MQA is Vaporware

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, maxijazz said:

You must call Apple they have false statements on their pages (i.e https://www.apple.com/iphone-8/specs/). 

 

I believe that official specifications mean, that iPhones 7 and newer have hardware decoder for FLAC (and most likely API hooks for the decoder). 

Since replacement cycle for iPhones is 2-3 years depending on country, then we should expect FLAC support enabled soon, this or next year (if business agreements get obtained on time). 

After new AM service gets announced FLAC support for iTunes and iOS Music apps will get enabled. 

 

Cheers,

Max

Can you refer me to an Apple/iOS/OS program that will currently play FLAC? I have an iPhone 8 Plus and a Mac Book Pro......

[Brinkman Ship]

36 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Music coming out of white noise as an audible test?  In real music, the music itself and the IM are both above the noise floor...what am I missing here?

 

In any case, "post shannon" is a spin term meant to describe a certain philosophy about filtering, audibility/desirability of "ringing", IM, and the like that is all based on shannon.  It's more of the same from the MQA promotion machine...

A few posters here are going to have a field day with this link...center of gravity indeed...

[Brinkman Ship]

3 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

What are you folks still on about? Still assuming that all sampling theory ended with Shannon? This place is obviously a massive circle-jerk, but your posts are visible to the outside world, so you run the risk of embarrassing yourselves (those of you not hiding behind a pseudonym, that is). So I'll do you a favor--I'll present some quotes from scientific literature. Then you can dig them out yourself if you care to educate yourself; I don't expect that, but maybe it'll at least convince you to think twice before posting ignorant things. 

 

From an article by Yonina C. Eldar and Tomer Michaeli, published in IEEE Signal Processing Magazine. Both are at Technion, an the senior author--Eldar--has a PhD from MIT.
 

 

If you're feeling ambitious, look up "Sampling Moments and Reconstructing Signals of Finite Rate of Innovation: Shannon Meets Strang–Fix," by Pier Luigi Dragotti et al.; you can find the full citation in the MQA literature. The gist is that under appropriate conditions, signals that have a finite number of degrees of freedom per unit of time, "such as, for example, nonuniform splines or piecewise polynomials," can be perfectly reconstructed even if they are not band-limited ... but you must use appropriate sampling kernels--not the usual sincx function. The class of kernels "that we can use is very rich and includes functions satisfying Strang–Fix conditions, exponential splines and functions with rational Fourier transform." I'm not sure this strictly applies to a music signal, but in practical terms that may not matter--especially since there's no real need to recreate the waveform perfectly. 

 

Finally there's this, by Michael Unser, from IEEE Signal Processing Magazine. My copy of this is in pixels, not characters, so I'll paste in the image: 

...

There's more I could quote. 

 

None of this proves that MQA is a good idea, that it's valid mathematically, or that its application to music makes sense, and it certainly doesn't prove that MQA sounds better. It does however show what some of you still seem to be questioning: sampling theory didn't end with Shannon. The body of theoretical work referred to in the latest MQA article/interview is real. 

 

So stop making fools of yourselves by pretending it doesn't exist. Or, just keep making fools of yourselves. Makes no difference to me. 

 

Oh, and no, I won't provide the citations. If you want to read them you can find them on your own. 

 

jca

Welcome back. You telling folks not to make fools of them selves..oh that is JUST too rich. And not a good way to be taken seriously.

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

9 minutes ago, miguelito said:

Bob explaining MQA and the audio press/music industry:

LOL...I need that..!

[Brinkman Ship]

50 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Keep digging Jim. The hole is only getting deeper.

 

I won't censure you post. I'd rather it be available for everyone to see for a very long time. 

...take note, he may be going down the path that "everyone with a different view on MQA gets banned" by provoking, and making a self fulfilling prophecy come true so he can tell every one he was banned for being pro MQA>

[Brinkman Ship]

50 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

So, quite obviously, you're now abandoning any pretense of objectivity and even-handedness. 

It seems you decided to take on the tactic of provoking...a way to get banned so you can have "proof" of your theory that pro MQA opinions are not allowed?

 

Is this all you have left?

[Brinkman Ship]

39 minutes ago, mansr said:

It should be noted that anti-MQA people have also been banned. Not because of their views on MQA, but because they failed to maintain a civil tone of discourse. Just like everybody who has been banned here.

Quite. true. I have come to believe that Mr. Connaker  in general bans people not for what they say, but how they say it. Pro this or Anti that.

[Brinkman Ship]

Just now, Mordikai said:

sigh... what's the use? Serious questions are raised= MQA proxy disappears. Frustrating.

proxy=shill shill=proxy proxy=shill shill=proxy

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

Not to derail Jim Austin's fun..but side note, poster Thuaveta suggested to me that Apple Quicktime plays back FLAC just  fine..and damned if he is not correct. I was able to playback FLAC on a Mac Book Pro running High Sierra with QT. I stand corrected on Apple support with OS. It seems iOS devices still have a way to go.

[Brinkman Ship]

Just now, tmtomh said:

 

Yes, starting in recent macOS updates, the OS/Quicktime can handle FLAC. iTunes cannot yet do so, unfortunately, but it's still really handy because now one can preview FLAC files in the Finder without having to convert them or load them up in VLC or whatever.

Agree. Although this may not change much for many..I use Audirvana for local desktop playback out of habit..i wish they had done this 5 years ago. Next..Quad DSD support

[Brinkman Ship]

3 minutes ago, rickca said:

@Jim Austin is apparently fishing for flame throwers here, looking for some good sound bites that he can quote elsewhere in order to discredit CA members as mad fanatics.  Don't give him the satisfaction by overreacting.  He just wants clicks for his articles so he can prove how influential he is. 

agree...and I don't think any one here has over reacted..it would fit right in with his and their narrative...

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

Just now, rickca said:

I don't think so either.  I didn't mean to imply you had by quoting you.

no worries, i did not think you were...but your advice is solid. the cracks are showing.

 

if I recall, there were several other MQA shills that had colorful meltdowns..

[Brinkman Ship]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

i love his show on National Geogrpahic, Star Talk. 

[Brinkman Ship]

3 minutes ago, HalSF said:

I'm getting a bit of mental whiplash envisioning the hi-fi makers who advertise in Stereophile and its cohort — the same advertisers repeatedly depicted in this thread as powerful agents of corruption whose shilling the magazines must do at the expense of their readers — now portrayed sympathetically as hapless casualties of the MQA juggernaut.

 

There definitely is a crisis of audiophile authority, however. The same loop keeps playing over and again: MQA makes extraordinary claims; seems incapable of offering extraordinary proof beyond abstruse jargon and scientism; while subjective audiophiles insist MQA sounds amazing in brief, carefully controlled show demos; as MQA defenders making drive-by rebuttals focus on technical quibbles and the bad manners of MQA opponents, but decline to engage directly in good faith with sincere critics on the substance of their dissent. In this context Jim Austin's fundamentally noncommittal dispatches just punt the controversy until next month's issue, and nothing definitive is ever resolved. The only two things that would make this impasse break in MQA's favor — strong peer-review endorsements by independent audio engineers and a wave of un-hyped enthusiasm from hi-fi listeners — are things MQA seems incapable of making happen. And an MQA end run via some major licensing  deal imposing MQA from above would likely be a Pyrrhic victory, further poisoning the atmosphere and exacerbating the crisis of trust.

 

No wonder everybody is getting more edgy and irritable.

you...pretty much nailed he whole darn thing....

[Brinkman Ship]

14 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

It took me longer than it should have to realize what you're on about. You see yourself in competition with magazines like Stereophile and TAS. So there's a bias against ideas espouse by those magazines. 

 

I am curious which "falsehoods" you think are being repeated. Can you cite them? Can you definitively show them to be false? 

 

It appears that your fiduciary conflict of interest compromises your objectivity. 

shocking. simply shocking post...

[Brinkman Ship]

31 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Here’s a video of Mans from 2012. The internet is full of more. 

 

P.S. You should read the threads on CA where he schools Gordon Rankin about how Arm chips work. Good stuff. 

 

 

Schooling Ranking was probably not that big a deal..he is a guy who predicted Ethernet would never work for high end audio, and was schooled on USB errors, and proclaimed, like a good little Audioquet puppy dog, that MQA was "the real deal"...this, from someone who said anything over 24/96 is a waste of time, and that DSD was joke.

[Brinkman Ship]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

If you have something, show it. All you do is defer to Bob Stuart, and when challenged you quickly duck out saying you don't actually know. Why should anyone listen to you?

Sheer arrogance and hubris often prevents highly educated people from admitting they have been led down the wrong path..most sensible people would cut and run, or admit they made errors..what we have here is a doubling down. Very much part of the culture he belongs too.

 

As Charles Hansen liked to say, Austin knows just enough about sampling/digital/audio to be dangerous. And he is dangerous, so is his editor.

[Brinkman Ship]

I just hope Austin keeps trolling, er, posting, so the record is there for all to see..

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, Mordikai said:

I disagree, this is boring.

Not to me..i like watching folks dig a hole for themselves..long after they have lost the battle..

 

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, james45974 said:

I have never had the skills for what I would call "pugalistic debating" but it looks to me like you are sparring out of your weight class

The fact that he had the audacity, a term he likes, to debate Hansen on digital design theory says it all.

[Brinkman Ship]

2 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

This is what, when pugs box? 

 

This is why I use the "circle jerk" metaphor a couple of days ago. You have a nice little insular community here, in which you reliably reinforce each other's opinions. Feels good, doesn't it? 

INSULAR???? Dear lord. Unlike the 3 70 year old full time employees of Stereophile...LOL.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, Jim Austin said:

 

No one here understands the mathematics from the papers I presented earlier; I'd bet serious money on that. But you're profoundly wrong about "FT and the sampling theorem." You only betray your own ignorance. (Ban me Chris, go ahead.)

 

So it is clear your agenda was to provoke, troll, and look for a banning so you could wear it as a badge of honor then condemn CA for banning all pro MQA operatives. You are incredibly transparent and not nearly as smart as you think you are.

 

The term pseudo intellectual comes to mind. And you have no clue what science really is.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I will happily put $10,000 on people (plural)  here at CA understanding the mathematics. 

 

You’re sparring with people who send rockets to the ISS. 

The term Dear In the Headlights clearly applies..

 

this is my very favorite example. Lavorgna attempting to interview Charlie Hansen.

 

Lavornga: uh uh uh. um yeh, uh yeh..nodding...more nodding....it was like watching Mike Tyson and a toddler.

 

 

[Brinkman Ship]

1 minute ago, Jim Austin said:

 

That comparison is ... psychotic. 

So is your MQA worship, same for your magazine.

[Brinkman Ship]

16 minutes ago, wdw said:

Ok,....three seventy year old guys.....so JA, likely Herb (the guy who wrote he was broke and overdrawn in his Munich report) so that must leave M. Fremer.  

Sounds kinda freaky/funny when you put it like that.

 

Reichert is an not an employee..believe it or not, he is an artist by trade.

 

Dudley, Fremer, Atkinson are all that are left..all others are freelance unless someone has other information...