MQA is Vaporware

[Currawong]

10 hours ago, GoldenOne said:

Posting it would not be legal. 

Its legal to record a phone call in the UK but not legal to then share it without permission of the other party. 

 

So unless the moderator (or Amir given as the call was a business call made on behalf of Asr and therefore I'd assume permission can be given by Amir) gives permission it won't be posted. 

 

But as said, the fact that permission to post it has not been given just shows that they would rather the call not be heard. I wonder why that may be. 

 

(but yes as Chris said, let's not get onto asr here :P) 

 

You could always transcribe the call. 

 

53 minutes ago, gfkeenan4 said:

 

Thanks for the reply: Interesting that there are no actual second or third unfolds.

 

The diagrams from MQA seem to imply a "second unfold" at least (note the y-axis is frequency not sampling rate):

 

Is this graph incorrect? Or is the Encapsulation process just encoding instructions telling the DAC to upsample?

 

I very much believe you on the "third unfold" as I haven't seen any diagram on that level and have found only one MQA file that "unfolds" to 352.8kHz.

 

MQA definitely seem to be masters in hiding what's actually happening. But that's a different matter.

 

You are correct, once in the digital domain, dBFS is really all that matters. My work standardise everything to SPL when presenting information. But that why I'm not 100% all over it - someone else does the conversions, I'm just aware it happens.

 

Thanks for the help. My partner is getting fed up with this "MQA rabbit hole" as she calls it. Trouble is, my curiosity on how it actually works has been peeked - so I appreciate the replies.

 

"C" is very often just sigma-delta noise from the ADC, not music content. You can see this clearly in the spectrum of the 2L recordings.  Not sure why anyone would want to keep that in the music. It's to the point that I now just stick to 24/96 as a maximum when streaming or downloading high-res.

 

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

 

Jim Austin makes several points in his editorial

 

...but misses addressing the actual point of the video, which is whether or not MQA is lossless.  GoldenOne never, as far as I can remember, claimed anything about the test tones being related to actual music. I think we all know by now that test tones cause digital filters and the like to behave in unusual ways (though some manufacturers still seem to confuse out-of-band impulse response ringing as something that occurs in-band in music).

 

Something JA missed was that his technical editor proved here that the MQA filters cause ringing in in-band signals!

[opus101]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

He's questioning the validity of GoldenOne's experiment, not necessarily supporting MQA.

 

Its a distraction to 'question the validity of GO's experiment' without noting what the purpose of the experiment was. At no point does he acknowledge what GO's intent was - this is the gorilla in the room. So JA's comments are all rather moot. Wouldn't fairness at least listen to what GO's declared intentions were before weighing in and claiming 'unfairness'?

 

The true 'missed opportunity' here is JA acknowledging that the experiment returned a result contrary to MQA's claim.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Bottom line is this:
 

Lossless encoders can handle any signal. 
 

Lossy encoders can handle certain types of music. 

Any bending and twisting to explain why mQa requires a musical signal, not a test signal, only proves the point that mQa is lossy. Period. No need to get into the weeds. 

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

 

Jim Austin makes several points in his editorial regarding what he views as flaws in GoldenOne's methodology. Instead of just foaming at the mouth about hypothesized collusion with MQA Ldt., Stereophile's motives as a publication, and Austin's strained literary exertions involving bulls in china shops, couldn't someone just patiently explain why his technical arguments are wrong? You may not believe him, but Austin states that he's not not an MQA partisan, that he's above all else interested in fairness. He's questioning the validity of GoldenOne's experiment, not necessarily supporting MQA.

 

MarchAudio has made the extremely salient point that rank-and-file audiophiles lack the technical sophistication to reject or accept MQA's claims. An editorial in Stereophile carries a lot of weight, more than sniping in an online forum. There are real experts here—could someone ring in  on the substance of Austin's editorial?

 

Mr Quint,

 

The editorial as a whole does nothing to refute anything that GS, Mansr, Archimago, and others has said about MQA. It follows the same flawed logic that all people responding to them, Pro-MQA, have done character assassination, although this tries to hide it better, but it is there. I have been to MQA listening sessions with Mr. McGrath from Wilson Audio. People like to say they were blind listening sessions but they were not. As a PhD scientist who likes to view data objectively, that is my job, these listening sessions were anything but blind. He setup the tracks, explained them and then explains what we will hear in the MQA track vs.the other. They played the tracks back to back with no volume matching. I was not bamboozled by that, like the majority of audiophiles there were. That is my issue.

 

These listening tests (double blind for sake of totally removing bias - which is the standard in scientific inqueries) be done independent of MQA. It would be helpful if MQA would supply the MQA tracks and what master used. A regular high-res FLAC from the same master could be obtained from another source. With volume matching and all the equipment but the speakers hidden, a proper test could be then done. Oh wait, one has and it was published in AES. That test said the results were inconclusive, meaning I could flip a coin and get the same results. I guess this is the reason Pro-MQA people ignore that test. It proves MQA does nothing to improve the music.

 

Attacks, like in the editorial, do no one any favors and keeps on proving to the AntiMQA group that the emperor has no clothes. That editorial should be retracted and rewritten to address all the points GS made. He was very polite too. He said in the video, if he has anything wrong, technically, and can be shown where he was wrong he would post a retraction. That is a very civil attitude. What did he get instead? Ad Hominem attacks.

 

Talk to the technical points or don't talk at all.

 

Sincerely,

 

Botrytis

 

(I use this moniker because I did research on this fungus for many years. I it is also easier than typing out my full name. I am easy to find and don't try to hide my identity at all.)

 

 

 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

You may not believe him, but Austin states that he's not not an MQA partisan, that he's above all else interested in fairness. He's questioning the validity of GoldenOne's experiment, not necessarily supporting MQA.

Right, and we have lots of evidence - provided by him -  that makes us not believe him. I don't believe that what you wrote is even close to reality.

And of all the vblogs etc. on the NET it just so happens that Jim Austin  writes an editorial refuting GO's videos. 

 

Amazing how that is the most important topic he can find to write about. Nothing else is important enough to warrant his special attention and be given prominent space to in his magazine. 

[firedog]

7 hours ago, March Audio said:

Many observers of this debacle do not have sufficient technical knowledge (no disrespect meant to anyone) to understand the debate.  So it may just come down to whichever side of the argument they perceive to be more credible.  That can be down to something as simple as trusting an individual who is presenting a certain POV.

 

While that is true, I do know one thing that doesn't need technical expertise: MQA and their principals have lied from the get go. Everything from false use of the word "lossless"  to lying about "authentication".  That isn't debatable. It's fact.
So if I know for a fact that they lie about some of the most basic aspects of their product, why should anything they say be considered credible? 
 

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

MarchAudio has made the extremely salient point that rank-and-file audiophiles lack the technical sophistication to reject or accept MQA's claims.

 

And a lot of audio writers, including many of those at Stereophile, also lack the required technical sophistication. But that doesn't keep them from expressing opinions about MQA, including blindly repeating MQA marketing-speak and pseudo technical dribble.

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Bottom line is this:
 

Lossless encoders can handle any signal. 
 

Lossy encoders can handle certain types of music. 

Any bending and twisting to explain why mQa requires a musical signal, not a test signal, only proves the point that mQa is lossy. Period. No need to get into the weeds. 

 

My request was genuine—so, thank you Chris, thank you botrytis, thank you March Audio. I much better understand the points you're making.

 

Why doesn't one of you who is willing to use his name send a letter to Stereophile? I bet they'll print it. Jim Austin acknowledges several of MQA's issues in his editorial—wouldn't that be a good way to further your argument with a different constituency than CA (where I'd say the battle is won—talk about preaching to the choir!) one that, if they like MQA, feel that way because they believe it sounds better. That kind of dialog, in my opinion, would serve everyone well.

 

[botrytis]

21 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

My request was genuine—so, thank you Chris, thank you botrytis, thank you March Audio. I much better understand the points you're making.

 

Why doesm't one of you who is willing to use his name send a letter to Stereophile? I bet they'll print it.

 

 

Honestly? Chris has already tried to do that at RMAF. Did you watch the video of that? The MQA people Rude, loud, and obnoxious and those were the people who ACTUALLY work for MQA. They added nothing. Now you want us to do that again? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

 

I am not an expert, in this area, nor do I claim to be. I am an end user and want to be educated. When I say that, I mean technically educated, not educated from marketing speak which means nothing.

 

Mr. Stuart likes to say that he based MQA on auditory science. I can say, with out a doubt, his assertion there is 20 years behind the times. WHY? There are many new papers out that show that ultrasonics DO AFFECT our hearing and that instruments do make sounds in those areas. So his assertion that ultrasonics are not needed is flawed. If he based MQA on that, well then the whole codec is flawed - period.

 

There's life above 20 kilohertz! A survey of musical instrument spectra to 102.4 kHz (caltech.edu)

 

 

 

 

[Fokus]

3 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

WHY? there are many new papers out that show that ultrasonics DO AFFECT our hearing and that instruments do make sounds in those areas. So his assertion that ultrasonics are not needed is flawed.

 

????????????

 

1) there is NO research that unambiguously proves that healthy people aged above 20 years or so can perceive >20kHz sound through the normal pathway of air + ears. There are quite a few papers trying this, most of these have been debunked sufficiently.

 

2) Stuart's position is that ultrasound does matter! That's why MQA tries to push it through a 44.1kHz carrier. The original MQA papers carry a very long list of references, including many of the papers in point 1) above. Plus a whole bunch that are quite irrelevant upon closer inspection.

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

35 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

My request was genuine—so, thank you Chris, thank you botrytis, thank you March Audio. I much better understand the points you're making.

 

Why doesn't one of you who is willing to use his name send a letter to Stereophile? I bet they'll print it. Jim Austin acknowledges several of MQA's issues in his editorial—wouldn't that be a good way to further your argument with a different constituency than CA (where I'd say the battle is won—talk about preaching to the choir!) one that, if they like MQA, feel that way because they believe it sounds better. That kind of dialog, in my opinion, would serve everyone well.

 

I just can’t bring myself to get into a discussion that’s so flawed. It’s like me talking about the benefits of the measles vaccine, and the other side says we don’t need no stinking measles vaccine because nobody gets measles anymore.

 

It gets old showing people facts only to be answered by character assassinations and obfuscation. 
 

Without online forums and videos, the same forums and videos badmouthed by the old guard, nobody would know anything about mQa. 

[botrytis]

18 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

????????????

 

1) there is NO research that unambiguously proves that healthy people aged above 20 years or so can perceive >20kHz sound through the normal pathway of air + ears. There are quite a few papers trying this, most of these have been debunked sufficiently.

 

2) Stuart's position is that ultrasound does matter! That's why MQA tries to push it through a 44.1kHz carrier. The original MQA papers carry a very long list of references, including many of the papers in point 1) above. Plus a whole bunch that are quite irrelevant upon closer inspection.

 

 

 

 

Then I am corrected.

 

There are papers.

 

ultrasonic-hearing-in-humans-applications-for-tinnitus-treatment.pdf (tinnitusjournal.com)

 

Effects of very high-frequency sound and ultrasound on humans. Part I: Adverse symptoms after exposure to audible very-high frequency sound: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America: Vol 144, No 4 (scitation.org)

 

Review of Audiovestibular Symptoms Following Exposure to Acoustic and Electromagnetic Energy Outside Conventional Human Hearing (nih.gov)

 

just a cursory glance - there are others.

[svart-hvitt]

8 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Then I am corrected.

 

There are papers.

 

ultrasonic-hearing-in-humans-applications-for-tinnitus-treatment.pdf (tinnitusjournal.com)

 

Effects of very high-frequency sound and ultrasound on humans. Part I: Adverse symptoms after exposure to audible very-high frequency sound: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America: Vol 144, No 4 (scitation.org)

 

Review of Audiovestibular Symptoms Following Exposure to Acoustic and Electromagnetic Energy Outside Conventional Human Hearing (nih.gov)

 

just a cursory glance - there are others.

I think audio science - as defined by some - ignore such papers. Audio science - according to some - is very much AES.

 

To be fair, audio is not the only place where one disregards what happens on the other side of the fence.

[Fokus]

The first paper concerns bone conduction and is not relevant here.

 

The second stops at 20kHz, which to audio engineers is still the aduible band, readily served by CD.

 

The third paper I did not delve in deeply, but I would not be surprised if it concerned ultra sound at idiotically high levels, not something one would encounter in music.

 

[lamode]

13 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Effects of very high-frequency sound and ultrasound on humans. Part I: Adverse symptoms after exposure to audible very-high frequency sound: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America: Vol 144, No 4 (scitation.org)

 

 

Did you read the papers? I selected this one copied above for a closer look. It doesn't test for audibility at all – it was testing for physiological symptoms such as nausea, pain or tinnitus.

 

Furthermore, the test tones started at 12kHz. Hardly ultrasonic and not relevant to the discussion here.

 

It really pays to read studies before citing them ;)

[botrytis]

I happen to have a wide field of references in science. The fields I have worked in are (in no particular order):

 

1. Petrochemistry (have a patent)

2. Biofuels

3. Plant Pathology

4. Instrument design and testing

5. mycology/microbiology

6. Environmental Science (EPA contractor)

7. Artisan distilling industry

8 Cannabis research (current)

 

The point is, too many people think too narrowly and miss much information that is related and could be used but don't. That is the way I think and sometimes it startles people how I pull in what seems like disparate information to explain something, but I haven't been wrong, so far.

 

In opinions, yes, I can be wrong and often am. But, I try to admit when I am wrong and learn. That is what a good scientist does. There are always people out there who know more than you, especially when you stop learning and rest on your laurels.

 

[Fast and Bulbous]

Charley Hansen was adamant about the significance of frequencies well past 20KHz in music and had a table of instruments that produced such frequencies. Will see if I can find the references.

 

One of the implications is the generation of beat frequencies when two or more frequencies interact. The emergent property of the interaction of frequencies outside of our hearing range can be frequencies inside of our hearing range.

 

 

[botrytis]

I have read them. The point is there is information out there - see above description of my background. 

 

Measurements of of ultrasonics has been limited to animals that can actually hear in those ranges, like bats and cetaceans. It is becoming of more interest to scientist recently.

 

Just because it doesn't hearing, doesn't mean it is not applicable. Too many people do not think outside the box enough. Not saying it is y'all.

[svart-hvitt]

10 minutes ago, botrytis said:

I happen to have a wide field of references in science. The fields I have worked in are (in no particular order):

 

1. Petrochemistry (have a patent)

2. Biofuels

3. Plant Pathology

4. Instrument design and testing

5. mycology/microbiology

6. Environmental Science (EPA contractor)

7. Artisan distilling industry

8 Cannabis research (current)

 

The point is, too many people think too narrowly and miss much information that is related and could be used but don't. That is the way I think and sometimes it startles people how I pull in what seems like disparate information to explain something, but I haven't been wrong, so far.

 

In opinions, yes, I can be wrong and often am. But, I try to admit when I am wrong and learn. That is what a good scientist does. There are always people out there who know more than you, especially when you stop learning and rest on your laurels.

 

Another example from another walk of life:

 

https://robjhyndman.com/hyndsight/statistics-vs-econometrics/#:~:text=Econometrics is often “theory driven,to be “data driven”.&text=Typically, econometricians test theory using,after looking at data sets.

 

From the outside it looks as if the statistician and the econometrician do the same. Buried below the surface are great gaps between the two.

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, svart-hvitt said:

Another example from another walk of life:

 

https://robjhyndman.com/hyndsight/statistics-vs-econometrics/#:~:text=Econometrics is often “theory driven,to be “data driven”.&text=Typically, econometricians test theory using,after looking at data sets.

 

From the outside it looks as if the statistician and the econometrician do the same. Buried below the surface are great gaps between the two.

 

Since I mentioned Cannabis research, I might be getting some new friends out of that 🤣

[Jim Austin]

13 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Jim, how many discussions did you have with mQa between the release of @GoldenOne’s video and the completion of this editorial? I know how the company works. Be honest. 

 

Apparently you know less than you think. I had no communication with MQA, in either direction, between the GoldenSound post and the time this AWSI was completed. 

 

Now, posting this here is a violation of our copyright. Take it down please. 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

[Fokus]

15 minutes ago, Fast and Bulbous said:

One of the implications is appearance of beat frequencies when two or more frequencies interact. The emergent property of the interaction of frequencies outside of our hearing range can be frequencies inside of our hearing range.

 

 

Yes, they beat. But only if the two HF tones hit a large non-linearity on their way to your ears. When confined to air this is at extremely high levels. And even so, the beat signal exists in the same air and is readily heard, or picked up by a microphone. So again, no cigar.

 

 

 

[Fokus]

21 minutes ago, botrytis said:

That is the way I think and sometimes it startles people how I pull in what seems like disparate information to explain something, but I haven't been wrong, so far.

 

And that is very good. But in the case of the audibility of airborne ultrasonic sound in the context of music I am afraid you are not going to find much.

[lamode]

4 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

 

That 'piece' was an absolute embarassment to you and to Stereophile. If you sleep with dogs you will wake up with fleas, and MQA definitely likes to chase cats and urinate on car wheels.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

Apparently you know less than you think. I had no communication with MQA, in either direction, between the GoldenSound post and the time this AWSI was completed. 

 

Now, posting this here is a violation of our copyright. Take it down please. 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

1. We aren’t hosting anything on Audiophile Style that breaks copyright law.

2. You’ll have to follow the appropriate legal channels to have your material removed from the site that is hosting it. 

[kumakuma]

17 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

Now, posting this here is a violation of our copyright. Take it down please. 

 

 

Playing the copyright card shows you have no interest in actually discussing the issues.