Jump to content
IGNORED

Article: MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions


Recommended Posts

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?

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
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. 

Jim

Link to comment

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:

image.thumb.png.c5b504b74a1c805cc1103c0fc9f64a86.png

 

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.

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
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
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

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
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
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. :D

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

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.

Link to comment
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 :D ).

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
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:

image.thumb.png.c5b504b74a1c805cc1103c0fc9f64a86.png

 

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?

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment

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 :D

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
1 hour ago, james45974 said:

can you translate for non math geeks?  O.o

 

I was going to ask you to do it for us :D

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
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.

 

  1. 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." 
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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!

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
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
9 minutes ago, james45974 said:

Yes, thanks!  :D

 

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
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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...