Popular Post Archimago Posted October 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 3, 2018 3 hours ago, mansr said: ... 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. This obviously correct from the perspective of what is factual. I think the only "balance" to consider has actually nothing to do with the veracity of technical claims... It's about listening to the desires of the rights holders who champion this "format", and understanding the intent of the magazines and writers who likewise uncritically promote. As a consumer, I'm more interested in what is good for the consumer and is there a "balance" that as a hobby should be struck? Clearly, from my perspective, MQA is overwhelmingly bad for consumers. But what are the desires of the Industry and at what point does advertising become so false that consumers have to literally dissociate their faith from traditional sources of (dis)information? Don't know if Chris will enter into this much larger debate brought on by MQA. But it's what I'm most interested in these days which IMO is the twilight of this poorly conceived file "format". tmtomh and Fokus 2 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
The Computer Audiophile Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 My goal is to stay out of the deeply technical weeds. I will touch on some of the stuff such as 18 bits, file sizes, etc... but will mostly look at this from a consumer perspective. Consumers are the audience at the show and the reason for the industry. I will talk to them and provide information they can use. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 I'm putting everything together today and tomorrow (possibly Fri. & Sat. after the show as well). Without opening a huge can of worms, I'll ask the question - What do you think consumers should know? Based on previous seminars I've given, there will be a few people who already know this stuff, but most will have only read bits and pieces of what the old guard has told them. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted October 3, 2018 Author Share Posted October 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: I'm putting everything together today and tomorrow (possibly Fri. & Sat. after the show as well). Without opening a huge can of worms, I'll ask the question - What do you think consumers should know? Based on previous seminars I've given, there will be a few people who already know this stuff, but most will have only read bits and pieces of what the old guard has told them. I'll have some fun financial facts. Basically the people who invested money in MQA Ltd aren't the kind of folks to care about sound quality. Link to comment
crenca Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 This is Audiophiledom, which is a largely (though this is slowly changing) factual free zone. Another way to think of it is a hobby/culture where factual truth is in short supply, so the audiophile is left judging the man, subjectively. This is mostly done in a kind of "balancing" or weighing exactly as Chris is putting it - putting all "opinions" (remember, there are no real facts, or too few) on a continuum. Since this continuum is not a factual based one but a subjective one, it is quite naturally an emotional one. So on one end you have "hate", and on the other you have "love" - both irrational or "extreme" even in a subjective context. So the middle becomes the only place anyone would want to be. "What do you think consumers should know?" I would say they need to be led away from the status quo subjective, emotional paradigm/continuum and shown the facts of MQA, which are many. Don't worry about the emotion from the consumers OR the old guard trade publication cabal OR the industry itself. You won't reach some or perhaps even most, but you will have done something sorely needed... Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
lucretius Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 32 minutes ago, crenca said: So the middle becomes the only place anyone would want to be. False equivalence. christopher3393 1 mQa is dead! Link to comment
crenca Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 1 minute ago, lucretius said: False equivalence. The dialectic itself (i.e. the terms) is false. If it were true (and it is the prevailing view from the "old guard", etc.), then the middle is where I and most everybody else who is not full of "hate" or extreme enthusiasm would want to be... daverich4 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Popular Post Rt66indierock Posted October 3, 2018 Author Popular Post Share Posted October 3, 2018 10 minutes ago, crenca said: The dialectic itself (i.e. the terms) is false. If it were true (and it is the prevailing view from the "old guard", etc.), then the middle is where I and most everybody else who is not full of "hate" or extreme enthusiasm would want to be... That middle ground is liquidate MQA Ltd and put this episode behind us. It seemed so radical in 2016 and in late 2018 it is the calm reasoned approach. MikeyFresh and esldude 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Brinkman Ship Posted October 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 3, 2018 18 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said: That middle ground is liquidate MQA Ltd and put this episode behind us. It seemed so radical in 2016 and in late 2018 it is the calm reasoned approach. All good..but what we will NOT put behind us, is the loss of credibility of MQA's backers..and their tactics..pivoting from touting false technical merits, phoney subjectivity, and "elegance"... So next time, and there WILL be a next time, those who call them selves consumer advocating "journalists" know they better do their jobs and look behind the curtain, examine technologies, or employ those with the expertise to do so, and not bury information that can tell the whole story..instead of kissing the asses of their audio heroes. How is that for savagery?? Rt66indierock, MikeyFresh and adamdea 2 1 Link to comment
Jud Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: I'm putting everything together today and tomorrow (possibly Fri. & Sat. after the show as well). Without opening a huge can of worms, I'll ask the question - What do you think consumers should know? Based on previous seminars I've given, there will be a few people who already know this stuff, but most will have only read bits and pieces of what the old guard has told them. I think @mansr‘s information on how many filters there are (a limited number, thus not quite one-size-fits-all, but certainly not custom) and the response of each (won’t cut ringing, allow aliasing and imaging) are important for a baseline. I also think the range of subjective listening impressions from CA members who’ve heard MQA might be important as another perspective vs. that of the subjective reviewers from the magazines. (And BTW, my subjective impression that I like MQA a little less than non-MQA was formed before @mansr did his work.) 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? Thanks. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
christopher3393 Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 4 hours ago, Archimago said: But what are the desires of the Industry and at what point does advertising become so false that consumers have to literally dissociate their faith from traditional sources of (dis)information? Excellent question, imo. My own consumer question is: what important statements about MQA by Bob Stuart are most misleading, and what would be a more transparent and moderate way of making these statements in plain english as much as possible. One thought I've had is to begin with a basic article like Crutchfield's ( https://www.crutchfield.com/learn/mqa-high-res-audio-breakthrough.html) and respond to it with more accurate claims and explanations. One of the larger questions, like Archimago's, may be easier to address in time ( "the owl of minerva (wisdom) only takes flight at dusk") Hopefully it will be fortuitous that this is the last session scheduled ?, but my impression is that this could get ugly during Q+A, given the tensions that I think still exist. Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted October 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 3, 2018 4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: My goal is to stay out of the deeply technical weeds. I will touch on some of the stuff such as 18 bits, file sizes, etc... but will mostly look at this from a consumer perspective. Consumers are the audience at the show and the reason for the industry. I will talk to them and provide information they can use. Sounds good Chris... From a "pro" vs. "con" technical perspective, there really would not have been much to say on the "pro" side because Stuart and MQA have essentially disengaged from technical discussions for more than a year! No new information or data to address in support of MQA; not even from the McGill listening study which I believe they supported. Rt66indierock and esldude 2 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
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?" christopher3393, crenca, tmtomh and 3 others 3 3 Link to comment
rickca Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 MQA is like a sandwich. The baloney is somewhere in the middle. MQA is the mystery meat of high res. esldude 1 Pareto Audio AMD 7700 Server --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs i7-6700K/Windows 10 --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's Link to comment
Popular Post FredericV Posted October 4, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 4, 2018 11 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? Thanks. It's all backwards. MQA causes blur instead of solving it. Here's what happens if you repeat those MQA alike filters several times: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/02/musingsmeasurements-on-blurring-and-why.html Currawong, Shadders, mcgillroy and 1 other 2 1 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
lucretius Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 4 hours ago, rickca said: MQA is like a sandwich. The baloney is somewhere in the middle. MQA is the mystery meat of high res. Am I going to need my baloney detection kit? mQa is dead! Link to comment
Fokus Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 14 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Without opening a huge can of worms, I'll ask the question - What do you think consumers should know? They should know, without going into details, that there is a large amount of scientifically-founded critique on MQA's technology and on its alleged usefulness. And this critique comes from, not lab-coats, but people who actually care about sound, about music, about the industry. They should be asked if they really want (to pay for) a locked-in format based on such a technology. But you really don't want to go into technicalities, because that will go in no time down the rabbit hole, losing 99% of the audience in the process. It doesn't matter if it is 18 bits or not. It does not matter if it is lossy, lossless, or 'subjectively lossless'. Jud 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Fokus Posted October 4, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 4, 2018 10 hours ago, christopher3393 said: My own consumer question is: what important statements about MQA by Bob Stuart are most misleading, and what would be a more transparent and moderate way of making these statements in plain english as much as possible.?, but my impression is that this could get ugly during Q+A, given the tensions that I think still exist. I would say the unproven premise that filter ringing is significantly detrimental to subjective audio quality, and that it has to be battled at any cost. And if it is really that important, where are the ear-opening before-after comparison tests and demos? christopher3393, opus101, Rt66indierock and 1 other 3 1 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
Jud Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 5 hours ago, mansr said: 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. 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.”) One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted October 4, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 4, 2018 Wow, had to do a double take this AM. Looks like subjective folks including Hans Beekhuyzen is now claiming that "often the linear phase version sounds the best - at least to my ears" (7:47): Hmmm, minimum phase Meridian / MQA / Ayre / Pono filters on the way out? Is he about to jump on the Chord linear phase 1M tap filter bandwagon? As the world turns ?. lucretius, The Computer Audiophile, MikeyFresh and 1 other 1 2 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
crenca Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 27 minutes ago, Archimago said: Wow, had to do a double take this AM. Looks like subjective folks including Hans Beekhuyzen is now claiming that "often the linear phase version sounds the best - at least to my ears" (7:47): Hmmm, minimum phase Meridian / MQA / Ayre / Pono filters on the way out? Is he about to jump on the Chord linear phase 1M tap filter bandwagon? As the world turns ?. Hans Beekhuyzen?? As the subjectivist turns, or as the "what am I trying to sell you today" turns ? Ralf11 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! 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
lucretius Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 50 minutes ago, crenca said: Hans Beekhuyzen?? Hans Beekhuyzen, John Darko, Srajan Ebaen -- good examples demonstrating the hard of hearing can find employment. Ralf11 1 mQa is dead! Link to comment
Brinkman Ship Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 16 minutes ago, lucretius said: Hans Beekhuyzen, John Darko, Srajan Ebaen -- good examples demonstrating the hard of hearing can find employment. Yes..although I am not sure about Srajan Ebaen. I found him to be incredibly rude and smug, but his sonic description have been rather accurate. Has he written about MQA? 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