advertisement


MDAC First Listen (part 00110101)

Status
Not open for further replies.
AndyU said:
So it's a big secret that only insiders like you are privileged to understand and the only choice us poor punters have is to be "believers" because if we don't "believe" you (without any evidence, argument, explanation or demonstration) then that "proves" we are not worthy and not trusted and can't be allowed into the special inner circle of "believers" that make personal visits.

I think not.
Click to expand...

PRIME EXAMPLE - because I cannot be bothered to get involved in such posts!!!!

PLEASE NOTE, I'm not asking ANYONE to believe anything - as I'm not claiming anything... and I'll not be pressed to claim anything :)

I have designs that incorporate my own ideas and developments, people like the results or not...

When I finally (my bad) get Detox shipped, then its available for "public" peer review :) by Detox owners using there own ears!!! I develop my designs for music not for technophile slagging matches...
 
JohnW said:
For the few that have visited me, I have opened up the principles behind Detox etc.

I dont feel its my job to "convince" non believers - for one thing I know for sure is that most people are not receptive to ideas different to there own fundamental beliefs - so I don't try to push my own :)
Click to expand...
I think the principles behind the "detox" (still don't fancy the name!) are good solid engineering that can be measured and don't "break math" and I assume it would be fair to publish them with the release of the box or some time after.

I don't know where this entire discussion / MQA feature is going, but I think it's very important to keep solid ground under the feet. A principle that cannot be tested and relies only on subjective evaluation or, even worse, a long-term process which relies only on subjective evaluation to advance forward, will eventually spiral out of the realm of science and into the realm of religion.
I still trust (hope) that whatever principles you hold dear exhibit some long-term measurement stability, that a certain concept has some engineering consistency and doesn't jump from one theory to another depending on what sounds better. That whatever you have in mind can eventually be described mathematically without travelling to a different universe.
 
jirij said:
I think the principles behind the "detox" (still don't fancy the name!) are good solid engineering that can be measured and don't "break math" and I assume it would be fair to publish them with the release of the box or some time after.

I don't know where this entire discussion / MQA feature is going, but I think it's very important to keep solid ground under the feet. A principle that cannot be tested and relies only on subjective evaluation or, even worse, a long-term process which relies only on subjective evaluation to advance forward, will eventually spiral out of the realm of science and into the realm of religion.
I still trust (hope) that whatever principles you hold dear exhibit some long-term measurement stability, that a certain concept has some engineering consistency and doesn't jump from one theory to another depending on what sounds better. That whatever you have in mind can eventually be described mathematically without travelling to a different universe.
Click to expand...

Sadly thats pure naivety I'm afraid because no matter how much evidence you present people just fight back to support there own corner so I'm not interested in opening that door.

Also, absolutely no way I will talk about the underlying principles of Detox because within 6 months you would have a host of products of all colours using the technique and claiming as there "own" invention..

I'm still considering Patenting the idea - possible before Detox is released to the public but time is rapidly running out, last night I tested "MKII" of the circuit to be used in MDAC2... a simpler yet more effective circuit...

Only if we ware able to integrate the idea and sell as silicon can I see me publishing a "White Paper"...

Also the more time I spend working and listening in the lab the more I firm up my understanding...

You never know, maybe MQA might beat me to it with public release "IF" indeed we are working on similar principles (well one small but important aspect of MQA).
 
I asked a simple question. What is "temporal deblurring"? Instead of answering, JohnW has said he "cannot be bothered to get involved in such posts". Why? What is so difficult about answering a simple question?
 
AndyU said:
I asked a simple question. What is "temporal deblurring"? Instead of answering, JohnW has said he "cannot be bothered to get involved in such posts". Why? What is so difficult about answering a simple question?
Click to expand...

Concepts that don't meet the current perceived wisdom of "measurable" audible effects
Intellectual property
 
giannitom said:
Hi John,
if the Detox is not very useful with the MDAC2/FDAC I'm no more intereseted in it. So I can pass my position to others or, even better, move the detox installment to MDAC2/FDAC.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I missed it, but I have not seen any post which would suggest that the Detox will not improve connection into the MDAC2 or the FDAC.

As I understand it, the Detox will do a similar job to my Regen(s), but probably better, which is why I am in on this. The Regens do a very good job of cleaning up the USB signal coming into my MDAC (so long as they are LPS powered).

Just like the arrangement for the MDAC2 etc., the initial payment (£50? £100?, don't remember which) was to help cover John's development costs, so I don't see that there would be anything to "move" over.
 
AndyU said:
I asked a simple question. What is "temporal deblurring"? Instead of answering, JohnW has said he "cannot be bothered to get involved in such posts". Why? What is so difficult about answering a simple question?
Click to expand...

Andy,

Sorry if I come across as rather harsh, but I have no confidence that my ideas and developments would not create a flood of non-constructive, argumentative posts that I have no desire to seed.

I would very much like to speak about my R&D with like minded people – but sadly it’s the nature of public forums to be a counter productive environment – its why I wish I had time to speak personally with Bob during my recent visit…

Also, there is fundamental IP that I'd like to protect until I understand my next steps.
 
AndyU said:
I asked a simple question. What is "temporal deblurring"? Instead of answering, JohnW has said he "cannot be bothered to get involved in such posts". Why? What is so difficult about answering a simple question?
Click to expand...

I think it emerges fairly clearly from this morning's exchange that Bob Stuart has not told John what the MQA 'temporal deblurring' is.

I suspect it has something to do with an approach to filter design. It's rather dispiriting that John isn't even able to commit to a statement as general as this, and it does just add to the whole aura of entirely unnecessary mystery surrounding MQA.
 
mattgbell said:
I think it emerges fairly clearly from this morning's exchange that Bob Stuart has not told John what the MQA 'temporal deblurring' is.
Click to expand...

Clues have been published (and words spoken in meetings with Bob) for those who have worked on similier lines and can read between the lines...

Its often in meetings between two "new" party's where IP protection is involved not to spell out the full details (as the legal overlords watch) but each party understands what's not being said by a few "choice" words...
 
JohnW said:
Just an awful paper - if I where Bob I'd be rather upset.

So typically Germany - just full of "technical" Analysis, but NO attempt to listen or try and understand whats wrong with PCM digital - he REALLY misunderstands the engineering behind MQA.
Click to expand...
Well, it certainly disagrees with some of the MQA arguments, but where does it misunderstand them? I don;t understand how there is anything in MQA which could not be expressed in ordinary pcm of a certain bandwidth; after all it is still basically a form of pcm isn't it? So the question remains what is the equivalent bitrate of pcm? Isn't it basically 24/96 including some aliased information when reduced from 24/192? I accept that there is an ambiguity in the documentation as to whether there might be a second set of stacked bits representing the 48-96khz band (or some of it) or whether its just recovered from the aliasing in the 24-48 zone but I was under the impression that it was the latter from the recent noise on CA.

Given the effective bitdepth then we basically have noise shaped 18/96 or maybe 16/96. Whatever deblurring there is could surely be applied to ordinary flac files without the need for a secret system. Ultimately the sample rate is still limited well below dsd isn't it?
 
Can someone cleverer than me, and who is part of the privileged secret inner circle correct the following understanding of MQA.

You start with a 24/192 file. It goes through some MQA processing. You get less than the original 24/192 file back. So compared to the master you have lost something. You might, if you know what the original ADC was, (and there was only one in the chain), be able to ameliorate some of the effects of that ADC and of your DAC by a process that no one will explain called "temporal deblurring". But even supposing that those of us outside the privileged inner circle accept that "temporal deblurring" is a valid construct, why can't this process be applied to the original 24/192 file, rather than some lossy down sampled reconstruction of it?
 
AndyU said:
Can someone cleverer than me, and who is part of the privileged secret inner circle correct the following understanding of MQA.

You start with a 24/192 file. It goes through some MQA processing. You get less than the original 24/192 file back. So compared to the master you have lost something. You might, if you know what the original ADC was, (and there was only one in the chain), be able to ameliorate some of the effects of that ADC and of your DAC by a process that no one will explain called "temporal deblurring". But even supposing that those of us outside the privileged inner circle accept that "temporal deblurring" is a valid construct, why can't this process be applied to the original 24/192 file, rather than some lossy down sampled reconstruction of it?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's pretty much the question I'm asking too (with a slight variant on taking the 24/96)
 
AndyU said:
Can someone cleverer than me, and who is part of the privileged secret inner circle correct the following understanding of MQA.

You start with a 24/192 file. It goes through some MQA processing. You get less than the original 24/192 file back. So compared to the master you have lost something. You might, if you know what the original ADC was, (and there was only one in the chain), be able to ameliorate some of the effects of that ADC and of your DAC by a process that no one will explain called "temporal deblurring". But even supposing that those of us outside the privileged inner circle accept that "temporal deblurring" is a valid construct, why can't this process be applied to the original 24/192 file, rather than some lossy down sampled reconstruction of it?
Click to expand...

I'll ignore the first line as it totally non constitutive.

I'm in no position to speak for MQA, but I believe MQA's stance is something like this:-

Well for many, Turntable and Master Tape sounds sonically superior to the human auditory system then PCM 192KHz so MQA has concentrated on the Time Domain. There are "hidden" methods that can be applied that can help mitigate inherent TD limitations due to a systems bandwidth restrictions etc.

The MQA rendering operates at least x8 (352.8KHz / 384KHz) and the faster the better. You DONT get the full effectiveness of MQA without the MQA render block.
 
JohnW said:
I'll ignore the first line as it totally non constitutive.

I'm in no position to speak for MQA, but I believe MQA's stance is something like this:-

Well Turntable and Master Tape for many sounds sonic superior to the human auditory system then PCM 192KHz so MQA has concentrated on the Time Domain. There are "hidden" methods that can be applied that can help mitigate inherent TD limitations due to a systems bandwidth restrictions etc.

The MQA rendering operates at least x8 (352.8KHz / 384KHz) and the faster the better. You DONT get the full effectiveness of MQA without the MQA render block.
Click to expand...
But the questions is- why not just apply them [the hidden methods] in/to ordinary pcm?
 
Cos they can't package and sell you that. This is about licence revenue protection, not the free and open improvement of pcm for all. I'm ok with that. People will pick the good bits apart and apply elsewhere.

If it can genuinely remove the adverse effects of the a to d process in the dac then that's great. But there's no reason why music producers couldn't list the digital devices and settings in the recording chain so that any dac manufacturer could implement a range of restorative filters.

I'm looking forward to the Detox greatly and can well understand johns reticence to get involved in fights about other manufacturers tech, whether he's implementing them or not.
 
JohnW said:
Sadly thats pure naivety I'm afraid because no matter how much evidence you present people just fight back to support there own corner so I'm not interested in opening that door.

Also, absolutely no way I will talk about the underlying principles of Detox because within 6 months you would have a host of products of all colours using the technique and claiming as there "own" invention..

I'm still considering Patenting the idea - possible before Detox is released to the public but time is rapidly running out, last night I tested "MKII" of the circuit to be used in MDAC2... a simpler yet more effective circuit...

Only if we ware able to integrate the idea and sell as silicon can I see me publishing a "White Paper"...

Also the more time I spend working and listening in the lab the more I firm up my understanding...

You never know, maybe MQA might beat me to it with public release "IF" indeed we are working on similar principles (well one small but important aspect of MQA).
Click to expand...

That's your answer to question "what is temporal deblurring?" ??? You are very fast losing my support...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top