Jump to content
Rt66indierock

MQA is Vaporware

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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 ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

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...