Jump to content
Computer Audiophile


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Archimago

  • Rank
    Freshman Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
  1. Hey there Mr. (I presume) Gnu! Gotta say, I love your thinking, writing style and historical references! [I know, these are not 1:1 correlations but I get the point .] Disturbing to even think anyone would use some of these historical references (like Copernicus) to describe one's own predicament around what MQA is about. That in itself IMO reflects an unwise level of self inflation.
  2. Hi Norton, With MQA decoding, they could potentially recover a little more of the original bit depth. As shown above with that Buno Mars sample in the article, we also see the "leaky" filter at work.
  3. Well, Roon is excellent software. Given the close Tidal integration, I would want it implemented as well to take advantage of all that Tidal has to offer!
  4. Again, it comes back to the speculation of what "deblurring" is. If "deblurring" is what makes an undecoded 24/44 or 24/48 MQA file "sound better" as they suggest, then there must be some processing being done during the encoding that affects those upper unencoded bits that they believe improves time-domain performance apart from the min phase/slow roll filter. As I said yesterday about the "Daubert standard", until there is some actual science-based evidence about this, I refuse to believe "deblurring" (at least regarding the time-domain claim) is even a "thing" this scheme is able to improve/fix.
  5. Looks like Meridian has been throwing darts every which way to monetize their digital filter. Hoping of course that one of those darts will stick and bring in some revenue eventually! Remarkable how JVS always hears how good these Meridian filters are... I suspect if the term had been invented to be used as such, "deblurring" would have been part of the presentation :-).
  6. Yeah, the Ayre "Listen" minimum phase and slow roll-off filter was not something I liked with my PonoPlayer. I think if Charles Hansen were alive today we would be having a good discussion about this technically today...
  7. Thanks Fokus! Nice look back at the performance of these devices...
  8. Looks like the same arguments he had a month ago before the previous thread on MQA got taken down after 50 pages or so at Steve Hoffman's. Of course, back then @The Computer Audiophile wasn't on his "hit list" as I recall . @Lee Scoggins, I see you're not banned from here, so feel free to let us know the experiment results with those A/B files... Hmmm, did you ever publish a "part 2" to your MQA report? I thought you were going to do some research beyond being impressed by the "thousands of albums are coming and it sounds good to me"...
  9. You could be right... If that truly is all it is, makes this the most underwhelmingly overhyped "revolutionary" "paradigm" of a "format" to date!!!
  10. And this is why we're back to square one. You're right, with analogue tape/vinyl wow and flutter we are talking about audible temporal anomalies easily measured (fixable with PP), and in many cases easily audible. In the world of decent digital, we are talking about picoseconds and some of the worst devices measuring in the nanosecond range for jitter. After more than 3 years, we don't even know IF MQA does anything special in the time domain, much less be able to judge that this "thing" is beneficial! In the legal world and at times related to my day job, if an "expert" (say BS) were to be allowed admissible evidence before the courts, there is in the United States something called the "Daubert standard". This is a test of whether something passes an adequate level of "scientific knowledge" (as opposed to unreliable pseudoscience) as to be seriously considered. Let's quote from Wikipedia the criteria: So for the concept of "deblurring", based on what has been produced by the MQA claims/Bob Stuart: 1. There is no evidence that the scientific community has been able to scrutinize the time-domain claims. 2. As far as I am aware, the "deblur" technique has not been published about in a peer-reviewed way in the audio engineering world. 3. We have no way to test the "deblurring" independent from the compression/"origami"/bit-depth reduction, due to the "packaging" MQA uses. 4. Not exactly applicable since we're not specifically concerned about "false positive" or negatives. The main thing is we don't have much evidence that the technique seems all that impressive (eg. my Internet Blind Test does not show impressive benefits, and many people have voiced both good and bad to the resulting sound quality). 5. We have seen no independent research on MQA's "deblurring" apart from claims from the company. (Maybe the McGill study can shed some light if they have access to just the "deblurring" effect.) Now, obviously we're not entering evidence in the court of law... But I think it's fair to say that so far, the "scientific evidence" is absent and there is no way we can even test the claims ourselves without MQA's cooperation. I honestly think that until there is something of substance to be said, it's actually fair to dismiss claims that MQA does anything of value as a "deblur" technique. Until even the definition of what "deblurring" is can be made clear, there is nothing here to talk about. This is like the audiophile version of Fleischmann & Pons' "cold fusion" - but even they had a paper published .
  11. Yes, they sound great... And I suppose some of the material can benefit from high samplerate like 96kHz to capture all the content. Not sure they would need >16-bit resolution. In any event... Another big debate apart from MQA .
  12. Yeah, I wondering if others have experience with these old Sony devices... Just to put this into context also, we're talk mid-80's technology and that PCM R-DAT link was from 1987 :-). I don't know about you guys, but that was more than half a lifetime ago for me. Whether MQA improves time domain performance on these old digital recordings or not could be somewhat interesting for those of us interested in remastered "dad rock" and the first generation of classical albums, I guess... But man, if we're honestly talking "high resolution", none of these recordings - digital or analogue - from that era were high-res anyway by today's standards!
  13. Check this page out: http://www.gammaelectronics.xyz/s_1987-8_sony_r-dat.html I see a bunch of minimum phase steep filters. Not sure if this applies through the whole Sony production chain back in the day...
  14. Correct, it's an old 16/50 digital recording which sounds like has been remastered/restored to 16/48 (presumably 24-bit or 32-bit processing applied). I guess there must be some kind of MQA-CD 16/44.1. I'm still curious about what they did to the DR with the new Toneff/Dogrobosz Fairytales! If that has been altered significantly, we wouldn't be able to compare the original CD with this MQA version "apples to apples" and would reflect more than just pitch correction and "deblurring".
  15. Agree. This was all software from the start. Other than those "white glove" recordings that were specifically remixed, if these are just after-the-fact adjustments, no reason why we can't take the 24-bit "studio master" and apply some kind of DSP ourselves with appropriate parameters to reconstruct whatever MQA feels "deblurring" is - whether it be actual time-domain, subtle frequency shift, certain type of noise shaped dithering, certain upsampling digital filtering, etc... They'd rather preserve the mystique and sell the gnosticism .