Bob Stuart launches blog to explain MQA

[asdf1000]

29 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

But you are lucky that dCS is one of only 2 manufacturers that has implemented MQA so that only MQA files - and not other PCM files - are given the MQA filtering treatment. 

 

Very quickly off the top of my head, I can think of PSA DirectStream DAC (with their Bridge 2), Mytek Brooklyn and Manhattan DACs (if you disable MQA in the DAC's menu) and Pro-Ject S2 DAC...

 

[Tintinabulum]

10 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

You have fallen into the trap of believing that "any publicity is good publicity."

 

Ask Boeing if that's true.

Sorry I missed the bit where Bob Stuart accidentally killed someone...

In this case I suspect any is good. Let me know when someone gets hurt.

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

And the point of the ad hominem is what

Just this: Because one desultory and repetitive 576 page thread savaging MQA—a technology that isn't quite the existential threat to this hobby that some make it out to be—is not enough, a new one is launched so that the usual suspects can ring in with their contempt for a guy who has contributed in an important way to the perfectionist audio industry for decades. We're told by one such participant, whose own technical competency is entirely unknown, that Stuart has "no credibility at all" and that his (Stuart's) "experience" is meaningless. The sheer arrogance of this stance is actually comical and thus my sarcastic response.

 

 

 

[Thuaveta]

6 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

As a writer

 

At least, you have both the lucidity and decency not to call yourself a journalist, so you've got that going for you.

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

And the point of the ad hominem is what?

 

Already responded. Sorry.

[ARQuint]

28 minutes ago, Thuaveta said:

 

At least, you have both the lucidity and decency not to call yourself a journalist, so you've got that going for you.

 

Thanks. I'd never call myself a journalist. The term should be reserved for the likes of Edmund R. Murrow, Seymour Hersh, and Jimmy Olson. I'm just not in that league.

[Hifi Bob]

I was appalled, watching BS's video, to see him wantonly weaving technical fact with fiction in an attempt to deceive the general public for his personal gain. (Also his derailing of the scientific process—diverting attention and perhaps funds away from work towards real improvements in sound reproduction.)

 

If the problem had really existed, there would have been articles over the years, in Sound On Sound for example, by recording engineers bemoaning the fact that they were unable to make the recordings that they wanted to. Mastering engineers would have complained that no plug-in in the world was available to correct the blur caused by the ADCs.  ADC manufacturers, audio tech. companies (Philips, Sony, etc.), plug-in writers, academia, would all have pitched in with their thoughts on whether the problem was solvable, or in what time-frame it would be solved, or at what cost.

 

When BS finally announced that the problem had been solved, respected journals, perhaps Scientific American or New Scientist, would have announced the news with articles looking back at the history of the problem, recounting previous unsuccessful attempts to solve it.  BS would have been hailed as a genius, MQA would have been bought immediately by Apple, etc., etc....

 

Of course, none of this actually happened. Back in the real world: BS by name, BS by nature.

 

[John Dyson]

Half-way commenting on the notion of 'Blur' that Hifi Bob brought up (not that he is advocating for it), but as an EE/DSP person, not really an audio person, the 'blur' thing is confounding -- because I know the math and know what filters do.

There are two kinds of 'blurring' of the signal:  low pass filtering, and timing dither.  Both are a kind of 'blur'. Maybe one could even count normal AM and additive noise (like hiss) as blur.  Blur is a new term -- with no defined meaning other than an artistic idea akin to pre-ringing IN MOST CASES.

 

There are some myths in the audio industry -- e.g. pre-ringing (esp on linear phase filters.)  I can understand the confusion, and there IS a difference in sound because of different filter types, but it is NOT ringing per se.  What happens is that when a square wave spectrum is truncated, there is a mathematical artifact called 'Gibbs' phenomenon.  It is NOT ringing, but is a left over residual from missing frequency components of a square wave (or other non-sine wave.)  True square waves are just a very bad case that can cause Gibbs to occur.

About the different filter types causing different sound -- it is all in the timing of when the signal hits the ear/hearing system.  A minimum phase filter has a different frequency vs. time delay than a linear phase filter (for example.)  it might be that a minium phase filters sounds better, and often a minimum (or non-linear) phase filter might be more efficient to implement.

 

However, if one wants to make sure that a waveform stays as similar as it normally can be -- recognizing that Gibbs is NOT ringing, but instead is a LACK of signal -- use a linear phase filter.  Amazing things can be done when using a linear phase filter, while using other kinds of filters can make life more difficult (but use less CPU.)

 

'Blur' is a figment of the imagination (mostly from profiteers and those who were fooled by them.)  Again, there is a KIND of blur, but those are will understood and have been since before audio used digital technology.  A linear phase LPF doesn't have any odd 'blurring' that isn't understood -- but somehow some new kind of 'blur' has started happening.

 

It is a sad state of affairs when someone sells out (or doesn't even know) when espousing such a religious belief as blur.

 

John

[mansr]

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Thanks. I'd never call myself a journalist. The term should be reserved for the likes of Edmund R. Murrow, Seymour Hersh, and Jimmy Olson. I'm just not in that league.

You forgot Lee Scoggins.

[mansr]

4 hours ago, Em2016 said:

I know Meridian were right there very early on in these 2, but were they the absolute first to release these 2, for sure?

Does it even matter? The pieces were all in place, making inevitable the emergence of such products from multiple manufacturers. Being first to market may give a short-term financial boost (not that it helped Meridian, if they were indeed first), nothing more.

[mansr]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

Andrew -

That's really a useless argument. Qualifications don't prove anything, on their own, about the validity of one's pronouncements. Especially when commercial interests are involved. The statements need to be evaluated, not just the source. 

Linus Pauling - a genius and Nobel Prize winner in chemistry - made lots of idiotic and wrong pronouncements about medicine and other fields after winning his prize. 
Lots of medical doctors and academics with PhD's get involved with money making schemes and back what are at most "doubtful" projects with little or no actual utility. And in some cases projects that are harmful to consumers. Their degrees don't make their pronouncements correct or worthy of a  faith based type belief in them. 

 

BS's past doesn't mean anything he says about his MQA money making project is true or should be accepted b/c he says it. The fact is, that neither he nor any other MQA supporter has managed to refute the technical critiques made of MQA here. Instead, they, like you, attack the source of the criticism and not the substance. 

It should be obvious also to you that he does spout a lot of doubtful or even deceptive marketing junk when talking about MQA. One example: Still referring to it as "lossless", which is ,simply put, a lie - unless you qualify it with a word like "perceptually". There are more similar examples that I won't go into here. 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease

[asdf1000]

19 minutes ago, mansr said:

Does it even matter? 

 

Not in the big picture of life... but if someone is claiming they are the 1st, I'm just asking out of general interest... for information only...

[ARQuint]

37 minutes ago, mansr said:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease

 

The "Nobel disease" is a striking phenomenon, for sure. To add to the list in the Wikipedia article, I was recently reading about  Elizabeth Kübler-Ross of Death and Dying fame who late in life was taken in by spirit-channeling / spirit guide charlatans.

 

But are the technical premises of Stuart's current work that off the wall? Is it possible to criticize aspects of MQA (as, say, Paul does) without denigrating the man's  previous accomplishments, his motivations, and his honesty? And is it possible for an audio magazine to have anything not-negative to say about MQA without every word from every writer in that magazine being deemed worthless?

 

I ask as someone who respects your technical chops.

 

Andrew Quint

[John Dyson]

2 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

The "Nobel disease" is a striking phenomenon, for sure. To add to the list in the Wikipedia article, I was recently reading about  Elizabeth Kübler-Ross of Death and Dying fame who late in life was taken in by spirit-channeling / spirit guide charlatans.

 

But are the technical premises of Stuart's current work that off the wall? Is it possible to criticize aspects of MQA (as, say, Paul does) without denigrating the man's  previous accomplishments, his motivations, and his honesty? And is it possible for an audio magazine to have anything not-negative to say about MQA without every word from every writer in that magazine being deemed worthless?

 

I ask as someone who respects your technical chops.

 

Andrew Quint

I try not to be personally judgemental -- there are always personal reasons for doing things.  However, I can EASILY separate previous accomplishments from current mistakes.  Look at Dr. Einstein as an extreme example.

 

I might not like technically unsupportable claims, but I can still respect the person for what they are capable of doing and for previous (and perhaps future) accomplishments.  Personally even, I could still like the person.

Maybe my biggest gripe about technically unsupportable claims is that I don't like it when someone makes a knowingly dishonest claim thereby assuming that we are all fools.  I also don't like it when there is a possibility of money being siphoned from me, or freedom needlessly restricted with a profit motive.

 

John

[Thuaveta]

24 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Is it possible to criticize aspects of MQA (as, say, Paul does) without denigrating the man's  previous accomplishments, his motivations, and his honesty?

 

Without going into the technical stuff (which others are way more qualified to do than I am), the aspects of MQA that the technically-sentient have criticised are foundational to the rest.

 

If MQA's technical claims unquestionably checked out, then there wouldn't be a hint that BS is trying to con anyone, and there would be no attacks on his motivations or his honesty.

 

There's a paradox in your thinking though, which is that if BS was proven to be technically incompetent, then one could think that he's just past his prime, and not actively trying to swindle. Him trying to project authority (something that's reinforced by the Meridian fan / old-buddies-from-the-HiFi press crowd) makes things worse, because it makes it more difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt he'd have if he was just a failed businessman - his technical competence is what makes him go from "somewhat slimy" to "full-on mendacious".

 

24 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

And is it possible for an audio magazine to have anything not-negative to say about MQA without every word from every writer in that magazine being deemed worthless?

 

Well, if there hadn't been about a gazillion claims about magical stones and the extraordinary directional capabilities of cryogenically treated wires before that, maybe...

[Thuaveta]

1 hour ago, Thuaveta said:

Well, if there hadn't been about a gazillion claims about magical stones and the extraordinary directional capabilities of cryogenically treated wires before that, maybe...

 

Oh, but that should be obvious to you, there'd probably be less antagonism towards hifi rag writers if there'd been competent technical reporting on the claims (instead of leaving that to the readership), and if you lot had made real amends, instead of doubling down in defense of the culprit once the technical (un)reality of BS's claims were made public...

[Ski Bum]

6 hours ago, firedog said:

 

But you are lucky that dCS is one of only 2 manufacturers that has implemented MQA so that only MQA files - and not other PCM files - are given the MQA filtering treatment. 

Valid point.  I am grateful that dCS does a great job of providing updates and improvements for its customers.

[Samuel T Cogley]

6 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Just this: Because one desultory and repetitive 576 page thread savaging MQA—a technology that isn't quite the existential threat to this hobby that some make it out to be—is not enough, a new one is launched so that the usual suspects can ring in with their contempt for a guy who has contributed in an important way to the perfectionist audio industry for decades. We're told by one such participant, whose own technical competency is entirely unknown, that Stuart has "no credibility at all" and that his (Stuart's) "experience" is meaningless. The sheer arrogance of this stance is actually comical and thus my sarcastic response.

 

If there is a line between reverence and sycophancy, you're way, way over it.  That you don't seem to care how this affects your credibility shows just how much your particular flavor of audiophilia relies on this nauseating idol worship.  I would never purchase a piece of gear that you reviewed favorably.  No doubt you believe the person who designed/created it is also some kind of messianic figure.

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Blur is a new term -- with no defined meaning other than an artistic idea akin to pre-ringing IN MOST CASES.

 

It's words like "folding"/"fold"/"unfold",  "unwrap", "deblurring"/"blur"/"analogue blur"/"temporal blur"/"time blur", "clarity", etc. that Bob Stuart does not define in his articles targeted at the non-scientific audience.  One supposes that Mr. Stuart expects the audience to assign the ordinary English meanings to these terms, although they clearly do not apply to audio. (When was the last time you folded some audio?)  But these terms were not chosen by accident; they were chosen to give meaning to what is otherwise gibberish contained in the articles.  However, without definitions for these terms, the articles remain gibberish.

[ARQuint]

36 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

If there is a line between reverence and sycophancy, you're way, way over it.  That you don't seem to care how this affects your credibility shows just how much your particular flavor of audiophilia relies on this nauseating idol worship.  I would never purchase a piece of gear that you reviewed favorably.  No doubt you believe the person who designed/created it is also some kind of messianic figure.

 

No, honestly, Samuel, I don't have horse in this race. The only time I've had MQA playback in my own system is when I've had gear to review with that capacity. I've never met Bob Stuart or corresponded with him and I've never owned a Meridian component. But, like most enthusiasts, I've followed the trajectory of Stuart's career over the years and have found much to admire. As you know, my issue is civility. With that in mind, there is another possibility other than "reverence" or "sycophancy"—and that's respect.

Andrew

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

10 hours ago, ARQuint said:

The MQA-related threads at Audiophile Style remain an invaluable repository of informed opinion. Mr. Nuts (my apologies if it's Dr. Nuts) leaves me grasping for words, such is my awestruck admiration. In the context of his thoughtful posting above, we can contrast the engineering qualifications and relevant professional experience of two industry giants and confidently judge the utility of what each has to say. We are truly blessed to have so many beacons of truth selflessly offering their expertise on AS forums as, miraculously, these considered and authoritative opinions are not routinely celebrated elsewhere.

Bob Stuart                                                                                                       Metal Nuts

Education                                                                  

Bachelor's degree in electrical engineering and acoustics                           ?    

Masters degree in Operations Research                           

 

Design/Development Career Highlights

First audiophile CD player (1983)                                                                       ?

First DSP-powered loudspeaker (1990)

First digital surround processor (1994)

Meridian Lossless Packing (2000)

MQA (2014)

 

Professional Awards

 

AES Life Fellow                                                                                                       ?

CEDIA Lifetime Achievement Award (2015)

 

 

Actual name

 

J. Robert ("Bob") Stuart                                                                                         ? *

 

* Metal Nuts may not be his real name

In the short time I have been here this is perhaps the most arrogant, smug, and delusional post I have seen yet.

 

Let's examine these big "accomplishments".

 

-"First" Audiophile CD player-100% totally opinion. It was a partially rebuilt Philips that had no remote, took forever to load, and it, you are not even correct it was not introduced until late 1984 or 1985.

 

-Surround? Don't know, never cared, never paid attention

 

-First DSP Loudspeaker-The market soundly rejected this product. End of story.

 

-MLP-Numerous audio engineers rejected it, refusing to use it for a number of technical reasons. James Guthrie of

Pink Floyd fame is one notable. It died a dead for 2 channel audio soon enough when 24 bit downloads hit the market.

 

-MQA-LOL!!!!!!

 

All equalling losses to the tune of FOURTY MILLION shekels. 😂

 

 

 

 

 

 

even

[Samuel T Cogley]

49 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

No, honestly, Samuel, I don't have horse in this race. The only time I've had MQA playback in my own system is when I've had gear to review with that capacity. I've never met Bob Stuart or corresponded with him and I've never owned a Meridian component. But, like most enthusiasts, I've followed the trajectory of Stuart's career over the years and have found much to admire. As you know, my issue is civility. With that in mind, there is another possibility other than "reverence" or "sycophancy"—and that's respect.

Andrew

 

You can call it whatever you like.   But it is demonstrably the polar opposite of consumer advocacy.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

9 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

You can call it whatever you like.   But it is demonstrably the polar opposite of consumer advocacy.

yes...with an incredibly smug and passive/aggressive defense against a thinly veiled anti-consumer, elitist attitude. 

[firedog]

8 hours ago, Em2016 said:

 

Very quickly off the top of my head, I can think of PSA DirectStream DAC (with their Bridge 2), Mytek Brooklyn and Manhattan DACs (if you disable MQA in the DAC's menu) and Pro-Ject S2 DAC...

 

We are actually agreeing. If you play  back MQA with the MQA filters engaged, the Mytek DACs continue using the MQA filters on all PCM once they are engaged - you have to manually switch out of MQA filtering to make them stop. That's what I'm referring to. Exception is DSD which uses entirely different filters from PCM .
 

Not positive about the Pro-Ject and the  PSA, but I'd be surprised if they are different.

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

In the short time I have been here this is perhaps the most arrogant, smug, and delusional post I have seen yet.

 

Let's examine these big "accomplishments".

 

-"First" Audiophile CD player-100% totally opinion. It was a partially rebuilt Philips that had no remote, took forever to load, and it, you are not even correct it was not introduced until late 1984 or 1985.

 

-Surround? Don't know, never cared, never paid attention

 

-First DSP Loudspeaker-The market soundly rejected this product. End of story.

 

-MLP-Numerous audio engineers rejected it, refusing to use it for a number of technical reasons. James Guthrie of

Pink Floyd fame is one notable. It died a dead for 2 channel audio soon enough when 24 bit downloads hit the market.

 

-MQA-LOL!!!!!!

 

All equalling losses to the tune of FOURTY MILLION shekels. 😂

 

 

Excellent points!

 

The Meridian CD player was a knock-off of the Philips' CD100/CD101 players. Meridian took the shell of Phillip's player and painted it graphite grey. However, the Meridian player's innards were a bit different; the output stages were rebuilt, and the servo and error-correction systems were tinkered with.

 

First DSP Loudspeaker: Yes, the market soundly rejected this product. There lacked a compelling reason to use DSP.