Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

 

Don't know if you see it this way, but this is a weakness. It causes people to think you should have to show the press is "on the take," rather than simply being excited and credulous about something new, and ignoring measured and verified technical problems because that is standard operating procedure - my ears uber alles.

 

It's very much like the claims that Audioquest "rigged" its power equipment demos with louder music when AQ equipment was in the chain.  I measured at two separate demos, and volume was equal, so now what do you have? I posted somewhere in the forums a while ago that AQ would be crazy to rig the demos, *because mere power of suggestion is enough*.  It's how all magicians make their livings.

 

So there is absolutely no need to conjecture or prove a quid pro quo.  How often do you see a really critical review of *anything* in the big audiophile mags these days? Standard operating procedure is perfectly adequate to explain why the technical problems with MQA aren't being highlighted.

 

I agree Jud I want to start talking about the encoder.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Who am I -- the only person who has written (successfully and reviewed by audio pros) a DolbyA decoder.  Much more tedious than even compression routines -- working from ancient HW schematic designs -- NO SPEC!!!  Being a full practicing EE & Software & DSP person for many years makes me an appropriate person to do these kinds of projects. 

 

I am an engineeer and SW developer with 40yrs experience,  at least 1/2 at AT&T Bell Labs, an OS developer (wrote a big part of the original FreeBSD kernel -- refer to the copyrights in the source), and also a DSP developer who knows what they are doing.  As EE's go, I am pretty good also -- one of the few left who can ACTUALLY DESIGN, not just mimick temperature compensated and stable circuitry with what ever transistor kind of device that you might give me to work with.  Also, I do have a background (somewhat fuzzy) in vacuum tube design, but find little use any more other than as a curiosity.

 

So much for the introduction:

 

All you need to do -- look at the series, and see what happens when it is truncated.  It is technically NOT RINGING, but is a residual from a truncated series expansion...  Simple as that.  Think about what happens when a brickwall LFP does its thing...

 

As I wrote above, I informally call it 'ringing' also, but it is NOT RINGING.  Hearing effectively does a spectrum analysis -- hears something like sine waves, and when you hear a square wave, you hear the fundamentals and the harmonics -- NOT A SQUARE WAVE. 

Your hearing doesn't hear 'SQUARE WAVES', rather it is a kind of spectrum analyzer (I hesitate calling it a fourier transform, because it is not.)  So, a truncated spectrum only takes away spectrum that one cannot hear much of the time anyway.

 

It is NOT a resonance, but a truncated spectrum.  It is called Gibbs.   Yes, there is some math in common -- but there is a LOT of math that has common roots, but are different things.

 

John

 

 

Why John do you think that Bob S, John Atkinson, Jim Austin, Stereophile, TAS, and almost all of the lessor audiophile press were so easily able to convince with their "ringing effects transient behavior" narrative? Even before MQA this narrative was very common and, mostly, assumed to be real and correct, though debates were to be seen occasionally here and there.  

 

Again, playing devil's advocate:  While I believe what you say is true, I don't see how this truth matters.  It's just common sense, everybody knows that ringing is a significant factor and that MQA is a (even if not "the") solution.  

 

My answer to the question:  Audiophiledom is not about the truth.  It's a myth based culture, and the culture has authorities.  Your not one of them, and John Atkinson is.  

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Why John do you think that Bob S, John Atkinson, Jim Austin, Stereophile, TAS, and almost all of the lessor audiophile press were so easily able to convince with their "ringing effects transient behavior" narrative? Even before MQA this narrative was very common and, mostly, assumed to be real and correct, though debates were to be seen occasionally here and there.  

 

Again, playing devil's advocate:  While I believe what you say is true, I don't see how this truth matters.  It's just common sense, everybody knows that ringing is a significant factor and that MQA is a (even if not "the") solution.  

 

My answer to the question:  Audiophiledom is not about the truth.  It's a myth based culture, and the culture has authorities.  Your not one of them, and John Atkinson is.  

First -- I DO MAKE MISTAKES, and I am just as susceptible to myths as anyone else.  Geesh -- I used to believe that 'Gibbs' is really ringing for many many years -- until I put my EE/DSP hat on instead of my 'just me' hat.  It is so easy to be mistaken in these highly technical fields, and one thing that I have learned to say (or write):  yes, my statement was wrong, I was wrong in my beliefs, etc...  (I am not wrong about Gibbs, but I have been wrong about A LOT of things. 🙂)   Threw the stupid part of ego away -- once I did that, it was so much easier to be intellectually honest and accept the truth.

Another thing -- gotta give up on trying to convince those who don't want to admit the truth.  I remember an old co-worker, a little long in the tooth, telling me that he was a real expert in this or that field.  In fact, he said:  I can't be taught anything!!!   He really said that, I was incredulous and kindly kept my mouth shut :-).

Stupid arguments are not worth throwing away friendships or even kind correspondents.

 

John

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

Hmmm. A review from Paul Miller's mag of the Naim streamer..

 

NO mention of lack of MQA decoding...no mention of MQA interesting contrast to Mr. Dudley.

 

Could be more of an editorial decision as opposed to the whim of any given writer, and if so, might we start to see a slow change/backpedal pivot beginning with the July Stereophile issue?

no-mqa-sm.jpg

Boycott HDtracks

Boycott Lenbrook

Boycott Warner Music Group

Link to comment
1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

 

Devil's advocate says:

 

You say potato, I say potato.  Whatever the definition and source of said "ringing", Bob Stuart, @John_Atkinsonand @Jim Austin maintain that it is relevant, and effects in band sound quality through "transient behavior".  Who are you?  Your not a recognized authority.  As AQuint has explained, your understanding is political.  Indeed, as @Jim Austinexplicitly said, your part of a herd and "nasty" (his word) forum mentality.  If only the @The Computer Audiophile would reign in this thread, forum, and consumers in general your misinformation and silly explanations would not cause and baseless and unneeded controversy around a perfectly good product like MQA.

 

in other words, of course ringing effects transient behavior...

 

 

50 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I have to fundamentally disagree with you here.  For too long (estimates vary, 20,30,40 years) we have ignored the quid pro quo, product placement, and voodoo shilling from the trade publications.  We still insist giving them credulous names such as "the audio press" when they have longed ceased being in any way, shape, or form "journalists".  Even though it is a fact that readers are not their consumers, but rather the product they sell, we do this because....why, exactly?  Laziness?  No other "review" and information source options?

 

MQA has unmasked this state of affairs like nothing before.  They are willing to sell you anything, no matter how much it is against your interests, because you are the product - the means to an $end$   It does not matter if the writers/reviewers or even the publication itself themselves are not getting direct compensation - what they get by product placing MQA is positive perception by those who do place advertisements with them - they are being good soldiers in supporting a culture and market.  Stereophile's advertisers have spent real time and money integrating MQA into their products and they expect a return on investment, and Stereophile exists to help them do this very thing.

 

As Audiophiles, we might have tolerated this anti-audiophile/consumer situation for too long.  It's time to unmask it.  The emperor has no clothes.  Stereophile IS product placing MQA, and there is no way to say otherwise.  

 

20 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Why John do you think that Bob S, John Atkinson, Jim Austin, Stereophile, TAS, and almost all of the lessor audiophile press were so easily able to convince with their "ringing effects transient behavior" narrative? Even before MQA this narrative was very common and, mostly, assumed to be real and correct, though debates were to be seen occasionally here and there.  

 

Again, playing devil's advocate:  While I believe what you say is true, I don't see how this truth matters.  It's just common sense, everybody knows that ringing is a significant factor and that MQA is a (even if not "the") solution.  

 

My answer to the question:  Audiophiledom is not about the truth.  It's a myth based culture, and the culture has authorities.  Your not one of them, and John Atkinson is.  

 

I'm having a hard time following you here. Are you really going after John Dyson or are you joking? 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

 

I'm having a hard time following you here. Are you really going after John Dyson or are you joking? 

I can tell -- he is pretty much accepting, but also trying to figure out if I am full of manure.  I saw it as a kind jab, not an insult.  At first it took me back a little, but I truly can understand questioning 'this stranger' here :-).

 

There are charltans out there -- and frankly, I could just as well be one (how can you tell?)  I respect it when people try to figure things out.

 

 

John

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, crenca said:

Your not following at all. 

 

Exactly. That's why I asked the question rather than make assumptions.

 

 

1 minute ago, crenca said:

In other words, I believe John Dyson to be correct.  My point is that there are other aspects at play than being right or wrong about "ringing" or anything else.  It goes back to what Jud and I were talking about.  

 

Thank you. That's the answer I needed. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

...also trying to figure out if I am full of manure.  I saw it as a kind jab, not an insult..

 

 

Well, golly geez Beaver, I really am not getting through.  Devils advocate:

 

dev·il's ad·vo·cate
/ˈˌdevəlz ˈadvəkət/
noun
unpunctuated: devils advocate
  1. a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments.
     
     
     

 

 

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...