Stereophile Series on MQA Technology

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 minutes ago, Galileo365 said:

address the issues of temporal smearing

 

Does anyone actually understand what "temporal smearing" means, in contrast for example to "jitter", and what MQA purports to do to fix it ?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

No, because it is meaningless.

Care to explain why?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

27 minutes ago, Galileo365 said:

 

No, actually, it's not at all. In mathematics, interpolation is defined as, "the process of determining the value of a function [or signal] between two points at which [the signal] has [specific] values", and filtration is defined as, "[the act of] pass[ing] (a liquid, gas, light, or sound) through a device to remove unwanted material." In short, interpolation restores missing information whereas filtration removes, as an example, hypothetically unwanted information. Shannon's proof rested specifically on the notion of interpolation, "Shannon's proof of the theorem is complete [when] he goes on to discuss reconstruction via sinc functions, what we now call the Whittaker–Shannon interpolation formula [...]"; it was only later that someone (I honestly don't have a name) found that, "The interpolation formula [as] derived in the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem [...] can also be expressed as the convolution of an infinite impulse train with a sinc function [...]. This is equivalent to filtering the [signal] with an ideal (brick-wall) low-pass filter."  However, a brick-wall filter is defined as, "A certain type of low-pass filter exhibiting a steep cutoff slope which resembles a 'brick wall.' These filters are often found in A/D [and D/A] converters to prevent aliasing; while they are acceptable for this purpose their steep slope introduces unwanted side-effects on the audio signal, such as [frequency-selective] phase shift."--https://musicterms.artopium.com/b/Brickwallfilter.htm. I'm not sure if you're being a troll or just haven't done any real research/experimentation of your own, but all of what I quoted is a matter of fact, not opinion.

Mansr is def not a troll and is highly knowledgeable. He can be a little dismissive at times but due to his young age...19??....we make allowances in deference to prodigious talent ?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

24 minutes ago, Galileo365 said:

 

Plus, I have to say that, regardless of Mansr's age or level of experience, I still feel ethically-bound to offer him the same unsolicited advice.

Haha yes my apologies .it was a good natured dig at his youthful appearance ....and sometimes his replies.i think he is in his 30s or maybe 40s but only guessing. Still a young age.

he is the maintainer of sox.

Welcome to the forum!!Cheers 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, Galileo365 said:

ultimately subjective interpretation of the result

 

Yep, subjective interpretation of test results has been a recurrent bone of contention  around here and where I say the 'leap of faith' occurs. It's where conclusions based on observational data parts company with the scientific method, and "objectivist" and "subjectivist" look oddly familiar .

I am talking in principle, not specifically about interpolation of data points vs filters

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

That's because the interpretation is merely interpolated.

 

and maybe filtered with a little bias ?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 minutes ago, Galileo365 said:

10 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

That's because the interpretation is merely interpolated.

 

You are, of course, 100% correct. I didn't to say it myself because I thought it would undermine my credibility even more than it already is

 

FYI Peter is this guy http://www.phasure.com/

Being Dutch he will metaphorically knock you down with a bicycle before you see him even coming...depending on how many of those funny cookies have been ingested.?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

I stand by what I've said,

 

No-one would expect less.

 

4 hours ago, mansr said:

but I'll refrain from further responding on this topic. It is going nowhere. 

 

Why?

 

I agree with Computer Audiophile.

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Its often not what you say but how you say it.

 

Civility issues aside, I'd like to hear the clash of ideas not a clash of egos (yeah, you know, do as I say not as I do ? ). Not sure why the defensive posturing (IMO) on this one. Galileo is new to the forum, seems like he can and wants to contribute so why not cut him some slack.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

13 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Are you sure of that? I'm not.

 

21 total posts, exactly all of them in the thread, what is his industry/MQA affiliation, if any?

 

I don't think you can know either way. I believe people should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. Not everyone with a variance of opinion is a shill.

 

people have been asked to put their industry affiliation in their signatures. We cannot be sure if anyone here has complied apart from a handful such as John Atkinson

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

15 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I'd like to hear more about the shift theorem and what it has to do with MQA

 

I also wondered about polynomial differential operators?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

double post

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Sniff sniff...hmmmm...fee fie fo fum...I smell the blood of an MQA Shill....?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

23 minutes ago, mansr said:

I tried to offer a brief explanation of the relationship between filtering and interpolation. Galileo365 replied with nonsense and accused me of being abusive. It is easy to get drawn into a back-and-forth argument, but this serves nobody.

 

I'm happy to continue discussing filters and sampling theory with the rest of you, but I won't be replying to Galileo365 again, unless he changes his tack.

 

Thanks for the reply Mans.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

Yes, the one who repeatedly claims that MQA isn’t lossy. And note he specifically denied an industry affiliation, even though he writes reviews and clearly is part of the industry.  

 

IIRC he claimed no affiliation with MQA  however he did not declare his industry connection. I find the latter disingenuous irrespective of what side of the MQA fence you sit.

 

5 hours ago, mansr said:

It's interesting to look at who upvotes posts by these guys too. Always the same two or three names.

 

I may be guilty of this.

 

Sometimes it is just nice to hear contrary views rather than simply follow the herd. Science and mathematics are disinterested, they don't care or have any agendas or bias.For this reason alone I would have liked to have heard more from Mr Schaub, posting as Mr Schaub, politely (use the word "professionally" or "scientifically" if you dont like "politely") debating the subject.

 

Sadly, he resorted to ad hominem attacks and appeared to lose his composure. Well, not exactly an isolated phenomenon on CA. IMO it wasn't without some provocation but that is not the point.

 

Kudos to @The Computer Audiophile for encouraging tolerance and willingness to consider opposing views

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

19 minutes ago, mansr said:

Quote

IMO it wasn't without some provocation but that is not the point.

Provocation? I don't see anything remotely provocative in the responses he received.

???