MQA The Truth lies Somewhere in the Middle

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, adamdea said:

And the gap is because they were conventionally brickwalled at 20 kHz or so when originally produced? 

Exactly.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, lucretius said:

A Chinese Wall seems unreasonable.  JA would have to refrain from picking up Stereophile for fear of discovering the advertisers and he'd have to refrain from talking to folks in the industry for fear they may be advertisers, and he'd have to refrain from talking to subscribers and "audiophiles", etc. This is absurd.

That's why third-party ad brokers, like Google, are a good idea.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Except they don’t pay enough to eat at the soup kitchen. 

The idea is still good. If the advertisers don't have control over where their ads are displayed, there is no incentive to please them.

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Ok so to summarise these tracks tell us 

- that MQA master tracks may only be upsampled 44.1

A lot of MQA tracks are made from 44.1/48 kHz masters. When I checked over 100 tracks on Tidal last year, nearly were thus.

 

5 minutes ago, adamdea said:

- that the upsampling is quasi noise with little or no filtering of images

Right.

 

5 minutes ago, adamdea said:

-(semble) in these instances there is no deblurring of the 44.1 files as the impulse response of the original anti alias filter at 20-22 kHz is undisturbed (or has it been apodised and replaced with a minimum phase brick wall?) 

That's impossible to tell without access to the original.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If it only worked that way. Advertisers can target specific phone numbers / people, zip codes etc...

This is targeting an audience, regardless of which pages they are visiting. Does Google allow advertisers to blacklist specific sites?

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, lucretius said:

I do not follow.  Where the ads are displayed is of fundamental importance.

The broker chooses when to show your ad based on your indicated target demographic. If I slip up with cookie blocking, I quickly start seeing ads for obscure Analog Devices components on totally unrelated sites.

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

My fundamental instruction to would-be writers: don't write what you don't know.

Please post that in your office in 18-inch type. We can call it "the writing on the wall."

[mansr]

14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Oh yes. 

What's in it for them? Anyway, the concept with that feature removed would eliminate some incentives to write favourable reviews, and that would be a good thing.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

Ridiculous to request that Marjorie Baumert apologize to CC. None of this is on her.

Although it's not her fault, she should still make it clear that such behaviour is unacceptable at her events. There is nothing remotely controversial about this. Has anyone made sure she is aware of what happened?

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

Isn’t she voluntarily hosting RMAF?

How is that relevant?

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

He's dead. Ancient history. He also hated the idea of large phones, small tablets, and laughed all the way to the bank, listening to CDs and LPs, while selling lossy slop from his iTunes store.

While I am no fan of Apple, they have done a few good deeds. Apart from being the major force in ridding music downloads of DRM, they also brought about the demise of Adobe/Macromedia Flash in favour of open standards. It is a very weird company.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is all MQA. You can buy the original PCM as 24/44.1 from HDtracks. That’s the resolution of the recording. MQA is adding the noise and decoding it to 88.2. 

And increasing the file size in the process. Oh, and reducing the bit depth.

[mansr]

4 hours ago, Fokus said:

MQA has the capability of passing a 2x file through a 1x channel more or less unscathed. This has been proven, no-one tries to deny that.

This is done at the expense of some bit depth. Guess what determines the time resolution of a sampled signal. That's right, it's the bit depth.

[mansr]

4 hours ago, adamdea said:

Why is it that I never read articles about the “time blur” at audible frequencies caused by mininum phase filters?

I had to write one myself: https://troll-audio.com/articles/linear-and-minimum-phase/

[mansr]

26 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

Lucey was banned for being a complete asshole, not for his views on MQA or any other subject.

He was provoked and responded by getting nasty. Both sides were guilty there.

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Perhaps you can fill me in on what you meant by “accuracy” in that sentence?

I think he means "MQA".

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

This is from 2015, but Craven was hammering on this as early as 2004. It is the log(magnitude) of a channel's impulse response versus time.

It bears mentioning that nobody besides MQA has ever used such a plot. It provides no useful information.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Fokus said:

You mean "nobody besides the people who are now MQA".

Right, Stuart and his pals were using it also before the name MQA was dreamt up. The important thing is that this graph has only ever been used by a handful of people when promoting the thing now known as MQA. It is a meaningless plot designed to look scary to those who lack the requisite knowledge to see it for what it really is.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Thuaveta said:

I'm sorry to go below the belt with this one, but I'm starting to understand why South Africa barred McKinsey.

Below the equator, you mean.

[mansr]

Just now, Lee Scoggins said:

Chris, what claims did you find could not be supported?

All of them, without exception.

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

I thought you were at the RMAF presentation at issue in ths thread?

I think you got the words jumbled a bit there. Should be "I thought you were the issue at the RMAF presentation discussed in this thread."

[mansr]

1 minute ago, rickca said:

Let's say I work for a consulting firm on an engagement for the record labels or MQA itself.  Could I then state that I have no financial interest in MQA and that I'm just an enthusiast?  

Legally, yes, unless under oath in court or a congressional hearing. It is, however, against the rules of this forum.

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

Did they ever answer why that LED behaves as it actually does?

No, but I know the reason. It's so they can chop off the low 8 bits, put the file on a CD, and still have the indicator light up. Apparently it's too much effort to create a 16-bit version with a different signature.

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

It wasn't understandable

Actually, it is. They tried lies. They tried bullshitting. Nothing worked. All that remains is shutting down the critics by any means available. Hopefully it's a sign of desperation from a company on its last legs. Don't break out the champagne yet, though. They are still very much alive.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

You were cheated due to the specific actions of 3 or 4 people in the room that day who behaved in a completely unacceptable, unprofessional, and disrespectful way.

And yet he is defending those very people.