Popular Post tmtomh Posted May 17, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted May 17, 2018 On 5/16/2018 at 11:30 AM, ARQuint said: That there's been, so far, no censure of this post from the man in charge is disappointing. Perhaps it's telling that Chris identifies himself as the "Founder" of CA, without acknowledging any editorial function. On the one hand, he functions as CA's lead reviewer and otherwise curates the content of the site. On the other, he stands off to the side as inflammatory (and, in this case, defamatory) comments are made. It's quite correct for Chris to tout the presence of MQA experts in the CA community but if trolls and other snarky hangers-on overshadow them, their utility to rank-and-file readers is considerably diminished. Go ahead: accuse me of more "finger-wagging." The silence from the top, in this instance, is deafening. I'm not going to accuse you of finger-wagging. I'm going to instead suggest that you're either unaware (unlikely) or willfully ignoring (more likely) that this is a wide-open forum by design, and its tenor and light-touch moderation reflect its genesis as an online forum, as opposed to a print publication like TAS, whose online portal historically is a secondary outgrowth of the print publication, and has discussion take place only in the comment sections at the bottom of articles/blog posts. It's a different model, and there's no way in the world you're unaware of the more freewheeling nature of discussion in dedicated web forums like this one. In this vein, it's important to note that individual members here not only can post in threads - they also can start them. A moderator is therefore a very different role than an editor - which you know (or should know) full well. I actually agree with you about the conspiracy theories - I've repeatedly condemned them here and urged folks to cut it out. Not only is it rank speculation about unprovable/un-disprovable connections, but it also provides fodder for people like you to do exactly what you've been doing here: Focus only on the extreme comments and deflect the content of the discussion by trying to impugn the credibility of this entire site, and @The Computer Audiophile along with it. Ironically, the comment you are so intent on having "censured' by Chris is clearly phrased as one person's speculative theory, and does not contain the kind of nasty, snarky commentary that a few folks here insist on repeating ad nauseum - so you've picked a curious comment to fixate on, given that there are far worse comments in this thread. Finally, I would respectfully suggest that you take a seat when it comes to your thinly veiled attempt to impugn Chris' character (which is the enterprise you've been engaged in since your first post here), and instead consider how you might translate all the good stuff you say you've learned about MQA into more balanced coverage of MQA in your own publication. skikirkwood, The Computer Audiophile, Cebolla and 5 others 5 3 Link to comment
crenca Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said: You can attempt to write your own thread eulogy to control the narrative but that isn't how the internet works. From the headstone of the late, great @ARQuint: Rose are red, violets are blue I was a subjectivist, and you should be to I was a somebody, you are a little troll I rode a unicorn, now your forlorn Without my authority, your just a nobody Carry on if you can, and remember my finger Because in the end, I left it up my.....zinger Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
mevdinc Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 15 hours ago, mansr said: That could be just talk. Everybody seems to like boasting about how much effort they've made and how hard it was, no matter what the subject. From what I've seen, adding MQA to a software solution should be pretty straight-forward. Simply take the provided library and plug it into the processing chain like you would any other codec. If it takes more than a man-week, there is something seriously wrong with your overall system architecture. At least I was able to do it with no documentation or assistance whatsoever. I agree, @damien78 of Audirvana Plus implemented the MQA software unfolding ages ago, and he's a one man dev-team. Maybe he can shed some light as too how hard the integration was, if at all. MikeyFresh 1 mevdinc.com (My autobiography) Recently sold my ATC EL 150 Actives! Link to comment
james45974 Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 4 hours ago, ARQuint said: Re: Mr. Quint. I wish I could meet some of the people on this forum in person because it is impossible to get a complete picture of someone just by their words. Mr. Quint may be the proverbial Life of the Party! But nevertheless, the phrase "book smart, common sense dumb" comes to my mind. YOMV!!! Jim Link to comment
Popular Post Rt66indierock Posted May 17, 2018 Author Popular Post Share Posted May 17, 2018 1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Because everyone around here is 100% capable of seeing all comments for what they are and weeding out BS. Just as you deemed it a conspiracy theory, I'm sure others are equally as capable of making up their own minds. We don't have a Minister of Information around here. Proof or it didn't happen. Where have I vilified individuals and publications? I've called it as I see it and I've relayed personal stories (although I've held back more information from phone calls that would probably leave you in disbelief). I don't act or not act based on some industry news I may have. I receive information from people who have a whole lot or very little to do with MQA and I try to decide what's real, what's made up, and what deserves publication. I recently heard something so surprising that I'm trying to back it up with other sources. Trust me, if I can back this up, it isn't good news for MQA. This is the opposite of the other news that I hinted at that would be great for MQA. I don't fear any loss of control because I don't have any control. I provide a platform for all sides. I've given everyone on Earth the space to write for or against MQA in the most transparent manner possible. Heck, when I removed some MQA posts early on, I told people before it was done and I told them after what posts were removed (I feared some intellectual property was reverse engineered and made public). In other words, it's hard to lose control that I never had. This is a community. With respect to my disinhibition, I don't really see that. I must remain neutral. Otherwise I fear the messages will be seen as tainted. If I come out against MQA, the proponents will say I'm trying to control the narrative. The same goes for being anti MQA. If anything, I'm usually seen as pro MQA by many in this community because I frequently push people to give objective information without speculation. I also understand it's impossible without access to the real IP. Given your stance on speculation and theories, I should censure your post correct? A theory without any evidence to back it up. Fortunately for everyone involved, we leave people's posts out here so there's a history or pattern of behavior that all can see and by which to judge future comments. If someone claims the US never landed on the Moon, then claims 9/11 was an inside job, it's great to be able to go back and read their claim about the moon to put it in perspective. Have a little faith in the CA Community that we're all fairly smart and can decide for ourselves what to believe. So far, MQA has declined to refute @Archimago's article and told me that the original MQA Q&A already answered all the questions. Well, I talked to several engineers since the publishing of the article and absolutely none of them agree that MQA has answered the issues. In Munich I talked to countless engineers who all brought up the MQA article on their own during our discussions. Everyone of them said the article is 100% correct and that MQA has no answers. The engineers were with companies for and against MQA, some of them under MQA NDA. All of this was unsolicited as well. Either Bob S is way smarter than all of HiFi and all living or dead engineers, or something fishy is going on. As I told Bob is our phone conversation before I published Archimago's article, if as Bob says the article simply isn't factual, I'd love nothing more than to provide the factual evidence to refute Archimago's claims. I also believe Archimago would love to see this type of evidence published as he has no grudge. It would be awesome for site traffic if I could provide the information that made the anti-MQA audience look foolish. However, this evidence doesn't exist and the anti-MQA audience is the one making MQA look foolish. You can attempt to write your own thread eulogy to control the narrative but that isn't how the internet works. Chris, I just downloaded what appears to a be a genuine royalty statement of Tidal's for Universal from June of 2017. It lists HiFi tier subscribers by country. They may all fit in "The Big House" (Michigan Stadium). Take care, Stephen MikeyFresh and mcgillroy 1 1 Link to comment
Brinkman Ship Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 The great MQA chearleader defends the honor of MQA from 10,000 miles away... "I think the biggest shock for me in comparing MQA / non-MQA tracks of recordings by Lindberg, Johnson, Chesky, Mc Grath, and Atkinson is that even the most vaunted of A to D converters has inherent timing errors that, to my ears, MQA seems to correct. Naysayers will tell me that I'm hearing something else, or that I'm just too deluded or delusional to notice that I'm being duped by the MQA cabal. Either that, or I'm a shill for MQA. There's no way to argue with that, since they clearly know me better than I know myself. https://www.stereophile.com/content/arts-thursday-munich-part-two#Z2IvHkLMPaJsC1ui.99 Link to comment
maxijazz Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Trust me, if I can back this up, it isn't good news for MQA. This is the opposite of the other news that I hinted at that would be great for MQA. Knowing how Apple operates there is a reason why they introduced FLAC support in iPhones/iOS. They need to grow installed base of such devices worldwide before they introduce lossless (FLAC) music service. Ralf11 1 Link to comment
Brinkman Ship Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 7 minutes ago, maxijazz said: Knowing how Apple operates there is a reason why they introduced FLAC support in iPhones/iOS. They need to grow installed base of such devices worldwide before they introduce lossless (FLAC) music service. That is a falsehood. There is no "FLAC support" in iPhones/iOS. They simply introduced a file system. That means if you can find an app to play it, any file will play, including DSD. There have always been third party apps that could play FLAC on iOS. Link to comment
maxijazz Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 21 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said: That is a falsehood. There is no "FLAC support" in iPhones/iOS. They simply introduced a file system. That means if you can find an app to play it, any file will play, including DSD. There have always been third party apps that could play FLAC on iOS. You must call Apple they have false statements on their pages (i.e https://www.apple.com/iphone-8/specs/). I believe that official specifications mean, that iPhones 7 and newer have hardware decoder for FLAC (and most likely API hooks for the decoder). Since replacement cycle for iPhones is 2-3 years depending on country, then we should expect FLAC support enabled soon, this or next year (if business agreements get obtained on time). After new AM service gets announced FLAC support for iTunes and iOS Music apps will get enabled. Cheers, Max Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted May 17, 2018 Author Share Posted May 17, 2018 Is there a market for a lossless streaming? I ran the numbers on the June 2017 Universal Royalty Statement. Tidal's HiFi tier had less than 170,000 subscribers. And those who were speculating Tidal had less a million subscribers, as of June 2017 they were probably right. mcgillroy 1 Link to comment
maxijazz Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 I speculate RBCD quality with FLAC will be the only option in AM. Same price as current AAC. Pure speculation (=conspiracy theory): There must be a reason (in addition to desire for jack removal) why Apple removed headphone’s DAC from iPhones (about the time it implemented hardware FLAC decoder), thus promoting (or forcing) better, external DACs. Link to comment
psjug Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 45 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said: Is there a market for a lossless streaming? It seems clear that the market is very small if it costs twice as much as lossy. Link to comment
John_Atkinson Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 7 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said: The great MQA chearleader [sic] defends the honor of MQA from 10,000 miles away . . .https://www.stereophile.com/content/arts-thursday-munich-part-two#Z2IvHkLMPaJsC1ui.99 This is the first time Art Dudley has ever commented on MQA. Don't see, therefore, how he can be called "the great MQA [chearleader."] And take a look at https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-aliasing-b-splines-centers-gravity There's an interesting listening test embedded in the text. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Bill Brown 1 Link to comment
maxijazz Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 Please see 45:45 in https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2017/501/ “On the FLAC side, we have the codec, file and the streaming support”. Apple had built in FLAC streaming support. Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 19 minutes ago, maxijazz said: There must be a reason (in addition to desire for jack removal) why Apple removed headphone’s DAC from iPhones It was so courageous :~) i believe it was about making the phone thinner and more water resistant. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
crenca Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said: It was so courageous :~) i believe it was about making the phone thinner and more water resistant. For the average music lover, AAC + Bluetooth HP's are not only good enough, but preferred. No reason to keep a "legacy" DAC and jack in the phone... Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
mansr Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said: It was so courageous :~) They weren't even the first. 1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said: i believe it was about making the phone thinner and more water resistant. That makes engineering sense. The 3.5mm jack is bulky and difficult to water-proof. Link to comment
crenca Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 8 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: And take a look at https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-aliasing-b-splines-centers-gravity Music coming out of white noise as an audible test? In real music, the music itself and the IM are both above the noise floor...what am I missing here? In any case, "post shannon" is a spin term meant to describe a certain philosophy about filtering, audibility/desirability of "ringing", IM, and the like that is all based on shannon. It's more of the same from the MQA promotion machine... MikeyFresh 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Brinkman Ship Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 31 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said: This is the first time Art Dudley has ever commented on MQA. Don't see, therefore, how he can be called "the great MQA [chearleader."] And take a look at https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-aliasing-b-splines-centers-gravity There's an interesting listening test embedded in the text. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile fyi...i was referring to JVS..who commented on the thread...not Art Dudley. Link to comment
Brinkman Ship Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 1 hour ago, maxijazz said: You must call Apple they have false statements on their pages (i.e https://www.apple.com/iphone-8/specs/). I believe that official specifications mean, that iPhones 7 and newer have hardware decoder for FLAC (and most likely API hooks for the decoder). Since replacement cycle for iPhones is 2-3 years depending on country, then we should expect FLAC support enabled soon, this or next year (if business agreements get obtained on time). After new AM service gets announced FLAC support for iTunes and iOS Music apps will get enabled. Cheers, Max Can you refer me to an Apple/iOS/OS program that will currently play FLAC? I have an iPhone 8 Plus and a Mac Book Pro...... Link to comment
Brinkman Ship Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 36 minutes ago, crenca said: Music coming out of white noise as an audible test? In real music, the music itself and the IM are both above the noise floor...what am I missing here? In any case, "post shannon" is a spin term meant to describe a certain philosophy about filtering, audibility/desirability of "ringing", IM, and the like that is all based on shannon. It's more of the same from the MQA promotion machine... A few posters here are going to have a field day with this link...center of gravity indeed... Link to comment
adamdea Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said: And take a look at https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-aliasing-b-splines-centers-gravity There's an interesting listening test embedded in the text. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Can you or anyone help with this sentence “Relaxing that constraint restores the symmetry between the time and frequency domains that was missing from Shannon's theory.”I’m baffled. It makes zero sense to me. You are not a sound quality measurement device Link to comment
Popular Post adamdea Posted May 18, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted May 18, 2018 I’m pretty much baffled by the whole interview. I can’t see anything but conjecture in it about what may or may not be important about time domain behaviour, and it appears to concede that there are trade offs involved. All of which makes a mockery of the marketing spiel and its parroting in the press. This is just a form of lossy encoding with a vague theory about what may or may not be acceptable to lose. And the post Shannon thing still seems like blather. MikeyFresh, Jud and The Computer Audiophile 1 2 You are not a sound quality measurement device Link to comment
ChrisG Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 On 5/16/2018 at 5:21 PM, mansr said: That could be just talk. Everybody seems to like boasting about how much effort they've made and how hard it was, no matter what the subject. From what I've seen, adding MQA to a software solution should be pretty straight-forward. Simply take the provided library and plug it into the processing chain like you would any other codec. If it takes more than a man-week, there is something seriously wrong with your overall system architecture. At least I was able to do it with no documentation or assistance whatsoever. Well, in fairness to Roon, they did require that users would still be able to use DSP after the first unfold of the MQA file. AFAIK, they are the only one doing that. However, I'm on file with them as being, I think, one of the only Alpha testers that doesn't like MQA and won't test any features that require using MQA. ChrisG Bend, OR Link to comment
Fokus Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 4 hours ago, adamdea said: And the post Shannon thing still seems like blather. It is. Willfully violating the sampling theorem is not a 'new theory'. It is a trade-off. And not necessarily a trade-off that makes sense. And no BS, you were not the first one to try this. Have a chat with Tony Faulkner. MikeyFresh 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now