MQA is Vaporware

[#Yoda#]

23 hours ago, mcgillroy said:

Can anybody explain me the economic or other rationale of Stereophiles MQA unconditional endorsement?! Today another DAC review is up that sings the song of MQAs qualities.

 

More importantly even goes so far as to hit competing vendors for not including MQA:

 

"If you were contemplating the purchase of a new DAC, why would you not want it to include MQA processing?"

 

and

 

"Schiit's reference DAC would be my reference DAC—if only it had MQA"

 

etc, etc.

 

Audio reviews are audio reviews but this level of ignoring the wider discussion and including specific vitriol is astonishing. Why?!

 

I'm observing the internet publications about MQA since early 2015 and in my perception "The Absolute Sound" was the first HiFi magazine that hyped MQA exuberant. For me, Robert Harley seems to be the "high priest" of the "MQA cult".

[Rt66indierock]

23 hours ago, mcgillroy said:

Can anybody explain me the economic or other rationale of Stereophiles MQA unconditional endorsement?! Today another DAC review is up that sings the song of MQAs qualities.

 

More importantly even goes so far as to hit competing vendors for not including MQA:

 

"If you were contemplating the purchase of a new DAC, why would you not want it to include MQA processing?"

 

and

 

"Schiit's reference DAC would be my reference DAC—if only it had MQA"

 

etc, etc.

 

Audio reviews are audio reviews but this level of ignoring the wider discussion and including specific vitriol is astonishing. Why?!

 

I responded to the article.

[mav52]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

It was just a joke.

And a smiley could have put this in a whole new light 

[NOMBEDES]

My advice, never read a review.  Why bother?  When the equipment hits your listening room,  the sound will have no relationship to the review.

 

The three legs of the audio platform.  

 

1.  Source:   Good recordings sound good.  (hi rez, low rez, digital, vinyl, MQA = does not matter, good is good)

2.  Equipment:  At a certain level,  equipment only "sounds" different, not better or worse.  Enjoy what sounds good to you.

3.  Room:  All of the above.  If your room is set up to your satisfaction, then you are blessed and can cancel your Stereophile subscription!

[james45974]

I find it interesting, maybe it is a false perception by me, but whenever there seems to be too long of a lull in the discussion about MQA from the mainstream people up pops something like the fawning review of a 10 month old piece of equipment.  It's like they have to fan the flames every once in a while to try and keep the smoldering fire going.

[Sal1950]

1 hour ago, james45974 said:

It's like they have to fan the flames every once in a while to try and keep the smoldering fire going

Now your catching on. 

[jabbr]

5 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

... The only difference between the original Berkeley DAC (your long time reference) and your even more beloved "Reference Series" (at nearly 3x the price) was upgraded passive parts quality - things that shouldn't make a difference yet obviously do to a trained listener with a familiar system playing familiar music. Specifically, a chassis machined from solid billet instead of bent sheet metal and a change from "standard" FR-4 PCB material to Rogers 4000 series, a low-loss material designed for GHz range circuits.

...

 

That is great info thanks ... seriously. Details like perhaps alu chassis vs steel (shielding) component selection ... even PCB material ... when you say these "shouldn't" make a difference, I really suspect that's because most folks are looking at the wrong characteristics of what "should" influence sound.

[The Computer Audiophile]

There's actually much more that's different between the Alpha and RS. 

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

There's actually much more that's different between the Alpha and RS. 

 

Ha ha, that's fine. We have such an amazing ability to measure small differences that it really interests me regarding what the limits of human ability to distinguish really are. The suggestion that Rogers 4003 or whatever might sound different than FR4 PCB opens up a lot of questions for me, like : wow, how do we hear that?

 

On the other hand, if really good modelling was done you ought be able to account for the dielectric differences so perhaps its just a more optimized design?

[Charles Hansen]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

There's actually much more that's different between the Alpha and RS. 

 

Chris, you are correct - I was exaggerating to make the point that passive components make a difference and I should not have. Apologies to all. Also I was working from memories of old photos that did not have the resolution of some newer photos that have since been posted. The RS added a shielded daughterboard module to the in addition to the other changes in the passive parts. There are a good set of comparison photos here on this thread, along with an interesting introduction:

 

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?2740-ack-s-system-end-of-round-1/page11

 

The green power supply PCB on the left size appears identical but for the potted transformers (same brand), and the only other visible change is that the AC line fuse goes from glass to ceramic. The main audio/digital PCB changed from the typical green solder mask to a clear solder mask on the (expensive!) Rogers low-loss PCB material that has a very distinctive appearance. All of the circuitry and parts for the analog stage appear to be completely identical.

 

The only other difference I could see at the time was the addition of a a small daughterboard near the left-front corner of the main PCB. I'm sure that it also had an effect on the sound quality (perhaps a more powerful chip for the digital filter?). The daughterboard sits above the main Analog Devices DSP chip. There have been two other changes which I did not see when I first looked at this a few years ago with lower-res photos:

 

1) There is a grey ribbon cable coming from the front panel PCB that connects to the main PCB near the DSP chip. On the original, nearly all of the traces from that connector angle off to the left, whereas on the RS most of the traces head straight back (hidden underneath the daughterboard and its shield). So they may have also changed the DSP chip in addition to adding the daughterboard.

 

2) The master oscillator was changed from an unknown brand to the Crystek especially designed for audio - although the oscillator's power supply and support circuitry remained identical.

 

The main point was that many of the changes only applied to the quality of the passive parts (expensive PCB material, expensive solid billet chassis, potted power transformers, and a ceramic AC fuse - a "superfuse"?).  Without working at Berkeley it would be virtually impossible to rank the relative sonic importance of the changes made to the passive parts to whatever function the daughterboard provided and the difference created by swapping crystals.

 

However the only change that might have been made for purely cosmetic reasons would have been the solid-billet chassis. I've never done a completely fair test where the chassis was the only difference to see how much of a difference it makes. But surely Berkeley would not have made changes to the (essentially invisible) passive components unless the improvements in sound quality were appreciable. For example, just the change in PCB material would be at least as expensive as the added daughterboard.

 

Cheers,

Charles Hansen

 

 

 

 

[Charles Hansen]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Ha ha, that's fine. We have such an amazing ability to measure small differences that it really interests me regarding what the limits of human ability to distinguish really are. The suggestion that Rogers 4003 or whatever might sound different than FR4 PCB opens up a lot of questions for me, like : wow, how do we hear that?

 

On the other hand, if really good modelling was done you ought be able to account for the dielectric differences so perhaps its just a more optimized design?

 

Those are really great questions. I've done a lot of listening tests to different PCB materials, trying to correlate the sonic differences with measurable differences as provided in the datasheets. I've been able to reach some general conclusions but only have "hand waving" justifications.

 

I think what we will find is that our current understanding of the ear/brain hearing mechanism is woefully incomplete. A good example of this can be read in a book called "The Secret of Scent" by Luca Turn. A fascinating read (and possibly a bit of a struggle if you've never studied chemistry, especially organic chemistry (which involves carbon and is the basis for all life). In it he shows that the commonly-accepted "lock and key" model for how the nose works is completely incorrect, even though that has been "conventional wisdom for nearly a century.

 

Instead it turns out that olfactory nerves do not sense the shape and/or charge on molecules - they "listen" to the vibrational frequencies of the molecule's side chains, using tiny spectrometers. These spectrometers are so small that to fit into a human cell that they only work on the principles of quantum mechanics. (QM was only proven to be correct in the mid-'90s and is the really weird physics where solid objects can pass through each other, two particles can be in the same place at one time, and the transmission of information is not bound by the speed of light - it can transfer instantaneously across any distance.)

 

As nature doesn't like to waste good, usable mechanisms, using the same things not only across different species but even across different kingdoms, I will be surprised if it turns out that the ear/brain does not use QM. Here is an article that shows us just the tip of the iceberg on how incomplete our current understanding is: Human Hearing Outsmarts Physical Limits | Evolution News

 

Cheers,

Charles Hansen

[Confused]

Article from the strictly impartial BBC, mainly about Qobuz hi res streaming, Neil Young gets a mention, nothing whatsoever about MQA.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40697475

[lucretius]

16 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

Specifically, a chassis machined from solid billet instead of bent sheet metal ...

 

A solid billet chassis inspires confidence.

[NOMBEDES]

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

A solid billet chassis inspires confidence.

 

 

Higher priced wine is often sold in heavy bottles.  

[jabbr]

10 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

I think what we will find is that our current understanding of the ear/brain hearing mechanism is woefully incomplete. A good example of this can be read in a book called "The Secret of Scent" by Luca Turn. A fascinating read (and possibly a bit of a struggle if you've never studied chemistry, especially organic chemistry (which involves carbon and is the basis for all life). In it he shows that the commonly-accepted "lock and key" model for how the nose works is completely incorrect, even though that has been "conventional wisdom for nearly a century.

 

Instead it turns out that olfactory nerves do not sense the shape and/or charge on molecules - they "listen" to the vibrational frequencies of the molecule's side chains, using tiny spectrometers. These spectrometers are so small that to fit into a human cell that they only work on the principles of quantum mechanics. (QM was only proven to be correct in the mid-'90s and is the really weird physics where solid objects can pass through each other, two particles can be in the same place at one time, and the transmission of information is not bound by the speed of light - it can transfer instantaneously across any distance.)

 

Whoa!

First, a book by a scientist does not equate with a change in the scientific under standing of a principle. A colleague of mine a long time ago was also working on an "artificial nose"  ... I worked on some very early speech and sensory recognition projects (c 1980s -- my very first paying job !) so am perhaps much more familiar with these issues than you might expect.

 

Luca Turn's model made predictions that did not pan out nor to my knowledge did his artificial nose (our defense dept / homeland security has extraordinary interest in this) .

 

olfactory nerves respond to chemical inputs. All chemicals have wave equations and can be thought to vibrate -- there is nothing inside that actually "listens" nor is there an actual miniature spectrometer that isn't just a description of molecular machinery -- the body is composed entirely of molecular machinery and this all has quantum descriptions and all interactions are described by EM/strong & weak nuclear forces (gravity not being too relevant here). Yes that is all biophysics and all solids are not solid at the olecar level ... so what?

 

This isn't "really weird physics" just 20th century physics that every graduate student learns (we'd hope undergrads too if they pay attention)

 

I don't think we need to bring quantum entanglement into this discussion ...

 

Having actually worked in this area, the issues in understanding how the nose or ear work are elsewhere -- we don't understand the layers above the basic senses. How does the cortex process information? 

 

Regarding Fourier uncertainty-- it has been universally accepted since ?1970s that our sensory systems including cochlear are highly nonlinear. The article is yet another piece of information that discusses this ... no big deal.

 

Regardless Maxwell's equations have persisted quite nicely  in the quantum era -- we have great ability to measure down below -160 dB both voltage & phase from 0 to GHz range -- my question is: what are the real limits of human audibility? Perhaps focus on very fine grained phase error which isn't always looked at...

[Ralf11]

12 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

... Here is an article that shows us just the tip of the iceberg on how incomplete our current understanding is: Human Hearing Outsmarts Physical Limits | Evolution News

 

Cheers,

Charles Hansen

 

 

I would be extremely wary of any web site advertising INTELLIGENT DESIGN

[Ralf11]

https://phys.org/news/2015-06-controversial-theory-olfaction-deemed-implausible.html

 

 

I find phys.org to be an xlnt news site - I was told about it by a barista (who is now in physics grad. school, where he will be well positioned to save the world)

[jabbr]

16 hours ago, Charles Hansen said:

As nature doesn't like to waste good, usable mechanisms, using the same things not only across different species but even across different kingdoms, I will be surprised if it turns out that the ear/brain does not use QM. Here is an article that shows us just the tip of the iceberg on how incomplete our current understanding is: Human Hearing Outsmarts Physical Limits | Evolution News

 

 

The organization of cells is, to a first order approximation, defined by the DNA codon language (this is just an approximation). DNA codes for sensory molecules such as rhodopsin which itself changes state as a result of interaction with a photon. The interaction is clearly a quantum phenomenon and this discovery dates back to the 1930s http://www.ghuth.com/images/waldlecture.pdf ... so in the visual system there are molecules that have selective propensity to interact with photons having certain frequencies (vibrations?) ... this has been studied in great deal and is not new.

 

Of course the auditory system and brain is based on molecular interactions which themselves are defined by quantum mechanical phenomena -- how else could it be? I wouldn't say that nature has a "desire" to employ QM, rather that nature as we currently know it, is fundamentally based on QM. Two "solids" being in the same place at the same time can be best understood as waves that are superimposed -- the equations that define a "solid" have nonzero point probabilities.

 

All of this is highly nonlinear. The rhodopsin molecule either receives/accepts a photon, or doesn't. The nonlinearity of the auditory system was first recognized in the 1970's: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/jan/31/human-hearing-is-highly-nonlinear but agreed, this is not well understood by audiophiles, nor folks who insist that the  20-20kHz limit is absolute.

 

I'd like to point out the www.arxiv.org site which is a tremendous resource for freely available physics research articles: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.4611.pdf

[The Computer Audiophile]

Paging Prof. @wgscott for a Cliff's Notes version of the above :~)

[Ralf11]

Cliff's Notes version:  Quantum Mechanics is not required to understand biology.

 

LMK if you want the Dummies Guide.

[jabbr]

12 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Cliff's Notes version:  Quantum Mechanics is not required to understand biology.

 

LMK if you want the Dummies Guide.

 

Absolutely, sorry if I made seem otherwise. Even more importantly for us here, electromagnetism as defined by Maxwell's equations is entirely compatible with the quantum version and so neither is quantum mechanics necessary for an understanding of electronics (under our normal circumstances). Things can be nonlinear without invoking quantum mechanics.

[Charles Hansen]

6 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

https://phys.org/news/2015-06-controversial-theory-olfaction-deemed-implausible.html

 

 

I find phys.org to be an xlnt news site - I was told about it by a barista (who is now in physics grad. school, where he will be well positioned to save the world)

 

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

 

Back to MQA as Vaporware.

[Ralf11]

you think MQA is self-evident?

[lucretius]

6 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

I would be extremely wary of any web site advertising INTELLIGENT DESIGN

 

Ouch! You cannot take anything written on that website seriously.

[daverich4]

In the current issue of TAS, Robert Harley says that with the support of Sony, Warner Bros. and Universal Music, an MQA future is "a fait accompli." All y'all can go home now. Mr. Harley has declared a winner.