mansr Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 5 minutes ago, christopher3393 said: This session is meant to provide attendees with factual information they can use in their pursuits to increase their enjoyment of this wonderful hobby. If only that could be the case. Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted September 19, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted September 19, 2018 9 minutes ago, crenca said: Even the streaming case for it is now a non-starter given modern bandwidth, More importantly, MQA does not save any bandwidth. That claim is a complete fabrication. Miska, 4est, Rt66indierock and 1 other 4 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted October 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 3, 2018 6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: This is a topic I will address in the seminar. Compared to Redbook MQA uses equal or more bandwidth. Strictly more, actually. Redbook is 16-bit, while MQA presents as 24-bit at the same sample rate. Those additional 8 bits must take up some bandwidth. Moreover, since they are already compressed, the FLAC container won't be able to compress them again. MQA thus uses more bandwidth not only than 44/16 redbook, but also more than 44/24, which is the actual master format of many recordings. 6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: However, with higher resolutions MQA, just like MP3, can save bandwidth by throwing out data. Whether one accepts that as a tradeoff is a different issue, but it's a fact that MQA can save bandwidth. So can MP3. Yes, MQA uses less bandwidth than 192/24. However, and this is the important bit, it uses more bandwidth than standard 96 kHz PCM reduced to 18 bits (which Stuart himself has said is all MQA can provide) and compressed with FLAC. No matter how you look at it, MQA is less efficient than existing non-proprietary compression methods. The Computer Audiophile, mcgillroy, Ralf11 and 3 others 3 1 2 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted October 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 3, 2018 7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: There is a middle ground in everything where there are two sides. Extremists on the ends and somewhere between them is the middle ground. Middle ground shouldn't be confused with the dead center or as our President has said, "I'm sure there are good people on both sides." The truth is not 100% of what has been said By MQA Ltd and the truth is not 100% of what has been said by those who hate MQA. Please don't think this title means I will try to persuade haters to like MQA and MQA to like the haters and have a big happy hug in the middle where we all decide MQA is benign and consumers can buy it if they wish. That's not my intention. I disagree. In some matters, there is no place for "balance." This includes those where an objective truth can be established. For example, men did land on the moon. That some lunatics insist otherwise does not make the notion of a "balanced" view or "middle ground" the least bit meaningful. Would you call those who believe the moon landings really took place extremists? What would a non-extreme position look like? With MQA, every conceivable technical assessment finds it lacking compared to alternatives. The only thing it does uniquely is produce an "end to end" flow of cash into Stuart's pockets. All the alleged benefits to others are either false ("time domain" nonsense, etc.) or can be achieved more efficiently using royalty-free methods. Again, seeing the truth for what it is cannot be considered extremist. If MQA actually delivered on even one of its claims, things would be different. Then it would be possible to consider a trade-off. As it stands, there is no trade in adopting MQA, only off. maxijazz, MikeyFresh, 4est and 3 others 3 3 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted October 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 3, 2018 9 minutes ago, christopher3393 said: My own consumer question is: what important statements about MQA by Bob Stuart are most misleading, That's difficult to say, but the "not DRM" claim has to be near the top. 9 minutes ago, christopher3393 said: and what would be a more transparent and moderate way of making these statements in plain english as much as possible. "Spare some change?" lucretius, crenca, Rt66indierock and 3 others 3 3 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted October 4, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 4, 2018 15 hours ago, Jud said: A question I hope someone with technical expertise can answer: MQA uses very short filters, presumably to limit the length of ringing. But does a short filter have to be “reapplied” more often? In other words, would a 7-tap filter have to be applied a thousand times as often as a 7000-tap filter? If so, how can tap length limit ringing? With a FIR filter, of which the MQA filters are examples, the output signal y[n] for an input x[n] is defined as y[n] = b0 * x[n] + b1 * x[n-1] + ... + bk * x[n-k] where the constants b0 ... bk are the impulse response of the filter. Regardless of the filter length it is "applied" (though that's not a term anyone uses) once per sample. Kyhl and Jud 2 Link to comment
mansr Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 34 minutes ago, Jud said: So whether you are using a filter with 7 taps or 7000, if it rings it is going to be ringing as long as samples are running through it. (I’m not focusing on ringing out of a particular concern for it, but because that is what MQA says it wants to ameliorate - as far as I can tell from their non-standard terminology, “blurring.”) A particular input sample can only affect the output for the duration of filter (that's why it's called Finite Impulse Response). So-called ringing occurs only around step-like events in the input. A short filter thus limits the duration of "ringing" instances more than a longer one does. Link to comment
mansr Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 38 minutes ago, Jud said: OK, trying to figure out how this jibes with my prior idea that it was a step-like response of the filter to input at a particular frequency that resulted in ringing. Perhaps this is helpful: https://troll-audio.com/articles/filter-ringing/ Don Blas De Lezo 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 43 minutes ago, FredericV said: Is this guy a complete joke? That would imply an element of (unintentional) humour. Link to comment
mansr Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 38 minutes ago, firedog said: I own one of those but run it on the previous (5.2) firmware which is non MQA. I asked iFi about this. It isn't the fault of MQA or HRM, per se. The device doesn't have the capacity to do both MQA and also act as a USB>SPDIF converter. To allow it to do MQA, they need to devote one of the cores to it, and they sacrificed the core that previously did SPDIF. They therefore give users a choice: one firmware version without MQA and with the SPDIF out, and another with MQA, but the SPDIF out is eliminated. Here's their actual response: Just to be clear, yes, there are insufficient resources on the 8-core devices to run MQA renderer AND SPDIF out. This is what is fitted, so there is no debate why it is not there. Their code must be horribly inefficient if this is true. 38 minutes ago, firedog said: If there was an SPDIF out, it would just be the same signal as the MQA core decoder in the software decodes. The same is true for any other SPDIF out under MQA. In other words, it would be the same as loading firmware 5.2 (no MQA) and setting the software (Tidal, Roon, Audirvana) to output the first unfold digital signal (88.2/96kHz). The device fed via SPDIF would then require an SPDIF based MQA renderer component to perform the rest of the MQA unfolding in the DAC fed via SPDIF. This is correct. I guess it hasn't occurred to them that someone might still want that functionality. Link to comment
mansr Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 50 minutes ago, adamdea said: Maybe but it is possible to have a foot on both bandwagons without apparent discomfort even though they are heading in opposite directions, isn't it @John_Atkinson. Sounds like something JCVD would do. adamdea 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Archimago said: 3. Beyond technical arguments, definitions, and "truth". What was the point, honestly? Link to comment
mansr Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: I have nothing to hide and am not out to take down MQA. I’m out to provide information. Is there a difference? Link to comment
mansr Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Yes. One is my goal and the other is an outcome. The only outcome, if your goal is achieved. Don Blas De Lezo 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 5 minutes ago, Archimago said: Cool. Hope Mr. Forsythe agrees to attend. Even better if he brings some information to present that might help us understand what we might be missing with this "elegant" codec. I won't be surprised if the session is "mysteriously" cancelled at the last minute. Wouldn't be the first time. Link to comment
mansr Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 7 minutes ago, tmtomh said: @mansr, I think it's pretty clear what @The Computer Audiophile is trying to say: He's "not out to take down MQA," in the sense that he's doesn't have an agenda to try to kill MQA without regard for what the facts of MQA might actually be. He wants to promote and disseminate the facts at MQA and let the chips fall where they may. Do I need to explain the meaning of the word "troll"? Link to comment
mansr Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 3 hours ago, Shadders said: The key stated benefit of MQA is that it reverses dispersion Where is this stated? Link to comment
mansr Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 29 minutes ago, Shadders said: The MQA paper : A Hierarchical Approach to Archiving and Distribution http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17501 States that dispersion is blur : "When considering the frequency and time responses of an end-to-end distribution channel, we must bear in mind that time dispersion or ‘blur’ can build up through a cascade of otherwise blameless components. Figure 3 illustrates the response of a cascade built up to eight stages, each with a 2nd-order roll-off at 30 kHz, possibly representing a microphone, preamplifier, mixer,...." They never state that their method fixes it. Link to comment
mansr Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 9 minutes ago, rn701 said: Those MQA guys were incredibly rude. I would have had security escort them out. Yes, that is the best way to deal with hecklers. Refuse to engage with them, no matter how tempting. If necessary, refuse to continue the presentation until they shut up. This will turn the rest of the audience against the heckler. Under no circumstances give them microphones. Link to comment
mansr Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 2 minutes ago, beerandmusic said: I believe there were valid points from opposiing views...specifically about the logo. I do believe Chris should have stated it was an old logo when he first said it was their logo. In retrospect, it is actually a damning point that they did change the logo, and that it would actually serve more purpose by stating it was an old logo. That's what he did. Or at least was trying to do when the MQA dogs attacked. Don Blas De Lezo 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 4 minutes ago, beerandmusic said: In the presentation, He stated "he got the logo straight from MQA"...he didn't state it was old until after they said it was old and hasn't been used since 2016. Again, i don't know if it was oversight or on purpose, but if he did know it was old, he should have stated so, and actually use it in presentation to hammer the point, such as..... e.g. MQA used to advertise it was lossless, and even used this logo back in 2016. They have subsequently removed the logo as they have admitted defeat in this area, that it is NOT lossless....or similar verbiage. Look at the slides. It's clear where he was going with it. Link to comment
mansr Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 3 hours ago, MarkS said: I watched the video, and, for what it is worth, I also thought the MQA “team” in attendance was rude and embarrassed themselves. Nevertheless, they achieved their goal. They ruined the presentation and filled it with their FUD instead. Nobody attending be remembering any of the points Chris raised, only the skewering he received. Link to comment
mansr Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 19 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said: Everyone in the room will remember the MQA representatives desperation. And Derek Hughes pounding the table asking us why we don’t believe them when they say there is no DRM? Only the extremely rational. The rest will remember whoever was loudest. Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted October 9, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 9, 2018 5 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said: What was loudest was hardly convincing and very helpful to me. It doesn't need to be convincing. People hear, and believe, whatever is repeated frequently and loudly, especially if it comes from a perceived authority. Moreover, the MQA claims are simple to process mentally. The debunking is technically involved and takes effort to understand. Most people are lazy and thus believe the simple claims. Have you never seen an election campaign? Ralf11, wgscott, Currawong and 2 others 5 Link to comment
mansr Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 4 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said: I have a simple message that seems to work especially face to face. And what is that? 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