Popular Post jabbr Posted January 5, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 5, 2021 22 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: In the context of how this whole topic started, MQA, it's difficult to replicate the results given the patent application. Also, the MQA AES paper was just a convention paper without any peer review. However, it's usually discussed as an AES Paper, not Convention Paper. Edit: I was directed to the MQA AES Paper by the person I've been exchanging emails with form AES. This came out roughly five years after the Convention Paper - https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=20456 This is a well known "trick" when giving a lecture at a conference, always write up the talk as a paper because when it is published, it will get accepted without much if any real peer review. Don't believe every scientific paper as the gospel truth. If 10% of the papers published in Science and Nature every week were breakthroughs then humanity would be a lot collectively smarter than we are today. The bottom line is that you need to know the biases of the author when reading anything including a published scientific paper. We need independent journalists to keep those biases in check by exposing them. botrytis, sandyk and Solstice380 3 Custom room treatments for headphone users. 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