|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.54.49.94
In Reply to: RE: As for Reviewing... posted by Michael Lavorgna on October 31, 2016 at 07:07:47
Hi,
So you used Mytek and two Meridian DACs? I have to find multiple DACs now. Which, there are only a handful of.
Let's see -- companies makes big claims, offers no comparison, but reviewer has to jump through hoops to make comparisons by borrowing thousands of dollars worth of gear, and you're supposed to use files found online.
As I said, keep on going your direction. This is where I need to leave off... again.
Doug
Follow Ups:
Just don't express an opinion.
Hi Jim,If you've read any of the articles and posts, I've never commented directly about the "sound" of MQA because, for a long time now, I've asked for a proper comparison to be done in order to comment directly.
However, the one article I wrote about it asks a lot of questions from a more technical perspective. My background is computer sciences, which I studied in the 1980s and worked exclusively in from graduation to the late 1990s, which is when SoundStage! really got going. So from a technical perspective, there is a lot to talk about, particularly since there is material such as the patents, etc. I feel it's this kind of work audio writers should do.
Doug
Edits: 11/02/16
Doug, I had not read that article. I just skimmed it. You seem to have overlooked what's probably the most useful source (IMO): an article in JAES in which Stuart and Craven outline both the general schema and the technology. I believe it was a conference proceeding. (Note that 'MQA' does not appear in the article, so don't search for that.) I think you'll find it useful, although the technical part is more suggestive than detailed. I don't have a link handy but it's not hard to find.A couple of answers from my perspective, which aren't likely to be news to you 6 months after that was written. Sure, the time-smear-repair aspect of MQA can surely be separated from the origami part; indeed, some of the advantage of the anti-smear technology is effective--this is my understanding--even when you don't use an MQA converter; that is, the basic PCM your DAC receives has been improved, even if your DAC can't "unfold" the file. If my information is correct, and I think it is, that's proof of sorts.
As for the importance of the small file size, I think it matters. On the user side: I live in NYC (just down the street from a Gbit Google kiosk, one of many in the city) and get my broadband from Columbia University. Yet, there are places in this pre-war apartment--heavily built with thick walls--where it's hard to get a strong (wireless) signal. Sure, I could pay a big chunk to have them add ethernet throughout, but it's a rental, so I'm not inclined to. Streaming video in much of the house is dicey, because of the wireless. There are still plenty of pockets in this country that don't have decent broadband, and while much of the world is ahead of the United States in broadband dissemination, much of it isn't, and some of it is metered, so compression saves significant cash. On the other end of the line, I'm sure there are significant savings for the streamer/retailer. I suspect that this advantage on the business end is a bigger deal than the advantages for consumers.
> > I feel it's this kind of work audio writers should do. < <
Great, no disagreement here. I think JA has done more of this than anyone. I've done a bit too--and I feel sure that the understanding, such as it is, that we have of the technology is a big part of the reason we're perceived as supporters of MQA: It hangs together, and the basic premise--that temporal response really matters--rings true. I do think we (and especially you editors) need to keep our readers in mind--they don't want to see a lot of equations--but if we're doing our jobs well, we should explore the technical questions. I would however point out that while Soundstage and Stereophile both, I think, still do measurements, which is wonderful, they're both (as I don't need to tell you) solidly in the subjectivist realm. It is standard procedure to express opinions without scientifically rigorous procedures. It's what we do and what most of our readers expect. We're judged according to how well we do it--and the extent to which we keep readers informed and entertained. Which is to say, I wonder if you and your writers give similar critical attention to other technical issues in audio, like whether deta-sigma is best, or the technical merits of DSD, or the frequency response of cables --as you're giving to MQA.
Best,
Jim
Edits: 11/02/16 11/02/16 11/02/16 11/02/16 11/02/16 11/02/16
This link was included in a follow-up MQA article on AudioStream, post-CES.
Note: page 2 of that AS article is a response from Bob Stuart where he details all of the tracks used during the CES demos, including the microphone and ADC (where known).
.
> > > > I wonder if you and your writers give similar critical attention to other technical issues in audio, like whether deta-sigma is best, or the technical merits of DSD, or the frequency response of cables--as you're giving to MQA.To answer this question, I'll say this: we've given LESS space to MQA than many other publications. I've written one article (the one I linked), Brent Butterworth wrote two (about how poor the MQA demo was at High End 2016 and a subsequent follow-up with listening comparisons done at Newport). So in all this time, three articles -- that's it. I can easily point to print magazines that had more than that in one issue. And bloggers who talk about it almost monthly. It's played a very minor role in our editorial content -- and a lot of it has to do with the lack of comparison material to really evaluate it. To me, that was an issue very early on and continues to be.
On other subjects (with me, in particular, about loudspeakers), we've talked about much, much more.
Doug
SoundStage!
Edits: 11/02/16
You misunderstood my question, which was, do you give equal technical scrutiny--demand the same degree of rigor--in other aspects of your publication? Like the frequency response of cables?
Well, we don't measure the frequency response of cables, but we measure loudspeakers, amplifiers, and preamplifiers. Bascom King handles the electronics. I'm in charge of the loudspeaker-testing program, which is done with Canada's National Research Council. I can speak to the fact that those test are extremely rigorous and, actually, have had profound impacts on the design of various speakers and drivers over the years. So, yes, if you're wondering if the rigor and scrutiny are there, 100%.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
I was referring to this sentence in one of the more recent SoundStage cable reviews:
"Victor's last task was to balance the low, mid, and high frequencies of each of his analog cable models."
I'm not commenting on the efficacy of cabling, and yet, from any remotely scientific standpoint that's an ludicrous claim, repeated uncritically.
(To be clear what I'm saying, the frequency dependence of cables is easily measured to very high accuracy, and all reasonable cable designs are flat through the audio band to very high precision. A small number MAY have capacitance sufficient to cause interactions with the impedance of the components they're connected to, but usually not, or not to a measurable extent. Even cables with "network boxes" tend to roll off in the MHz range, if memory serves, or at least in the high 100s of kHz--much higher than any tweeter can reach.)
My goal is not to humiliate anyone but to point out that we all function routinely, to varying degrees, in a pretty subjective mode, which is as it should be: We're reviewing experiences after all. Some reviewers ignore science altogether, including some of my favorite audio writers.
It's completely reasonable to question MQA's claims, but then it's completely reasonable to question a lot of things. MQA's rigor and efficacy are far better established, in my view, as some of what passes as doctrine. Not that that's a bad thing.
Jim
I 100% with you.Just like if you put "on-axis frequency response, +/-1dB, 20Hz to 20kHz," there's a pretty standard way to verify it that the audio industry accepts. You put "lossless" in front a file-compression scheme, there is likewise standardized ways to test/measure that (compress, uncompress, all day long if you wish).
MQA definitely isn't being picked on. They simply put some claims out there that raised the eyebrows of people, including me.
Furthermore, I think what many people have objected to is the over-the-top coverage that some publications (print and online) have given it. As I mentioned, though, we have given it very little.
Speaking of very little, while traveling here I looked through "Sound on Sound" magazine, which is about 5X as thick as the thickest hi-fi print magazine and seemingly close to a bible for recording. But I couldn't see one mention of MQA in all of their articles in this issue. Could it be that all the hype is a small segment of the audiophile press -- and we all know how small that segment is and how much of an impact that will have on acceptance (basically, nothing).
Doug
Edits: 11/02/16
Thanks Doug. Re: the amount of coverage: If we're right, and it catches on, it's a very big deal and it should have been covered heavily. If we're wrong--especially about its efficacy--then it shouldn't have been. If we were right about its efficacy but it isn't embraced by the market, then an opportunity was lost, but hey, we tried.
Cheers,
Jim
Hi,
I apologize, but I actually edited my previous post about reading "Sound on Sound." Even with a few magazines pushing it as hard as they can, it will amount to little because in order to get anything accepted these days, it needs MUCH broader appeal.
Besides the questions of its usefulness, I also think that when you compare how the computer world has been development with open-source-type products, this goes straight away against that. To me, their model looks like one that would've maybe sold 15 years ago. Times have changed. Interesting article below, that looks at it from a completely different perspective.
I guess let me end this with the following -- in a year or two we'll know what happens with it (it'll catch on or it won't), so it would be interesting to discuss again then.
Doug
...covered MQA in August. Here's a quote from their conclusion:
"From the marketing and user convenience points of view, MQA seems to tick all the compatibility, convenience and practicality boxes for both consumers and vendors, and it appears to be able to deliver an astonishing level of time-domain performance never before seen in conventional digital systems."
> ...covered MQA in August.
Like the comparisons at CES, if Doug hasn't experienced something
personally, it never happened :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
You beat me to it. Was just gonna link. Been subscribing since day one.
This is the only article they have done on MQA. As compared to the coverage noted on all these threads.
On their forum, a few readers asked the aut
Any whoo.he claims they should be getting some encoding tools by years end and they will post pre and post samples. What a shocking idea. :)
...is a great resource.
At the risk of opening yet another can of worms, when you say:
"This is the only article they have done on MQA. As compared to the coverage noted on all these threads."
Are you saying that the *least* amount of coverage is best when it comes to a new technology?
No, no hidden meanings.
As Doug said, the amount of coverage on the hifi side is disproportionate by a huge margin.
SOS is for pros who have a job. Get an artist's vision on tape, hard drive, etc, then getting it to the mastering engineer. They are not interested in concepts and theory, but proven working solutions.
this magazine ever saying anything but 'good' in equipment reviews. They don't go deep either.
...their article on MQA since they say much more than 'good'.
Clutching for straws to reinforce your mojo?
Do it somewhere else.
...yet again.
Do you ever grow tired of posting nonsense. (rhetorical)
about your egoistic and rude posts in someone else's forum?
You have broken this forum's rules countless times. The decent thing for you is to move all this onto your own, and the more you post in this fashion, the more it exposes the inability to accept views from others.
...is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."
;-)
It's been real, Fred.
Lavorgna,
I'm not worried about the definition of insanity! This is, after all, an Asylum.
However, there's no room for egotistical right-fighters here. You've worn out your welcome.
Be gone!
SB
You guys crack me up.
But I'll happily ignore you as well.
Cheers.
...have you initiated re. MQA?
As Doug has displayed here, he has no idea of the amount of coverage on MQA or its content. While I can see the appeal in warming up to anti-MQA sentiments while trying to demean the work of others, I'd suggest that ignorance is a hard sell to all but the willing.
We agree on SoS.
I've read all your write ups on MQA, and the numerous show posts by othes at Sphile.My quick summary, as to what MQA appears to me and many others..a solution in search of a problem.
-bandwidth saving...a non problem
-for improved lossless streaming....when lossless streaming has an incredibly unstable future
-post processing of master files...not remastering
-proprietary format, a specific fact which is only good for one entity...MQA/Meridian
Not to mention the need to invest in new hardware etc.
And, what has raised eye brows, is the over the top hyperbole by the hifi press. When John Atkinson says MQA is the most significant development in digital audio in 40 years, what would you except.
Edits: 11/02/16
Would you call this over-the-top hyperbole:
"[MQA] appears to be able to deliver an astonishing level of time-domain performance never before seen in conventional digital systems"
Somewhat.
"SOS is for pros who have a job. Get an artist's vision on tape, hard drive, etc, then getting it to the mastering engineer. They are not interested in concepts and theory, but proven working solutions."
My quick MQA summary is it makes music sound better and can be implemented by streaming services.
And no one *has* to buy anything.
You are confusing John Atkinson with Robert Harley. I know, all us audio reviewers look alike ;-)
> [Isaak J. Harvey is] confusing John Atkinson with Robert Harley.
Again :-(
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"In almost 40 years of attending audio press events, only rarely have I come away feeling that I was present at the birth of a new world.
And in early December, at Meridian's New York offices, I heard Bob Stuart describe the UK company's MQA technology, followed by a demonstration that blew my socks off."
All that was missing were the tears (Peter McGrath supplied those) and the speaking in tongues, etc.
This may come as a surprise Isaak, but some people who write for a living actually care about not only what they've written, but what is attributed to them. If you think that:"When John Atkinson says MQA is the most significant development in digital audio in 40 years"
And
"In almost 40 years of attending audio press events, only rarely have I come away feeling that I was present at the birth of a new world"
Mean the same thing, I'd suggest you need to brush up on your basic English.
But I get it. Your mind goes all fuzzy when it comes to subjects you are passionate about. Like when you say I said that all of Sony's catalog would be available in DSD (I never said that).
The risk you run with your run-on nonsense is the "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" only not as important.
Edits: 11/02/16
Side note. You many find it amusing that Wikipedia used the same quote, and also dissected at head-fi.
No, I don't find this piddly nonsense amusing.
You might be right; we'll see. If the music industry supports it--and there's some evidence that's happening--it might have a shot. Anyway, as Niels Bohr said (repeating something that someone else said first), it's hard to predict, especially the future.
jca
Definitely, let's see what the future brings.
What my future is bringing right now is covering this Polish Audio Video Show, which seems to be a REALLY big deal nowadays. See link.
Doug
SoundStage!
Would love to attend that some day--or maybe just go there when there's no audio show.
Hi Jim,
I like your responses (you explain your rationale well). I actually just landed in Warsaw, so there's not time for me at the moment to talk about your first points, but to the final one, about me worrying about it not being lossless, isn't quite right.
Bandwidth is increasing, data speeds are constantly getting faster, and on and on. Perhaps someone might think me "wasteful," but why not use the bandwidth if we have it? And we do (in most cases). But in places we don't, compress away. To me, though, MQA is, as someone put in a forum elsewhere, a solution looking for a problem. The problem it solves is irrelevant.
Back when I started looking closely at MQA, I called on some of the foremost experts in digital processing in hi-fi. The sources are going to be withheld (the gave me their candid feedback, but for my own education, not for publication), but I'll say that none of them are impressed, and insofar as the compression aspect goes, only one of them called it "relevant" -- then he added, "six years ago." He, too, sees little benefit. Why do it at all? Likewise, in Tokyo last month, I gathered a couple digital designers and go their take. They said "MQA is good... for your phone." Again, reducing the data transfer can have some benefits in that arena.
This is probably a point we can agree to disagree on. I see no benefit any longer with regards to the compression -- and it will become less relevant as every day progresses. In 2005 to 2008, maybe. 2016 and beyond, no. Others might, but I'll say this: When in the history of computers have we worked to consumer LESS space. Hard drives get bigger, RAM grows larger, networks get faster, simply to handle the constant increases in data use -- that will continue to increase.
Doug
Hi Jim,Glad we're in general agreement. But what you bring up raises precisely the kinds of questions I asked before. However, before I get to that, know, I didn't see that paper. I'll look for it.
As for the time-smear fix. From what I understand, they're basically correcting the impulse response of the ADC and DAC. But many engineers have asked: "What if multiple ADCs were used to record a single track? And what about cascading DACs?" How can one possibly correct for all of that?
And what does this time-smear fix "sound" like. This is where comparisons are in order. Real comparisons. Plus, why not make a very simple recording using a worst-case scenario ADC that smears time, as MQA puts it. Smear the hell out of it, then "unsmear" it. Exacerbate the problem all you want my smearing certain instruments, even test tones. There are ways, with loudspeakers, you can exacerbate issues with high-order slopes, for example (or even low-order ones). Let's do the same here and prove that it works.
Now to your problem -- my past life installing networks would say: "Ok, that's a problem for you and we might have to reduce the bandwidth - for YOU." (Providing other solutions don't work.) But what about me and countless others who don't have the issue -- why do we want to use a lossy compression scheme when we really don't have to?
Doug
Edits: 11/02/16 11/02/16 11/02/16
> > But many engineers have asked: "What if multiple ADCs were used to record a single track? And what about cascading DACs?" How can one possibly correct for all of that? < <
A reasonable question, to which I can only provide a schematic (not exact) answer. I suspect a schematic answer is the best you're going to get (not that mine is the best possible). The MQA folks refer to their work on such projects as "white-gloving," the meaning of which is, I think, obvious. Bob and I talked a lot about this, especially in the context of early digital recordings. He said they've been studying a large cache of albums--about 10,000 high-res and about 10,000+ at CD resolution. In this way, they've learned a lot about what typical albums look like from a time-smear perspective and what problems arise. (Bob didn't say, to me, that their algorithm uses "artificial intelligence," although he did use the phrase. He said--I didn't check the transcript, but this is the gist--that it was sort of like artificial intelligence.)
I suspect though that the correct answer is, you can't correct for all of that, but you can correct for some of it. Which is to say, you can create a version of the recording that sounds better, not perfect.
As for your proposed "demo" track: that certainly would be interesting. Way back in February, I requested (not sure who I was communicating with then--possibly Stuart) graphical evidence: Show me what a transient, in real music, looks like before and after. I don't remember what the response was, but I never got the plot. However, something very close to that was published on the Stereophile site in the Q&A with Bob Stuart; look at graphs 8-13 . Those plots are made using a DAC emulator because there's a basic measurement problem: To get a real signal out, you'd need to use an ADC and then reverse its characteristics.
Anyway, maybe we'll see something like that someday, but satisfying the skepticism of a few audio writers probably is not at the top of their to-do list.
> > Now to your problem -- my past life installing networks would say: "Ok, that's a problem for you and we might have to reduce the bandwidth - for YOU." (Providing other solutions don't work.) But what about me and countless others who don't have the issue -- why do we want to use a lossy compression scheme when we really don't have to? < <
Ah, I see your point. You're worried about the fact that it's not lossless, strictly speaking. I think this is a reflection of a shift of emphasis from the technicalities of the format to what's actually happening in the music. To worry about a bit of loss in the compression algorithm is to assume that every bit is equally important. As noted in several MQA documents, above a certain frequency there's no real information anyway--no information related to the music. Compressing that in a lossy way doesn't do a lot of harm. (I recall shaking my head the first time I saw the phrase "partial zero-emission vehicle" on the side of a Subaru. Compression in MQA is kind of like that: Partly lossless, partly lossy.)
Anyway, you can't always get what you want. I'm going to not finish the Stones reference. That would be too cute.
jca
Yes, Doug, we just finished mastering an album by an artist who recorded their album at 5 different studios, with probably half a dozen ADCs, with some songs even bounced to tape for a "sound". What then?
MQA claims to have "artificial intelligence", which Chris Connaker gleefully called "pretty cool" without any basis.
Then how about a very recent high profile vintage multi track remix, bounced to multi track digital, then mastered at another location.
For purist two channel recordings, non of these questions would come up and that may be where MQA belongs, like DXD, and DSD128/256.
And I think this is far more common than audiophiles would think (or like). But it's reality. I am not about to say it's "unfixable"; rather, I'd put this back to those who claim you can: "EXACTLY how can you fix that?" And I mean EXACTLY.
Doug
You don't *have* to do anything, Doug. I was merely making a suggestion.
As I said, there were comparisons at CES 2016 and also at RMAF 2016 in multiple rooms/systems. Did you get to hear any of the RMAF comparisons?
I didn't go to RMAF. Was at Tokyo (one tiny MQA demo, no comparisons) and will be in Poland next week for their show -- we'll see.
Doug
Doug I am interested in your opinion on the comparisons done in these write ups.DAR:
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/06/an-inconvenient-truth-mqa-sounds-better/
And
Edits: 10/31/16 10/31/16
Hi,I don't want to get into all that. Michael Lavorgna deliberately asked me, so I responded on his. But the rest, I don't see the point. Most reviewers are trying their best.
I'd rather concentrate on what we're doing. Meridian hasn't sent me (or any) of our writers a DAC, and MQA (they're separate entities now, from what I understand) haven't been forthcoming, such as in the spring when we wanted to send those recordings. So it is what it is...
Doug
SoundStage!
Edits: 10/31/16
Actually, I was not actually looking for a harsh critique, but a neutral opinion of the coverage. But is you want to pass, that is fine. In other words, I was not looking for you to slam your colleagues. I just wanted to illustrate there are several other published comparisons, but there seems to be no set methodology in doing so.
Edits: 10/31/16
I might read it over, but right now we're getting our next issues online and I'm preparing to go to Poland for the big show there!
Doug
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: