Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing The Audiophile Style Podcast

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Number 2 above is great, I believe. A mix of professors and industry experts are needed. The best engineers are frequently in both fields. As engineers like to say, those that can, do, and those that can't, write. The best engineers are hired by the best companies and universities. All good there. 

 

Number 1 is an issue that isn't specific to the AES, but is an issue nonetheless. Without a view into who actually reviewed something, the consumer has no clue about bias, agendas, or even skills of the peer doing the review.

It is all well and good that "peers are industry experts and professors that are aware of standards in their fields and standards for journal publication". Of greater importance, however, is whether they adhere to those standards. While publishing the names of peer reviewers does not necessarily provide a basis for consumers to assess this, it does provide insight into possible biases, etc. that may be relevant.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

It is not a perfect system, by any means, but the anonymity is intended to prevent grudges, rather than helping buddies out. It usually works out OK, but it is very slow. And...it's possible to get scooped.

 

How is AES different from other respected journals that publish the names of peer reviewers without these apparent "grudges" coming into play? If egos are that fragile, perhaps the selection process of these peer reviewers requires re-examination.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Allan F said:

How is AES different from other respected journals that publish the names of peer reviewers without these apparent "grudges" coming into play? If egos are that fragile, perhaps the selection process of these peer reviewers requires re-examination.

OK. first is a conference paper (Batelle paper) - they are usually based on presentations at a conference or a poster and are only peer reviewed before they are accepted (on the abstract sent to the conference - 99% are accepted if they are on topic).

 

The second is a peer reviewed paper - notice the difference in style. Also notice the time from submission to publication - almost a year and that is common since there is always revisions and the paper is reviewed again.

 

With most professional journals, one does not need to be a member to publish in them. If you look at the RS and PC paper, them being mentioned as lifetime members of AES gives me pause - SO WHAT? Why is that ON the paper at all?

 

20456_full.png

Battelle_03MTfinalWDH351.pdf RS_Laccase1996.pdf

Current:  JRiver 26 on Win 10 PC (AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with 32 GB RAM) or Daphile on an AMD A10-5700 with 8 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Amplification - Bow Technologies Wazoo Integrated (great amp - silly name)

Speakers: Wharfedale Linton Heritage - KEF LS50 - ELAC unifi UB5's - Linn Tukans - others......

Cables: Tara Labs RCS Reference speaker cables and DiMarzio Interconnects

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 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


I wonder what happens if one actually started a discussion about MQA here 😀

 

3A020FB0-E0D8-4983-A7A5-D44FEF4DA44C.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Replication of findings is most difficult in the case of audio hardware or software. How can you state with any certainty that amplifier X or cable Y will sound the same when it is transported from one environment to another?

 

In the vast wasteland of audio journalism the only constant is that good recordings sound, well...good and poor recordings sound not so good.  Some audio enthusiasts like  MQA some don’t.  Trust your own ears, no one can help you, not the reviewer, not the salesperson and certainly not the AES.

 

You may spend the equivalent of the GNP of a failed third world state (like Texas) and still not enjoy a poor recording, MQA or not.

In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake ~ Sayre's Law

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

4. (Not above.)  The real check on the value of a report is whether it is replicated.  The most significant and interesting findings are usually replicated because they inspire great interest (or great doubt). 

 

I guess you are referring to seminal works, sometimes called pivotal or landmark studies.  These articles initially presented an idea of great importance or influence within a particular discipline. Seminal articles are referred to time and time again in the research, so you are likely to see these sources frequently cited in other journal articles, books, dissertations, etc.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

Replication of findings is most difficult in the case of audio hardware or software. How can you state with any certainty that amplifier X or cable Y will sound the same when it is transported from one environment to another?

We are talking about the engineering and, perhaps, the science behind audio hardware and software.  In that context, your question is not relevant.  It lies in the area of psychoacoustics.

 

Kal Rubinson

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, lucretius said:

I guess you are referring to seminal works, sometimes called pivotal or landmark studies.  These articles initially presented an idea of great importance or influence within a particular discipline. Seminal articles are referred to time and time again in the research, so you are likely to see these sources frequently cited in other journal articles, books, dissertations, etc.

Certainly those but, also, any non-trivial finding.

Kal Rubinson

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

We are talking about the engineering and, perhaps, the science behind audio hardware and software.  In that context, your question is not relevant.  It lies in the area of psychoacoustics.

 


 

Yes.  I understand.  
 

But with all our engineering and science can we overcome poor recording practices or the quirks of our home environment?
 

 

In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake ~ Sayre's Law

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NOMBEDES said:


 

Yes.  I understand.  
 

But with all our engineering and science can we overcome poor recording practices or the quirks of our home environment?
 

 

 

I think it can but, we need to separate the dust from the diamonds. All we can do is setup the best system/room for the money we can afford. We cannot control what others do but we can understand it and thereby explain what is happening. It is complex but not unexplainable. 

 

Some practices might never change does that mean we need to give up? Probably not.

Current:  JRiver 26 on Win 10 PC (AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with 32 GB RAM) or Daphile on an AMD A10-5700 with 8 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Amplification - Bow Technologies Wazoo Integrated (great amp - silly name)

Speakers: Wharfedale Linton Heritage - KEF LS50 - ELAC unifi UB5's - Linn Tukans - others......

Cables: Tara Labs RCS Reference speaker cables and DiMarzio Interconnects

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...