• The Computer Audiophile

    MQA (for civilians)

    At CES 2017 Tidal announced it was streaming MQA masters and MQA Ltd announced software decoding of the MQA signal. Two big items for all of us who enjoy music. Immediately the questions and conjecture started flowing. It's human nature. We ask questions and make guesses about what's happening, when we don't have all the information.

     

    Shortly after the announcements I setup a meeting with MQA's Bob Stuart to get more details about decoding MQA signals. I wanted to know the differences between software and hardware decoding and where rendering comes into play, in addition to many other items.

     

    A PhD isn't required to enjoy MQA. This article is my attempt at explaining how decoding and rendering work, from a civilian perspective. Most of us have seen the music origami graphs and deep technical explanations, but have no idea what any of the information actually means for us, enjoying music at home or on the go. I want to help members of the CA community understand how to get the best sound quality out of MQA.

     

     

     

    From The Distribution File Forward

     

    Currently MQA music is offered through online stores for purchase and download, and through Tidal for streaming. I'm willing to bet more music will be available through both channels and both channels will have more outlets in the coming months.

     

    Consumers purchasing or streaming MQA music will see either 24 bit / 44.1 kHz or 24 bit / 48 kHz files without playing the audio (16 bit MQA files are outside the scope of this discussion). These are what's called the distribution files. They have been through the MQA process that deblurs and folds them into a smaller package, readying them for transport and playback on almost any device.

     

    The MQA distribution file, the file that's actually purchased or streamed, is like a chameleon. In its packaged state the files are 44.1 or 48 kHz, but decoded and rendered the files can expand into the highest supported sample rate of the digital to analog converter inside the DAC..

     

     

    Real world example:

     

    1. The studio creates a track at 24 bit / 352.8 kHz DXD.

    2. The studio uses the MQA process on the track, packaging it as 24 bit / 44.1 kHz.

    3. The consumer purchases or streams the 24 bit / 44.1 kHz track.

    4. The consumer's playback system decodes and renders the track at 24 bit / 352.8 kHz DXD.

     

     

     

    Squeezing The Best Quality From MQA Music

     

    With the aforementioned real world example in mind, let's look at how to play MQA music and how to get the best sound quality possible. There are four "ways" to play MQA music. I use the word "ways" for lack of a better, more specific term.

     

     

    A. No decoder

    B. Software / Core Decoding

    C. Software / Core Decoding with Hardware Rendering

    D. Hardware Full Decoding

     

     

     

    No Decoder

     

    Similar to a dual layer SACD that plays the CD layer in a standard CD player and the Super Audio layer in an SACD player, MQA music is playable through almost any playback system, but the highest quality is only possible with the appropriate solution.

     

    Playing MQA on a system without a decoder, will enable the consumer to hear the 24 bit / 44.1 kHz (or 24 bit / 48 kHz) version of the music in the example above. According to MQA Ltd, playing the un-decoded version still enables the consumer to benefit from the deblurring processes used in the creation or folding of the track.

     

    Examples of systems without decoders are plentiful in this early phase of record labels rolling out MQA music. JRiver Media Center, Amarra, HQPlayer and many others are applications that don't decode MQA. In addition, most hardware on Earth doesn't decode MQA at this time.

     

    One scenario that may confuse consumers, is when an MQA renderer is present without a software or hardware decoder. This will result in an un-decoded signal exactly as it would without the MQA renderer. The 44.1 or 48 kHz version of the file will play, undecoded. One example of this is the upcoming AudioQuest DragonFly (updated Red and Black versions). Without a decoder in the playback chain, an MQA renderer has no effect on the audio.

     

    No-decoder.png

     

     

     

    Software / Core Decoding

     

     

    MQA is a whole host of processes and technologies, but for purposes of this civilian discussion, let's look at it as three processes. MQA files can be 1. Fully decoded, 2. Software / core decoded, and 3. Rendered. Software decoding is capable of exactly what its name suggests, decoding MQA. Rendering must be done in hardware because it is custom matched to the DAC system.

     

    Software decoding, what MQA Ltd calls core decoding, provides what I consider to be about 90% of the MQA benefits. Decoding in software unfolds / unpacks the music to a maximum of twice the base sample rate, 88.2 or 96, for either analog or digital output.

     

    EQ, bass management, and other non-MQA DSP can take place after core decoding.

     

    Using the real world example above, the Tidal desktop application, Audirvana, and soon Roon would decode the MQA 24/44.1 distribution file and unpack it to 24/88.2. This can be output digitally to any DAC, digitally to an MQA DAC for rendering, or output as analog audio.

     

    Another example can be seen when streaming Beyonce's album Lemonade. The MQA distribution file is packed to 24/44.1 and the decoded file is also 24/44.1. The album must have been recorded at 24/44.1 and the studio is being honest with us, rather than upsampling it to 88.2 or higher.

     

    When a master is 44.1 or 48 kHz, the core decoder Authenticates, decodes full dynamic range and matches to the current PC playback settings. (Depending on the soundcard and audio configuration, the Tidal App may decode this example to 44.1k or a provide a compatible 88.2k output for smoother playlisting). If you select Passthough, the raw 44.1/24b MQA file is passed downstream to a decoder. For music where the original sample rate is 88.2k or higher, the core output is always either 88.2 or 96kHz.

     

    Note that other Apps and products implementing Tidal may be subtly different.

     

    core-decoder.png

     

     

     

     

     

    Software / Core Decoding with Hardware Rendering

     

     

    The third way to play MQA music is through a software decoder and a hardware renderer. As you read above, MQA has three process required for the full MQA experience, 1. Full Decoding, 2. Software / core decoding, and 3. Rendering. In this method of playback, a combination of software and hardware is used to deliver all that MQA has to offer. Don't ever use this as the answer to an MQA exam question, but you can think of it this way - software / core decoding serves up the file and hardware rendering hits it out of the park.

     

    Everyone looking to get the best sound from MQA music will want to use this method or the all hardware method discussed last. In this method, the core decoded MQA file is passed from a software application to the MQA hardware renderer.

     

    Using the real world example above, the Tidal desktop application, Audirvana, and soon Roon would decode the MQA 24/44.1 distribution file and unpack it to 24/88.2. This file is output from a computer via USB or S/PDIF or even a phone via Lightning or USB on-the-go, to the hardware renderer. For this example, we'll output via USB to an AudioQuest DragonFly. The core decoded file enters the DragonFly at 24/88.2, then expands to the full 24/352.8 kHz resolution of the original studio master file.

     

    Readers familiar with the DragonFly will know that the DragonFly supports audio up through 24/96. However, that's only on its USB interface. Internally the DAC goes up through 768 kHz. MQA enables the audio to duck its head to get under the door frame, before standing straight up once again. Kind of like a balloon as well. Squeeze the middle of a long balloon and the two ends will get larger while the middle shrinks. The two ends are the studio master file and the fully decoded MQA file, while the middle is the packed undecoded MQA file.

     

    The above method is a really good way to work around the lack of USB Audio Class 2 driver support in many Windows operating systems and to get around interface sample rate limitations. It's possible to play 24/352.8 on a class 1 device and without custom drivers.

     

    What happens when using software / core decoding and hardware that's capable of full decoding like the Meridian Explorer2? If desired, it's possible to use an app like Tidal to do the core decoding and send the MQA signal to the DAC for rendering only. If the Explorer2 is fed with an MQA core (decoded) signal, it only does the rendering.

     

    Note about renderers: There are no generic MQA renderers, as each one is custom designed for each piece of hardware. According to MQA Ltd, the analog output is custom tuned for each device to most closely recreate the sound heard in the studio. As always, you'll have to be the judge to see if the marketing matches the end result.

     

    One additional piece of information that fits somewhere between this section and the next, systems like Meridian that run digital to the loudspeakers, send a core decoded stream to the speakers before final rendering separately for each drive unit. This core decoding takes place in hardware / software loaded on Meridian hardware.

     

    core-decoder.png

    render.png

     

     

     

     

    Full Decoding (Hardware Only)

     

     

    There's not much more to say about this one. Full decoding is only possible in hardware and it's considered the full monty. Both aspects of core decoding and rendering are controlled by a single manufacturer and the requirements for third party software are gone. The final analog output however, is theoretically identical to a software / core decode and hardware render. We'll have to see once more opinions come in from people testing both methods.

     

    A DAC or home theater processor capable of full decoding can receive an untouched MQA file (distribution file or stream) or a core decoded file from a software decoder, for rendering only. I'm not sure why anyone would prefer to use a software decoder when s/he has a full decoder in hardware, but it's entirely possible.

     

    All details about the renderer hold true for a full decoder. Very custom and tuned to each hardware device.

     

    A note about this tuning for each DAC. I've talked to many manufacturers who have products in the process of MQA certification. Every one of them says the process is thorough and a bit demanding, often requiring many updates to hardware and firmware until everything is as close to the target as possible. This piece isn't marketing, it's all based on engineering.

     

    Using the above real world example, any software or hardware capable of sending a bit perfect audio stream to an MQA DAC with a full decoder, will work just fine. The DAC must see either a core decoded stream or undecoded stream without alteration.

     

    full-decoder.png

     

     

    Let There Be Light

     

     

    Whether playing MQA content fully decoded, core decoded and rendered, or just core decoded, an MQA DAC or application will always signal the file is true to what the record label released. If it's MQA it will illuminate a blue/green light.

     

    When I first investigated MQA I knew the blue authentication light on MQA DACs was helpful in identifying bit perfect output to the DAC, but I thought the whole authentication piece was unneeded. However, I've since learned that the music supply chain is full of challenges and less than stellar versions of our favorite albums (some related to up/down sampling). Much of this isn't malicious, it's just a matter of large companies with many people involved who may not know exactly what's going on. MQA has the ability to provide record labels with a single deliverable file and the consumer can verify this is the file s/he plays back at home. It's a cool concept.

     

    Conclusion

     

     

    Enjoying MQA music isn't rocket science, but it takes a little education to make the right choices. Obtaining the best quality MQA playback requires either a combination of software decoding and hardware rendering or a full decoding DAC. Fortunately, I believe 90% of MQA's benefits can be realized by only using a software decoder, called core decoding. Now that some of our favorite music is available in MQA, it's time we listen for a while rather than talk over the music. Set your systems up right and press play.

     

     

     

     

     

    1-Pixel.png

    Edited by The Computer Audiophile

    0


    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0
    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback




    Consider a 48 kHz 24-bit MQA file. The high 15 bits of this file are a reasonable representation of the 0-24 kHz frequency band from the original while the low 8 bits contain a compressed version of the 24-48 kHz band. The "core" decoder decodes the low 8 bits and combines this information with the base band signal from the high bits to produce a 96 kHz sample rate output covering the 0-48 kHz frequency band. Compared to the original file, this decoded version comes pretty close, but there some losses in the high half (24-48 kHz). If the original file had a sample rate higher than 96 kHz, any frequency content above 48 kHz will have been completely discarded. The "render" part upsamples the output of the "core" decoder to the same rate as the original file. Because of the terrible interpolation filter, it may at first glance look like some high-frequency content has been restored here, but it is all fake. All you actually get is images of the lower frequencies and a rising level of dither noise.

     

    Thanks, that's a very impressive explanation. You reference the "original file" which I assume is a hi-res file, available via download or in limited selection albums at about $25 a pop. Yes? To my knowledge, these large hi-res files are not being commercially streamed, correct? You must buy the physical CD or download via online purchase. These make up a certain class of audiophiles hi-res libraries. Yes?

     

    You write, "Because of the terrible interpolation filter (I wouldn't know a "terrible" IF, if I saw one), it may at first glance look like some high-frequency content has been restored here, but it is all fake. All you actually get is images of the lower frequencies and a rising level of dither noise." Since I'm a simple guy and have yet to master listening to music with my eyes via an oscilloscope, rather than my ears, I'll take your word for it.

     

    What's puzzling to many of us is why MQA'd files, streamed via TIDAL, sound aesthetically more pleasing (more spacious/3D, tonally richer, and easeful) than non-MQA's versions. I've done firsthand A/B tests, making appropriate volume adjustments, and I don't believe my ears are playing tricks on me. I make no claim for my eyes. At the end of the day, I'll spend dollars on MQA streaming vs. any other delivery. I guess that doesn't qualify me for the "audiophile" class of listener. :/

     

    I hold no opinion regarding the SQ of hi-res albums vs. the same album MQA'd--purchased or streamed. It's really at mute issue for many of the streaming crowd.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    What's puzzling to many of us is why MQA'd files, streamed via TIDAL, sound aesthetically more pleasing (more spacious/3D, tonally richer, and easeful) than non-MQA's versions. I've done firsthand A/B tests, making appropriate volume adjustments, and I don't believe my ears are playing tricks on me. I make no claim for my eyes.

     

    At least some of the MQA files are made from different masters than the non-MQA ones.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    At least some of the MQA files are made from different masters than the non-MQA ones.

     

    As a TIDAL premium subscriber, I'm sure glad they have the grunts searching the archives for all the better master files. Amazing how many they seem to be finding.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    I think we would all agree that lossy compression "loses" something and as such something is missing. ...

     

     

    The real question is whether you can hear the loss. Cables lose something, tubes, transistors, capacitors, etc.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    The real question is whether you can hear the loss. Cables lose something, tubes, transistors, capacitors, etc.
    Your room for fecks sake!!!
    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I just came across a link on the marketing aspect of this format below:

     

    https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music

     

    I tend to agree the last part, 'In the end I’m confident that the free, readily available, high quality, open-source alternatives will win out. Lock down, centralisation and profiteering has a tendency towards failure.'

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I admit that I am just now getting around to reading your article Chris.

     

    I am less concerned about MQA as a market/industry standard not because of anything specific you said, but because of the shear scale of the convoluted mess of it all! ;)

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I lived through almost two years (oh my, maybe more) of online forum blather and gazillions of alternative tests when the big digital camera companies came up with lossless compression. What's different here is that it's not just "is it lossless" (OMG, you can't believe the insane things people did to test for that... most of which illustrated the proponent's lack of understanding of digital imaging) but MQA is claiming "and even better." So far, I'm OK saying it may be a much better compression algorithm. (For all the breakthroughs in genomics, we're still learning how to get better at assembling gene sequences...) Whether the additional information in MQA encoding adds to the sonic quality... that's an area where I have no experience in other digital domains. Other than in photography, where sharpening algorithms were initially embraced and eventually abhorred.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Let me talk about an abstract "lossless" and "lossy" (don't touching any certain format).

     

    If mean here "and even better" as "and even sound better", "lossless" may "sound worse" than "lossy".

     

    Example: Sound engineers know tricks how to edit file for "sound better" subjectivelly. We can edit WAV1, save as WAV2. These files will not binary identical. I.e. WAV2 is "lossy". But WAV2 may sound better.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    When I think about lossy, I ask myself what is lost. With MP3 and AAC real music is lost. With MQA I don't believe real music is lost. MQA changes digital, making existing terminology require more discussion than in the past.

     

    Chris, that was what I was looking for. But when I compared a 2L 24/192 file with MQA of the same track I felt a significant difference (already commented here) of real music left, specifically an hardening of a soprano voice on MQA, in a way that also occurs on the CD track on Tidal...It was clear to me that in my situation (no MQA DAC) I gained nothing on MQA and I lost a very important feature of the "original" file, which is a natural presentation of a humans voice.

     

    I wonder when can I stream the MQA to be able to narrow down the variables...

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    When I was a subscriber to Tidal before MQA, it was relatively easy to compare a ripped Redbook album to a streamed version of the same. From this comparison it was very easy to discard the Tidal offerings and cancel the subscription.

     

    The only difference an MQA file would make, as mansr pointed out, the source files are different (better to begin with) than the trash that's being streamed at 44.1kHz. No thanks, adios Tidal.

     

    For music discovery, the lossy format sites will be fine, Spotify, Apple, et al or even Amazon to sample music. For serious listening... spinning discs or file playback from a local machine. If the Internet shuts down, you still pay for the streaming access and no music. Poor idea that one and the consumer misses out again.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It's great when so called "objective" analysis correlates with listening impressions. That just doesn't seem to be the case here though. I've read very few, if any, negative impressions of the actual sound of MQA.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    That is exactly what I'm saying.

     

    That's not my understanding of how undersampling a signal works. Surely its not the case that you lose all the information, but the opposite:

     

    - higher frequencies are aliased down into lower frequencies (the folding)

    - on reconstruction the higher frequencies are indeed restored (unfolding, you claim this cannot or does not happen), but the problem is now all the aliasing left behind. MQA take advantage of the "known shape" of the audio data to apply some EQ to hopefully remove some of the aliasing, or at least reduce its level.

     

    - BTW My understanding is based on this article - MQA 192k / 96k There and back again.- if its wrong please help us understand why.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    That's not my understanding of how undersampling a signal works. Surely its not the case that you lose all the information, but the opposite:

     

    - higher frequencies are aliased down into lower frequencies (the folding)

    - on reconstruction the higher frequencies are indeed restored (unfolding, you claim this cannot or does not happen), but the problem is now all the aliasing left behind. MQA take advantage of the "known shape" of the audio data to apply some EQ to hopefully remove some of the aliasing, or at least reduce its level.

     

    - BTW My understanding is based on this article - MQA 192k / 96k There and back again.- if its wrong please help us understand why.

    If a signal has been undersampled, there is no way of separating aliases from actual baseband components. When such a signal is upsampled using a leaky filter, the result is an unchanged baseband including the aliases from undersampling along with a high band composed of images of the undersampled signal, i.e. the original baseband plus aliases. Sure, the alias components will recreate the original high frequencies, but they'll still remain in the baseband, and they'll be accompanied by unwanted images of the low frequencies. In other words, your "reconstructed" signal is doubly corrupted, and there's nothing you can do about it. Selectively removing the aliases and images is as impossible as unscrambling an egg.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    It's great when so called "objective" analysis correlates with listening impressions. That just doesn't seem to be the case here though. I've read very few, if any, negative impressions of the actual sound of MQA.

     

    Me seems, subjective (and objective) sound qualuty here depend more on DAC implementation, than MQA vs. uncompressed high resolution.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Me seems, subjective (and objective) sound qualuty here depend more on DAC implementation, than MQA vs. uncompressed high resolution.

     

    Yes, but for those people who don't wish to buy a new DAC (or who aren't using their DAC's filtering, but use software and have a particular filter or filters they like), it is worth considering which of the two might potentially provide better sound for one given implementation.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Yes, but for those people who don't wish to buy a new DAC (or who aren't using their DAC's filtering, but use software and have a particular filter or filters they like), it is worth considering which of the two might potentially provide better sound for one given implementation.

     

    Decoded MQA is usual PCM. Thus I see there 2 ways:

     

    1. MQA Decoder > PCM > Analog

    2. PCM > Analog

     

    So, theoretically, there should not be difference in frame one given implementation.

    Except [PCM > Analog] area that may be released different ways.

    As example, different oversampling filters, intermediate sample rate, low frequency filter.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Decoded MQA is usual PCM. Thus I see there 2 ways:

     

    1. MQA Decoder > PCM > Analog

    2. PCM > Analog

     

    So, theoretically, there should not be difference in frame one given implementation.

    Except [PCM > Analog] area that may be released different ways.

    As example, different oversampling filters, intermediate sample rate, low frequency filter.

     

    But doesn't this (not having a difference between 1 and 2), *if using the same DAC for both*, depend on the MQA decoder creating PCM in 1 that does not differ audibly from the PCM in 2?

     

    Because in my listening an MQA file created from a hi res file results in a different sound than the hi res file, when everything else is the same.

     

     

    Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    But doesn't this (not having a difference between 1 and 2), *if using the same DAC for both*, depend on the MQA decoder creating PCM in 1 that does not differ audibly from the PCM in 2?

     

    Because in my listening an MQA file created from a hi res file results in a different sound than the hi res file, when everything else is the same.

     

    Difference may be in filter into decoder. It is my hypothesis by all previous MQA discussions.

    But more probably, difference may be in small (may be inaudible or almost inaudible) difference of levels - with decoder/without.

     

    For proper comparing need technically minimize the level difference before [PCM > Analog] stage.

     

    For it need calculate standard deviation between identical by time samples decoded MQA and original PCM. And correct level of original PCM or decoded MQA on calculated value (I suppose with precision 0.1 dB or better).

     

    After it need perform careful double blind test:

     

    - tens and more musical samples in different genres,

    - hundreds or more measurements,

    - tens or more participants with different ear skills,

    - proper hidden switch samples/DAC modes,

    - single sitting place (not rows of several listeners simultaneously in different places of speaker's apperture, etc.),

    - momental switch played back samples,

    - participants have only 3 buttons "better than previous track" and "worse than previous track" and "no difference",

    - participants should be in comfortable condition (physical and emotional),

    - etc.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I see things in simple terms. When we discuss the subjective sound of MQA files that is simply a persons opinion on what he heard and is in no way a factual representation of any reality. There are many different factors that could be influencing what the listener hears.

    MQA is a very smart compression scheme to reduce file sizes, no more.

     

    The dang light people are making a big deal over is IMO nothing better than the Stereo light on a FM tuner. It tells the user that the file is detected as a MQA processed file, and is locked in and being decoded. That's nice to know.

     

    Undecoded MQA is a lossy representation of the original file. We can debate whether the lossy part is audible till the cows come home, but lossy is lossy, period. It can in no way be better or as good as a lossless stream of the original. (unless it's been remastered, then all bets are off)

     

    No matter your opinion on MQA, the sad part of all this is that over time the new distribution of lossless original data will disappear. All that will be left is what can be gleamed from the old CDs, SACD's, old downloaded HDA flac files, etc. For those of us that want "the real thing" the only way to obtain them will be the used market and no monies will be distributed to the artists from those acquisitions.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    I see things in simple terms. When we discuss the subjective sound of MQA files that is simply a persons opinion on what he heard and is in no way a factual representation of any reality. There are many different factors that could be influencing what the listener hears.

    MQA is a very smart compression scheme to reduce file sizes, no more.

     

    MQA is a compression scheme. I disagree about it being smart.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    No matter your opinion on MQA, the sad part of all this is that over time the new distribution of lossless original data will disappear. All that will be left is what can be gleamed from the old CDs, SACD's, old downloaded HDA flac files, etc. For those of us that want "the real thing" the only way to obtain them will be the used market and no monies will be distributed to the artists from those acquisitions.

     

    I used to love going into the city to browse in the used record stores. The artists didn't get paid then either. If anyone complained about royalties back then, I didn't hear about it. Used records were cheap in the 70's too. I don't think a used record store could afford to pay rent these days. But I miss buying physical media in stores. Shopping was part of the experience for me.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    I see things in simple terms. When we discuss the subjective sound of MQA files that is simply a person's opinion on what he heard and is in no way a factual representation of any reality.

     

    Me too! But I always find statements like this a bit humorous. No apology is really necessary for engaging MQA "subjectively" and holding an "opinion" regarding what we find pleasing. Appreciation of beauty (in whatever venue: food, art, music, a photograph of a beautiful woman/man, whatever) is not some lesser or inferior activity. Humans normally don't evaluate musical beauty looking at images of electron patterns on an oscilloscope.

     

    To call it "simple," extends the myth of the superiority of so-called reductionistic* science and attempts to extend it into the realm of music appreciation and sound "quality." To speak of "factual representation of any reality" is anything but "simple." I appreciate the late Prof. Theodore Roszak's insight into this.

     

    "An expert, we say, is one to whom we turn because he is in control of reliable knowledge about that which concerns us. In the case of the technocracy, the experts are those who govern us because they know (reliably) about all things relevant to our survival and happiness: human needs, social engineering, economic planning, international relations, invention, education, etc. Very well, but what is “reliable knowledge”? How do we know it when we see it? The answer is: reliable knowledge is knowledge that is scientifically sound, since science is that to which modern man refers for the definitive explication of reality. And what in turn is it that characterizes scientific knowledge? The answer is: objectivity. Scientific knowledge is not just feeling or speculation or subjective ruminating. It is said to be a verifiable description of reality that exists independent of any purely personal considerations. It is true…real…dependable…it works. And that at last is how we define an expert: he is one who really knows what is what, because he cultivates an objective consciousness. p. 208

     

    Thus, if we probe the technocracy in search of the peculiar power it holds over us, we arrive at the myth of objective consciousness. There is but one way [according to scientism’s elite and followers] of gaining access to reality—so the myth holds—and this is to cultivate a state of consciousness cleansed of all subjective distortion, all personal involvement. What flows from this state of consciousness qualifies as knowledge, and nothing else does. This is the bedrock on which the [modern] natural sciences have built; and under their spell all fields of knowledge strive to become 'scientific'. The study of man in his social, political, economic, psychological, historical [and religious] aspects—all this, too, must become objective: rigorously, painstakingly objective. At every level of human experience, would-be scientists come forward to endorse the myth of objective consciousness, thus certifying themselves as experts. And because they know and we do not, we yield to their guidance. p. 209. Theodore Roszak, The Myth of Objective Consciousness, The Making of a Counter Culture, Anchor Books, 1969.

     

    * the practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, especially when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation.

    Edited by DanSmedra
    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.


    Sign In Now