I know, since i am not smart enough to contribute technically to this thread i thought the least i could do would be to toss some fuel on the flameI obviously meant a purpose to the consumer, not to our MQA overlords
I know, since i am not smart enough to contribute technically to this thread i thought the least i could do would be to toss some fuel on the flameI obviously meant a purpose to the consumer, not to our MQA overlords
Then what are you doing here?I haven't made any comment on MQA.
Then what are you doing here?
damage controlNightwatchman
Then what are you doing here?
Although you say that have no interest in giving what I write credence, if you are really interested in learning, I will try again.
You're correct that others share your misunderstanding, typified by your earlier comment that "it's even more deeply insulting and disrespectful to respond in turn with something to the effect of, 'I did not say 13 bits is enough; I only noted that in a recording like the one I mentioned in my comment, 12-13 bits was sufficient in the spectrum below 2kHz.'"
I don't understand why it is insulting to offer further clarification. But even if you feel insulted, here goes:
The 24-bit recording of room tone had a spectrum that had an amplitude close to the 13-bit level in the very low bass. However, the specturm sloped down as the frequency increased and In the treble the amplitude of the noise was closer to the 18-bit level. That does not mean, as you falsely claim me as saying, that "MQA-style encoding doesn't impact the resolution of the recording because 'real world' recordings don't need more than 12-13 bits to fully capture them." I haven't made any comment on MQA.
The music recordings I made in the church where I recorded the room tone peaked just below 0dBFS. As it is not possible to record the music without the analog noise, and not feasible to record frequency bands individually, a recording of that music will need to be made with a resolution of at least 18 bits, if information is not to be lost.
18 bits, not 13 bits.
And as I explained, the spectra statistics of the analog noise floor allow a hidden data channel to be inserted in that analog noise floor. And as long as the spectrum of the data embedded in that channel is encrypted as pseudo-random noise, has the same spectral statistics as the noise floor in the recording, and has an amplitude sufficiently below the noise floor at all frequencies, there will be no loss of bits/information/resolution.
Noise is noise.
I look forward to you doing so.
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
Anyone get to addressing why muddling around with lossy 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, or 21-bit MQA files are relevant when you can opt for 24 bit lossless? Especially seeing as how no appreciable storage savings are to be had with MQA in the first place?
Unfortunately I think we are seeing this chilling effect right before our eyes. Maybe a little compassion is in order though. People need to make a living and taking on internet monopolies is a good way to get cancelled. The bigger problem is that some day any one of us may find ourselves in a similar situation.
Apparently annoying you, for one thing, mansr
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
I am an amateur yes.@Archimago and @GoldenOne do you agree to the above?
Regarding patents. Here is an interesting read
Wavelet (= "origami") compression of audio signals
http://profesores.elo.utfsm.cl/~mzanartu/Documents/Wavelets Project.pdf
From 2005 based on articles from 1993 and 1998
B-splines are a special kind of wavelets (used in MQA)
Article from 1993
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/258086
BTW: A very smart person here where I live have found these. (not me)
I think you will find that the answers you are looking for are to be found within your chosen field of inquiry, the only engineering at play is of the social variety. Why do these "luminaries" defend MQA? Could it be economics?I am an amateur yes.
I want to be VERY clear. I am not an engineer. I am currently doing Economics at university.
Jisus man, how many times do we have to repeat the same? Those "repeatable"measurements are measuring the wrong things:
1- square waves, high amplitude white noise, and presumably big amplitude impulse tones completely outside the maximum amplitudes of the music the system is programmed for, as all of them contain upper octaves and ultrasonic in high amplitudes. MQA is not intended to register high amplitude in ultrasonics, because there is NO MUSIC with that profile, and because that space is better used for custom filters fixing time domain issues. If you understand what MQA does (and if both accomplished amateurs are in fact accomplished, they knew it BEFORE doing those tests), you don't need a test to know a square wave will not perform OK.
2- A bit perfect match that by definition is impossible, as MQA replaces those below the noise floor with dithered information. Again, what an accomplished MQA reviewers should know in advance.
3- To make things worse, MQA assumes the noise band is dithered; these tests omitted that basic step, and so, the algorithm is fed with wrong information. It is obvious the multitude of anomalities would occur doing that.
4- Even if all of the above were not an issue, even then you wouldn't get that pretended bit-perfect match, because the system is intended to be lossless compared with analog input; but to fix the flaws of that input (by correcting time domain issues) if instead that input is digital.
5- If MQA were performing as bad as their conclusions say, the plots above ( that even then are incomplete, since they are comparing a 352K input with a 88.2 Khz output, leaving information the system has registered unprocessed) wouldn't have the degree of coincidence they have. Then... something must be wrong with those tests, don't you think?
What you are questioning is the very definition of the MQA design (noise shaping, encapsulation of data in noise bands, limited amplitude in high frequencies, deblurring of time domain information, etc), because all of that differs with your immaculate conception of how perfect a simple Redbook file is. If so, you don't need to backup your criticism in test trying to demonstrate the things the system is not intended to do.
It doesn't matter who or what you are. You managed to do something nobody has done before: put some test signals through an MQA encoder. Moreover, you have succeeded, where more technical arguments did not, in convincing a number of people that MQA is nothing but a sham. For this, we owe you our gratitude.I am an amateur yes.
I want to be VERY clear. I am not an engineer. I am currently doing Economics at university. Audio and engineering are just hobbies of mine. I have a fair bit of experience but in no way am I a professional or expert. And I do not claim to be.
Of course. Money makes the world go round and it's no different here.I think you will find that the answers you are looking for are to be found within your chosen field of inquiry, the only engineering at play is of the social variety. Why do these "luminaries" defend MQA? Could it be economics?
Pseudoscientists can be annoying, indeed.Apparently annoying you, for one thing, mansr
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
I prefer to look for the amusement value they might offer.Pseudoscientists can be annoying, indeed.
It doesn't matter who or what you are. You managed to do something nobody has done before: put some test signals through an MQA encoder. Moreover, you have succeeded, where more technical arguments did not, in convincing a number of people that MQA is nothing but a sham. For this, we owe you our gratitude.
Pseudoscientists can be annoying, indeed.
There may be one other explanation. Maybe, just maybe Mr JA is under NDA. He seems to know a lot but stops just before spilling the beans, teasing readers and leaving them wanting for more. I don't know how often that comes about in his position but if i were a mfg with what i consider to be proprietary design or information (and that info was needed to explain more about my product to a prominent reviewer) an NDA would be one of the first things i would put in place.That's OK. His recondite arguments and his tasteful dance around the real issues help support the idea that there is indeed a secret society conspiring in favor of MQA. Whether there actually is or isn't is irrelevant in terms of entertainment value. And it keeps us occupied while we still wait for a clear and concise explanation of the benefits of MQA for customers.