Popular Post Josh Mound Posted September 30, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted September 30, 2019 22 hours ago, Archimago said: Well... Leaving AES aside :-)... I remember the first time I heard about Amir was when he was debating the late Arny Kruger about hi-res audio. It's been awhile since I've seen that thread but in general I agree with this Audio Investigations entry. No doubt Amir is a smart guy, I can't help but feel there's some ego there that I'm uncomfortable with. I enjoy reading his measurement reports (like recently the PS Audio DAC and the much-ballyhooed-by-various-audiophiles Totaldac - no surprise there are issues with these devices) nonetheless. From the Audio Investigations link: “Reading Amir, it is clear he is very smart and is a very technically qualified professional audio designer. I believe he is honest and not a shill. However I think he makes poor and sometimes ugly arguments (often to authority, and sometimes to his own authority, and often discrediting the authority of others) far more often than Arny does. He also seems to me much more to be a tireless bully.” 21 hours ago, crenca said: Well, the various principles at SBAF (many of whom do their own extensive measurements) have detailed how Amir, let's say "fudges" (to chose a word) his measurements according to his various agenda's (one of them being anti-Schiit). I am only mildly interested observer in this however and have not dived in to make a determination myself, but I wonder about Amir's work. On the other hand, nobody has ever accused the SBAF boys of being ego free themselves. Of course, I openly wonder about JA's work as well, not only his philosophy-asserted-as-fact around minimum phase but even his objective measurements. It's a niche hobby so we more often than not don't have several authorities measuring the same piece of gear, so IMO it's best to take them for what they are: data point(s) from a single flawed individual who usually has an agenda/ego/"philosophy"... SBAF’s atmosphere can be in-your-face, but Marv (unlike Amir) is very explicit about what he thinks is audible. Likewise, AtomicBob is very consistent in what he says he thinks matters in audibility (and why), and his measurements are always apples-to-apples. Amir wants to dismiss Marv as a Schiit shill, but he has no commercial relationship with Schiit beyond site advertising and is happy to be critical of a product when it’s warranted. Bob is truly independent: just a private audio engineer who posts on many sites. He also likes many DACs praised by “objectivists,” such as the ADI-2. On the Yggdrasil, in particular, Amir was the outlier among five measurements, and I think it was clear that his were incorrect. Most of the issues Amir identifies with DACs aren’t audible according to most realistic listening scenarios. Moreover, considering that he’s identified $99 DACs and headphone amps that are “perfect” beyond audibility, I don’t see the point in the ASR continuing to publish measurements. We should all buy a Topping whatever or Modi 3 and be done with DACs! With MQA, he’s running into a weird contradiction about the importance of audibility. If the flaws with MQA aren’t audible, then surely the “horrible” measurements of Schiit’s Multibit DACs aren’t audible, either. Currawong, The Computer Audiophile, crenca and 2 others 2 2 1 🔊 The Best Version Of... 🎧 Link to comment
vortecjr Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 If you guys have any questions for me just let me know and I'll be happy to offer my perspective. If not, let's get back to the typical yet otherwise boring MQA tennis match:) lucretius 1 SONORE computer audio | opticalRendu | ultraRendu | microRendu | Signature Rendu SE | endPoint | opticalModule DX | Power Supplies | Link to comment
Fokus Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 On 9/30/2019 at 5:41 AM, rwdvis said: He has a poor understanding of science (or purposely misrepresents it A salient detail ... I remember that until 2-3 years ago he could not properly read an FFT. All while owning his personal AP ... MikeyFresh 1 Link to comment
Popular Post esldude Posted October 1, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, Fokus said: A salient detail ... I remember that until 2-3 years ago he could not properly read an FFT. All while owning his personal AP ... I find this bizarre. Repeatedly people simply refuse to accept basic reality. Make up things that never happened. And you can't talk them out of it no matter any facts. The guy is an EE. He has spoken about reading FFT's and how not to make mistakes for years. He regularly reminds people of the pitfalls of how to read them. And you make this statement he couldn't read them until recently. Put up or let us know you were mistaken. If you don't like the guy fine, but this is bull shite lying just to paint someone in a bad light. Show me what you have seen to indicate what you claim. You are full of it Fokus. Full of it. lucretius and Sal1950 1 1 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
opus101 Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 17 minutes ago, esldude said: He has spoken about reading FFT's and how not to make mistakes for years. He regularly reminds people of the pitfalls of how to read them. Its clear to me his interpretations of the FFTs he posts are sometimes too simplistic. For example when a stimulus with more than one tone is used there are often many spurious tones arising from non-linearity in a device under test. He takes no care to take them all into account when (in my view, casually) stating that 'the dynamic range is X' or 'Y equivalent number of bits'. He simply takes the level of the peak spurious tone and quotes the distance in dB between that and the stimulus tone(s). Someone who had a deeper understanding of FFTs than he does would make an attempt to sum all the spurious tones (a power summation would be a good start) in order to estimate the overall noise power in the given bandwidth. crenca 1 Link to comment
esldude Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 5 minutes ago, opus101 said: Its clear to me his interpretations of the FFTs he posts are sometimes too simplistic. For example when a stimulus with more than one tone is used there are often many spurious tones arising from non-linearity in a device under test. He takes no care to take them all into account when (in my view, casually) stating that 'the dynamic range is X' or 'Y equivalent number of bits'. He simply takes the level of the peak spurious tone and quotes the distance in dB between that and the stimulus tone(s). Someone who had a deeper understanding of FFTs than he does would make an attempt to sum all the spurious tones (a power summation would be a good start) in order to estimate the overall noise power in the given bandwidth. He likes to quote SINAD. I've a few quibbles with that which I've expressed a few times. But it does take all the other stuff into account. Multiple tones and noise altogether. His dynamic range measures follow the AES17 guidelines. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
rwdvis Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 Anyone who can still defend Amir after reading his most recent MQA thread posts, tells me all I need to know about that persons character. Josh Mound 1 Link to comment
lucretius Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 2 hours ago, rwdvis said: Anyone who can still defend Amir after reading his most recent MQA thread posts, tells me all I need to know about that persons character. Please, no character attacks. mQa is dead! Link to comment
Popular Post Rt66indierock Posted October 1, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted October 1, 2019 30 minutes ago, lucretius said: Please, no character attacks. Agrred, MQA Ltd and Tidal’s financials haven’t been posted yet. MikeyFresh, Currawong and crenca 1 2 Link to comment
crenca Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 8 hours ago, opus101 said: He simply takes the level of the peak spurious tone and quotes the distance in dB between that and the stimulus tone(s). 8 hours ago, esldude said: His dynamic range measures follow the AES17 guidelines. So is "taking peak spurious tone and quoting the distance to stimulus (signal)" the same thing as "following AES17 guidelines"? Honest question. Also, are "AES17" guidelines the actual academic EE standard - do they teach/accept them in university EE programs? Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Archimago Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 3 hours ago, Rt66indierock said: Agrred, MQA Ltd and Tidal’s financials haven’t been posted yet. What's the meaning of this @Rt66indierock? Is it mandatory? Is there a firm deadline? Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, Archimago said: What's the meaning of this @Rt66indierock? Is it mandatory? Is there a firm deadline? https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09123512 Rt66indierock 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post kumakuma Posted October 1, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09123512 If they submitted them in paper format (like last time), MQA may have made the deadline but they are still in the processing queue at Companies House. http://resources.companieshouse.gov.uk/dashboard/paper-processing-dates.shtml MikeyFresh and Rt66indierock 2 Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
Popular Post crenca Posted October 1, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 1, 2019 1 minute ago, kumakuma said: If they submitted them in paper format (like last time), MQA may have made the deadline but they are still in the processing queue at Companies House. http://resources.companieshouse.gov.uk/dashboard/paper-processing-dates.shtml MQA Ltd. does not have the bandwidth to process their numbers online...hum, I wonder if they have a solution for that? 😋 Currawong, Ralf11, kumakuma and 1 other 1 3 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 I wouldn't put any faith in this filing to show much of anything. If it's anything like the US, there are many games to be played with numbers to make it look however the company wants. esldude 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
lucretius Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 41 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09123512 I see Warner and Universal own more shares in MQA Ltd. than does Bob Stuart or Peter Craven? esldude 1 mQa is dead! Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted October 1, 2019 Author Share Posted October 1, 2019 54 minutes ago, Archimago said: What's the meaning of this @Rt66indierock? Is it mandatory? Is there a firm deadline? There is a deadline of September 30th for companies on a calendar year, however Tidal never does submit their financials until they threatened with dissolution. Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted October 1, 2019 Author Share Posted October 1, 2019 42 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: I wouldn't put any faith in this filing to show much of anything. If it's anything like the US, there are many games to be played with numbers to make it look however the company wants. There are fascinating things in the notes and sometimes the cash flow statement. kumakuma 1 Link to comment
Fokus Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 11 hours ago, esldude said: The guy is an EE. He has spoken about reading FFT's and how not to make mistakes for years. He regularly reminds people of the pitfalls of how to read them. And you make this statement he couldn't read them until recently. Mmm. Maybe it was more than 2-3 years. Time flies. Make it 5 years then. Before ASRF. I remember statements on WBF about the noise floor and signal to noise ratios, wrong statements since they did not integrate over the bandwidth of interest. It is true that since then he has seen the light. Which perhaps explains his preaching now. Back then I found the situation ... remarkable. But if you prefer to believe I imagined things, then fine. I won't waste any more words on this. Link to comment
Popular Post esldude Posted October 1, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 1, 2019 3 hours ago, crenca said: So is "taking peak spurious tone and quoting the distance to stimulus (signal)" the same thing as "following AES17 guidelines"? Honest question. Also, are "AES17" guidelines the actual academic EE standard - do they teach/accept them in university EE programs? The AES 17 guidelines for DACs and ADCs is to provide a -60 dbFS signal, notch it out and compare what is left with full scale. You can read AP's explanation here: https://www.ap.com/technical-library/more-about-signal-to-noise-ratio-and-dynamic-range/ Any halfway good device would have no actual harmonic distortion above the noise floor this way, and you find out about the noise floor and any spurious idle tones in the output at low levels. This is what is called dynamic range at ASR, and I do believe the AP used by Amir does this automatically. What you wrote about spurious tone sounds more like SFDR (spurious free dynamic range) which also is a valid way to characterize something, but I don't see it discussed much in ASR measurements. Perhaps you have in mind the SINAD measures. Those are simply the obverse of THD+N quoted in decibels instead of percent. And yes, a device could have a noise floor of -130 db, and a 2nd harmonic at -80 db and the correct value of SINAD is -80 db. This is where I've seen misunderstanding repeatedly. Amir measures something with a SINAD of -80 db and says it is poor engineering or poor performance. Which in this day and age it is. Others say they measure .01% THD and it sounds just wonderful. Well .01 % THD+N is -80 db SINAD. The only difference is in the narrative not the measured results. For the most part Amir's results when apples to apples are just about the same as Atomic Bob or JA. As to what they teach currently in EE courses I don't know. I'm not an EE myself, and haven't taken any EE courses in years. EE courses generally aren't about audio. crenca and Currawong 2 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Popular Post esldude Posted October 1, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 1, 2019 9 hours ago, rwdvis said: Anyone who can still defend Amir after reading his most recent MQA thread posts, tells me all I need to know about that persons character. I don't agree with Amir on MQA. I don't agree with JA on MQA. I don't agree with Robert Harley on MQA. Amir's activities provide very useful measurements. JA provides very useful measurements at Stereophile and some other useful things. Robert Harley writes nice articles I guess. I don't have to agree with every single thing from someone to find value in some of their activities. lucretius, Arpiben, Samuel T Cogley and 2 others 5 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
esldude Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Fokus said: Mmm. Maybe it was more than 2-3 years. Time flies. Make it 5 years then. Before ASRF. I remember statements on WBF about the noise floor and signal to noise ratios, wrong statements since they did not integrate over the bandwidth of interest. It is true that since then he has seen the light. Which perhaps explains his preaching now. Back then I found the situation ... remarkable. But if you prefer to believe I imagined things, then fine. I won't waste any more words on this. I've paid no particular attention to Amir's activities until he started ASR. I've seen his posts over the years at several forums. I don't recall him mucking up interpretation of FFTs in general. Maybe he did, but it has been more than 5 years. If he did then, but doesn't now, then that doesn't impugn what he does with them now. And to be clear, I'm not so much defending Amir personally. I've seen some tremendous animosity toward his measurements when the measurements appear good. And I've seen this result in people saying strange things about his measurements that simply aren't even close to true. I've seen similar reactions to Arny. And I agree Arny Krueger didn't have a winning personality. Many reacted to that with anger even when he was saying something simply true. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
crenca Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 15 minutes ago, esldude said: I don't agree with Amir on MQA. I don't agree with JA on MQA. I don't agree with Robert Harley on MQA. Amir's activities provide very useful measurements. JA provides very useful measurements at Stereophile and some other useful things. Robert Harley writes nice articles I guess. I don't have to agree with every single thing from someone to find value in some of their activities. I don't disagree with you at all. I suppose that someone could say something like "but yours is the 'Mussolini made the trains run on time'" stance, though I think this is specious. Perhaps Amir and/or JA can explain to us how their measurements reveal why MQA "sounds better" or "fixes the time domain"...oh wait, Jim Austin has already admitted that the truth of MQA is hidden behind the NDA/lack of test signals... 😉 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Popular Post esldude Posted October 1, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 1, 2019 3 hours ago, crenca said: MQA Ltd. does not have the bandwidth to process their numbers online...hum, I wonder if they have a solution for that? 😋 I wonder, if you decode MQA LTD. profits if it can expand by a factor of 8. On the other hand, does it work that way with losses. We know it is a "lossy" format. Maybe it is lossy in multiple ways. crenca, Lighthouse and Josh Mound 2 1 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Popular Post crenca Posted October 1, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 1, 2019 5 minutes ago, esldude said: I've seen some tremendous animosity toward his measurements when the measurements appear good. And I've seen this result in people saying strange things about his measurements that simply aren't even close to true. I think it is more complicated, in that Amir is a bit of a "measurement bully". He makes strong claims of "better" or "worse" based on a questionable philosophical interpretation of SINAD and such. In other words, he does not have the balance right. So when his explicit "audio science" position is so obviously contradicted by his MQA stance, well folks pounce on the bully... Josh Mound, Currawong and MikeyFresh 2 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! 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