Jump to content

Lee Scoggins

  • Content Count

    530
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lee Scoggins

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Atlanta

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think the LEDR test methodology may reveal some information on this topic, Jud.
  2. Best of both worlds maybe? I will say this, I appreciate your creativity at the approach, it seems like two channels would facilitate an understanding of what the deblurring filters do.
  3. I believe there is an AES standard or research that suggests a certain number of seconds is good for aural.memory. Maybe you could break tracks into short cuts that are played sequentially...?
  4. Aren't you inherently losing the imaging information by reducing to a single channel? That would seem to be a major flaw in the approach.
  5. No. That would be difficult to get evidence for since it is a change in behavior in the future. But the label people I have spoken to recognize that paying the artists more is required for the system to be healthy.
  6. All I have heard is that MQA is in discussions with streaming services.
  7. They usually release white papers at AES meetings.
  8. This is the issue that MQA is trying to solve which is, "how do we get better sound if only a very small number are interested in high resolution digital?" Agree or not, MQA's answer is to create a distribution approach that piggybacks it on popular streaming services. If you give the customer easier access to hirez, you may get more fans of it. And in the process you provide a way for the studios and labels to offer hirez and get more dollars for the artist by offering a premium tier.
  9. Paul, I talked to two different streaming services executives and they told me that the size of the file does matter and they do have issues at scale. So it's hard for me to take your word for it based on this research. As for what the MQA team should do, they did share a lot of information with Chris from Day 1 including the lengthy Q&A from Bob Stuart. But they feel there is not a fair debate to be had on this forum so they are ignoring it.
  10. The only "temper tantrum" Paul was Derek pounding on the desk and Chris getting flustered and leaving. Mike and Ken were pretty civil and stuck around to answer questions after Chris left and also after the seminar ended with Steve. You really shouldn't make assumptions about the event if you were not there.
  11. This is an analogy that is too simple and misleading. You cannot look at this solely on an individual consumer's experience and make the claim when the whole thing is about distributing music at scale. Running a streaming service requires lots of bandwidth and lots of storage. While individually both are cheap, there are many issues that these services face at the vast scales they work in. Look at amazon or netflix. Many times the video will stutter at night when bandwidth is heaviest. As for downloads, Qobuz hangs up on me all the time although I have fiber-optic speed. 24/192 I think requires around 9 mbps download speeds. It's provable that many areas in the country don't have that. As long as these problems persist, you cannot argue that file size compression is an idea whose time "has come and gone."
  12. This really an accurate description of what happened at all Chris. In talking to Ken and Mike, they were frustrated that your slides were so one-sided and ignored the materials that they had sent you that addressed the points you were making. And as my ignored response showed, there were valid counterpoints to almost every slide. If you had been more objective and presented both sides, then said, "I believe this side, because..." then you would have been more credible, even if you chose the anti-MQA viewpoint. Instead the slides (as I detail herein) did not address many of the counterpoints. That frustrated Ken and Mike and understandably so.
  13. This is a good summary in many ways, but how do you explain when people like Peter McGrath and I who both have a background in recording acoustic music hear the MQA improvements in a straight comparison where the MQA filters are turned off so it's an apples to apples comparison? In other words, couldn't Bob's filter actually be improving the aspects of the performance & recording that are more important than the tradeoffs of things like aliasing? Bob has mentioned in the past that the timing elements are far more important based on published perceptual studies. He seems to be making a conscious decision here on priority. And finally, how do we know that the bits that Bob's algorithm is not using are audible at all? It seems very low level noise so arguably nothing is lost. So you have a technically lossy algorithm that captures all of the music but still has the benefits of the timing improvements.
  14. Where is there evidence that an MQA customer can hear the difference between the original hirez file and the MQA file played back fully unfolded? So far we are seeing a difference chart where much of the frequency range is -150db. That would be inaudible. Also, the file size is one quarter of the corresponding hirez file. At scale, that is a significant improvement in both storage cost and bandwidth savings. As for deblurring filters, I tend to lean to Bob Stuart on that point. His main area of study was human perception of audio phenomena. Secondly, the description of what the filter does also matches my listening experience of Peter's demo files and others.
  15. 1. Most audiophiles want better sound quality than what the masses want. So your point about how happy most consumers are with shitty sound, combined with recent history of DVD-Audio and SACD, suggests that MQA's approach to piggy-back on streaming tiers is a good idea. 2. I am still studying how the deblurring works so more on that to come later. 3. In terms of the business model, I am evaluating MQA here as a going concern, not from the perspective of the consumer. My best guess is that MQA simply needs a major streaming service to sign on to become profitable. I can see this happening but it's unclear what the odds are. MQA is signing up partners pretty quickly and the labels have tested and approved the technology so I think thing look pretty good but probably best to wait and see on that.
×
×
  • Create New...