Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: Why not?

Posted by Jim Austin on November 2, 2016 at 08:54:13:
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