MQA is Vaporware

[Fokus]

14 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

Apparently you know less than you think.

 

Look who is talking.

 

Yes, the 88.2k GO file overloaded the encoder. Too bad. But those in the know still could glean useful information from it, confirming what we have been suspecting for a long time now.

 

As for the 44.1k GO file: your argument holds no water. The stimulus is not out of the ordinary, and MQA as understood from its papers and patents should be able to deal with it. All we get in your column is conjecture.

 

And insults.

 

 

 

You are a journalist? Then, please, start acting like one.

 

[John_Atkinson]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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. 

 

Copyright Law is clear on this. It is legally permissible to quote some proportion of a copyrighted work in order to comment or criticize. To publish the complete work, as has been done on your site, Chris, is always an infringement of copyright.

 

Jim Austin's July 2021 As We See It will be reprinted on stereophile.com tomorrow morning so you can replace the content in the infringing post with a link to that reprint. That way the debate abut Jim's essay on your site will not be disturbed.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

[Jim Austin]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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. 

 

You certainly have a novel interpretation of the Fair Use doctrine, if that is your claim. But that isn't it, is it? Your claim is that the actual data is stored elsewhere--a weak claim indeed. It's probably not worth our time, but I will check with our attorneys.

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Copy right Law is clear on this. It is legally permissible to quote some proportion of a copyrighted work in order to comment or criticize. To publish the complete work, as has been done on your site, Chris, is always an infringement of copyright.

 

Jim Austin's July 2021 As We See It will be preprinted on stereophile.com tomorrow morning so you can replace the content in the infringing post with a link to that reprint. That way the debate abut Jim's essay on your site will not be disturbed.

 

John Atknson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Just now, Jim Austin said:

 

You certainly have a novel interpretation of the Fair Use doctrine, if that is your claim. But that isn't it, is it? Your claim is that the actual data is stored elsewhere--a weak claim indeed. It's probably not worth our time, but I will check with our attorneys.

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

You’re both out of your league. 
 

We aren’t even hosting the image. Contact someone who works for you who understands technology, and have them educate you on how this works. 

[botrytis]

17 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

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.

 

 

I am sure there is some research out there. Don't say never. It might be in very obscure journals or very old journals, which are not on the internet yet. Since I don't really have access to a nice University library any more, it is sometimes hard for me to go back far enough in the literature like I like to do.

[The Computer Audiophile]

@Jim Austin and @John_Atkinson, in essence what you’re asking me to do is remove a YouTube video that’s hosted by YouTube and a user embedded here. Whether it’s YouTube or a different site, we can’t remove original content we don’t control. Look at the code, we are wrapping a frame around the image, but we aren’t hosting it. 

[botrytis]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

You’re both out of your league. 
 

We aren’t even hosting the image. Contact someone who works for you who understands technology, and have them educate you on how this works. 

 

And then we wonder why and how they can be bamboozled by marketing speak designed by charlatans.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I will also note, if the image in question was attached to a post and we hosted it, I’d take it down quickly. As someone who writes for a living, I hate when my stuff is posted elsewhere in its entirety. 
 

However, in this case we aren’t the ones publishing the image for the world to see and embed. Go after the source and all the embedded images are gone as well. 

[Jim Austin]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

@Jim Austin and @John_Atkinson, we can’t remove original content we don’t control. 

 

Chris, if you can't figure out how to remove the image from appearing on your site, then you are the one who is out of your league. 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

[John_Atkinson]

19 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

We aren’t even hosting the image. Contact someone who works for you who understands technology, and have them educate you on how this works. 

 

The image of the July 2021 As We See It essay is posted at
https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/page/919/?tab=comments#comment-1139011

Are you saying that an image embedded in a post to your site is not hosted by your site, Chris?

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

Chris, if you can't figure out how to remove the image from appearing on your site, then you are the one who is out of your league. 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

Trust me I can, but that’s not the issue. I didn’t publish your copy written material. You came in guns a blazing on a high horse, leveling accusations.
 

It’s tough to do someone a favor in this case. 

 

Just ask the site hosting the content to remove it and it’s gone. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

The image of the July 2021 As We See It essay is posted at
https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/page/919/?tab=comments#comment-1139011

Are you saying that an image embedded in a post to your site is not hosted by your site, Chris?

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

100% true. 
 

It’s embedded. The file isn’t hosted on a site or server I control. Just like embedding a YouTube video. Another site is publishing it. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

As an example of how this works. Here is a copyright violation, some guy posting the audio of Pear Jam’s song Alive, on YouTube. I’m embedding it here. 
 

 

[John_Atkinson]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

100% true. 
 

It’s embedded. The file isn’t hosted on a site or server I control. Just like embedding a YouTube video. Another site is publishing it. 

AL you have to do is delete the embedded image, Chris, and replace it with the link to the As We See it on the Stereophile site. That way Stereophile's copyright isn't infringed and the debate on the essay here isn't interfered with.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

AL you have to do is delete the embedded image, Chris, and replace it with the link to the As We See it on the Stereophile site. That way Stereophile's copyright isn't infringed and the debate on the essay here isn't interfered with.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

I certainly could wack that mole, but all you have to do is ask the source of the content to remove it and every post on every site that has it embedded will be remedied. 
 

 

[gfkeenan4]

47 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

 

I am sure there is some research out there. Don't say never. It might be in very obscure journals or very old journals, which are not on the internet yet. Since I don't really have access to a nice University library any more, it is sometimes hard for me to go back far enough in the literature like I like to do.

 

There is research on the internet. I'm no expert on this, but it came up a few times at work in the past, so below are a few things I remember coming up (but haven't read), well I read about the Equal Loudness Contour and remember reading an article saying that people who "Feel the presence of ghosts" are very sensitive to inaudible low frequencies (unfortunately I can't find that article). However, the main jist at work was - we don't know if/how what we can't hear effects what we can hear.

 

Like I said, I'm not an expert. Just someone who has been pointed to things to read in the past and sharing that here...

 

Equal sound curves to understand the way human ears work with that we know they can hear; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour

 

 

Low Domain:

 

https://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.4800459

 

if you have an academic login you should be able to see this one: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=141863066&site=eds-live

 

If you can't the summary is:

 

Quote

Low frequency noise (LFS) and infrasound (IS) are controversially discussed as potential causes of annoyance and distress experienced by many people. However, the perception mechanisms for IS in the human auditory system are not completely understood yet. In the present study, sinusoids at 32 Hz (at the lower limit of melodic pitch for tonal stimulation), as well as 8 Hz (IS range) were presented to a group of 20 normal hearing subjects, using monaural stimulation via a loudspeaker sound source coupled to the ear canal by a long silicone rubber tube. Each participant attended two experimental sessions. In the first session, participants performed a categorical loudness scaling procedure as well as an unpleasantness rating task in a sound booth. In the second session, the loudness scaling procedure was repeated while brain activation was measured using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Subsequently, activation data were collected for the respective stimuli presented at fixed levels adjusted to the individual loudness judgments. Silent trials were included as a baseline condition. Our results indicate that the brain regions involved in processing LFS and IS are similar to those for sounds in the typical audio frequency range, i.e., mainly primary and secondary auditory cortex (AC). In spite of large variation across listeners with respect to judgments of loudness and unpleasantness, neural correlates of these interindividual differences could not yet be identified. Still, for individual listeners, fMRI activation in the AC was more closely related to individual perception than to the physical stimulus level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

 

High Domain:

 

And this one: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=142975061&site=eds-live

 

Quote

Objective: We aim to examine the existing literature on, and identify knowledge gaps in, the study of adverse animal and human audiovestibular effects from exposure to acoustic or electromagnetic waves that are outside of conventional human hearing. Design/Setting/Participants: A review was performed, which included searches of relevant MeSH terms using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. Primary outcomes included documented auditory and/or vestibular signs or symptoms in animals or humans exposed to infrasound, ultrasound, radiofrequency, and magnetic resonance imaging. The references of these articles were then reviewed in order to identify primary sources and literature not captured by electronic search databases. Results: Infrasound and ultrasound acoustic waves have been described in the literature to result in audiovestibular symptomology following exposure. Technology emitting infrasound such as wind turbines and rocket engines have produced isolated reports of vestibular symptoms, including dizziness and nausea and auditory complaints, such as tinnitus following exposure. Occupational exposure to both low frequency and high frequency ultrasound has resulted in reports of wide-ranging audiovestibular symptoms, with less robust evidence of symptomology following modern-day exposure via new technology such as remote controls, automated door openers, and wireless phone chargers. Radiofrequency exposure has been linked to both auditory and vestibular dysfunction in animal models, with additional historical evidence of human audiovestibular disturbance following unquantifiable exposure. While several theories, such as the cavitation theory, have been postulated as a cause for symptomology, there is extremely limited knowledge of the pathophysiology behind the adverse effects that particular exposure frequencies, intensities, and durations have on animals and humans. This has created a knowledge gap in which much of our understanding is derived from retrospective examination of patients who develop symptoms after postulated exposures. Conclusion and Relevance: Evidence for adverse human audiovestibular symptomology following exposure to acoustic waves and electromagnetic energy outside the spectrum of human hearing is largely rooted in case series or small cohort studies. Further research on the pathogenesis of audiovestibular dysfunction following acoustic exposure to these frequencies is critical to understand reported symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

 

Very limited experiment on high frequency (40kHz): https://pub.dega-akustik.de/ICA2019/data/articles/001374.pdf

 

I don't have access to this one: https://www.ieice.org/ken/paper/20091127Qard/eng/ but looks interesting.

 

 

There are also a few studies on how much air attenuates high frequencies. I think (keeping this post on topic (MQA)) this is one of the reasons MQA is designed how it is according to the first MQA AES paper. 

 

[Jim Austin]

24 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

100% true. 
 

It’s embedded. The file isn’t hosted on a site or server I control. Just like embedding a YouTube video. Another site is publishing it. 

 

I'm sure you understand that this is ambiguous at best, regardless of what Posner may have written. We'll leave it to our lawyers to determine. Meanwhile, regardless of legalities, your refusal to cooperate has been noted. 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, gfkeenan4 said:

 

There is research on the internet. I'm no expert on this, but it came up a few times at work in the past, so below are a few things I remember coming up (but haven't read), well I read about the Equal Loudness Contour and remember reading an article saying that people who "Feel the presence of ghosts" are very sensitive to inaudible low frequencies (unfortunately I can't find that article). However, the main jist at work was - we don't know if/how what we can't hear effects what we can hear.

 

Like I said, I'm not an expert. Just someone who has been pointed to things to read in the past and sharing that here...

 

Equal sound curves to understand the way human ears work with that we know they can here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour

 

 

Low Domain:

 

https://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.4800459

 

if you have an academic login you should be able to see this one: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=141863066&site=eds-live

 

If you can't the summary is:

 

 

High Domain:

 

And this one: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=142975061&site=eds-live

 

 

Very limited experiment on high frequency (40kHz): https://pub.dega-akustik.de/ICA2019/data/articles/001374.pdf

 

I don't have access to this one: https://www.ieice.org/ken/paper/20091127Qard/eng/ but looks interesting.

 

 

There are also a few studies on how much air attenuates high frequencies. I think (keeping this post on topic (MQA)) this is one of the reasons MQA is designed how it is according to the first MQA AES paper. 

 

Yes, back to more interesting things. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Jim Austin said:

 

I'm sure you understand that this is ambiguous at best, regardless of what Posner may have written. We'll leave it to our lawyers to determine. Meanwhile, regardless of legalities, your refusal to cooperate has been noted. 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

Your character assassinations and belittling were noted long ago.  

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

I'm sure you understand that this is ambiguous at best, regardless of what Posner may have written. We'll leave it to our lawyers to determine. Meanwhile, regardless of legalities, your refusal to cooperate has been noted. 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

 

Rather than bullying Chris, perhaps your legal budget could be spend more wisely going after the sites that allow downloading of entire issues of your publication rather than a single page.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Rather than bullying Chris, perhaps your legal budget could be spend more wisely going after the sites that allow downloading of entire issues of your publication rather than a single page.

the anti-mQa predators posing as impartial jellyfish are the highest priority. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

45 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

 

Chris, if you can't figure out how to remove the image from appearing on your site, then you are the one who is out of your league.

 

And this is someone whose technical knowledge we're supposed to respect???

[PeterSt]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Your character assassinations and belittling were noted long ago.

 

but that will legally bring nothing.

 

11 minutes ago, Jim Austin said:

Meanwhile, regardless of legalities, your refusal to cooperate has been noted.

 

... which is not regardless.

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

the anti-mQa predators posing as impartial jellyfish are the highest priority. 

 

Taken out of context, Jim's writing loses a bit of it's punch...

[PeterSt]

it punches the bits.