MQA is Vaporware

[Thuaveta]

4 hours ago, daverich4 said:

facts and measurements presented by those outside the inner circle here

 

35 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.

 

I'm probably a bit incompetent with search, and my reading comprehension seems to be fast going down the drain, so would you mind making things easy and linking to the measurements you're talking about ?

[firedog]

17 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

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

Engineering deals in applied science. Engineers are not scientists. Do you want your bridge design to be an experiment? 

[Ralf11]

true, tho engineers and MDs can do science

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Where are those measurements?

 

They are not all that difficult to find, some are even well done measurements, as in this article. 

 

Do note that I have far more confidence in Archimago’s test results. But I strongly suggest that there is a case of tunnel vision happening here and in other places. “Facts” can and are being used as weapons to support agendas. 

 

Also note most most people do not care about MQA as a stand-alone thing, only how it sounds in products they own. Facts may not be compelling if a MQA version sounds better than a Redbook quality file to someone. It is likely that will lead to questioning of the facts. 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

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

 

Very well said.

[Archimago]

9 hours ago, daverich4 said:

 

Sort of like this forum where as soon as @mansr sez or @Archimago sez there can be no other truth...

 

By nature of the critique lodged against MQA, I believe this to be untrue. In fact, the hope (for me at least) is that this is not about "The Man" but the technology itself. I hope the rationale presented over the years have been reasonably clearly laid out for all to consider for themselves. @mansr even reverse-engineered much of the final "rendering" process for all to see! Remember that what I wrote for Chris was a review not just of my thoughts but also those expressed elsewhere (remember Charles Hansen?).

 

I certainly have no issue with anyone disagreeing over interpretations of the data or even with the data themselves if the person can come up with results that are different from the ones I found... In fact, I actively encourage this! No man is infallible and we're certainly free to hold other perspectives so long as it simply makes sense.

 

I honestly think that those of "us" who have been critical of MQA have given the technology a "more than fair" shake and the company plenty of opportunities to explain and respond to critiques. Remember, Chris even contacted MQA and offered Stuart and others an opportunity to say something in response to the review article before publication. We got nothing. Instead Chris' response from the folks of MQA last year at his RMAF presentation was emotional rather than intellectual. I think it speaks volumes when the response is anything but able to engage at the same rational and technical levels.

 

For more than a year now, we have seen nothing but yet more testimonials; sometimes of a remarkably zealous fervor. This has added nothing of value to why anyone should "adopt" MQA as opposed to any of the other lossless, open, free file formats.

 

[lucretius]

51 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

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

 

I would say no*. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist

 

*Not that there's anything wrong with that. ☺️

[mansr]

9 minutes ago, Paul R said:

They are not all that difficult to find, some are even well done measurements, as in this article. 

How is that supposed to be relevant?

[KeenObserver]

25 minutes ago, firedog said:

Engineering deals in applied science. Engineers are not scientists. Do you want your bridge design to be an experiment? 

 

I would want my bridge to be based on established scientific principals.

 

Just as I want my sound reproduction system to be based on established scientific principals.

[Paul R]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

How is that supposed to be relevant?

Because MQA is not usually measured as itself, but as part of the measurement of a device. Did you read the part where they turned on MQA?

 

It is probably far more relevant to most people than how many bits are reconstructed (or lost) in an MQA unfold.

[Archimago]

1 hour 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. 

 

As @Thuaveta said above. In which part of Jim Austin's writings is he demonstrating the value of MQA in a way that answers the critiques technically?

 

Remember guys, it was Jim Austin's articles regarding MQA that told us that the record labels didn't want to release their hi-res "crown jewels" and that MQA was some kind of solution...

[lucretius]

29 minutes ago, firedog said:

Engineering deals in applied science. Engineers are not scientists. Do you want your bridge design to be an experiment? 

 

That's still better than the Marketing Department designing the bridge. ☺️

[firedog]

17 minutes ago, Paul R said:

even well done measurements, as in this article. 

 

Don’t see the relevance of that article. 

[KeenObserver]

11 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

As @Thuaveta said above. In which part of Jim Austin's writings is he demonstrating the value of MQA in a way that answers the critiques technically?

 

Remember guys, it was Jim Austin's articles regarding MQA that told us that the record labels didn't want to release their hi-res "crown jewels" and that MQA was some kind of solution...

 

Always good to hear from you!

 

Are you a scientist?

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Because MQA is not usually measured as itself, but as part of the measurement of a device. Did you read the part where they turned on MQA?

 

It is probably far more relevant to most people than how many bits are reconstructed (or lost) in an MQA unfold.

Are you really that devoid of clue? Enabling the MQA mode activated an alternate signal path resulting in a non-MQA test signal being reproduced more accurately. The manufacturer could easily have done the same unconditionally, but for "inexplicable" reasons chose to tie the best performance to the MQA mode.

[KeenObserver]

I need to go to the store.

 

On the way I have to cross a bridge that the builder stated was "perceptually sound".

[Archimago]

2 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

Always good to hear from you!

 

Are you a scientist?

 

Well... "Scientist" may be difficult to define and depends on what level of academic life one is engaged in.

 

Let's say I work at the university, my degrees have the word "science" in them, and my faculty appointment also has the word "professor" in there somewhere :-).

[Paul R]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

Are you really that devoid of clue? Enabling the MQA mode activated an alternate signal path resulting in a non-MQA test signal being reproduced more accurately. The manufacturer could easily have done the same unconditionally, but for "inexplicable" reasons chose to tie the best performance to the MQA mode.

 

Are you really so tunnel blind?  Does that alter the “fact” that turning on MQA mode made it sound better?  

Most people are not going to care why.  

[KeenObserver]

"Sound better"?

[Paul R]

6 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Well... "Scientist" may be difficult to define and depends on what level of academic life one is engaged in.

 

Let's say I work at the university, my degrees have the word "science" in them, and my faculty appointment also has the word "professor" in there somewhere :-).

 

I have always enjoyed the humor of the misnomer  in your chosen moniker. 

 

A sorcerer continually plying deceitful Magic’s! 🙃

[KeenObserver]

7 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Well... "Scientist" may be difficult to define and depends on what level of academic life one is engaged in.

 

Let's say I work at the university, my degrees have the word "science" in them, and my faculty appointment also has the word "professor" in there somewhere :-).

 

I was trying to be humorous.

 

Your credentials are well established and recognized.

[mansr]

27 minutes ago, Archimago said:

Remember guys, it was Jim Austin's articles regarding MQA that told us that the record labels didn't want to release their hi-res "crown jewels" and that MQA was some kind of solution...

Which do you prefer?

 

This:

 

Or this:

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Are you really so tunnel blind?  Does that alter the “fact” that turning on MQA mode made it sound better?  

Most people are not going to care why.  

How disingenuous is it possible to be? We may have a new record.

[fas42]

48 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

I need to go to the store.

 

On the way I have to cross a bridge that the builder stated was "perceptually sound".

 

The chasm between engineering in most areas, and methods used in audio are quite large - when the bridge falls down, and astronauts die because someone didn't fully check all the fine details - then there is usually little argument that the integrity of the system wasn't quite good enough ... in audio, one is assaulted with bad sound at every turn, because having one's ears suffer is a minor consequence; if they are all as bad as each other, in an infinite number of minor variations, then no-one is the wiser. The concept that the system should be robust enough that it simply presents what's on the recording, with inaudible additions because of the makeup of the chain, is quite foreign to most - it's more fun to play with paints.

 

At the moment audio is about building a bridge where only vehicles that are light enough, and cross at exactly the right speed will make it to the other side - one talks of the small number of "good vehicles" out there, the special ones amongst the numerous "bad vhicles", .

[KeenObserver]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The chasm between engineering in most areas, and methods used in audio are quite large - when the bridge falls down, and astronauts die because someone didn't fully check all the fine details - then there is usually little argument that the integrity of the system wasn't quite good enough ... in audio, one is assaulted with bad sound at every turn, because having one's ears suffer is a minor consequence; if they are all as bad as each other, in an infinite number of minor variations, then no-one is the wiser. The concept that the system should be robust enough that it simply presents what's on the recording, with inaudible additions because of the makeup of the chain, is quite foreign to most - it's more fun to play with paints.

 

At the moment audio is about building a bridge where only vehicles that are light enough, and cross at exactly the right speed will make it to the other side - one talks of the small number of "good vehicles" out there, the special ones amongst the numerous "bad vhicles", .

 

How's the weather on your planet?