Jump to content
Rt66indierock

MQA is Vaporware

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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? 


Main listening (small home office):

Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>CAPS IV Pipeline Server + Sonore 12V PS >SOtM Lan Isolator>Bricasti M5 Network Player >Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.
 

Secondary Listening: CAPS Pipeline>IFi iOne DAC>Schiit Freya>Kii Three . Also an SBT and a RB Pi 3B+ running piCorePlayer as an SBT emulator. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

true, tho engineers and MDs can do science


"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
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. 


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
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.


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
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


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
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :-).


Archimago's Musings... A "more objective" audiophile blog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  


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
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! 🙃


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
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

spacer.png

 

Or this:

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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", ^_^.


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

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...