MQA is Vaporware

[opus101]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

In general, ‘no’ stands for a disagreement, as it was in this case. 

 

There's isn't an 'in general'. 'No' stands as agreement when the premise is expressed negatively, as mine was. But that wasn't the only statement in my post which is why I asked for clarification.

 

You're quite mistaken that listening is a form of measurement, rather measurement is a subset of observation. So you have it backwards.

[pkane2001]

10 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Identifying an 8dB rise in analog output requires very little scrutiny, precision, expertise, or exhaustive listening tests, right?

 

So no, I'm sorry, I haven't misunderstood anything at all. Listening would have identified the error before it was published. That listening form of measurement was simply not employed, otherwise the test and measurement error would have been grossly obvious.

Obvious or not has nothing to do with it. Listening is a form of measurement, regardless of how imprecise or unpredictable. So when you claim that listening would’ve been enough you’re making a claim about listening being a sufficiently precise and repeatable measurement to prove Amir’s original measurement wrong. 

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

There's isn't an 'in general'. 'No' stands as agreement when the premise is expressed negatively, as mine was. But that wasn't the only statement in my post which is why I asked for clarification.

 

You're quite mistaken that listening is a form of measurement, rather measurement is a subset of observation. So you have it backwards.

I’m guessing that my further elaboration in that post clarified the meaning of ‘no’ for you?

[opus101]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

I’m guessing that my further elaboration in that post clarified the meaning of ‘no’ for you?

 

No, it further clarified that your 'no' applied to my second statement and not the first.

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, opus101 said:

 

No, it further clarified that your 'no' applied to my second statement and not the first.

I’m glad we got this cleared up, then.

[MikeyFresh]

20 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

you’re making a claim about listening being a sufficiently precise and repeatable measurement to prove Amir’s original measurement wrong. 

Yes, I am making that claim, no great precision was needed in determining if an 8dB rise in analog output had occurred or not, and yes that would be repeatable without the need for any exhaustive ABX-type "proof". Grossly obvious to most any causal observer that isn't suffering from impaired hearing.

 

Both repeatable and reliable, the conclusion being no listening was done at all, and a damning review was published in reckless fashion. 

 

Let's bring it back on topic, shall we? Does ASR have your beloved measurements supporting the efficacy of MQA or not?

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, MikeyFresh said:

Yes, I am making that claim, no great precision was needed in determining if an 8dB rise in analog output had occurred or not, and yes that would be repeatable without the need for any exhaustive ABX-type "proof". Grossly obvious to most any causal observer that isn't suffering from impaired hearing.

 

Both repeatable, and reliable, the conclusion being no listening was done at all, and a damning review was published in reckless fashion. 

Whether or not listening was sufficient to prove the original measurement incorrect is arguing about some other point that was not in the discussion until you brought it up. If you can prove that it was wrong without doing any measurements, including listening, then let’s hear how you’d go about doing it.

[MikeyFresh]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Whether or not listening was sufficient to prove the original measurement incorrect is arguing about some other point that was not in the discussion until you brought it up. If you can prove that it was wrong without doing any measurements, including listening, then let’s hear how you’d go about doing it.

 

Translation? Amir can't reliably hear an 8dB difference in analog output, so he would rather rely on faulty measurements to make that claim.

 

Back on-topic: ASR has published measurements to support the efficacy claims of MQA, and these measurements are repeatable?

[pkane2001]

Just now, MikeyFresh said:

Back on-topic: ASR has published measurements to support the efficacy claims of MQA, and these measurements are repeatable?

 

Where? As I recall, Amir argued that MQA is an elegant codec. That’s his personal, subjective opinion, and not a measurement. Nothing to repeat. You either agree with him or not.

[MikeyFresh]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Where? As I recall, Amir argued that MQA is an elegant codec. That’s his personal, subjective opinion, and not a measurement. Nothing to repeat. You either agree with him or not.

 

Translation: No, ASR has absolutely no measurements supporting any MQA efficacy claims, yet Amir defends MQA anyway, as apparently in the case of MQA, no such burden of proof by repeatable measurements is required.

 

 The irony of "subjective opinions" being posted by the founder of the "science" site. Wasn't the elegant codec thing really just a parroting of John Atkinson?

[pkane2001]

13 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Translation: No, ASR has absolutely no measurements supporting any MQA efficacy claims, yet Amir defends MQA anyway, as apparently in the case of MQA, no such burden of proof by repeatable measurements is required.

 

 The irony of "subjective opinions" being posted by the founder of the "science" site. Wasn't the elegant codec thing really just a parroting of John Atkinson?

No idea, but you said there were MQA measurements posted. What was posted was a personal opinion. For some reason, you seem to think too highly of Amir 😃. You expect him not to make any mistakes, and to only state opinions backed up by science. I have no such expectations, and not sure why anyone would. He’s human and has faults, makes mistakes and can hold opinions that are based on personal likes and dislikes, just like anyone else. And, to bring it back to my original statement: there is no Science being done on ASR, despite the name.

[MikeyFresh]

8 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

No idea, but you said there were MQA measurements posted. What was posted was a personal opinion. For some reason, you seem to think too highly of Amir 😃. You expect him not to make any mistakes, and to only state opinions backed up by science. I have no such expectations, and not sure why anyone would. He’s human and has faults, makes mistakes and can hold opinions that are based on personal likes and dislikes, just like anyone else.

 

I didn't say that, I asked you if there were any measurements, it took the form of a question, because if there were, perhaps we'd all be better able to understand Amir's staunch defense of MQA.

 

Only stating opinions backed up by "science"? Yes that is the mantra, dogma, and groupthink of ASR.

 

Thank you Paul, I appreciate your candid response, and I truly appreciate your work in offering valuable freeware such as DeltaWave to the audio community.

[The Computer Audiophile]

After one day of the Munich show, I haven’t seen any mQa. 

[Brahan Seer]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

After one day of the Munich show, I haven’t seen any mQa. 

After one day of the Munich show, I have seen MQA. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

After one day of the Munich show, I have seen MQA. 

I was told today that mQa reps are lurking around. Haven’t seen any exhibitors promoting it. 
 

Met with @GoldenOne today. What a nice guy. 

[Brahan Seer]

18 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I was told today that mQa reps are lurking around. Haven’t seen any exhibitors promoting it. 
 

Met with @GoldenOne today. What a nice guy. 

Contrary to your experience, I have seen exhibitors promoting MQA. What a curious juxtaposition of show experiences we have had so far. How unexpected. 

[firedog]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

After one day of the Munich show, I haven’t seen any mQa. 

 

28 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I was told today that mQa reps are lurking around. Haven’t seen any exhibitors promoting it. 
 

Met with @GoldenOne today. What a nice guy. 

Better watch out, Chris. They may come up behind you in an audition session and start yelling and pounding on the furniture.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Brahan Seer said:

Contrary to your experience, I have seen exhibitors promoting MQA. What a curious juxtaposition of show experiences we have had so far. How unexpected. 

Which rooms promoted it?

 

Given this is a trade day, please put your industry affiliation in your signature line. 

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, Brahan Seer said:

After one day of the Munich show, I have seen MQA. 

 

Doesn't matter there are not enough people who can decode an MQA file for the company to survive.

[Brahan Seer]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Which rooms promoted it?

 

Given this is a trade day, please put your industry affiliation in your signature line. 

Various rooms/stands with MQA kit, mentions, dems. Check out the whole show if you can. I spotted other formats, too, including vinyl. 😉

The 'trade' net is fairly large. My own job isn't relevant. I'd be happy to share some prophesies as and when, though. :-) Enjoy the show - if you drink, have a nice, cool radler. 

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I was told today that mQa reps are lurking around. Haven’t seen any exhibitors promoting it. 
 

Met with @GoldenOne today. What a nice guy. 

 

Have you seen any exhibitors demoing Atmos? That would be sign people have moved on.

[Iving]

1 hour ago, Brahan Seer said:

Various rooms/stands with MQA kit, mentions, dems ... spotted other formats, too, including vinyl. 😉

 

mQa has presented in its own guise / right / as such / per se every Munich since 2015. see here

 

if mQa not at Munich as an exclusive presence that would be indicative in a good way to some of us.

 

bob stuart might be sporting a moustache or other disguise this year ...

 

[Josh Mound]

IMHO, @MikeyFresh and @pkane2001’s interesting back-and-forth more fits the “Can You Trust Measurements?” thread, but it was a compelling discussion, and I found myself nodding in agreement with both of you at points. 
 

Coming from a completely different background, I can’t help but agree that measurements themselves are not “science.” Deciding what and how to measure, as well as determining the significance of the measurements is, though. That’s where many things break down and people start talking past one another. 
 

In terms of what to measure, I have much more appreciation for Amir’s speaker measurements, since Klippel is an automated process less subject to errors and the effects of pre-measurement decisions (though I do wish he’d do compression measurements like Erin does). I’m more dubious about his headphone and DAC measurements, which involve judgment calls in the measurement process, and I find it hard to compare his DAC measurements across reviews, since he’s changed included measurements over time. In fairness, this is true of most folks, but AtomicBob and @GoldenOne have been much more consistent from what I’ve seen. 
 

In terms of significance of various measurements, it seems there’s little consensus in audibility and significance behind a certain (low) threshold. Good human subject lab research determining that would be valuable, but it’s much more complicated than measuring headphones or DACs, which is getting cheaper by the day thanks to MiniDSP, E1DA, and Paul, among others. 
 

Getting back to MQA, Amir’s response to Golden’s and @Archimago’s data was to claim that what was found is inaudible or not representative of real music. The former claim was unproven (and inherently contradicts subjective claims that MQA sounds better!) and the latter can be applied to the very tests Amir performs on DACs, so believing it would take down the entire ASR brand. More importantly, as Golden and others noted, much of today’s highly compressed electronic pop music does contain signals that could “break” MQA’s encoding.
 

The larger point, though, is why would we care about SINAD-chasing DACs if we’re feeding our DACs lossy MQA material? For me, the depressing part of MQA has been that some superb masterings are already trapped in MQA. There are unique Steely Dan masterings only on MQA CDs, and I just ordered CCR MQA CDs that supposedly are the only digital release of Miles Showell’s lauded mastering, previously only available on vinyl. In past years, I’m sure these Japan-only releases would’ve been issued on DualDisc SACDs. Instead, we’re stuck with MQA-encoded CDs. IMHO, a great mastering and transfer in MQA CD (though I don’t “unfold” and stick with a linear phase filter) is better than a worse transfer and mastering in Redbook, but I’m bitter that they’re not available in true Redbook PCM, let alone true hi-res.

[pkane2001]

45 minutes ago, JoshM said:

IMHO, @MikeyFresh and @pkane2001’s interesting back-and-forth more fits the “Can You Trust Measurements?” thread, but it was a compelling discussion, and I found myself nodding in agreement with both of you at points. 
 

Coming from a completely different background, I can’t help but agree that measurements themselves are not “science.” Deciding what and how to measure, as well as determining the significance of the measurements is, though. That’s where many things break down and people start talking past one another. 
 

In terms of what to measure, I have much more appreciation for Amir’s speaker measurements, since Klippel is an automated process less subject to errors and the effects of pre-measurement decisions (though I do wish he’d do compression measurements like Erin does). I’m more dubious about his headphone and DAC measurements, which involve judgment calls in the measurement process, and I find it hard to compare his DAC measurements across reviews, since he’s changed included measurements over time. In fairness, this is true of most folks, but AtomicBob and @GoldenOne have been much more consistent from what I’ve seen. 
 

In terms of significance of various measurements, it seems there’s little consensus in audibility and significance behind a certain (low) threshold. Good human subject lab research determining that would be valuable, but it’s much more complicated than measuring headphones or DACs, which is getting cheaper by the day thanks to MiniDSP, E1DA, and Paul, among others. 
 

Getting back to MQA, Amir’s response to Golden’s and @Archimago’s data was to claim that what was found is inaudible or not representative of real music. The former claim was unproven (and inherently contradicts subjective claims that MQA sounds better!) and the latter can be applied to the very tests Amir performs on DACs, so believing it would take down the entire ASR brand. More importantly, as Golden and others noted, much of today’s highly compressed electronic pop music does contain signals that could “break” MQA’s encoding.
 

The larger point, though, is why would we care about SINAD-chasing DACs if we’re feeding our DACs lossy MQA material? For me, the depressing part of MQA has been that some superb masterings are already trapped in MQA. There are unique Steely Dan masterings only on MQA CDs, and I just ordered CCR MQA CDs that supposedly are the only digital release of Miles Showell’s lauded mastering, previously only available on vinyl. In past years, I’m sure these Japan-only releases would’ve been issued on DualDisc SACDs. Instead, we’re stuck with MQA-encoded CDs. IMHO, a great mastering and transfer in MQA CD (though I don’t “unfold” and stick with a linear phase filter) is better than a worse transfer and mastering in Redbook, but I’m bitter that they’re not available in true Redbook PCM, let alone true hi-res.

Other than it may be an ‘elegant codec’, I’ve yet to see a good reason for MQA existence. The claimed time-smear correction is not a thing, and the high-res, ultrasonic frequency ‘unfolding’ seems like a marketing claim that’s not supported by anything in real life. The space compression is not much of a benefit anymore, plus this feature of MQA appears to be exaggerated compared to the other, non-proprietary and lossless PCM formats. 

[GoldenOne]

11 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I was told today that mQa reps are lurking around. Haven’t seen any exhibitors promoting it. 
 

Met with @GoldenOne today. What a nice guy. 

It was an absolute pleasure to finally meet in person!
The show has been fantastic so far.

I've yet to spot any MQA reps, though perhaps wearing a shirt with my logo on it might be somewhat deterring them from saying hello :P

10 hours ago, Brahan Seer said:

Contrary to your experience, I have seen exhibitors promoting MQA. What a curious juxtaposition of show experiences we have had so far. How unexpected. 

Which exhibitors have you seen doing so?
I saw that meridian was loosely joining in a room in one of the saunas Atriums but other than that I've not seen any MQA besides the odd logo here or there on products that include it.

I did hear rumblings that there were some MQA staff there. Not sure if that's the case or not