Jump to content

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Please take your crusade to crencascrusadeagainsthifi.com or whichever site would like this content. 

 

He is correct about the audiophile magazines

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

He is correct about the audiophile magazines, but not the HiFi magazines

You mean Sound on Sound and its coverage of MQA, I mean rubber stamp. 
 

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:


I was talking about audio education. I was taught audio. My hearing was trained to hear differences. I wasn’t talking about engineering. Part of my knowledge was gained at places like Lucas Films. And I’ve mentioned clients that made movie soundtracks. Learned a lot outside the audio equipment industry.
 

A musician may or may not have the ability to evaluate sound equipment. My sister did and had a great stereo. My daughter does not.

 

Most of the audio engineering know how is in the movie, broadcasting industries or the government.
 

The audio press ignored valid criticism in 2015 and 2016. I’ve interviewed several people who warned John Atkinson about MQA. My late friend Charles Hanson was especially vocal. At the LAOCAS gala last month I talked with a Meridian dealer who warned Bob that it won’t sell. This is what the audio press ignored not forums. 
 

Reread my original post. What was it about? With Tidal in trouble just how am I going to listen to MQA in the United States?

 

I read it again. I replied to your comments about qualifications. Since you weren't specific about what "qualifications" you were looking for in the people you mentioned, and since the word assumes at least some kind of official degree, I responded as such.

 

Given your experience, you're the kind of person I'd be interested in seeing equipment reviews from.

 

Your comments about the press ignoring valid criticism was what I was talking about, from another angle. My guess is that they made excuses to themselves to ignore it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You mean Sound on Sound and its coverage of MQA, I mean rubber stamp. 
 

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality

The piece you linked was indeed fluff. But please note, since then they have completely ignored MQA.

 

And..on their forum, the author admitted he saw no purpose to MQA when shown data about it not being lossless, unnecessary post processing, DRM, and the fact that no "mastering tools": ever appeared.  

 

Contrast that with the TAS/Stereophile/Audiostream/Darko coverage. And even your initial coverage where you were super excited.

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

don't think MQA offers any benefits to me.  And, if implemented, would cost me at every step of the process.  At this point nothing will change my mind.  MQA has been less than forthcoming about MQA right from the beginning. I will never have anything that implements MQA

I believe that’s a very logical position that many who’ve looked at the evidence have taken. 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2020 at 3:38 AM, sandyk said:

 

John Dyson is already demonstrating that it IS indeed possible to remove most of these distortion artifacts, and he may even be well ahead of MQA in this area. In fact, some of his corrected RBCD tracks from non decoded or improperly decoded Dolby A material, end up sounding as good, if not better than many modern High Resolution releases !

If everyone knew the filters used for creating the VERY COMMON feral DolbyA material, theyd' be disgusted.   The best thing to start is to undo the filters -- but then it sounds like hell because after undoing the feral filters, then you get raw DolbyA.   With the DolbyA encoding, you have lots of gain control happening with horrendously fast attack and release times (happily, the attack is very carefully controlled though.)  Such gain control, uncorrected does do some compression (or expansion for decoding), but also adds moduation distortion components.   The gain control dance between the bands on a DolbyA is mind boggling -- it doesn't do gain control with the dynamics that a normally conceived compressor might.

 

So, after undoing the feral-EQ, the feral DolbyA is heavily time/frequency corrected from the original, very shrill DolbyA signal. Starting with the true, corrected DolbyA signal, then the DHNRDS DA can do the gain correction and some of the modulation distortion mitgation.

 

By undoing the feral filtering, and then carefully decoding the DolbyA signal without adding additional modulation distortion components the results can be astonishing..  In fact, the DHNRDS DA appears to hide the compression side (encoding)  distortion to some extent also, where the expansion side is not allowed to exist from the start.

 

There is a LOT of correction done by the DHNRDS -- ALL of the problems that I have when decoding, and I mean ALL OF THE PROBLEMS are purely due to reverse-engineering the feral filters, and make sure that the numerous filter parameters match.  (Soon, the DHNRDS will do much of the work for people decoding/cleaning  feral material.)  Many of the corrective EQ parameters can be calculated based upon some reasonable observations by the user -- FINALLY.

 

So, yes, the DHNRDS DA *can* make incredible improvements in sound quality.  It isn't perfect though as it cannot make a 'silk purse from a sows ear' -- but can certainly get rid of much of the sad 'distortion' that has been allowed in many digitial distributions since CDs came out.  The improvemnet REALLY IS real.

 

I wish everyone  could hear the final 'Crime of the Century' that was allowed for review  -- and that isn't even the best that I have.  I am working on Breakfast, and Quiet also.   ABBA now sounds almost "High Fidelty", in the 1980''s sense.  My recent Linda Ronstadt results are so-so, maybe an improvement, maybe not.

 

I mean, I wish EVERYONE could hear the results that I hear every day.  It really raises expectations, and as if I spent $100K on my headphones...  (Of course, spending $100K on headphones wont' fix the problem of damaged recordings as they were distributed, right?)

 

I also believe in the fancy time base correction scheme that has been developed, but I'd suspect that part of that function is to undo some of the DolbyA problems on the tape, but of course, the DHNRDS DA does that kind of distortion reduction very precisely.  Imagine the combination of both the time base correction & the DHNRDS DA!!!

 

MQA is silly nonsense -- it is snake oil (sorry for the use of a potentially prohibited term) WRT actually improving the quality of material received by the user's hearing.  MQA might be useful for other things (like DRM), but not improving the accessable quality.

 

John

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Another example of incivility. Do you know why we are friends?

 

Foghat Fool for the City.jpg


I’m not sure what’s uncivil about, after you said you weren’t aware of Mr. Quints background/qualifications, suggesting you ask him directly. I have no idea why you’re friends or even if you are. 

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...