Skirmash

Typically a common streamer. At the moment it is a Firestick, but I periodically change based upon usability/reliability of the UI. My assumption was that I would use a digital output from the TV - either using eARC, an HDMI audio extractor or just Spdif. This would give me flexibility around the video source. I had assumed that HDMI was least likely of these options because I have never seen a standalone (headless) box set up to apply filters to an external digital input, let alone one that would support HDMI. Does such a device exist? Ash

Hey @cjf thanks for your detailed reply. There are multiple aspects of your post that I need to think about and reply to. Just wanted to register my appreciation until I have time to give a more considered reply worthy of your input. By the way, I just looked at your system pics. All very cool, and makes me wish I could have a dedicated space - but it is just not to be. Ash

Thanks for the reply Chris. The question for me is - can you give me a idea of what the system might look like that supports convolution (did I use that phrase correctly in the context of applying filters?) for both music and TV? In the case of the latter - I am assuming you either have an HDMI input, or an Spdif either directly as an output from a streamer or through some EARC audio extractor? Ash

Hey everyone, I am looking for some guidance and conversation that will help me understand options relating to Room Correction. Over the last 5-7 years, I have explored the topic of incorporating room correction into a more capable system (that I want to put together). However, I have never had the combination of domestic situation, room, income and job security and have always put it on the back burner. Recent events have left me feeling that, a bit like marriage or having a child, one could wait forever for a better set of circumstances and that I should procrastinate no more. In the past, I have used Tact, Dirac and an early (limited) version of Trinnov (within the Sherwood Receiver) and found them all compelling (although I feel I never put the effort to get the best out of the Tact). However, none of these solutions (at least in any standalone form) are anything other than substantially expensive (given MY budget) and I am sure I have seen a post somewhere from @Mitchco that has suggested that applying filters though the use of Audiolense/Acourate can achieve equal if not better results. The question I am struggling to answer is: What are the options for implementing room correction within a 2.2 digital active system where the (main) speakers have a digital input (be it AESaes/spdif)? An important thing to note is that I both watch TV and critically listen through the same system. The only options I can see with digital outs are Minidsp (that implements Dirac) and a Trinnov pro unit. These seem to be on opposite ends of a cost spectrum and for some reason (possibly cost), I tend to think that Trinnov is probably the more capable system. Most other units only support analogue outs. Lyngdorf's integrated does have a digital out. I am not sure if it is both room corrected and can be digitally attenuated - but it may be an option. It does have an HDMI - so that would be a plus - but I would also be paying for amplification I will not use. Are there other options here for implementing room correction within an all digital setting without resorting to a redundant D/A conversion? Any thoughts anyone? Thanks, Ash

Conflating positive personal experience with evidence is one thing. Ignoring the existing evidence base while simultaneously claiming no evidence has been presented is another altogether. Some people will go to great lengths to protect their ego (including some well known audio journalists). It is abundantly clear that FX has no intention of involvement in an intelligent dialogue.

If you believe that the current standards for capture of digital audio do not accurately capture all that is necessary to recreate the live event - all power to you. Interesting point of view - but not what we were discussing. Please do not move the goal posts! Whatever you compress in the FLAC container is 100% retrievable. It is the MQA encoding process that is lossy. Now - you might argue that the loss is not perceivable because it is below some real-world achievable noise floor - but it is lossy by the broadly accepted definition. Ash PS: Anyone please feel free to correct me where I am mistaken.

This is clearly nonsense. The digital audio data that goes in is completely reconstructed on the way out.

Interesting story and good perspective. I have tended to think the trolls do more damage than good to their cause. I do wish from time to time someone would turn up and legitimately try to defend it - but with an open mind - because I think watching an honest, non-ego-driven, back and forth would probably help me understand the subject matter more. When I first heard about MQA in the early days, I actually thought the concept sounded clever. Burying additional resolution under the achievable noise floor is a summary of my understanding back then. I could not say when my opinion turned, but once I understood using MQA made leveraging room-correction (which had become compelling to me) way more of a challenge, then for me it became imperative to understand the tradeoffs that MQA was forcing upon the consumer. The combination of very smart people here starting to put together summaries that I could at least (partially) understand and the reluctance of Stereophile 'leadership' to apply their 'famed' methodical approach to MQA spoke loud and clear to me. For me personally, RMAF 2018 was the proverbial nail in the coffin; the intellectual dishonesty was laid bare for all to see. Maybe this email is an indulgence, but I just want to extend gratitude to everyone here who sunk hours of effort into exposing MQA for the fraud it is, and Chris, special thanks for fronting up at RMAF. I remember the battles here about objectivism vs subjectivism, and while I had many reservations about the decisions you took at the time to stop the endless bickering, for me, that RMAF presentation and the response it garnered shows you have have firmly planted your feet in both camps right where it matters. Your experience is your own, but don't make fraudulent claims that negatively impact every audio consumer if you cannot back it up! Thanks, Ash

This is clearly not a serious question. There is a wealth of detailed material and great summaries addressing MQA's issues - some of them authored by the very people you are arguing with here. You simply have to decide you are motivated to learn, perform the necessary searches, and be open minded and digest it. If you believe you can then refute it - all power to you! Come back and make your case. Just be aware that invested people who have lost millions over many years have failed to achieve what you are claiming to have achieved in the space of a handful of internet posts. You will get no more responses out of me. EDIT: As an FYI - if you do not understand the material that you find, then you could say so here and many of the people you are being so petulant with will probably still be willing to explain it to you. You just have to be cordial.

Oh Fx. You have not debunked anything and there is much for you to learn about standards of evidence.

With all due respect Fx, you are a pot calling the kettle black and I think it would be wise to take a step back and re-evaluate your perspective and approach. You do not seem to appreciate that a number of the people you are arguing with have been instrumental in debunking MQA - and their evidence has stood up to (industry) scrutiny over time - to such a degree that neither the myopic supporters of MQA in the audio press or MQA themselves have ever been able to refute it. You have come into this thread making claims on the benefits of MQA which have already been disproven with unrefuted evidence, while presenting your own flawed evidence and personal experience as being compelling reason why you are right. No one here will deny your personal experience - it is yours. That said, your proclamations are not credible and you would do well to put aside your ego and critically think your way through the 'evidence' you are presenting. Ash

This might be the best news I have heard all week! That said, isn't there a possibility that this is just a plan to stop the current financial hemorrhaging and maybe sell the IP to the next nefarious group that wants to exploit the audiophile community? Would Tidal themselves consider purchasing it? They have sunk significant effort into making MQA a point of difference!

No it wouldn't! It appears you are actively trying to conflate two issues. 1) What a fair number of professionals think about MQA - from a preference perspective is irrelevant. A 'fair' number is not compelling enough to justify widespread format changes. Furthermore, no-one has argued anything other than people are entitled to their subject preference. 2) What is being questioned here is the technical accuracy of the specific statements being made. Why do you use the former as a means of avoiding addressing the latter? From my perspective, it would appear as though the audio press cannot refute the technical arguments and continue to peddle subjective ones to cloud the matter because of a mix of self-serving interest and ego (which stops people admitting they were wrong and were fooled by marketing). Ash

I would normally sit on the sidelines and let far more eloquent people than me represent my point of view - but you are being so blatantly obtuse - I could not resist. MQA's clear goal is to become the ubiquitous streaming method. Their licensing approach adds cost throughout the music recording, distribution and reproduction processes. If it was simply a matter of adding another choice, that would be fine. But that isn't what has factually happened. The major service pushing MQA has reduced choice - not increased it. It is not refutable. It is fact. I have no idea why it is convenient for you to ignore this. Now, I would not care for the loss of choice if MQA was actually technically sound. I don't recall much choice when we moved to CD as the preferred digital distribution medium. But then, it demonstrably and objectively performed better than the Compact Cassettes and Vinyl I had been listening to. The elephant in the room that you are conveniently ignoring - and which you are hiding from in all your pseudo-polite nonsense - is that MQA has been technically debunked. When it's technical merits (or lack there of) have been exposed in public forums, the MQA approach is to shoot the messenger and hide behind arguments of authority rather than address the issues directly. It is in MQA' s own self interest to compellingly refute what has been said about it. It hits them in the pocket not to! Why have they not addressed the technical concerns? Simple - they cannot. They have been exposed! None of the grand-standing by the bullies at RMAF 2018 will change that. There was nothing of substance in the repost to GoldenSound's video either. It was noise and obfuscation - much like MQA itself. I know this thread is internet legend - but it is still surprising to me that people with your approach continue to join the thread. Your MO is very obvious. You speak quietly in an attempt to paint yourself as the mild voice of reason among people who are unfairly circling around MQA like a pack of rabid wolves. However, you speaking quietly cannot draw attention away from the crock of marketing BS and lies that is MQA. Now, please bring something substantive to the table - most of your audience loathe the spurious noise.

Thanks everyone and I extend my apologies for the confusion. It seems I worded the problem poorly. My question was not about the design of the filters, or whether that could be done. Nor is it if the results would compete with the proprietary solutions I mentioned. I'm already convinced of that (providing I get expert support)! My question is whether it is feasible and/or sensible to attempt to build a standalone consumer-cpu-based room correction solution with digital ins and outs? This would be an alternative to buying one of the more expensive integrated room correction products - such as a Lyngdorf amplifier? It would appear all the software/hardware parts are readily available as are the services to help with filter design. How challenging is it to really build something that performs reliably (assuming the appropriate filters)? Ash