 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.3.46.82
MQA is Vaporware passed 2 million views this morning. I especially want to thank John Atkinson and Robert Harley for their support of a format that that never provided evidence to back up the founder's claims. I never wanted to write is MQA economically viable? Or can MQA reach critical mass? Now I won't have to.
And Andy Quint, thanks you were the only member of the audio press to challenge me face to face over the tactics used to fight MQA.
Follow Ups:
But MQA is real, isn't it? I mean it works, yes, no, maybe?
Well...
...if we want to define "real" as having claims that hold up - I wouldn't call it real. Remember how it was called "lossless" at the beginning, then the claim transitioned in "perceptually lossless"?
At best, I'd call it a solution to something that might've been a problem -- bandwidth -- more than 10 years ago. But even then, that's being generous.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
While they were selling it to us as Hi Rez over 'normal' (24/48) bandwidth they promoting to the music labels as a form of Hi Rez DRM.
Nt
So, was it perceptually lossless? I'm not so much interested in the history of claims or even tests, but I'm trying to find out if anyone heard an improvement. These kinds of debates have gone on about a number of audio things for a very long time. Some examples are fuses, fuse direction, speaker cable direction, Schumann frequency generator, SteinMusic Harmonizer, tiny little bowl acoustic resonators, Silver Rainbow Foil, Green Pen, crystals, Argent Room Lens, Shakti Hallograph, WA Quantum Chips, Tice Clock, etc. - people swear up and down on both sides of the issue. It can be quite difficult to get to the truth sometimes.
Edits: 07/14/22 07/14/22 07/14/22
McGill university did what seemed to be a proper test. They used their own source material, encoded it themselves, conducted blinding testing with a variety of listeners. The project was to determine if certain improvements could be heard -- but when you read the paper, and the conclusion, it's clear that they realized listeners were having trouble determining if any differences could be heard at all.
So in a nutshell, all those improvement that certain writers (mostly print) went on and on about just weren't there. Link below if you want the paper.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
It's quite possible the differences were too "subtle" to be heard on the test system for whatever reason and or the listeners were not as skilled as everyone assumed. There are lots of reasons why tests can be unreliable, even in the best hands with the best intentions. The tests being blind doesn't change any of that.Whether something can be heard or not is one of the hallmarks of the audio hobby. If it were that easy everyone could do it. There would be no discussion about anything any more.
I would expect similar results are very possible for any number of audiophile things, wire directionality, audiophile fuses, Schumann frequency generator, The Clever Little Clock, the Red x Pen, Morphic Message Labels, Mpingo disc, the Teleportation Tweak, electrical contact enhancers, CD treatments, anti-static spray for cables, cryogenic treatment of CDs or LPs or cables, home freezing CDs, demagnetizing CDs, demagnetizing cables.
The best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry.
An ordinary man has no MEANS of deliverance.
Edits: 07/15/22 07/15/22
The onus of proof of a difference in audio lies with the person making the claim to its efficacy. If someone comes out with a bottle of pills and says these pills will cure you of cancer - the bottle is $100,000 will you buy it because the company says it? Or will you first want proof that the pills will actually cure cancer before you hand over your money?
There are scientific standards that are standards for a reason. In audio, the standards are somewhat weaker because, unlike the pills example, there is a subject response aspect that is not directly physiological. But it is the best thing we got until something better comes along.
People are easily duped by the power of suggestion. The power of suggestion comes in many forms called bias.
Price Bias (if it costs more it must be better)
Name Brand Bias (it's made by a brand I like so it must be better)
Weight bias (the speaker or amp is heavy so it must be better quality)
Design bias (tubes are said to be better so it must be better than SS)
Looks bias (it has a copper chassis and looks cool so it must be premium)
Measurement bias (it measures better so it must sound better)
Technobabble bias (look at all the work that went into the cabinet bracing/fancy pistonic tweeters/shell structure of the speakers - all that technology - WOW!! - it must be better sounding too right? - Kevlar is more fancy than paper so it MUST sound better)
And of course other people are biased in the exact opposite ways -
Price Bias (if it costs more it must be overpriced and they're trying to rip me off)
Name Brand Bias (it's made by a brand that is too mainstream so they're soulless making junk for the masses)
Weight bias (the speaker or amp is heavy so they're probably putting all the money into the case = audio jewelry)
Design bias (tubes are a gimmick - people just like them because they look cool)
Looks bias (if it looks cool - they are just selling bling so you know it sucks - if it's ugly it must be good)
Measurement bias (it measures too good it will probably sound overly analytical and umm bright as hell)
Technobabble bias (They're trying to sell me all that technology because they can't sell good quality sound)
The blind level matched test is a way to remove all of the above biases. We also know that people tend to favour systems that play a little louder than the other one hence why the comparison should be level matched.
I have some various problems with the tests surrounding the statistics 9/10 of correct selections meets statistical significance to the .05 level but so does 59/100 (6/10 ten times with a miss) and the latter test has heightened reliability - few audio tests (none to my knowledge) ever go to 100 trials as they should. And a few other issues around test stress etc.
Nevertheless - this is what is the standard.
If the product is so fantastic and the difference was so great then people should be able to pass even the test I take issue with.
As a manufacturer, you have a conflict of interest. If you know your products have no chance of passing these tests then you have to pull a Donald Trump and double down that the problem is with the tests, the media and the science.
You wrote,"The onus of proof of a difference in audio lies with the person making the claim to its efficacy."
Not sure I go along with your detective work. All the skeptics, or even non skeptics, would most likely not be inclined to go along with a manufacturer's say-so. Or shill's say-so. Independent testing would be nice. Independent verification and validation. Evidence seems to be the best one can hope for in audio. Conclusions can drawn based on accumulated evidence.
Besides there is a lot of leeway for manufacturers of anything to pump up their product. It's called puffing. "They make your speakers disappear." "The performers appear in your room." "Absolutely Transparent!" "100% faithful to the source." "The Best Coffee in the World."
"Something terrible happens when a great product is not promoted to the fullest extent. Nothing." - PT Barnum
Edits: 07/19/22 07/19/22 07/19/22 07/19/22 07/19/22
Why did you ask the question if you refute every answer given? Seems no proof will convince you that MQA is completely unnecessary. How can anyone support any lossless music format?
BTW, what do you manufacture? I want to make sure that I don't patronize someone who is so pig-headed.
I was wondering why I've been craving corn so much lately.I'm glad someone finally realized what I'm saying, that things are very difficult to prove. About the best you can do is provide some evidence. If you don't know the difference been proof and evidence I'll tell you where you can go.
Edits: 07/16/22
In the last administrative law case I won, the truth was easy to find it was in a federal regulation. A case I won four years ago the truth was so complicated my co-counsel didn't realize we won when we left final hearing. Truth can be like that.
But MQA is Vaporware was not about truth. My goal writing it was the liquidation of MQA Ltd. Am I close to achieving my goal? Based on the latest financial statements there is evidence supporting I am close.
There are no regulations or standards. As I oft opine too many things can go wrong with any test. About the best you can do is provide evidence. Am I being argumentative? Repetitive?
MQA was never about sound. It was about licensing, distribution and economics. So, talking off point is argumentative. And you seem to like to repeat yourself. But people like you play right into my plan to fight MQA. The fight about MQA made so much noise that it drowned out all the promotion efforts.
I knew I could create a fight so big in the audiophile world that the intended market would tune MQA out. MQA cannot survive without a large enough mainstream market to pay the bills. At some point the investors will lose interest, the labels already have.
Right now, access to MQA is slowing shrinking, Tidal Music split their HiFi tier. Roon made decoding optional, and it has always been optional on nug.net.
I'm just trying to find out if it works. It's not a trick question. Good luck in your big fight, though.
Edits: 07/16/22
I'm assuming you've listened to some MQA recordings of music that you're familiar with. Have you done critical comparisons with non-MQA recordings of that same music based on the same master? What are your initial impressions?
Thanks,
Daniel
I've never heard MQA or ever attempted to analyze or test it. I'm asking what others found, I'm not interested in any other aspects about MQA, how it's marketed, reasons why it can't possibly work, or legal aspects, all of that who shot John stuff.
Edits: 07/17/22
It's not a trick question. All I'm looking for is a straight answer. After all the angst and anger over MQA the last couple years nobody can answer my question? What the story, morning glory? Is this some carefully orchestrated worldwide scam, a global conspiracy of monsterous proportions?
Edits: 07/17/22 07/17/22 07/17/22
he's locked in his own reality, no search for knowledge and especially wisdom. As far as I know he stopped reading books of distinction from other worlds and study. He'll attack me now most likely, or might even ignore me all together.
A very narrow minded legend only in his mind and somehow I always get sucked in to commenting.
He loooooooooovesssss attention and that might give some a few clues
How can you argue against eco sustainability???
The future of streaming must be sustainable
"It isn't necessary to ship a bottle of wine in a 3-gallon carton." - Bob Stuart, MQA founder
Much like Hercules Poirot solved his mysteries, it only required using the little grey cells.
Those who had bad results with the Tice Clock either had hearing issues, their systems were very mediocre, had mistakes in their systems, or didn't follow instructions. Case solved! That's why I used Tice Clock as one of my examples of things that are difficult to get to the truth of. I never tire of see knee jerk reactions. You don't have to look too far to find someone with a crap system or hearing issues.
As opposed to making it worse or having no effect. Apologies for using two is's in a row.
A little punctuation would assist your intelligibility
You wrote:
My definition of real is is it better than Redbook
My hope is that you meant to say:
My definition of real is (real?).
Is it better than Redbook?
The apology is a non sequitur
Happy Listening
Nt
Can't say that.
Nt
Nt
for you-
MQA is REAL.
It exists.
Its ability to deliver its claims is proof positive that it does exist.
Though its diminishing returns may well throw the above into question, that is only orthogonal to your question, and probably not material.
Happy Listening
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
