MQA is Vaporware

[Jim Austin]

1 minute ago, mcgillroy said:

Jim I appreciate you posting. Three questions: have you seen the math, done the math, can you show the math?

 

You're welcome.

 

If you mean the math behind post-Shannon sampling, the answers are Yes, no, and no. I've read two papers as best I can, but it has been a long time since I did serious math--they are beyond me. If you mean, have Craven and Stuart shown me their work, I answer 'no' to all three. I've interviewed Stuart extensively--three intervals in total I think, and many emails, and I've had the luxury of the occasional MQA-encoded test track. But the only technical material I've seen is what's widely available in patent applications and scientific journals. But it holds together, and as I've said, Stuart and Craven are not charlatans. They're serious people with serious careers behind them--and I'm not talking about Meridian. In contrast to many hear, Stuart stands up in front of packed rooms and stands behind his claims. That doesn't mean he isn't lying, but to me the preponderance of evidence suggests otherwise. 

[Thuaveta]

1 minute ago, Jim Austin said:

Stuart stands up in front of packed rooms and stands behind his claims.

 

If I may, so did Houdini and P.T Barnum...

[Jim Austin]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

If you already knew all that, why have you been ignoring it?

 

I don't know what you mean. What's to ignore? What's so damning? That leaky filters are leaky? That minimum-phase "causal" filters have non-linear phase response? 

[Jim Austin]

16 minutes ago, mcgillroy said:

Btw: I wrote Unser, let’s see what he has to say.

 

Forgot to mention: I too wrote to Unser. He didn't answer me. 

[mansr]

Just now, Jim Austin said:

I don't know what you mean. What's to ignore? What's so damning?

That MQA does bugger all to improve the sound quality.

[adamdea]

1 minute ago, Jim Austin said:

 

You're welcome.

 

If you mean the math behind post-Shannon sampling, the answers are Yes, no, and no. I've read two papers as best I can, but it has been a long time since I did serious math--they are beyond me. If you mean, have Craven and Stuart shown me their work, I answer 'no' to all three. I've interviewed Stuart extensively--three intervals in total I think, and many emails, and I've had the luxury of the occasional MQA-encoded test track. But the only technical material I've seen is what's widely available in patent applications and scientific journals. But it holds together, and as I've said, Stuart and Craven are not charlatans. They're serious people with serious careers behind them--and I'm not talking about Meridian. In contrast to many hear, Stuart stands up in front of packed rooms and stands behind his claims. That doesn't mean he isn't lying, but to me the preponderance of evidence suggests otherwise. 

So, then. Cutting to the point- where is the evidence of

a) an audio signal

b) an audible audio signal

which required post-shannon sampling to encode and reproduce? If you can answer that you have a moved one part of the debate along. If you can't  then you have either not asked the right questions or you don't care about the answers.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

Heard a very similar story about a well known video journalist who parrots for MQA. A lead designer and writer of the bible on digital audio once flanked him technically, and this journalist admitted to a peer that he's very mad because of that incident.

Because..it is a credibility destroyer...I don't think anyone would hold it against a well meaning journalist if they understood their place in the hierarchy concerning theory and design.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Jim Austin came  back trying to have a reasonable discussion. Why do some of you feel you have to fling insults? Do you not even notice you are doing it?  Why is it necessary to use phrases like "tin ear"? 

I get no sense he trying to bully people - quite the opposite. He has his approach and point of view (some of which I don't agree with). 

So argue with him on the merits of his ideas and his approach. Asking him why his appeals to authority only seem to include MQA advocates is a reasonable question. Accusing him of being an intellectual bully doesn't seem to be a reasonable approach, and starts to be an ad hominem attack instead of an argument/discussion about technical aspects or economic aspects of MQA.

...sorry it is the same old TIRED circular blather. NOTHING new to the table...

 

His "just give it a chance" stance is a joke. And should be treated like one.

[Jim Austin]

1 minute ago, adamdea said:

So, then. Cutting to the point- where is the evidence of

a) an audio signal

b) an audible audio signal

which required post-shannon sampling to encode and reproduce? If you can answer that you have a moved one part of the debate along. If you can't  then you have either not asked the right questions or you don't care about the answers.

 

I've made these points more than once in my Stereophile writings. Two things need to be clearly established: That MQA improves impulse response in the real world--which may manifest itself in the signal envelope, not necessarily in very fast signals--and that the difference is audible and preferred. Because of its overhead, if it can't meet those two criteria, it's probably not worth supporting. We have not yet managed to do the first test (which requires cooperation from MQA Ltd), and preliminary word from the McGill test is NOT reassuring. The article they wrote will be presented later this month at an AES meeting in Milan. 

 

I said I wasn't going to post more, but I did. There are two reasons not to: I've got work to do--this is a time-sink--and the goal of some on this forum is to suck me in then rip my words apart. Importantly, there's no interest in learning anything, so there's no point in my continued participation. But to those of you who have been courteous, thanks. 

 

jca

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

Importantly, there's no interest in learning anything

I must have spent hundreds of hours reverse engineering MQA for some other reason then.

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

Two things need to be clearly established: That MQA improves impulse response in the real world--which may manifest itself in the signal envelope, not necessarily in very fast signals--and that the difference is audible and preferred.....preliminary word from the McGill test is NOT reassuring. The article they wrote will be presented later this month at an AES meeting in Milan. 

.

 

Going with the assertion of what needs to be established for the moment:  the McGill test is a study (how?) of impulse response as compared to what (to establish an "improvement") - 16/44?  

 

Looking forward to the paper, but again with the McGill test the math will not shown (correct or incorrect?), so we are back to reports of unicorns...

[Ralf11]

cites for Post-Shannon sampling theory that are relevant to audio??

[Indydan]

4 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

 

You're welcome.

 

If you mean the math behind post-Shannon sampling, the answers are Yes, no, and no. I've read two papers as best I can, but it has been a long time since I did serious math--they are beyond me. If you mean, have Craven and Stuart shown me their work, I answer 'no' to all three. I've interviewed Stuart extensively--three intervals in total I think, and many emails, and I've had the luxury of the occasional MQA-encoded test track. But the only technical material I've seen is what's widely available in patent applications and scientific journals. But it holds together, and as I've said, Stuart and Craven are not charlatans. They're serious people with serious careers behind them--and I'm not talking about Meridian. In contrast to many hear, Stuart stands up in front of packed rooms and stands behind his claims. That doesn't mean he isn't lying, but to me the preponderance of evidence suggests otherwise. 

See Charles Hansens’ comment on page 163 for examples of Stuart lying. 

In general, a liar is comfortable lying to 1 or 1000 people...

[Indydan]

4 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

 

I said I wasn't going to post more, but I did.

 

jca

 

[Brinkman Ship]

7 minutes ago, Indydan said:

See Charles Hansens’ comment on page 163 for examples of Stuart lying. 

In general, a liar is comfortable lying to 1 or 1000 people...

Even if Stuart can be singled out for personally lying, more importantly, the company he founded, MQA lied about-

 

-"authentication"

-losslessness

-the ability to decode 24/192 (upsampled)

 

and more...

-

[FredericV]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

cites for Post-Shannon sampling theory that are relevant to audio??

 

Let's apply it to MQA:

Given a typical speaker impulse response, such as in this post:
 

 

1. scientifically prove that MQA's time domain claim actually matters compared to the far worse response of most (if not all) speakers

2. provide an example of a speaker and recording/playback + equipment chain, which can reproduce the original analog signal, without messing up the time domain, for both signals at normal loudness (like ringing a little bell) to the SPL of a snare drum played in the room, 2m away, with full SPL of the snare drum being captured and played back correctly.

3. prove that MQA's leaky filters do not introduce any negative side effects, such as messing up the phase, width & depth of the soundfield within the human hearing range.

Good luck with that.

[miguelito]

10 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Incredibly convenient that Dudley raves about MQA recordings that are "private"...what a hoot.

 

..and the master cheerleader comes right to the defense...

That was soooo lame...

[shtf]

8 hours ago, firedog said:

 

Why is it necessary to use phrases like "tin ear"? 

 

 

Good question.  Though name calling in and of itself is of little value, in this case it can imply so much more.

 

We must remember that "high-end" audio is or at least was intended to be all about what we hear.  After all, this is an audio-only industry.

 

From my perspective, the introduction of MQA, which in my opinion, is a 1-legged race horse, hits so many facets of high-end audio I keep forgetting all the aspects MQA potentially touches on.   In fact, my audio life remains much simpler by just remembering that there is one aspect MQA does not touch or or impact, and that's improved performance aka improved levels of musicality from the perspective of one who possesses even basic or perhaps reasonable ability to discern / interpret what they hear.

 

That said, I would attest the single biggest problem by far with high-end audio today is that the majority, including many reviewers and other professionals, lack even basic listening skills so that they are unable to discern / interpret what they hear.  Moreover, there are often times evidences when people write / talk that can give clear indication they lack any such listening skills.  They can be the most intelligent science-minded type on the planet, yet possess tin ears.  

 

What's worse is there is a great misunderstanding what is required to develop trained ears or more commonly known as well-trained ears.  Many, including the professional, might claim that because they passed a hearing test with flying colors they're convinced they have ears to hears.  Others might claim because they are a member of their church choir or because they play an instrument, that qualifies them as possessing the ability to discern what they hear / interpret.  In most every case I'm aware of, nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Now all that said, if a professional, an insider, a reviewer or editor proclaims the sonics of a product or technology to be roughly the equivalent to experiencing the birth of a new world, do you think it matters whether or not that person has tin ears?

 

As Peter Moncrieff (known by some to posses extremely well-trained ears) stated in his long MQA diatribe, when describing significant potential shortcomings with MQA recordings, Moncrieff said the naive may actually prefer the seriously degraded sound.

 

From my perspective, I couldn't give a rat's behind about the technology though I think it has an important role to help establish / confirm a product or technology's performance levels but not always.  What should matter to everyone first and foremost is, does it actually improve our playback system's level of musicality moving it closer toward the live performance aka the absolute sound, or further away?

 

Obviously it ultimately only matters what you hear.  But would you prefer to hear the answer to this question from one who potentially possesses tin ears or from one who potentially possesses well-trained ears?  And if per chance I'm right about many, including professional types, lacking any real listening skills, well, that opens up a whole new can of worms and it's no longer just about MQA.

 

The way I see it and why in a perverted way I'm thankful that MQA came along professing that cows can now jump over the moon is because it took something as over-the-top as MQA to bring much of the industry's shortcomings and lack of leadership to light.

 

Think of it this way.  Imagine a powerful, influential, well-regarded court judge has just been discovered that he possessed very little knowledge of the law and was taking bribes in many of his court case decisions.  That implies that not only are the court cases before him today in great peril but that also implies that every court case he ever presided over is also in great question.

 

And always in the process of such discovery, many are harmed, even if it's just financially.

 

Hence, calling somebody here tin ears could be mere bullying but there's also the possibility that they have some history about the person targeted and know what they are talking about.  And if the one targeted indeed possesses tin ears, well, they just became the recipient of a whole lot'a buckshot.

 

Hint.  Those who possess tin ears are usually the last to know and are usually the first to give you that deer-in-the-headlights look when the topic is brought up.

 

But if one were to start asking some of these MQA proponents what it takes to develop and possess listening skills to discern / interpret what we hear, I can pretty much assure you it would be more hilarious than an evening at the improv. 

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

29 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

Good question.  Though name calling in and of itself is of little value, in this case it can imply so much more.

 

We must remember that "high-end" audio is or at least was intended to be all about what we hear.  After all, this is an audio-only industry.

 

From my perspective, the introduction of MQA, which in my opinion, is a 1-legged race horse, hits so many facets of high-end audio I keep forgetting all the aspects MQA potentially touches on.   In fact, my audio life remains much simpler by just remembering that there is one aspect MQA does not touch or or impact, and that's improved performance aka improved levels of musicality from the perspective of one who possesses even basic or perhaps reasonable ability to discern / interpret what they hear.

 

That said, I would attest the single biggest problem by far with high-end audio today is that the majority, including many reviewers and other professionals, lack even basic listening skills so that they are unable to discern / interpret what they hear.  Moreover, there are often times evidences when people write / talk that can give clear indication they lack any such listening skills.  They can be the most intelligent science-minded type on the planet, yet possess tin ears.  

 

What's worse is there is a great misunderstanding what is required to develop trained ears or more commonly known as well-trained ears.  Many, including the professional, might claim that because they passed a hearing test with flying colors they're convinced they have ears to hears.  Others might claim because they are a member of their church choir or because they play an instrument, that qualifies them as possessing the ability to discern what they hear / interpret.  In most every case I'm aware of, nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Now all that said, if a professional, an insider, a reviewer or editor proclaims the sonics of a product or technology to be roughly the equivalent to experiencing the birth of a new world, do you think it matters whether or not that person has tin ears?

 

As Peter Moncrieff (known by some to posses extremely well-trained ears) stated in his long MQA diatribe, when describing significant potential shortcomings with MQA recordings, Moncrieff said the naive may actually prefer the seriously degraded sound.

 

From my perspective, I couldn't give a rat's behind about the technology though I think it has an important role to help establish / confirm a product or technology's performance levels but not always.  What should matter to everyone first and foremost is, does it actually improve our playback system's level of musicality moving it closer toward the live performance aka the absolute sound, or further away?

 

Obviously it ultimately only matters what you hear.  But would you prefer to hear the answer to this question from one who potentially possesses tin ears or from one who potentially possesses well-trained ears?  And if per chance I'm right about many, including professional types, lacking any real listening skills, well, that opens up a whole new can of worms and it's no longer just about MQA.

 

The way I see it and why in a perverted way I'm thankful that MQA came along professing that cows can now jump over the moon is because it took something as over-the-top as MQA to bring much of the industry's shortcomings and lack of leadership to light.

 

Think of it this way.  Imagine a powerful, influential, well-regarded court judge has just been discovered that he possessed very little knowledge of the law and was taking bribes in many of his court case decisions.  That implies that not only are the court cases before him today in great peril but that also implies that every court case he ever presided over is also in great question.

 

And always in the process of such discovery, many are harmed, even if it's just financially.

 

Hence, calling somebody here tin ears could be mere bullying but there's also the possibility that they have some history about the person targeted and know what they are talking about.  And if the one targeted indeed possesses tin ears, well, they just became the recipient of a whole lot'a buckshot.

 

Hint.  Those who possess tin ears are usually the last to know and are usually the first to give you that deer-in-the-headlights look when the topic is brought up.

 

But if one were to start asking some of these MQA proponents what it takes to develop and possess listening skills to discern / interpret what we hear, I can pretty much assure you it would be more hilarious than an evening at the improv. 

 

 

 

"if a professional, an insider, a reviewer or editor proclaims the sonics of a product or technology to be roughly the equivalent to experiencing the birth of a new world, do you think it matters whether or not that person has tin ears? "

 

"Those who possess tin ears are usually the last to know and are usually the first to give you that deer-in-the-headlights look when the topic is brought up. "

 

 

 

 

[shtf]

10 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

 

"if a professional, an insider, a reviewer or editor proclaims the sonics of a product or technology to be roughly the equivalent to experiencing the birth of a new world, do you think it matters whether or not that person has tin ears? "

 

 

 

 

[miguelito]

13 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

Does it circumvent Shannon? No. Shannon was correct, so his theory can't be "fixed." Did I claim it did? Did I imply it? Since you folks seem to be hard of reading, or of honest thinking, I'll answer my own question: No, I did not. Did Bob Stuart make that claim? Not that I'm aware of, at least not in our interviews. You still cannot perfectly reconstruct a non-band-limited signal.

It’s not a matter of the “theory being correct” really. It is a matter of math: sampling at 192 KHz in standard PCM gives you an EXACT reproduction of anything below 96 KHz in bandwidth. How do you improve on perfect? Sampling in MQA simply throws things out. Period. That is math. There’s no two ways about that.

 

If the argument is what is being thrown away does not matter, aka “perceptually losses”, then well I suppose it depends on who is listening.

 

If the argument is “we came up with really great sounding filters/eq, peaking distortion removal, side stereo imagining sharpening, and we combine all things to make the music super tasty” then fine, just say that.

 

If the argument is that artists (all artists is implied) compare MQA vs non-MQA in the studio, then I call BS. “Show me the receipts, Diane! Show me the receipts!!!” (either you get this one or you don’t).

 

All the veiled implications that Mr Stuart suddenly figured out how to outdo math is what is deceitful and drives people (me at least) up the wall. Clown.

[Brinkman Ship]

4 minutes ago, miguelito said:

It’s not a matter of the “theory being correct” really. It is a matter of math: sampling at 192 KHz in standard PCM gives you an EXACT reproduction of anything below 96 KHz in bandwidth. How do you improve on perfect? Sampling in MQA simply throws things out. Period. That is math. There’s no two ways about that.

 

If the argument is what is being thrown away does not matter, aka “perceptually losses”, then well I suppose it depends on who is listening.

 

If the argument is “we came up with really great sounding filters/eq, peaking distortion removal, side stereo imagining sharpening, and we combine all things to make the music super tasty” then fine, just say that.

 

All the veiled implications that Mr Stuart suddenly figured out how to outdo math is what is deceitful and drives people (me at least) up the wall. Clown.

not all clowns are created equal...some can lose tens of millions of dollars and still stay in business....And some can charm gullible physicists and so called journalists with a posh English accent. 

[Brinkman Ship]

4 minutes ago, miguelito said:

It’s not a matter of the “theory being correct” really. It is a matter of math: sampling at 192 KHz in standard PCM gives you an EXACT reproduction of anything below 96 KHz in bandwidth. How do you improve on perfect? Sampling in MQA simply throws things out. Period. That is math. There’s no two ways about that.

 

If the argument is what is being thrown away does not matter, aka “perceptually losses”, then well I suppose it depends on who is listening.

 

If the argument is “we came up with really great sounding filters/eq, peaking distortion removal, side stereo imagining sharpening, and we combine all things to make the music super tasty” then fine, just say that.

 

All the veiled implications that Mr Stuart suddenly figured out how to outdo math is what is deceitful and drives people (me at least) up the wall. Clown.

the sheer audacity and disingenuousness of Austin is stunning....btw..

[Ralf11]

"You still cannot perfectly reconstruct a non-band-limited signal."

 

Why would anyone want to?

 

And, the implication is that MQA _can_ do so.  But it cannot.

[shtf]

24 minutes ago, miguelito said:

All the veiled implications that Mr Stuart suddenly figured out how to outdo math is what is deceitful and drives people (me at least) up the wall. Clown.

 

 

But according to one TAS interview 4 years ago, we're talking about Bob fulfilling his lifelong dream to fix this problem.  Moreover, Bob routinely shares his breakthrough technology to packed rooms and..., AND last I heard Bob actually stands behind his claims.  Cross my heart, hope to die.  Read it myself.

 

What more do you need?