|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jun 1, 2018 10:01:42 GMT -5
Borrowed (mostly) from "Let the Revolution Begin" by Robert Harley in the September 2017 issue of The Absolute Sound magazine.
"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more end more precise measurement." - Lord Kelvin in 1900 (five years before Einstein's paper on relativity)
This quote reminds me SO MUCH of those on this Lounge, who claim that "everything in audio is already known - there are no new discoveries to be made."
Mr. Harley's article goes on to describe how, when new scientific paradigms emerge, there is a "war" between those massively invested in the old paradigm, and those who are willing to see the new. Harley cites Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" as the source of these ideas. The book claims that controversy will continue until proponents of the outmoded paradigm die off, and that the younger generation, educated in the new paradigm only, become the majority. In other words, despite evidence to the contrary, those who were educated in the validity of Shannon-Nyquist sampling will not (ever) accept MQA.
And so (provocative conclusion...) are you a relic or a visionary?
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,493
|
Post by DYohn on Jun 1, 2018 10:14:34 GMT -5
I'm a scientist/engineer. This means I trust and rely on the established science and I trust and rely on the scientific method for additional discovery. I am always open to new findings, but they must be scientifically sound not based on someone's experience or perception. If it's valid it can be tested and shown to be repeatable. If it is not then it is perceptual and individual and possibly placebo and is only true for the person reporting it. In both electronics and in audio the science is well established and nothing discovered in the last 40 years has changed it, although we can measure things more accurately and control things more efficiently and we understand things more thoroughly now. That's progress, not changes to the underlying science.
Does our ability to understand phenomenon change? Yes. Was Lord Kelvin correct in 1900? Yes, because that's what he was saying as well, and Einstein's theories described a different and better way of understanding the foundations of why phenomenon occurred.
|
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Jun 1, 2018 10:16:35 GMT -5
So at first I thought you got a new pair of Paradigm speakers.
I guess I’m a relic. I’m mostly happy with what I have from the source/amplification side. I see all this new digital MQA, DSD stuff as just another reason for me to buy my favorite albums again. The majority of the music I listen to was recorded awhile ago and feel that no new digital format can enhance my enjoyment.
Now speakers are an area where I see progress being made that I could actually care about.
So it’s that I don’t think absolute progress can be made, but is that progress necessary for my enjoyment of music.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jun 1, 2018 10:30:06 GMT -5
We do not know everything practically or scientifically, about audio or anything else. We probably never will. Most of us do not even know all that is presently known or even recall all that we have been taught ( I recently said some things that I should have known were incorrect). I believe MQA was developed in a scientific approach, unfortunately because it is tied in to a commercial enterprise and all the math and science has not been made fully transparent, it is shadowed (perhaps rightly so). I think commercialism and science are in conflict with each other in many fields and this is unfortunate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jun 1, 2018 12:33:03 GMT -5
...Einstein's theories described a different and better way of understanding the foundations of why phenomenon occurred. So might it be possible that MQA also describes a different and better way of understanding such foundations? |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Jun 1, 2018 12:37:05 GMT -5
I think there is nothing else to be discover in audio. Humans? That is a totally different never ending project!
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,493
|
Post by DYohn on Jun 1, 2018 14:19:15 GMT -5
...Einstein's theories described a different and better way of understanding the foundations of why phenomenon occurred. So might it be possible that MQA also describes a different and better way of understanding such foundations? If it had any meaningful scientific basis or if it wasn't just a lossy compression format wrapped up in a cynical commercial ploy to control a revenue stream, perhaps.  |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jun 1, 2018 18:13:11 GMT -5
"...it's not surprising that MQA has its critics. MQA fits the definition of a paradigm shift...that some people can't comprehend along with a reluctance to abandon long-held beliefs in certain "proven scientific facts." But I suppose we should cut the critics some slack. After all, if Lord Kelvin could have been so wrong about the state of physics in 1900, it is easy to understand how a few audiophiles could be so mistaken about MQA."
So is the accusation of "a cynical commercial ploy to control a revenue stream" just an excuse to avoid confronting the (new psychoacoustic) science behind the technology? Or is it rather a refusal to consider ANY new discovery because it might upset the satisfaction of believing that a current understanding is final and complete?
Personally, I'm as yet unconvinced that the fundamentals of MQA are fresh science. But I refuse to let economic accusations cloud a frank appraisal of the technology's claims. Judging from the internet invective thrown at MQA, I may be in the significant (but correct) minority.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,493
|
Post by DYohn on Jun 1, 2018 18:38:17 GMT -5
Boomzilla, there is nothing "new" about psychoacoustics. MQA is a commercial wrapper for lossy compression, using well-understood psychoacoustic tricks to add a sense of depth, space and "fullness" which is actually quite artificial sounding. Some people like it. That's fine. Some people like everything or it wouldn't exist. But calling is some sort of paradigm shift indicates to me that the person saying that has simply bought into the Meridian Audio hype. MQA is no more a paradigm shift than was MP3. The only thing it does that is "new" is proprietary encoding, one that equipment manufacturers must give up a lot of design information to Meridian to incorporate, as well paying their royalty structure just like the publishers of material encoded with MQA. It's a revenue generator for Meridian, nothing more, with some clever DSP tricks hidden in the encoding algorithm. Not new science, just a clever commercial application of science.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jun 1, 2018 19:10:49 GMT -5
I'm a scientist/engineer. This means I trust and rely on the established science and I trust and rely on the scientific method for additional discovery. I am always open to new findings, but they must be scientifically sound not based on someone's experience or perception... "Scientifically-sound" FACT No. 1: Human hearing is generally agreed to roll off at 20,000 KHz or less. Therefore, in theory, any recording with frequency response to 20KHz (such as 44.1, 16-bit CD audio) should be "perfect." Yet scientific testing has shown that humans generally prefer the sound of higher-frequency samples over red book CDs. Why do these higher frequency samples sound "better" if our ears can't hear more than 20KHz? The best explanation yet devised is that the (sharp) filters required on CD-quality audio affect the time signature of the higher frequencies. The higher sampling rates allow for more gradual filters that distort phase relationships less. This is the first concept that MQA is based on SOURCES: "50 Years After Shannon" by Michael Unser & "Sparse Sampling: Theory & Applications" by Pier Luigi Dragotti "Scientifically-sound" FACT No. 2: Human hearing is not evolved to specifically hear test tones & beeps, but rather transients of indeterminate and/or varying frequencies. Therefore, timing cues are what the brain is most sensitized to, not sustained frequencies. There are more neural pathways from the brain to the ear than from the ear to the brain. As sounds arrive at the brain, the brain changes the ear's sensitivity to best determine what is creating a sound and where the sound is coming from. This is necessary for survival of the individual (and the species). Simplistic Fourier analysis fails to take this into account. This is the second concept that MQA is based on. Stewart and Craven have attempted to incorporate the above in their implementation of MQA. Have they been successful? Not yet determined. Is MQA the best way of addressing the facts above? Also not yet determined. Is ignoring the above facts a better solution than trying to incorporate them into acoustic design? No it is not. Whether you like or don't like MQA, the newer science concerning human perception can't be ignored. Whether the financial model of MQA is fair or not is COMPLETELY irrelevant to whether the technology is valid or not. Whether MQA succeeds in the marketplace or not is, again, absolutely not relevant to the comments above. So let's address the science without trying to distract the conversation with spurious concerns, such as whether the business model is fair or not. And finally, may I point out that science is absolutely based on experience and perception. How could it not be? The test of experimentation is repeatability and verification by other scientists. For example, the recent detection of "gravity waves" was considered valid because not one but two detectors (on different continents, and operated by different scientific groups) simultaneously confirmed the detection. So a sample size of two... By the same criteria, if garbulky and I both hear the same thing from an audio component (independently), then that would be "scientific proof" via a sample size of two. You'll accept one experiment but not the other? LOL But I digress... The bottom line here is that we know that two-channel stereo is not adequate to provide a convincing reproduction of reality. We know that digital sampling, as currently used, introduces artifacts that fail to provide a convincing reproduction of reality. We are beginning to understand more about how the human ear-brain interface works. What's wrong with using this information to try and improve audio reproduction? Whether MQA is a solution or a dead-end, it IS one of the most innovative efforts in recent history to address new knowledge of how humans process audio. I'm willing to give it a chance. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,493
|
Post by DYohn on Jun 1, 2018 19:16:43 GMT -5
Nothing you've pasted here supports MQA being "new science" or a new paradigm. It is as I said simply clever application of well-understood science to accomplish a goal. The thing I don't like about MQA is that it is lossy and that it was created to generate revenue for Meridian, not to create "better sound". But hey, if you are now an acolyte then enjoy yourself. I am out since all I am doing is enabling your normal behavior of turning every thread you start into a ten-page epic that goes no where.
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator 
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,952
|
Post by hemster on Jun 1, 2018 19:21:00 GMT -5
Borrowed (mostly) from "Let the Revolution Begin" by Robert Harley in the September 2017 issue of The Absolute Sound magazine. "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more end more precise measurement." - Lord Kelvin in 1900 (five years before Einstein's paper on relativity) This quote reminds me SO MUCH of those on this Lounge, who claim that "everything in audio is already known - there are no new discoveries to be made." Mr. Harley's article goes on to describe how, when new scientific paradigms emerge, there is a "war" between those massively invested in the old paradigm, and those who are willing to see the new. Harley cites Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" as the source of these ideas. The book claims that controversy will continue until proponents of the outmoded paradigm die off, and that the younger generation, educated in the new paradigm only, become the majority. In other words, despite evidence to the contrary, those who were educated in the validity of Shannon-Nyquist sampling will not (ever) accept MQA. And so (provocative conclusion...) are you a relic or a visionary? I'm a visic revisionary. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jun 1, 2018 19:22:33 GMT -5
to DYohn: Nothing I've posted supports MQA as being a new paradigm? I agree. I've not drank any MQA-Cool-Aid yet. You say it's nothing but a revenue-generator for Meridian - but that's an opinion - not a fact. And YOU'VE provided no evidence that MQA's sound-quality claims are bogus. So if you want to oppose any and all new science and technologies based on the idea that they only exist to enrich someone, then hey - enjoy yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jun 1, 2018 20:35:23 GMT -5
Well hold on. I'm not at all convinced about this CD vs hi-res business. Where's the evidence for these claims and all these scientific tests they've supposedly done?
But I did listen to some MQA vs the 44.1 Khz PCM FROM THE SAME hi-res MASTER and I detected no difference. I didn't test a whole lot of pieces but so far my experience with MQA is meh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jun 1, 2018 20:43:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jun 1, 2018 21:47:00 GMT -5
Youve heard mqa with the meridian, the dragonfly and the liberty. What do you think of the sound? Is it a new paradigm? |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jun 1, 2018 21:49:31 GMT -5
I have read all I could find about MQA.
Short story is that Ive thrown out analytical thought and just listened. Most of what ive heard is easily equal to or better then CD quality sound to my ears on my system. Comparing my vinyl rig and LPs to MQA, in many cases I couldn’t tell the difference as to which was playing except for poorly recorded digital mixes. As always, bad in WILL give you bad out! Huge accomplishment for MQA as Ive always found the warmth and tone of vinyl to be a superior format much of the time. YMMV
ONE MORE NOTE. I will not be purchasing any MQA or CDs in the future, either stream it or purchase the LP. I just haven’t put time into organization of digital formats. Im too old to start over! LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jun 1, 2018 21:56:46 GMT -5
Youve heard mqa with the meridian, the dragonfly and the liberty. What do you think of the sound? Is it a new paradigm? It depends. On some material, yawn... But on the 2L material, yes - MQA made quite a diff. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jun 1, 2018 22:24:54 GMT -5
Youve heard mqa with the meridian, the dragonfly and the liberty. What do you think of the sound? Is it a new paradigm? It depends. On some material, yawn... But on the 2L material, yes - MQA made quite a diff. Well there you have it! |
|
|
|
Post by geeqner on Jun 11, 2018 15:37:10 GMT -5
I am a BIG believer that there is "yin and yang" to almost EVERYTHING - There are two sides to this coin of "PERCEIVED Audio Performance / Accuracy":
On one side - there are a variety of methods and transducers that can currently capture and/or reproduce audio signals in a variety of ways. Most of these ARE quantifiable. However, the "practical" part of the Art of Engineering is determining which variables you have sufficient control over and which you do not.
Are there better ways to produce a more "realistic" (in MEASURABLE terms) Audio Experience - I would clearly say "Yes" and there are a variety of ways to attack this. Sampled frequencies that are outside of the realm of human mechanical hearing may contribute to emulating the feedback that we perceive as the "acoustical properties" of the environment in which the recording was made and/or other acoustical clues, "ques" and harmonics etc. that ARE perceivable.
However - adding channels and/or other effects may require an operating environment (Listening room) that is better controlled than what the majority of people (especially those with SOs) may have access to and therefore, may be of little to no REAL benefit except for the rare handful with a controlled listening room...
On the OTHER side - the human brain and the way that it works in conjunction with our ears is NOT fully understood. There is DEFINITELY "more to it" than a simple machine with a Frequency Response (although that is a BIG PART of it). If it were that simple, it would be easy to emulate - which it IS NOT (fully). There is a difference between "hearing" in a laboratory sense and "perceiving" which may involve interaction with other senses / other subliminal processes within the mind.
(This is NOT saying that A LOT of advertised "Audiophile Technology" is not just a pile of expensive bunk....) However, I am open to arguments that stuff like over-sampling at rates that are 2 to 4 times those of the defined Human Audible Spectrum are NOT completely without merit (but beyond some point, it becomes B.S.) Who knows, at some point in the future, Scientists and Engineers will probably figure-out ways to introduce accurate sound stimulus directly into our brains in ways that completely bypasses acoustics (taking all of that "stuff" completely out of the equation) but then again there's the ability to do that sort of thing and then again the "Art" of doing that thing WELL ENOUGH that our brains will think that we're at a "Live" performance...
|
|
