botrytis Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 4 minutes ago, james45974 said: I like to think of the paper rags as the compact disc of audio journalism, dying a slow death. Digital content is eating physical content's breakfast, lunch, and dinner, including magazines. They are really looking desperate for their (BS) viewpoint to carry the day. I still find them, somewhat valuable. I mean testing of equipment is valuable and a way to narrow to products of interest. But, the MQA fiasco really has cased me to pause and that is due to the idea that if they push an obvious nonsense here, what else are they doing it with? mcgillroy 1 Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
james45974 Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 38 minutes ago, botrytis said: I still find them, somewhat valuable. I mean testing of equipment is valuable and a way to narrow to products of interest. But, the MQA fiasco really has cased me to pause and that is due to the idea that if they push an obvious nonsense here, what else are they doing it with? I would imagine that the print versions appeal to a increasingly limited demographic. I myself gave up my subscriptions to Stereophile and TAS about 5 years ago, I found I really didn't need them anymore, they have become superfluous. I know investigative journalism isn't their forte but on MQA I feel that they are doing a disservice to consumers. I guess their true colors are showing. Ran 1 Jim Link to comment
FredericV Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 New fallback argument on the secret MQA group: person X does not understand MQA. Archimago does not understand MQA AIX records does not understand MQA and so on .... Now they are attacking AIX: How ironic, as MQA does not have more resolution than 24/96. Everything above that is upsampled in the renderer with leaky filters. MQA at best is something like lossy 17/96. A lot of MQA encodes are based on masterings for redbook. The admin of the group debunks MQA by his own logic. MikeyFresh 1 Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
firedog Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 2 hours ago, botrytis said: I am disheartened by the reaction on Stereophile, particularly Mr. Atkinson, as to Archimago and his pseudonym. I feel his reaction here, is one thing and then on Stereophile's site, it is another. I understand Archimago's reasoning about using the pseudonym. This is also a passion/hobby for him not his sole means of support. It seems since they cannot deflect, damage, or deny the science and thought behind the article, they deflect and go after the author. This is telling. Dalethorn is also there throwing shade. Where are these reactions? Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
botrytis Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 56 minutes ago, firedog said: Where are these reactions? "One thing that concerns me greatly, both as an editor and as someone who has always posted to the Internet under my actual name, is the anonymity of the author. Yes, CA's Chris Connacker explains why he felt it okay not to reveal Archimago's identity, but I strongly feel that writers should not hide behind anonymity. Readers are entitled to transparency, particularly when the subject is as controversial as MQA." From Atkinson - MQA conceptualized. Chris - if this is too much quoted - just erase or edit as you wish. Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
botrytis Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 Dalethorn also posted there about it. It is how they are reacting now. Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
christopher3393 Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 11 minutes ago, botrytis said: "One thing that concerns me greatly, both as an editor and as someone who has always posted to the Internet under my actual name, is the anonymity of the author. Yes, CA's Chris Connacker explains why he felt it okay not to reveal Archimago's identity, but I strongly feel that writers should not hide behind anonymity. Readers are entitled to transparency, particularly when the subject is as controversial as MQA." From Atkinson - MQA conceptualized. Chris - if this is too much quoted - just erase or edit as you wish. slight correction: "MQA Contextualized" by Jim Austin, in the comments https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-contextualized, comments from March 2 and following Link to comment
james45974 Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 1 hour ago, FredericV said: New fallback argument on the secret MQA group: person X does not understand MQA. Archimago does not understand MQA AIX records does not understand MQA and so on .... I think the situation is that Archimago and AIX do understand MQA! MikeyFresh 1 Jim Link to comment
Popular Post crenca Posted March 6, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 6, 2018 59 minutes ago, botrytis said: "One thing that concerns me greatly, both as an editor and as someone who has always posted to the Internet under my actual name, is the anonymity of the author. Yes, CA's Chris Connacker explains why he felt it okay not to reveal Archimago's identity, but I strongly feel that writers should not hide behind anonymity. Readers are entitled to transparency, particularly when the subject is as controversial as MQA." No doubt. However, this transparency, this look and review of MQA from a consumer or a pro vs. con perspective is exactly what Stereophile and the other trade publications have not done. Unfortunately, @John_Atkinson, your just a wee bit hypocritical with this criticism. Besides, @Archimagohas his reasons and as long as his technical evaluation is sound it is irrelevant. The objective truth is the objective truth, no matter who is speaking it. Folks, @John_Atkinsonis just speaking from his background, his culture, which in Audiophiledom is based on the subject - it is not what a person says but who is saying it that then determines the truth of the matter... Edit: Also, note that @John_Atkinsonis "concerned greatly". I believe him, but note how he and his writers have never shown much concern for the objective truth of MQA - it's actual technical workings, who $benefits$ and who does not, and whether it delivers on any of its promises. His publication's "concern" from the beginning was rather to promote MQA, not actually weigh the pros and cons. Just more evidence of the wide chasm between your concerns and his... MikeyFresh, sullis02, maxijazz and 10 others 12 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
botrytis Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 38 minutes ago, christopher3393 said: slight correction: "MQA Contextualized" by Jim Austin, in the comments https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-contextualized, comments from March 2 and following Thanks. Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
HalSF Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 This minor ad hominem carping about @Archimago using a pseudonym is the first time in the annals of MQA-gate I feel that @John_Atkinson has slightly lost his cool after showing a lot of grace under fire. Through his well-established and long-running blog and frequent posting on the Steve Hoffman and CA forums, I think that Archimago has earned his place in the hi-fi community as a voice of civility and integrity. Meanwhile, I still own several major components purchased because the pseudonymous Stereophile columnist Sam Tellig recommended them so eloquently back in the day. Mr. Atkinson says he inherited Tellig's byline and that the made-up name "never sat right with me." I think it was a non-issue for Tellig then and for Archimago now. Ironically I've just re-upped to Stereophile for two years after letting my subscription lapse for a fairly long period, and I did it despite my sense that the magazine is on the wrong side of history MQA-wise. But meanwhile the MQA saga has helped reawaken my interest in audiophile psychodrama and I've always thought that Stereophile's virtues and professionalism far outweigh its vices. beetlemania 1 Link to comment
botrytis Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 26 minutes ago, HalSF said: This minor ad hominem carping about @Archimago using a pseudonym is the first time in the annals of MQA-gate I feel that @John_Atkinson has slightly lost his cool after showing a lot of grace under fire. Through his well-established and long-running blog and frequent posting on the Steve Hoffman and CA forums, I think that Archimago has earned his place in the hi-fi community as a voice of civility and integrity. Meanwhile, I still own several major components purchased because the pseudonymous Stereophile columnist Sam Tellig recommended them so eloquently back in the day. Mr. Atkinson says he inherited Tellig's byline and that the made-up name "never sat right with me." I think it was a non-issue for Tellig then and for Archimago now. Ironically I've just re-upped to Stereophile for two years after letting my subscription lapse for a fairly long period, and I did it despite my sense that the magazine is on the wrong side of history MQA-wise. But meanwhile the MQA saga has helped reawaken my interest in audiophile psychodrama and I've always thought that Stereophile's virtues and professionalism far outweigh its vices. They can give good info but at the same time, being shills for the industry is not a good thing either. I mean, how do you know when it is just repeating the industry line or when it is good journalism. We need honest journalism more and more, not fake news (sorry, I had to go there ). eclectic 1 Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
Archimago Posted March 7, 2018 Author Share Posted March 7, 2018 11 hours ago, FredericV said: New fallback argument on the secret MQA group: person X does not understand MQA. Archimago does not understand MQA AIX records does not understand MQA and so on .... Now they are attacking AIX: How ironic, as MQA does not have more resolution than 24/96. Everything above that is upsampled in the renderer with leaky filters. MQA at best is something like lossy 17/96. A lot of MQA encodes are based on masterings for redbook. The admin of the group debunks MQA by his own logic. Indeed - MQA is unable to maintain the full resolution of a 24/96 file. Absolutely ridiculous to criticize AIX, a studio that actually produces some excellent "audiophile demo" quality recordings with high resolution and natural dynamics. I'm curious @FredericV, did the traffic in that group increase or change over the last few days? Other than attacking the person(s), are there actually any arguments at all of relevance to debate with these people? Is there even any apparent thoughtful discussion given the years of criticisms happening in that group or is it truly a matter of "I heard this - it's great!", and "I believe that cuz MQA said that!" kind of chatter? eclectic 1 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
michael123 Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 You got balls, guys. Bravo !! Link to comment
Popular Post botrytis Posted March 7, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 7, 2018 Well, if you follow the Stereophile comment section, of 'MQA Contexualized' there are two arguments being put forth against this article. 1. That Archimago, being a pen name, means that the article is false and should be ignored. 2. That music is art and therefore cannot be described by science. As far as the former, Archimago has a long list of articles on his blog that deal with testing and understanding of audio and video. THAT is what is important , not that he uses a pen name. Many authors use pen names as it helps to prevent issues in the currently connected world. I guess that means, Mark Twain is a fake as is any other that writes under a pen name. What an ignorant and salicious attitude to have. It is the idea of 'Shoot the messenger, not the message'. I wonder ihow the US founding fathers would have reacted if, at the Boston Tea Party, the British would have reacted, Well, they didn't throw our tea in the harbor dressed as themselves, so they are disengenuous. I realize I just put out a very silly argument but I am trying to get a point across. The second argument is even more ridiculous. People have studied how a Stradivarius Violin was made, to understand why it sounds the way it does. That does not preclude the enjoyment of music made with such a magnificent instrument. It does, in fact, make the appreciation even stronger. Digital music is just a digital file. It is digital information and as such, we can understand and study how the files are filtered, decoded, etc. It is easy to determine and to quantify. That doesn't lessen our ability to appreciate the music, in fact, accurate reproduction of the music has been part of the this hobby from the beginning. In fact, I will go farther, that the way the files are encoded and treated is important to accurate reproduction. MQA, based on Archimago's testing and others, does not do that. That is the important point. The last point I want to make,is, T.S. Gnu had some eloquent and salient points made in that thread. All John Atkinson said is he was close to being banned because he was trolling? Well, that IS MR. Aktinson's choice to believe so and he has the right to ban whoever he wants but we also have the choice to vote with our pocketbook. Mr. Atkinson believes that his 'reputation' is more important than the truth, even if it is an 'Inconvenient Truth'. I believe he is squandering his reputation to protect a nonsense technology, meaning MQA. Mr. Atkinson, which side of this story do you want to be, MQA's or the Audiophile/Hobbyist side? Your reputation is based on helping the Audiophile/Hobbyist find the right equipment, but with MQA fiasco, yoour reputation is becoming more about the industry and less about the Audiophile/Hobbyist. One cannot simply rest on their laurels and expect people to always trust them. Ran, adamdea, maxijazz and 3 others 5 1 Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
botrytis Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.06890.pdf A rebuttal to the 'Psycho-Acoustic' argument that is used in the MQA arguments. Pretty interesting, if you are a math geek Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
james45974 Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 37 minutes ago, botrytis said: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.06890.pdf A rebuttal to the 'Psycho-Acoustic' argument that is used in the MQA arguments. Pretty interesting, if you are a math geek can you translate for non math geeks? senorx 1 Jim Link to comment
botrytis Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 1 hour ago, james45974 said: can you translate for non math geeks? I was going to ask you to do it for us Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
Popular Post tmtomh Posted March 7, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 7, 2018 1 hour ago, james45974 said: can you translate for non math geeks? I'm not a math geek and can't begin to explain it clearly using the actual math. But FWIW, here is my understanding of the core logic of what this rebuttal is saying. I am of course more than happy to be corrected if I've got it wrong. Fourier Uncertainty Principle dictates that there's a limit to how accurate digital sampling can be when it comes to timing and frequency. In other words, there's always going to be some small, irreducible level of uncertainty, and therefore potential variation or inaccuracy in the digital sampling. Just for the moment, let's call that level of inaccuracy/uncertainty, which digital sampling cannot get beyond, "X." The original study tested human subjects, apparently by playing them three pulses that varied slightly in frequency and/or timing. It found that the humans could detect variations that were smaller than X. On this basis, the original study claimed that humans can discern timing differences beyond what digital sampling is able to control for - in other words, very high sample rates are necessary in order to better compete with how good human timing hearing is. This rebuttal article says the original article mis-used that X figure. They say that for the type of test the original researchers ran, the limits of Fourier Uncertainty are far smaller than X. Therefore, humans' ability to do better than X in that type of test does not in fact demonstrate that human timing accuracy is better than digital sampling can provide. #Yoda#, Currawong, senorx and 1 other 2 1 1 Link to comment
botrytis Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 1 minute ago, tmtomh said: I'm not a math geek and can't begin to explain it clearly using the actual math. But FWIW, here is my understanding of the core logic of what this rebuttal is saying. I am of course more than happy to be corrected if I've got it wrong. Fourier Uncertainty Principle dictates that there's a limit to how accurate digital sampling can be when it comes to timing and frequency. In other words, there's always going to be some small, irreducible level of uncertainty, and therefore potential variation or inaccuracy in the digital sampling. Just for the moment, let's call that level of inaccuracy/uncertainty, which digital sampling cannot get beyond, "X." The original study tested human subjects, apparently by playing them three pulses that varied slightly in frequency and/or timing. It found that the humans could detect variations that were smaller than X. On this basis, the original study claimed that humans can discern timing differences beyond what digital sampling is able to control for - in other words, very high sample rates are necessary in order to better compete with how good human timing hearing is. This rebuttal article says the original article mis-used that X figure. They say that for the type of test the original researchers ran, the limits of Fourier Uncertainty are far smaller than X. Therefore, humans' ability to do better than X in that type of test does not in fact demonstrate that human timing accuracy is better than digital sampling can provide. Thanks for translating for us non-math geeks. Even better, you made it understandable. cheers! tmtomh 1 Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
tmtomh Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 1 hour ago, botrytis said: Thanks for translating for us non-math geeks. Even better, you made it understandable. cheers! No problem! But I made it understandable only if my summary actually is accurate! Hopefully one of our more math expert colleagues will weigh in to say if I've gotten the basic idea right, or if I've completely mangled it. Link to comment
james45974 Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 1 hour ago, botrytis said: Thanks for translating for us non-math geeks. Even better, you made it understandable. cheers! Yes, thanks! Does this relate to deblurring as claimed by MQA? Jim Link to comment
botrytis Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 9 minutes ago, james45974 said: Yes, thanks! Does this relate to deblurring as claimed by MQA? YES and Time Domain. Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
John_Atkinson Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 7 hours ago, botrytis said: All John Atkinson said is he was close to being banned because he was trolling? Forgive me but I didn't say anything like that. If you go to my comment as moderator at https://www.stereophile.com/comment/573060#comment-573060 you will see that T.S. Gnu wrote: "A rational viewer might question your opinion on who is trolling and who is being trolled." to which I responded: "Please refrain from posting argumentative statements like this. I have deleted the messages that followed this posting of yours as being an exchange of insults." Which they were. No mention of banning. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Link to comment
Popular Post ednaz Posted March 7, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 7, 2018 Watching the arguments of what's kept versus thrown away, what's real and what's invented, is it debarring or blurring, is it just upsampling, wait is that noise, brings to mind something from another domain - photography. When printing digital photographs at display sizes - 16x20 inches, 20x30 inches and larger - professional printers, the type that would print images for a gallery or museum show, do a couple of tricks to every image, just before printing. (Learned these working for a famous NYC fine art printer.) First, they apply an unsharp mask to increase the apparent sharpness (de-blurring), which paradoxically works by applying a mildly blurred image as a mask on to the original image. De-blurring by adding a mask of blurring. It raises the apparent sharpness of the image. Done well, it's not noticeable. Done poorly, you get visible halos in the image. Note that even done well, there are halos - the unsharp image absolutely makes them, but they're below your ability to see them - a pixel or two wide. (I learned to do this in film days. Much easier in digital.) Second, they add noise to the image. Everyone evaluates digital sensors based on their ability to produce an image free of digital noise... but completely noise free images look odd. In large areas with no detail - sky, a car fender, still water - they look artificial and plastic. The printer uses one of a number of techniques to generate digital noise that's similar to film grain, and blends it into the image. The size and frequencies of the noise are based on the size of the final print. Again, the goal is to have it be there and effective but not noticeable. (When I show people prints where I've done this, they have a hard time detecting it, even after being told what to look for.) That added noise does three things. It makes the image seem more real, and less digital. It reduces the visibility of actual digital noise from the sensor. And, it also increases the apparent sharpness of the image. In photography - which is about capturing the most accurate renditions of light and color with a recording device and then reproducing them for viewing - adding information that was never there to begin with increases the perception of it being a more accurate and sharply rendered image of the real world. I imagine that the same types of tricks, applied to audio files, may improve the apparent accuracy and crispness of the rendering of recorded sounds. After all, we see and hear with our brains, not our eyes and ears. Currawong and skatbelt 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now