- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,970
- Likes
- 38,117
http://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-questions-and-answers#TjIfWkFPCfBITGf9.97
More answers than you can shake a stick at.
More answers than you can shake a stick at.
That's what I was thinking. How many readers of Stereophile are going to understand one tenth of that? It seems like he is trying to overwhelm us with large words and prodigious technical references. Perhaps a good audio demonstration would be better? Let's see what's actually audible.Not one in ten thousand subscribers has any idea what he's talking about, including me. Could all be pure technobabble BS as far as they know. LOL
'J. Robert' said:Many recording and mastering engineers have testified that MQA improves very considerably on the conventional methods, recreating the sound they actually hear or remember from the original session or, in the case of archive material, the sound from an analogue tape recorder.
I can't say I understood everything in the article, but I trust your opinion on it. If his goal was to dumb it down, he failed miserably at that. I would bet most Stereophile readers don't even understand Nyquist!I read through the article and it is superb.
That's not what the article says. Indeed it clarifies that MQA is NOT about absolute timing accuracy at all. It is about spreading in time the power of an impulse, not that the impulse itself is moved.So on the one hand we have a consensus that "phase doesn't matter" in speakers (and timing) - and we are talking about millisecond levels there - and on the other we have a load of words that say that microsecond accuracy is essential. I disagree with both!
What he says in theory makes some sense. But as you, I don't hold any hope that a) audiophiles actually hear these deficiencies and b) the market will allow a new format to be created. The typical customer for MQA is turned off by the "lossy" coding of higher end of the bandwidth and with them gone, there is nobody left to buy into it.I can't say I understood everything in the article, but I trust your opinion on it. If his goal was to dumb it down, he failed miserably at that. I would bet most Stereophile readers don't even understand Nyquist!
However, it still sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Proper blind testing could demonstrate otherwise, though.
I'd definitely be interested in an increase in fidelity if possible, but let's hope it's not another format that will require a meta-analysis in 15 years to 'prove' that it's audible to some people.
Spread? Absolute timing accuracy? I see the two things as part of the same phenomenon. The typical passive speaker is a superb impulse spreader, and in terms of absolute accuracy it's anyone's guess where the impulse actually lies in amongst the phase shifts and timing errors. A time aligned, phase corrected speaker may be somewhat better - but we are told that this is wasted effort because an audiophile consensus says it's inaudible.That's not what the article says. Indeed it clarifies that MQA is NOT about absolute timing accuracy at all. It is about spreading in time the power of an impulse, not that the impulse itself is moved.
They are not. I can have an impulse happen at 1.0001 seconds or 1.0002 seconds. That would be a timing shift and accuracy error assuming one or the other is the right one.Spread? Absolute timing accuracy? I see the two things as part of the same phenomenon.
They are not. I can have an impulse happen at 1.0001 seconds or 1.0002 seconds. That would be a timing shift and accuracy error assuming one or the other is the right one.
Energy smearing would occur if instead of silence prior to that impulse at that time, you took some of the impulse power and spread it before and after the pulse itself. The pulse will remain at its precise time so timing accuracy is maintained. But energy distribution is not. Audible effect is not at all like timing variation.
As I said, if your speaker is spreading the signal in a frequency-dependent way (with two or three drivers all of which have different delays), where is the centre of any 'impulse'? It has been smeared so much that no one can say where its centre is any more. The timing inaccuracy and energy smearing are off the scale compared to anything that MQA is claiming to fix.They are not. I can have an impulse happen at 1.0001 seconds or 1.0002 seconds. That would be a timing shift and accuracy error assuming one or the other is the right one.
Energy smearing would occur if instead of silence prior to that impulse at that time, you took some of the impulse power and spread it before and after the pulse itself. The pulse will remain at its precise time so timing accuracy is maintained. But energy distribution is not. Audible effect is not at all like timing variation.
Have to agree here - I used to digest this sort of techno talk with ease in the ol' days - now, my head just starts exploding the further in I go! The examples at the 2L website say there's monkey business going on - looking at what's in the waveforms of the versions of a particular piece tells me that a fair bit of fiddling is happening, which is going to be audible, regardless - so, which is correct?I can't say I understood everything in the article, but I trust your opinion on it. If his goal was to dumb it down, he failed miserably at that. I would bet most Stereophile readers don't even understand Nyquist!
However, it still sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Proper blind testing could demonstrate otherwise, though.
Very good (and damning) write up on MQA!Benchmark Media's John Siau weighs in on MQA
IS MQA DEAD ON ARRIVAL?
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa
I guess they won't be sending me a firmware upgrade any time soon.
As for MQA being DOA, I suppose it depends upon how well they can market it.