MQA fracas at RMAF 2018

[Tin]

---------------------
I have however given you plenty of opportunities to walk away from this discussion unharmed.
-----------------------
That sounds like some kind of a threat of harm. Would you care to elucidate you intentions?

What I meant, is that I mentioned several times that your DAC may be worse at playing back non-MQA material, giving justice to your observations, and giving you an opening to walk away unharmed.
When reading back you will notice that I -never- questioned your observations themselves, but that I have, and do, the circumstances how you came to your conclusions.
MQA is designed to sound 'nice' instead of faithful, and MQA-DACs hand out penalties when playing back non-MQA source material.
Accepting this would give justice to your observations, you just have to accept that you were conned by MQA, just like a zillion other people.
You remember that Sunbeamgls mentioned that he attended a MQA presentation where MQA got a 6dB headstart? Those marketing boys do know their jobs.

which was cleverly conflated with Brussels beurocracy by your demagogues like Farage and Johnson.

As to you trying to tie me to Trump, thats quite not true. Always been a Trump hater and always will be. Got my resisT bumper sticker on my car and my money supporting Dems on the midterms.

Once again, I'm not British, but we agree on the subject.

I also share your sentiments about Trump, but you will have to accept that you have been using the same tactics whenever you feel attacked.
You have been calling me an Open Source Zealot, and worse.
I'm not religious, not even with Open Source, but I do defend my interests. And no, once again, that has nothing to do with threats.

Your first instinct when I mentioned 'unharmed' was to reference it to me attacking you while I offered you a chance, several actually, to keep your dignity about your observations.
You do this a lot.

Just accept that you've been conned by MQA. Approx. 50% of the British people have been conned by Farage and Brexit, and likewise another 50% have been conned by the GOP. Or those conned themselves. Anyway, let's keep politics out of this discussion from here on.

The point is, that there is nothing wrong with admitting you've been conned. It's what the marketing guys have been spending a lot of effort in, and they just got you. It happens.
But you, being an engineer, should be able to accept facts when presented to you. By 'holding' your ground, you've damaged yourself, and your Trump like behavior has damaged yourself too.

All the facts we presented are showing that MQA is a solving a non existent problem in this time and age, and doing it in a way that is not doing the consumer a favour.
You should be able to recognise this.[/QUOTE]

 

[sls4321]

I owned and sold N50 years ago now...it was alright at the time.

Many firmware based DACs/Streamers can be software updated to MQA decoding or rendering. PS Audio did this recently with their Bridge, though Paul McGowan is not an MQA fan - he compared its house sound to "tunnel vision". I would be interested in their big DAC - seems to be an excellent product, but it is VERY pricey, at least for me.

MQA lack of profit is their business.

I had a PWD Mk2 DAC. It was very good but the £800 MDAC+ was just as good and it was £2,500 to upgrade to a PS Audio DS DAC.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Pre-ringing due to in band equalisation has nothing to do with the postulated pre-ringing from ADC anti-alias filtering, that MQA claim to remove. If the producer chose to use an extreme filter, which caused pre-ringing as in the Audiomasterclass samples, it is there in the master and cannot be isolated and removed.

One of the purposes of using a high sample rate is that the details of the ADC/process/DAC filters tend to be irrelevant once they get beyond being competent. The reason being that the actual band limitiation will be applied before you get to the ADC and/or after the DAC. People seem to consistently forget and ingnore the fact that the most real-world audio comes via microphones, etc. Less obvious is that the strike of percussive sources isn't a discontinuity, either. Real materials have elastic responses, etc.

I guess, though, this blind-spot is a testament to the difficulty of finding reliable data on things like the >= 20kHz response of studio mics or domestic speakers.

 

[Shadders]

My point is your statement "CDs dont have ringing", as a blanket assertion, is not true. A CD made in 1988, with first generation brickwall most certainly does. CDs made today with high quality digital equipment and attention to amount of processing done probably dont. CDs done with heavy use of equalizers probably do. CDs done witj a minimalist cardioid mike direct to digital probably dont. Ringing is an artefact of filtration, so its a fact of life. It can be even used to "enhance" sound, if that is one's intention. Here is an audio demonstration, with your preferred linear phase filter, and an explanation about linear phase filter pre-ringing from an EQ software maker:

https://www.audiomasterclass.com/ne...se-eq-on-transient-signals-such-as-snare-drum

https://cravedsp.com/blog/linear-phase-eq-explained

Its silly to deny this phenomenon exists...yet you continue to do so.

The reason that you do - I think - is that it is simply a vehicle for anti-MQA criticism. Since MQA claims A (deblurring is beneficial), you will claim that the need for A doesnt exist (blurring isnt real), so you can declare MQA to be a "scam." There is a proper name for tjis logical falacy, but my education omitted formal debate courses.

As for criticism of MQA, much of it is conjecture, by definition, since system is unknown. It is proper to criticize them for maintaining it as a trade secret. But criticising them for what may or may not be in the system is, by definition conjecture and another form of logical falacy.

This debate is, however, is not new in the audiophile world, at least not philosophically. Many times technical sides of audio products are either proprietary or their methods of operation and supposed benefits are in general dispute, so conclusions cant be reached in an engineering analysis and testing.

In those cases, consensus is usually reached through the process of listening, reviewing and market forces, as in any artistic field. You may find this process messy and imprecise, but it is very informative. For example, many years ago i was at an audio salon, when a fellow audiophile complained about the sound of then new Audio Research Reference something or other. In order to express his dismay at the change of the AR sound, all he had to say was -"they made it sound like a Conrad!" - and everyone understood his complaint as well as his sound preference. You just can't beat the human ear...

Hi,
You persistently make false statements about what has been stated by others.

I have stated that a correctly mastered CD will not have ringing. I have stated that a filter that does not process energy at the filters cut off frequency does not ring. These are facts. You are making false statements about what has been stated by others, to create a false argument.

Please provide the evidence where a CD has ringing. (specific artist, album, date of pressing).

No one has refuted that dispersion (blur) exists - it is a known scientific effect. Linear phase filters do not cause dispersion across the passband where MQA claims that it does. MQA minimum phase filters do cause dispersion. So the MQA Ltd statement that MQA does not cause dispersion is a false statement. This is provable fact.

All criticisms of MQA as per the Xivero paper are based on fact. Although some parts of MQA are unknown, it has been reverse engineered, and the filter set is known (coefficients). The only aspect which is not known is the audio codec, which has not been commented upon by me. What we do know about the codec is that it is lossy, whereas MQA originally claimed it was lossless - a scam statement by MQA.

Regards,
Shadders.

 

[Tin]

People seem to consistently forget and ingnore the fact that the most real-world audio comes via microphones, etc. Less obvious is that the strike of percussive sources isn't a discontinuity, either. Real materials have elastic responses, etc.

You may be wrong with this assumption, as a significant amount of music is being produced electronically in the first place.
The net effect is that there is even less need to 'fix' something.
I have some very young coworkers, who listen to music that clearly shows my age, although I'm a bit younger than you. I even have to admit that some of it is actually pretty good.

I think that, taste aside, most people will recognise that music from Daft Punk shouldn't be 'fixed' by MQA, that will always have a strong averse effect.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

You may be wrong with this assumption, as a significant amount of music is being produced electronically in the first place.

Yes. And as per your comments, 'comes as it is'... The main problem if it has an abrupt step will probably be for your loudspeakers... Probably wise not to dwell too long thinking what it might do to a lathe cutting an LP. 8-]

 

[DimitryZ]

Pre-ringing due to in band equalisation has nothing to do with the postulated pre-ringing from ADC anti-alias filtering, that MQA claim to remove. If the producer chose to use an extreme filter, which caused pre-ringing as in the Audiomasterclass samples, it is there in the master and cannot be isolated and removed.

Thats is again your conjecture, now using two things you dont know about - prevalence and effects of equalization in music production (common sense however would strongly suggest substantial) and MQA approach to mitigating it.

I have an audiophile friend, who also records a lot of music using purist tecording technique. He tells me that his initial file sounds great, but are audibility degraded witj every stage of his workflow.

 

[davidsrsb]

You are clutching at straws.
MQA make no claims about mitigating in band audio equalisation and it is not possible in the multitrack workflow where instruments and vocals will be equalised before final mixing.
I hope that a purist eg binaural recording, will have the minimum of equalisation and other effects or you have just thrown away the whole point of doing it.

For MQA to manage to "improve" the phase response of a purist recording, they would have to somehow discover the phase characteristics. This is likely to change during the track - everything is compressed for a start. As there are no reference test tones, this is an almost impossible task.

 

[DimitryZ]

What I meant, is that I mentioned several times that your DAC may be worse at playing back non-MQA material, giving justice to your observations, and giving you an opening to walk away unharmed.
When reading back you will notice that I -never- questioned your observations themselves, but that I have, and do, the circumstances how you came to your conclusions.
MQA is designed to sound 'nice' instead of faithful, and MQA-DACs hand out penalties when playing back non-MQA source material.
Accepting this would give justice to your observations, you just have to accept that you were conned by MQA, just like a zillion other people.
You remember that Sunbeamgls mentioned that he attended a MQA presentation where MQA got a 6dB headstart? Those marketing boys do know their jobs.



Once again, I'm not British, but we agree on the subject.

I also share your sentiments about Trump, but you will have to accept that you have been using the same tactics whenever you feel attacked.
You have been calling me an Open Source Zealot, and worse.
I'm not religious, not even with Open Source, but I do defend my interests. And no, once again, that has nothing to do with threats.

Your first instinct when I mentioned 'unharmed' was to reference it to me attacking you while I offered you a chance, several actually, to keep your dignity about your observations.
You do this a lot.

Just accept that you've been conned by MQA. Approx. 50% of the British people have been conned by Farage and Brexit, and likewise another 50% have been conned by the GOP. Or those conned themselves. Anyway, let's keep politics out of this discussion from here on.

The point is, that there is nothing wrong with admitting you've been conned. It's what the marketing guys have been spending a lot of effort in, and they just got you. It happens.
But you, being an engineer, should be able to accept facts when presented to you. By 'holding' your ground, you've damaged yourself, and your Trump like behavior has damaged yourself too.

All the facts we presented are showing that MQA is a solving a non existent problem in this time and age, and doing it in a way that is not doing the consumer a favour.
You should be able to recognise this.

[/QUOTE]
Your answer is outrageously patronizing on three levels:

1. You are certain of the immutable correctmess of your verbal argument to a point that you believe that your opponents' difference actually harms their dignity. That is the worst approach to a productive discussion.

2. You think very little of your opponents intellect, since you kindly offer your solace to them for being "conned". Sad, in your opinion, but totally understandable, given the quality and cleverness of maketing used on them. Truly an insufferable, obnoxious position.

3. You kindly propose that what is at the root of the opponents direct listening experience is their poverty, compared to your wealth. If only they realized that their $1.5 DAC simply cant reveal the richness of LPCM, so they have to settle for second best, instead of saving their money to reach for the best. In an experiential hobby, if MQA/M2TECH provides a superior listening experience vs. LPCM/10k DAC, then it should and will be embraced by audiophiles as best sound for their budget. Irrespective of your helpful pitty at their lack of financial means.

 

[onlyconnect]

Seems like MQA proponents are getting pretty shrill. Perhaps having to do with the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow......

Watched the video. What a great job Chris does in difficult circumstances.

Tim

 

[DimitryZ]

You are clutching at straws.
MQA make no claims about mitigating in band audio equalisation and it is not possible in the multitrack workflow where instruments and vocals will be equalised before final mixing.
I hope that a purist eg binaural recording, will have the minimum of equalisation and other effects or you have just thrown away the whole point of doing it.

For MQA to manage to "improve" the phase response of a purist recording, they would have to somehow discover the phase characteristics. This is likely to change during the track - everything is compressed for a start. As there are no reference test tones, this is an almost impossible task.

I have to say your response is very strange. I have been asked to provide evidence of filter induced ringing in CDs, which i did. I even showed this to be a widely known and discussed phenomena in audio engineering field.

You immediately changed the subject to purist recordings, of which there are few
Even my purist recordist friend has to do stuff to his original file, each step degrading the original.

Neither of us knows what MQA does with respect to equalization pre-ringing and if it is or is not possible to compensate for.

 

[DimitryZ]

Hi,
You persistently make false statements about what has been stated by others.

I have stated that a correctly mastered CD will not have ringing. I have stated that a filter that does not process energy at the filters cut off frequency does not ring. These are facts. You are making false statements about what has been stated by others, to create a false argument.

Please provide the evidence where a CD has ringing. (specific artist, album, date of pressing).

No one has refuted that dispersion (blur) exists - it is a known scientific effect. Linear phase filters do not cause dispersion across the passband where MQA claims that it does. MQA minimum phase filters do cause dispersion. So the MQA Ltd statement that MQA does not cause dispersion is a false statement. This is provable fact.

All criticisms of MQA as per the Xivero paper are based on fact. Although some parts of MQA are unknown, it has been reverse engineered, and the filter set is known (coefficients). The only aspect which is not known is the audio codec, which has not been commented upon by me. What we do know about the codec is that it is lossy, whereas MQA originally claimed it was lossless - a scam statement by MQA.

Regards,
Shadders.

Your assertions are baseless and incorrect.

I provided direct evidence that modern music production that utlizes linear filter EQ has lots of pre-ringing, per well known mathematical properties of linear phase filters and the topuc and phenomena are well known in the world of audio engineering. You chose to ignore this evidence and continue to state obvious falsehoods, despite obvious audio examples of linear phase pre-ringing in an example i provided. Who are you gonna believe, shadders or your lyin ears?

I pointed out a direct quote from the Ambiphonics paper which is not based on fact but conjecture. Authors admitted that the band splitter filters can be designef correctly but theorized tha Meridian wouldnt, then went from there to negative conclusions. Submit this quality of reasoning amd proof to IEEE.

 

[Shadders]

Your assertions are baseless and incorrect.

I provided direct evidence that modern music production that utlizes linear filter EQ has lots of pre-ringing, per well known mathematical properties of linear phase filters and the topuc and phenomena are well known in the world of audio engineering. You chose to ignore this evidence and continue to state obvious falsehoods, despite obvious audio examples of linear phase pre-ringing in an example i provided. Who are you gonna believe, shadders or your lyin ears?

I pointed out a direct quote from the Ambiphonics paper which is not based on fact but conjecture. Authors admitted that the band splitter filters can be designef correctly but theorized tha Meridian wouldnt, then went from there to negative conclusions. Submit this quality of reasoning amd proof to IEEE.

Hi,
Yet again, you have made false statements on what i have said, to construct a false argument so as to state that others are incorrect.

As stated by others, MQA has NEVER stated it will correct for any equalisation filter affects in the passband of the master. It could NEVER do this. Each track (possibly 32 per song) has a specific unique transfer function. MQA will NEVER know this transfer function, and will therefore NEVER be able to correct for it.

Again, in all of this, MQA have NEVER claimed they can correct for equalisation in the passband. As such, your statement of providing evidence is worthless.

I will repeat again. What i have said is that a correctly produced CD will not have ringing present, and a filter will only ring if the filter processes energy at the filter cut off frequency. MQA claim that linear phase filters cause dispersion, which is a false statement by MQA.

MQA then claim they use minimum phase filters which do not cause dispersion, but this is another false claim. As per the Xivero paper, and standard engineering theory, since minimum phase filters are non linear phase and do indeed introduce dispersion, which is the very thing MQA state they are eliminating, and actually introduce. A seriously bad engineering implementation.

No one, including MQA Ltd, are discussing equalisation as being the issue.

Regards,
Shadders.

 

[Werner]

Neither of us knows what MQA does with respect to equalization pre-ringing and if it is or is not possible to compensate for.

1) MQA does nothing about equalisation pre-ringing. It does not claim it does. Doing so would detract from the original art anyhow, because the equalisation of a recording is decided upon by the production team, including the artist.

2) equalisation pre-ringing cannot be compensated for anyway, not without significantly *****ing up the recording.

3) you really don't know what you are talking about.

4) likewise Shadders ...

 

[Shadders]

1) MQA does nothing about equalisation pre-ringing. It does not claim it does. Doing so would detract from the original art anyhow, because the equalisation of a recording is decided upon by the production team, including the artist.

2) equalisation pre-ringing cannot be compensated for anyway, not without significantly *****ing up the recording.

3) you really don't know what you are talking about.

4) likewise Shadders ...

Hi,
Please provide evidence where i have stated something incorrect.

(is this because i took the piss out of you on computer audiophile website ?)

Regards,
Shadders.

 

[davidsrsb]

I have to say your response is very strange. I have been asked to provide evidence of filter induced ringing in CDs, which i did. I even showed this to be a widely known and discussed phenomena in audio engineering field.

No you did not. I have seen no evidence of ADC anti-alias filter induced ringing on any music CD and nobody else seems to be able to produce one.
Pre-ringing due to the recording studio equalisation is a completely separate issue, everyone agrees that it exists and is nothing to do with MQA.
It was you who introduced the diversion about equalisation.
I have been designing digital audio electronics for more than 35 years now.

 

[DimitryZ]

Hi,
Yet again, you have made false statements on what i have said, to construct a false argument so as to state that others are incorrect.

As stated by others, MQA has NEVER stated it will correct for any equalisation filter affects in the passband of the master. It could NEVER do this. Each track (possibly 32 per song) has a specific unique transfer function. MQA will NEVER know this transfer function, and will therefore NEVER be able to correct for it.

Again, in all of this, MQA have NEVER claimed they can correct for equalisation in the passband. As such, your statement of providing evidence is worthless.

I will repeat again. What i have said is that a correctly produced CD will not have ringing present, and a filter will only ring if the filter processes energy at the filter cut off frequency. MQA claim that linear phase filters cause dispersion, which is a false statement by MQA.

MQA then claim they use minimum phase filters which do not cause dispersion, but this is another false claim. As per the Xivero paper, and standard engineering theory, since minimum phase filters are non linear phase and do indeed introduce dispersion, which is the very thing MQA state they are eliminating, and actually introduce. A seriously bad engineering implementation.

No one, including MQA Ltd, are discussing equalisation as being the issue.

Regards,
Shadders.

Lets go over the basics, then. First, though I was never particularly good at mathematics I did have two undergraduate classes in control systems and a graduate course on system dynamics at MIT ('86 Aero/Astro) and took graduate classes in electro-optics and statistics at University of Massachusetts/Lowell School of Mechanical Engineering. So while I certainly can't claim to have hardcore signal processing background, I do understand the basics. I got mostly "A's"

First, any vibratory system, from photons to air molecules will exhibit "ringing" when it passes through a band limiting obstacle. This is axiomatic and not debated for at least a couple of hundred years. In optics, this effect is easily observed in any decent telescope as a series of rings around a star on a clear night and is called diffraction. In a sound recording context, this is the ringing that occurs when impulse signal or a square wave passes through a sound system, equalization console, ADC, DAC, any filter at all. If the wave can't maintain its bandwidth (low pass filter on its path), it will ring as it passes this obstacle. This is true of any wave, though the effect is most easily observed on synthetic signals.

Second, basic behavior of any filter can be described in its simplest form with a minimum of three parameters - corner frequency, attenuation slope, and maybe more precisely as type, which would cover the infinite variations of frequency/magnitude/phase relationship inherent in many advanced filters developed in the 19th and 20th centuries. If we abstract this as a three parameter design of experiment problem and for the sake of this mental experiment, agree that we can develop a single combined measurement of "goodness" (as it applies to the audiophile world), the long series of experiments will yield a complex response surface for each filter type, with the surfaces overlapping in a typical 3-D representation with vertical axis being the measure of "goodness" (the X and Y would be corner frequency and attenuation slope). Thus, there are many different solutions possible from this set of available input variables.

Third, lets review the history of the low pass filter that is most common to most of us in an audio context - the final DAC filter - low pass filter, sometimes referred as the reconstruction filter. At the advent of digital age, this filter was designed with maximum attenuation as the prime measure of "goodness", and it was called "brickwall" filter. Listening to early CD players quickly revealed a certain digital harshness, which was originally claimed to be "impossible" by the technologists, but with better measurements was revealed to be traceable to the very poor phase performance of this type of filter. After that period, DAC manufacturers went through a phase where they had their own filters in place, which was not changeable by the end user. DAC manufacturers competed with each other partly on advertised sonic virtues of their filtering approach, and consumers bought partially based on that information. Finally, in the last decade, DAC manufacturers decided that filters are not only audible, but should be the customer choice. Therefore, all current high-end DAC chips offer a multitude of filters, from the brickwall to apodizing, with consumers using their ears and brains to choose a filter that most suites their preferences.

Fourth, even a cursory review of available information would conclude that the DAC filters are a hotly debated topic in audiophile circles, and no consensus as to the superiority of one filter over another has emerged. It is easy to understand why. The differences in sound ascribed to the filter choices are relatively audible in a well-known system on well-recorded and well-known material, but likely would be at the edge of audibility in the kind of crude "double-blind" testing that is available to determine statistically valid human response. The fact that DAC manufacturers are offering a variety of filters, that audiophiles are debating their sonic benefits and even the very fact of the current thread is ample empirical evidence that choice of DAC filter is not in the realm of engineering, but is the realm of personal preference or choice.

Finally, from the above, it stands to reason that choice of MQA filtering and the very approach of MQA is in the domain of experiential choice and not in the realm of technical argument. The latter is severely hampered by the proprietary nature of the system, anyway. MQA is highly likely to pass double blind testing against hires LPCM, and therefore, legally MQA has the right to call it "lossless enough for effects to be inaudible." At any rate, its' usefulness to the audiophile will be decided by the marketplace, which is what I argue for anyway.

 

[Shadders]

Lets go over the basics, then. First, though I was never particularly good at mathematics I did have two undergraduate classes in control systems and a graduate course on system dynamics at MIT ('86 Aero/Astro) and took graduate classes in electro-optics and statistics at University of Massachusetts/Lowell School of Mechanical Engineering. So while I certainly can't claim to have hardcore signal processing background, I do understand the basics. I got mostly "A's"

First, any vibratory system, from photons to air molecules will exhibit "ringing" when it passes through a band limiting obstacle. This is axiomatic and not debated for at least a couple of hundred years. In optics, this effect is easily observed in any decent telescope as a series of rings around a star on a clear night and is called diffraction. In a sound recording context, this is the ringing that occurs when impulse signal or a square wave passes through a sound system, equalization console, ADC, DAC, any filter at all. If the wave can't maintain its bandwidth (low pass filter on its path), it will ring as it passes this obstacle. This is true of any wave, though the effect is most easily observed on synthetic signals.

Second, basic behavior of any filter can be described in its simplest form with a minimum of three parameters - corner frequency, attenuation slope, and maybe more precisely as type, which would cover the infinite variations of frequency/magnitude/phase relationship inherent in many advanced filters developed in the 19th and 20th centuries. If we abstract this as a three parameter design of experiment problem and for the sake of this mental experiment, agree that we can develop a single combined measurement of "goodness" (as it applies to the audiophile world), the long series of experiments will yield a complex response surface for each filter type, with the surfaces overlapping in a typical 3-D representation with vertical axis being the measure of "goodness" (the X and Y would be corner frequency and attenuation slope). Thus, there are many different solutions possible from this set of available input variables.

Third, lets review the history of the low pass filter that is most common to most of us in an audio context - the final DAC filter - low pass filter, sometimes referred as the reconstruction filter. At the advent of digital age, this filter was designed with maximum attenuation as the prime measure of "goodness", and it was called "brickwall" filter. Listening to early CD players quickly revealed a certain digital harshness, which was originally claimed to be "impossible" by the technologists, but with better measurements was revealed to be traceable to the very poor phase performance of this type of filter. After that period, DAC manufacturers went through a phase where they had their own filters in place, which was not changeable by the end user. DAC manufacturers competed with each other partly on advertised sonic virtues of their filtering approach, and consumers bought partially based on that information. Finally, in the last decade, DAC manufacturers decided that filters are not only audible, but should be the customer choice. Therefore, all current high-end DAC chips offer a multitude of filters, from the brickwall to apodizing, with consumers using their ears and brains to choose a filter that most suites their preferences.

Fourth, even a cursory review of available information would conclude that the DAC filters are a hotly debated topic in audiophile circles, and no consensus as to the superiority of one filter over another has emerged. It is easy to understand why. The differences in sound ascribed to the filter choices are relatively audible in a well-known system on well-recorded and well-known material, but likely would be at the edge of audibility in the kind of crude "double-blind" testing that is available to determine statistically valid human response. The fact that DAC manufacturers are offering a variety of filters, that audiophiles are debating their sonic benefits and even the very fact of the current thread is ample empirical evidence that choice of DAC filter is not in the realm of engineering, but is the realm of personal preference or choice.

Finally, from the above, it stands to reason that choice of MQA filtering and the very approach of MQA is in the domain of experiential choice and not in the realm of technical argument. The latter is severely hampered by the proprietary nature of the system, anyway. MQA is highly likely to pass double blind testing against hires LPCM, and therefore, legally MQA has the right to call it "lossless enough for effects to be inaudible." At any rate, its' usefulness to the audiophile will be decided by the marketplace, which is what I argue for anyway.

Hi,
No one is disputing that filters can sound different - that is subjective.

It is the claims made by MQA that are being discussed, and criticised as per the evidence that the claims are either false, or in error - technically or logically.

This thread is discussing the claims of MQA, and the analysis of those claims.

Regards,
Shadders.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Lets go over the basics, then. First, though I was never particularly good at mathematics I did have two undergraduate classes in control systems and a graduate course on system dynamics at MIT ('86 Aero/Astro) and took graduate classes in electro-optics and statistics at University of Massachusetts/Lowell School of Mechanical Engineering. So while I certainly can't claim to have hardcore signal processing background, I do understand the basics. I got mostly "A's"

(snip mess)

I retired from teaching physics, etc, over a decade ago, and also gave up a while ago in this thread on trying to explain things to DZ. So feel there is no point in trying again to get him to realise this...

But for the sake of others I'll simply confirm that a significant amount of what he said as a basis for his comments and I've snipped above was muddled due to being over-simplistic or misleading.

Just mentally add "...or physics.." to his comment about his maths which I left unsnipped.

 

[Shadders]

I retired from teaching physics, etc, over a decade ago, and also gave up a while ago in this thread on trying to explain things to DZ. So feel there is no point in trying again to get him to realise this...

But for the sake of others I'll simply confirm that a significant amount of what he said as a basis for his comments and I've snipped above was muddled due to being over-simplistic or misleading.

Just mentally add "...or physics.." to his comment about his maths which I left unsnipped.

Hi,
Come on, you know it's been fun. What else have you got to do ?

Did it not keep your brain ticking over ?.

Regards,
Shadders.