Yeah this is more like mQa......

[botrytis]

Amir is getting hammered. I guess people are getting sick of his arrogant, condescending attitude.

 

He really does fit in with the mQa mavens.

[botrytis]

I think BS is sore, his original idea for DVD-A audio, got shot down and this is his next chance at it.

 

[botrytis]

2 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Apparently, BS gets his inspiration from M C Escher.

 

Don't be dissing M.C. Escher - at least they are known illusions, not trying to pass off illusion as real. 

[botrytis]

5 minutes ago, Arg said:

Agreed. But doesn’t this back up what Amir was saying about testing MQA with inappropriate signal and misinterpreting the results? 

 

No. As GS said, does that mean electronic music would be an inappropriate signal? They are trying to have it both ways and they can't. I mean Amir uses test signals when he tests DACs, some with mQa, so why is it different for him? It is not and that is the point.

 

 

[botrytis]

49 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

If your system has to change its parameters for different types of music, that means that it is incapable of reproducing a sound wave accurately.

 

 

EXACTLY!!!

[botrytis]

23 minutes ago, Confused said:

Indeed, I notice that he makes a comment about having passed a double blind test for 16 bits versus 24 bits. 

 

Assuming this is true, this is quite impressive.  Does anyone know if this has been independently verified or what the basis of the test was?

 

 

Double blind tests are hard to setup properly and do properly. All it takes is one wink, nod, etc. at the wrong time and it is no longer a blind test. 

 

I don't think Amir knows what is is talking about with that test.

[botrytis]

If Chris can handle a few mQa mavens at a talk, Amir is not a big deal.

 

I just wish mQa would just go away.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Arg said:

 

IIRC he specifically took exception with using a test signal in the ‘folded’ frequency range. I can understand that concern. And I thought that was consistent with John Dyson’s point. 

 

Not really. As GS said in HIS response, if his files were problems, then computer generated music and synthesizers would have issues also.

 

Everything thing BS said in response to the first video was obfuscation. It is the same thing they did to Chris at his presentation.

[botrytis]

56 minutes ago, Currawong said:

 

Apple and Spotify wont touch MQA with a 10-foot barge pole.  That makes it dead in the water.  Why do you think Apple is running music through an optional Dolby Atmost process? Where do you think they got the idea to do that, restricted their own hardware?

 

This leaves MQA to a small number of people who care about it. Once Roon and Deezer integrate, and the Qobuz catalog expands sufficiently, TIDAL will be even more marginalised. 

 

A DBT is easy to rig as well. I'll bet I could pass a CD-quality-vs-high-res test easily. I'd just make the CD quality files by downsampling the high-res using the worst encoder settings. The counter is, if I want someone to fail a DBT, I just put them under enough stress or have enough unfamiliarity in the test that they wont pass. This is why I consider 90% of DBT discussion on forums to just be argument masturbation by people who don't know any better, and not anything to do with actual science.

 

DBT tests should be setup with one or two people picking the tracks but the people playing the tracks should not which is which, they should be separated, just like they do for drug DBT's.

[botrytis]

Back to the mQa show or 'The Emperor does have clothes but they are made from live piranhas.'

[botrytis]

16 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'll put it right next to the other endorsements. There's no their there. 

 

Or this :D

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Seriously, his statement is only interesting because of who he is, not because of what he has said. It offers zero specifics, uses phrases like "we’ve been able to verify almost all of MQA’s claims," "much less stressful for extended listening," and "I’ve been listening to MQA-encoded music for over 3 years, and i’m very enthusiastic."

 

Think about that. If I put any number of old guard press credentials on those statements, we would all laugh. There's nothing other than, "just trust me."

 

Verifying claims in the patent is one thing, yes it's lossy as described in the patent. Yes, it makes 24/384 file smaller by throwing away information. How hard is that to verify?

 

Without any specifics, I'll take it for what it is. I respect George's work, but the statements in his comment are pretty empty. 

 

I know - I was making joke.

 

I read through the thread and thought - wow - lossless in the analog domain? It is like putting an MP3 into a FLAC container - does that means it is lossless in the analog domain? That is a strawman argument.

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yeah, I caught that, but maybe didn't seem like it :~)

 

Sorry - I just can't take mQa supporters very serious any more. All the marketing speak that gets in the way of actual measurements and talk of those.

[botrytis]

19 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Now that's an illegal comment -- it's outside the Shannon triangle. 🙂  [There's nothing sillier than grownups repeating stuff they don't understand].

 

Adults do that all the time.....

 

Being a scientist, when I was a grad school, my one advisor stated to me, ' You know, the more I learn, the less I really know.' I still use that as my day to day modus operandi.

 

[botrytis]

6 minutes ago, Confused said:

I know all about the Shannon triangle, you're not fooling me ....

 

 

I flew into Shannon, when I went on a bus tour of Ireland. That was during the Hoof and Mouth disease scare in the UK, We had to step in several trays of  bleach and other chemicals to clean our shoes. I will never forget that.

[botrytis]

Well, GS actually published material through mQa and that really is what the stink is about. Also, his rational explanation and demeanor must have struck a sour note with the religious believers in mQa. BS being so nasty to GS talks volumes about what is really going on.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, svart-hvitt said:

Just a comment on the GoldenOne critique which seems to get support in some circles.

 

@GoldenOne has been criticised for inappropriate testing of MQA, using signals that are beyond the intent of the MQA technology.

 

That argument is very popular at ASR, not least with Amir. It got me thinking about the speaker reviews of Amir, where he routinely tests the speakers outside of their recommended use to produce woofer artefacts.

 

Elac engineer Andrew Jones tried to explain what is inappropriate speaker testing to Amir:

 

«It seems that the level you were testing at was far in excess of the max power rating of the speaker. This could account for the comments from other listeners that have not heard the sound»*.

AFAIK, Amir never admitted his inappropriate testing or retracted a word.

 

So there seems to be a double standard here where GoldenOne is held to a higher standard than those who deny that GoldenOne has a point or two.

 

 

*Link to Elac’ Andrew Jones comment on Amir’s inappropriate speaker testing: https://www.audio “science” review/forum/index.php?threads/elac-uni-fi-2-0-review-bookshelf-speaker.19216/page-23#post-690938

 

They misuse the term science. It should be audio opinion review

 

There is more science discussed on this forum than anywhere else - Thanks Chris :D

[botrytis]

4 minutes ago, svart-hvitt said:

Or simply Amir Science Review.

 

Another inconsistency over there, which many ASR members seem to ignore:

 

Amir attacks @GoldenOne and others he disagrees with for being anonymous. Yet, academic peer reviews are (often) anonymous. So he criticises an institution (anonymity in exchange of ideas and know-how) which is a cornerstone of the word «review» which Amir used to build the ASR brand.

 

Amir's version of science :D

[botrytis]

If Amir wasn't from MS, his handle could be considered anonymous also. So, that is a useless attack. 

[botrytis]

20 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Not at all. Having worked in audio magazine publishing for 45 years, I strongly believe that if you are going to publish opinions and test results that may result in financial consequences for those whom you write about, you must do so using your actual name. With one exception - an exception that was agreed to before I joined the magazine - every contributor to Stereophile signs his work with his real name.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Sorry you are misinformed. When I published my first paper in the journal, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, no names were sent to the reviewers so there is no skewing of the review to people that are known to or people that don't like you. So, in essence, the data and information enclosed is looked at as data/information and is it viable and pushes the the knowledge of the field further. Only after the review process, does your name get put on the paper.

 

Just for edification Slomczynski, D. et. al. Production and Characterization of laccase from Botrytis cinerea 61-34. April 1995. AEM 61(3): 907-912. 

 

Many, what I call, work area publications, (like BioFuels, etc) are basically more like advertisement and do use people's name.

[botrytis]

The point is Mr Atkinson, the data is REVIEWED WITH NO NAMES, by experts in the field. That is to accept the paper TO THE JOURNAL for publication. Publishing the name on it, for all they know, I could have put my name as 'King Timbuctoo'. The name really doesn't matter, the data does. 

 

As my old advisor used to say, the data is the data. It has to stand on it's own merit or it is useless.

 

Another example, I wrote out project plans and Quality Assurance Project Plan, when I was a contractor for the US EPA in research. No names were given on the QAPP and it was reviewed blindly by people who do statistical analysis to determine if the experiments were useful or not. This was all done w/o names.

 

The name issue is a red herring, sorry to say. To say data is bad because there is no name attached is well, spurious at best.