advertisement


MDAC First Listen (part 00110101)

Status
Not open for further replies.
ChrisPa said:
Concepts that don't meet the current perceived wisdom of "measurable" audible effects
Intellectual property
Click to expand...

I visited John last year and he explained his theory to me. It does amount to IP and I'm certainly not going to breach that confidentiality ( assuming I could adequately explain it anyway, which is doubtful). So I am not at all surprised that he is reluctant to talk about it and that he has mentioned the possibility of a patent.
 
I am also eager to listen to the Detox.

I think that John's stance regarding MQA/ Detox tech info is quite understandable.

Probably most people just really care about how good it sounds.

Some technophiles that have showed great scepticism regarding timing issues in digital audio, highres and now MQA will probably never be convinced anyway. And I think that's fine too if someone thinks redbook is good enough... I just can't understand the level of acrimony.
 
I've just read the whole thing. Grind.... Basically it's a nice paper but all that matters is can mqa audio processed files by identified in blind testing. If they cant is a zero sum score, nothing to see here. If they can be identified then maybe they're better, maybe they aren't. That's up to us to decide.

Easy to prove..
 
sq225917 said:
I've just read the whole thing. Grind.... Basically it's a nice paper but all that matters is can mqa audio processed files by identified in blind testing. If they cant is a zero sum score, nothing to see here. If they can be identified then maybe they're better, maybe they aren't. That's up to us to decide.

Easy to prove..
Click to expand...

Finally a sensible post WRT MQA!
 
sq225917 said:
I've just read the whole thing. Grind.... Basically it's a nice paper but all that matters is can mqa audio processed files by identified in blind testing. If they cant is a zero sum score, nothing to see here. If they can be identified then maybe they're better, maybe they aren't. That's up to us to decide.

Easy to prove..
Click to expand...

If you're in the "I don't mind whether a file is lossy or not, so long as I like the sound" camp, then that makes very good sense. After all blind tests have shown people prefer a decent 320kbps codec to 16/44.1.
 
Some people do prefer mp3 to lossless, when I tried it, I don't. But I can't tell hires from 44.1 in most cases. Only a few really good hires recordings sound any different to 44.1 down res of the same tracks, mostly violin and piano solo pieces.

On most pop music the production is so radio friendly it's not worth wasting time on.
 
adamdea said:
It seems we are agreed. If it can't be distinguished in a blind test there's nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

:) To that we can all agree :)

Dont forget that MQA works on many levels - but for me the most basic is that :-

1. Insures a Bit Perfect link between Host and DAC (I'm sure many systems have non perfect data unknown to the user).

2. Insures the "BEST" available Master - so not an MP3 conversion, Mastered for iTunes, Watermarked or some such - but the VERY best available studio Master.

I can attest from experience that having multiple copy's of recordings each sounding different - with MQA knowing I have the best available Master and Bit Accurate link is the first requirement for highest quality reproduction.

This is before MQA "Studio" mastering is factored.
 
JohnW said:
Django,

Please remand me what is the story with your unit its history and fault?

Ser # will be good - I have about 5 MDAC's waiting for my attention.
Click to expand...

Hi John,

It is the unit with external power supply which you promised to be ready at end of January and after that end of February. Then I havent received any replies to emails. We all know priority of mdac2 but still four months is kind of long time to wait.
 
django,

Please give me more information - what the original fault and what did I promise to do to your unit?
 
Boy do I miss the good old days when designers would explain in rational terms what was new and interesting about their designs, and weren't afraid to share their knowledge.
 
Last year, I had a long useful conversation with John. He clarified something for me, which was very helpful advice.

Whilst speaking to him, he mentioned the Detox. After confirming that I don't work in or have any professional connection with the hi-fi industry, he shared one aspect of the design approach with me. It made sense to me and I appear to be in a long line of people now eagerly anticipating its arrival.

I fully understand why John wouldn't divulge the methods publicly. Firstly, what I heard wasn't conventional - but did make me wonder why someone else hadn't seen it from that angle. To state it would give others enough of a clue to try it themselves and all competitive and 'first mover' advantage would be lost.

And some cannot accept new ideas so readily if it falls outside their sphere of comprehension. That's life.

Let the results speak for themselves. Nothing else matters.
 
Discovery said:
I fully understand why John wouldn't divulge the methods publicly. Firstly, what I heard wasn't conventional - but did make me wonder why someone else hadn't seen it from that angle. To state it would give others enough of a clue to do it themselves and all competitive and 'first mover' advantage would be lost.
Click to expand...

There is a whole patent and intellectual property protection system in place to deal with that dilemma.
 
Julf said:
There is a whole patent and intellectual property protection system in place to deal with that dilemma.
Click to expand...

That might work in the west, even that is debatable. You forget that John has experience of working in China.....your Finnish and technically honourable way of thinking doesn't apply everywhere.
 
JohnW said:
:) To that we can all agree :)

Dont forget that MQA works on many levels - but for me the most basic is that :-

1. Insures a Bit Perfect link between Host and DAC (I'm sure many systems have non perfect data unknown to the user).

2. Insures the "BEST" available Master - so not an MP3 conversion, Mastered for iTunes, Watermarked or some such - but the VERY best available studio Master.

I can attest from experience that having multiple copy's of recordings each sounding different - with MQA knowing I have the best available Master and Bit Accurate link is the first requirement for highest quality reproduction.

This is before MQA "Studio" mastering is factored.
Click to expand...

1. It is absolutely NOT bit perfect from the 24/192 or 24/96 studio master to the user. No way. It is a lossy process. No one disputes that.

2. How exactly does the MQA process ensure the BEST available master? Using MQA guarantees you will NOT get the master, because it is a lossy process. And there is absolutely no guarantee in the process that it begins with the best available master in any case. It's whatever the record company happen to find or cares to use. Indeed MQA, in their pitch to record companies, explicitly state that an advantage of the process is that it does not distribute the "crown jewels" of the master to the public.

But I agree MQA works on many levels. Level 1: Obfuscation, Level 2: Hype, Level 3: Marketing bullsh*t, Level 4: Hand waving, Level 5: the secret brotherhood, Level 6: temporal deblurring.
 
AndyU said:
1. It is absolutely NOT bit perfect from the 24/192 or 24/96 studio master to the user. No way. It is a lossy process. No one disputes that.

2. How exactly does the MQA process ensure the BEST available master? Using MQA guarantees you will NOT get the master, because it is a lossy process. And there is absolutely no guarantee in the process that it begins with the best available master in any case. It's whatever the record company happen to find or cares to use. Indeed MQA, in their pitch to record companies, explicitly state that an advantage of the process is that it does not distribute the "crown jewels" of the master to the public.

But I agree MQA works on many levels. Level 1: Obfuscation, Level 2: Hype, Level 3: Marketing bullsh*t, Level 4: Hand waving, Level 5: the secret brotherhood, Level 6: temporal deblurring.
Click to expand...

Andy,

I'm going to mentally block any post from yourselves concering MQA as they are not constructive. We are all waiting to hear the results of MQA Studio Masters (and I'm sure many are hoping for the best) - I have test tracks but with no reference to anything so they are not much help in such discussions - but they do sound good.

I. Bit Accurate Link - for MQA decoding to work the interface has to be Bit accurate. Many Many systems are not bit accurate - so establishing this link is important.

2. The MQA encoding process claims to be optimised for sound quality based upon the general unhappiness with Digital reproduction against Analogue sources. I PERSONALLY share this unhappiness and am lucky enough to have working experience in Studios to hear direct A/B comparisons, so I'm keen and hoping for the best from MQA. The little information that I'm privy to does give me hope... Atleast we will have an optimised solution on MDAC2 so WE can decide for ourselves.

I dont care about final bit death, final sampling rate (although I'm very happy with Native DSD) - I do care that my system sounds "natural" and unfatiguing like a good analogue system (and as with DSD).

I'm giving MQA a best chance - that is all, so please kindly take your issues somewhere else, nobody is forcing MQA onto you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top