MQA is Vaporware

[Fokus]

11 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

What's so damning?

 

That it replaces free and open PCM with closed-system packaged PCM, and adds the need for special hardware to boot. Without tangible benefit for the consumer.

 

[Fokus]

14 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

But those who criticize it on technical grounds ... should carefully consider opposing points of view instead of using cheap rhetorical techniques to de-legitimize it.

 

I agree. Much of the mud-slinging here is not on good foundations. I suppose that, left alone by the 'consumer' press, some people feel that anything goes, as long as the enemy gets damaged.

 

Not my style.

 

But 'much' does not mean 'all'. The fundamental argument against MQA is: it solves nothing.

 

14 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

But those who criticize it on technical grounds should endeavor first to understand MQA,

 

The same holds for those advocating MQA, such as the popular press. I am not impressed by the level of understanding on display there.

[Fokus]

18 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

  the sinc function, which you folks view as the only correct way of doing things but the imaging people have recognized for decades as defective because it's very long in the time domain--sinc(x) extends out to infinity and damps out slowly....  You really should do your homework before trying to destroy peoples' careers. 

 

Rethinking Shannon has made a huge difference in several areas of imaging science. Real, practical advantages have resulted.

 

BS!

 

Imaging eschews Sinc not because it is defective, but because it is (was) computationally unfeasible, and because most applications, including human vision, can tolerate the errors introduced by simpler filter methods.

 

Audio is about the only discipline where correct filtering is necessary and economical.

 

And, by the way, MQA is not 'post-Shannon' at all. It is standard sampling with the additional question of "what if we allow a certain amount of aliasing, trying to keep it below the programme's innate noise level", based on the unproven premise that a compact impulse response is audibly desirable.

 

[adamdea]

34 minutes ago, Fokus said:

And, by the way, MQA is not 'post-Shannon' at all. It is standard sampling with the additional question of "what if we allow a certain amount of aliasing, trying to keep it below the programme's innate noise level", based on the unproven premise that a compact impulse response is audibly desirable.

 

Since a literally perfect sinc filter has never been practically realisable engineers have always had to face the question of what compromise was acceptable.Is that post Shannon?

Equally some engineers have decided not to bother trying to get as close an approximation as possible- are they all using post -Shannon sampling?

 

What exactly does the post-Shannon thing mean? Why would someone who understood what he was taking about, and was trying to communicate not confuse, use such an expression in this context?

 

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, adamdea said:

What exactly does the post-Shannon thing mean?

Same thing as post-Newton calculus.

[Fokus]

24 minutes ago, adamdea said:

What exactly does the post-Shannon thing mean?

 

 

Your guess is as good as mine, given that the subject matter was well known decades pre-Shannon.

 

[miguelito]

9 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

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 accen

Wait... Who are the gullible physicists?

[mansr]

12 minutes ago, miguelito said:

Wait... Who are the gullible physicists?

Jim Austin.

[Foggie]

A funny story but seems (to me at least) relevant in a twisted way. 

 

Was traveling recently and went to get some coffee (well brand chain).  I ordered a plain 'ol coffee and went on my way.  I took a sip and something wasn't write.  Went back to the desk and stated I ordered a black coffee (house brand), what is this?.  The very nice (millennial) gal explained to me "oh I added some of this flavored cream and a little of this and a little of that, I think it tastes the best this way"!!  

 

Literally stunned at what just happened, I was speechless.  WTF.  I kid you not, true story. 

 

First thing I thought of was this debacle.  I set down my DRM'd coffee and politely ask for a reg coffee and went on my way.  Still in awe of that experience. 

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, miguelito said:

Wait... Who are the gullible physicists?

one Mr. Jim Austin...

[miguelito]

11 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

one Mr. Jim Austin...

Oh, ok... I might be gluttonous and stubborn but definitely not gullible, I don't think. And I don't really work as a physicist no mo.

[Brinkman Ship]

45 minutes ago, Foggie said:

A funny story but seems (to me at least) relevant in a twisted way. 

 

Was traveling recently and went to get some coffee (well brand chain).  I ordered a plain 'ol coffee and went on my way.  I took a sip and something wasn't write.  Went back to the desk and stated I ordered a black coffee (house brand), what is this?.  The very nice (millennial) gal explained to me "oh I added some of this flavored cream and a little of this and a little of that, I think it tastes the best this way"!!  

 

Literally stunned at what just happened, I was speechless.  WTF.  I kid you not, true story. 

 

First thing I thought of was this debacle.  I set down my DRM'd coffee and politely ask for a reg coffee and went on my way.  Still in awe of that experience. 

You just described MQA..only MQA is a lot worse.

[The Computer Audiophile]

On 5/14/2018 at 8:18 AM, Jim Austin said:

Sure, there is a chance that Bob Stuart is making this up. Post-Shannon sampling theory is real, an potentially important, but maybe they're not actually using it. Maybe he's lying in that interview (although the formulation outlined in publications and patent applications fits). I don't have the access (nor, perhaps, the expertise) to ensure that he's implementing a new codec based on a rethinking of Shannon. But to judge whether he's doing that or not, you need need to consider that it might be real. You haven't done that. When I consider who's likely to be more reliable--AES Fellows with long and distinguished careers or some self-important, anonymous Internet trolls with a cheap audio interface and Adobe Audition--the answer seems obvious to me. 

Did you ask any other experts in this field to weigh in on what Bob has said?

[Brinkman Ship]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Did you ask any other experts in this field to weigh in on what Bob has said?

[The Computer Audiophile]

On 5/14/2018 at 8:18 AM, Jim Austin said:

it seems that anyone on this forum who dares go against the prevailing view ends up getting banned. 

As they say in internet-land, pics or it didn't happen. Please provide evidence of this claim or retract your comment. 

[Brinkman Ship]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

As they say in internet-land, pics or it didn't happen. Please provide evidence of this claim or retract your comment. 

100% correct.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Considering the experts here on CA are called trolls, even though they are known around the world as experts by people outside of HiFi, and smart people inside of the HiFi industry recognize them as experts but can't come out and say it because they still need to feed their families by working in this business, I'm willing to accept the names of any expert on Earth who is deemed qualified to assess MQA and the arguments of its detractors, and I will approach him or her seeking a response. 

 

In other words, lets all agree on some experts and I'll ask them. What isn't fair about this and what is wrong with this approach?

 

@Jim Austin, because nobody in the old guard press has considered outside experts and nobody in the old guard press considers the experts here on CA worthy or believable, please provide the names of experts who you believe are capable of examining MQA and the arguments for / against it and I will work to get some outside opinions. 

 

I also encourage the CA community to offer names of experts. 

 

 

[wushuliu]

1 hour ago, Foggie said:

A funny story but seems (to me at least) relevant in a twisted way. 

 

Was traveling recently and went to get some coffee (well brand chain).  I ordered a plain 'ol coffee and went on my way.  I took a sip and something wasn't write.  Went back to the desk and stated I ordered a black coffee (house brand), what is this?.  The very nice (millennial) gal explained to me "oh I added some of this flavored cream and a little of this and a little of that, I think it tastes the best this way"!!  

 

Literally stunned at what just happened, I was speechless.  WTF.  I kid you not, true story. 

 

First thing I thought of was this debacle.  I set down my DRM'd coffee and politely ask for a reg coffee and went on my way.  Still in awe of that experience. 

 

Arguably the best post about this entire debacle and the tech world at large. Whether it's Facebook, Netflix, or MQA.

[Fokus]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

I also encourage the CA community to offer names of experts. 

 

 

 

 

JJ

Bruno

 

 

[crenca]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

What isn't fair about this and what is wrong with this approach?

 

 

It's just not how things are done.  It's not that hammer they have and wield.  It is skeptical and demanding of the the new, innovative, and "post" anything - not closed minded, just skeptical.  It limits @Jim Austin, @ARQuintand the like in that it is a check on their art & wine subjectivism.  They would have to work harder, cross check facts, theories, and assertions.  They would have to admit their own limitations and find people who can actually do the math, parse the theory, and explain the difference between a unicorn and reality.

 

In other words, there is no money in it.  Stereophile, TAS, and the like are not about the truth, they are about selling art and wine to the subjectivised "audiophile", commoditizing said audiophile in terms of readership numbers, and selling that to their customers (i.e. their advertisers).  

 

There is no audiophile "press".  @Jim Austinis neither a "journalist" nor an investigator.  He is just a man who has heard of a unicorn, has a certain vain desire to consider whether it is "real",  and is wagging his finger at us because we are skeptical and asking for actual evidence of the unicorns existence and why we should put our hard earn $ towards the photographs he has of it and is selling...  

[mansr]

32 minutes ago, crenca said:

There is no audiophile "press".  @Jim Austinis neither a "journalist" nor an investigator.  He is just a man who has heard of a unicorn, has a certain vain desire to consider whether it is "real",  and is wagging his finger at us because we are skeptical and asking for actual evidence of the unicorns existence and why we should put our hard earn $ towards the photographs he has of it and is selling...

And that's after we dismembered one of said unicorns, only to find it was just a couple of kids in a costume.

[crenca]

41 minutes ago, mansr said:

And that's after we dismembered one of said unicorns, only to find it was just a couple of kids in a costume.

 

Yep.  But remember, Bob S is one of the cool kids.  Sure, he keeps moving the goal posts but those who look up to him (such as @Jim Austin) not only not complain when the goal posts are moved, but actually defend the action.  So guys like you who have real experience and knowledge in signal processing, software, etc. deconstruct one end of the "end to end" technical marvel known as MQA. Turns out, it's just a kid in a custom (that is already known art of slow, leaky, IM causing filters attached to a lossy compression encoding).  What happens next?  Does Stereophile, TAS, etc. issue a mea culpa or even acknowledge the reality?  No!  Instead, they go with cool kid Bob S who moves the goalposts.  Now MQA is all about the DSP they apply to the PCM after the ADC.  This unicorn is harder to get at, as MQA has (wisely) restricted access to it.  @Jim Austinexplicitly admits he has no access to this, could not do the math if he did, but that Bob S the cool kid must really be on to something because of course he would never lie about it would he?!?  @Jim Austinthen explicitly admits he is willing to then judge the veracity of the unicorn based on third party tests of impulse response (think about that for a moment and let it sink in).  

 

It will be interesting to see what happens next.  I predict that the impulse test Jim is waiting for is going to be...inconclusive.  The results will show a difference, but the meaning of that difference will be debatable.  Is it significant?  Is it audible?  Is it relevant in a complicated play back chain where amps, transducers, and rooms have much larger phase/frequency distortion effects?  Will then Jim admit the cool kids have been lying?  No!  He will claim the cool kids has kicked an extra point, that MQA is innovative and interesting and makes a difference and perhaps needs further development and internet trolls such as yourself and not giving it a real consideration.

 

I take it back, it will not be interesting at all.  "High End" is boring and predictable...

[rickca]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

@Jim Austin, because nobody in the old guard press has considered outside experts and nobody in the old guard press considers the experts here on CA worthy or believable, please provide the names of experts who you believe are capable of examining MQA and the arguments for / against it and I will work to get some outside opinions.

The emperor might have a problem nominating an independent tailor.

[FredericV]

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I also encourage the CA community to offer names of experts.

 

Monty Montgomery from xiph.org:
 

 

John Watkinson, who wrote the bible on digital audio:
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Digital-Audio-John-Watkinson/dp/0240515870

 

 

[Indydan]

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I also encourage the CA community to offer names of experts. 

 

 

 

Mike Moffat