Jump to content
Rt66indierock

MQA is Vaporware

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Even trying to correct a easily technically provable error is sometimes not easy or helpful unless it is possible to relate to common sense and day-to-day usage. *I believe that pushing the facts about every little misunderstanding isn't a good thing...  When there IS an ongoing discussion, an actual bit of technical accuracy CAN be helpful -- I hope 🙂I wish more people with actual knowledge were more easily accessible.   Better access to experts in specific fields could have been incredibly helpful for some of my recent misconceptions, but information is sometimes difficult to find.

 

Some issues, like MQA, bother/worry me personally because I want to maintain my own access to good quality, unmolested, non-DRM music.  I also worry about the rest of the world -- working effectively full time for years to learn enough about a specific field that will help 'OLD' (1960s through 1990s) music quality/availability in the future.  There IS altruism in the world, and I know of maybe 2 or 3 people working very hard, and others contributing from time-to-time in the somewhat altruistic effort. (Common participants to this forum and some fairly well known professional names have helped the effort.)  My own project is NOT limited to (for example) DolbyA at all, and requires resurrecting a lot of difficult to find long-lost common knowledge (and also some hidden know-how.)  I have been a big-time victim of misconception -- much of it due to my own resolvable limitations.  It has taken a LONG time to get some kinds of accurate information.

 

Can you 'save' people from totally misguided ideas?  My answer is -- maybe, if the idea is important enough, but otherwise it is best just to let-go of any kind of 'crusade' (no religious intent for the usage) to correct everything.  This is a hobby for most people -- a little bit of misunderstanding is perfectly fine :-). 

 

Frankly, I wish MORE people who can contribute actual technical facts could find a way (and the time) to discuss things without being perceived as being know-it-alls or stir controversy.  Gaining access to real information, beyond what is currently available, has been troublesome in my current project.  Some actual experts DO demure.   Maybe the most difficult problem for those of us who don' t know everything -- trying to find people who understand their own limitations, and who TRY to avoid passing on their own possible misconceptions.

 

Audio/recording/etc can be very technical -- and there sometimes might be a tension between the artistic temperament and the kind of knowledge needed to truly understand what is going on.  I guess - most important -- remember the goal.  Participating in the hobby can required a very different mindset than the technical knowledge needed to implement the tools of the hobby.  It is easy to wrongly assume that 'understanding the use' is the same as 'understanding the supporting technology'.  They are NOT the same things.

 

John

 

 

Well said John. 

 

You seem to have the the ability to think about a subject, apply your knowledge and experience, and come to a conclusion. Always being willing to re-examine a conclusion when new information becomes available. That is rare - most people want “the” answer and then not to be bothered thinking about it anymore. 

 

Audiophiles in general are exceptions to that rule, at least within the hobby. Most audiophiles are generally willing to accept that they should keep looking at new ideas, products, and technology. Something might sound better to them, and that is where a lot of the fun is in the hobby of course. And if it isn’t fun, why bother with it? That wonderful attitude does make us rather uniquely vulnerable to hucksters though, at least to, some degree. 

 

Religious crusades always  make me nervous. Even if I don’t see it, I am pretty certain someone is out to make money off any crusade, no matter how innocent it may appear. 

Edited by Paul R
Typos, grammar, etc.

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I know that my little anecdote wasn't all that 'short', but I am trying to explain that it is very tricky to find someone who really does give an accurate technical opinion all of the time.  Best that one can do -- listen to more than just a few experts with differing agendas, and then use common sense.  No-one is immune to both sides of the problem.

 

John

 

 

Well stated.  The informed consumer "cloud sources" several "experts", cross checks them with other "experts", etc.  There is no one ring expert to rule them all...


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, botrytis said:

I have tried, on other forums, to point out all the information I gleaned from reading this thread and was delineated as a troll. I guess some want to be in blissful ignorance but, I do not. 

 

I do spend a lot of time, at work, reading patents so I can determine was is real and what is not, for future research. Patents do not have to be actually usable. All it has to do a point out a unique tech or process. This way they CYA.

 

I think MQA is one of those patents. I mean it is not high-res. It changes the actual sound of the file, The only thing that is real is the built-in DRM. The rest of the tech is just there as window treatments.

That aligns with what I am saying. Fully. If it really was as they say, then just dem it and let people decide and it would speak for itself. Their strategic thinking around it and ability to implement are core here. Looks like they have learned that well over the years. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fast and Bulbous said:

As for all the nonsense of using MP3 as the codec with which to compare MQA in the early dems, that was insulting.

 

Seems a pretty straightforward comparison between a decades old lossy format and a new improved lossy format.  

 

Which very few here or elsewhere would have problem being confronted with in a non-DRM prepped state that didn't also require manufacturers to give Bob access to their technical designs and place his own code inside, etc. 

 

Because in any guise it is a consumer replacement for mp3.  Pardon, an overwrought attempt to replace mp3 in the minds of consumers with a premium/luxury/upscale format.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, firedog said:

 

But you do realize there's a difference between disagreeing about opinions/interpretations/subjective experiences and disagreeing about facts and measurements, don't you? 

 

Is there a difference? Not when the facts and measurements presented by the authorities on this site are the final word on any subject and facts and measurements presented by those outside the inner circle here are dismissed as shills and trolls. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When there are diametrically opposed positions that cannot both be true, there can be no such thing as "alternate truths".  If one is true, the other is false.

I tend to have faith in scientists that use established scientific methodology and come to conclusions based on accepted scientific principals.  When a number of them independently come to the same conclusion that MQA's claims are bogus,  I tend to believe them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, firedog said:

Red herring argument. Either the measurements are correct or not. People can differ in the interpretation of those measurements or the understanding of their importance. 

Where is there “blind belief”? If you can show their measurements are incorrect, show it. 

Lots of people on this site  have said they don’t think various measurements are definitive. That’s their opinion and their right. 
Daverich’s vague accusations are just that. People aren’t called “shills and trolls” because they present “facts and measurements” that differ. They are called shills ad trolls when their positions are contradicted by the measurements and they have no reasonable alternative explanation, nor alternative “facts and measurements”. Alternative opinions without showing a basis for them aren’t the same as alternative “facts and measurements”.

I don't think that most people argue that when (AS AN EXAMPLE):  there is a recording that has signal at up to maybe 40kHz -- that the signal isn't there.  It is more that there can be interpretations if the signal is useful...  Sometimes a signal can be coherent from some other signal device, sometimes a signal can be an IMD splat from an NR system, sometimes the signal can actually be audio from a microphone.  Secondarily, there are issues about the actual quality or useful signal level of the 40kHz signal, and most importantly -- can anyone detect that signal as directly being a part of 'music'.

 

The discussions are more fine than a simple disagreement about specific facts.  One problem with these discussions happens because it can be a little tricky to separate out the aspects of the discussion and not confuse them.

 

Depending on agenda, the 'facts' can be somewhat convincingly interpreted in different ways.

 

Organizing the facts in a discussion can be tricky, and there seem to be a lot of traps and pitfalls when there are so many different weightings of the importance of the facts, let alone judging whether or not that the facts are accurate.

 

This problem associated with organizing the facts, understanding the ramifications, weighting the importance  ALONG with the emotional aspects conceptually reminds me of 'herding cats'. 

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

facts are established by experimentation - the question is whether or to what extent they apply outside the conditions of that experiment


"The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment. They often base their purchasing decisions on hearsay, and the preaching of media sages. Unfortunately, because of commercial considerations, much information is rooted in increasing revenue, not in assisting the audiophile. It seems as if the only requirements for becoming an "authority" in the world of audio is a keyboard."

-- Bruce Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

I tend to have faith in scientists that use established scientific methodology and come to conclusions based on accepted scientific principals.  When a number of them independently come to the same conclusion that MQA's claims are bogus,  I tend to believe them.

 

Not meaning to be facetious but I wasn't aware that scientists had any research interest in MQA.

 

And why listen to only scientists?  What's wrong with engineering practitioners, for example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Where are those measurements?

 

Do a search for Jim Austin and you’ll come up with any number of comments on the technical aspects of his articles in Stereophile, dismissing them as mere shilling. As well as for John Atkinson and others not members of the inner circle here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

Do a search for Jim Austin and you’ll come up with any number of comments on the technical aspects of his articles in Stereophile, dismissing them as mere shilling. As well as for John Atkinson and others not members of the inner circle here. 

 

They are not my God.

 

I believe in science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Not meaning to be facetious but I wasn't aware that scientists had any research interest in MQA.

 

And why listen to only scientists?  What's wrong with engineering practitioners, for example?

 

Also not being facetious, but are engineering practitioners not also scientists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Also not being facetious, but are engineering practitioners not also scientists?

Engineering is one part science and two parts black magic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...