 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.162.126.158
In Reply to: RE: You said "some people swear [MQA] works" posted by geoffkait on June 14, 2022 at 04:51:48
Affiliations for the study include McGill University as well as The Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and Technology which is located at the Schulich School of Music of McGill University.
the following per https://navigator.innovation.ca/en/facility/mcgill-university/centre-interdisciplinary-research-music-media-and-technology-cirmmt
"Areas of expertise
The Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and Technology (CIRMMT) is a multi-disciplinary research group that seeks to develop innovative approaches to the scientific study of music media and technology, to promote the application of newer technologies in science and in the creative arts, and to provide an advanced research training environment. Its research focus spans a wide range of topics from the creation of music in the composer's or performer's mind, the performance of music, its recording and/or transmission, and the reception of music by the listener. The Centre has six central laboratories, plus a new and unique music multimedia room and a performance research lab, all designed with specific acoustic characteristics in order to maximize the variety of functionalities of the available research spaces. Researchers at CIRMMT are involved in the analysis, modelling, and synthesis of sounds, modelling of the acoustic properties of musical instruments and rooms, and creating tools and instruments for musical performance. They also develop techniques for information retrieval and multimedia analysis, including immersive systems — the ability to create sound, images and touch in virtual reality — and virtual acoustics. Finally, CIRMMT researches perception and cognition of sounds and music and the application of these research areas to music-performance practice.
Research services
Information and telecommunication technologies,acoustics modelling, electronic instrumentation-sensor actuators and haptics, cognition and perception, digital audio-signal processing, information retrieval, digital libraries, motion capture, biometric measurements, sound spatialization, soundscape, expanded musical practice, immersive systems, prototyping, 3D printing, modelling, simulation and hearing-care prevention."
Additionally, per McGill ( https://www.mcgill.ca/music/about-us/sound-recording ), "The McGill Graduate Program in Sound Recording is the only program in North America to offer both a Master's and PhD degree."
Follow Ups:
Interesting exchange with Mr. Machina Dynamica...
Careful with stepping into the deep BS here boys with someone supposedly versed in equal proportions classic sci-fi and quantum this and that based on the content of the web page.
As for the McGill study, it's quite well done (I have the paper in front of me):
- listening tests done in ITU-R BS. 775-1 standard room
- B&W Nautilus 802D or Sennheiser HD800 headphones
- Mytek Brooklyn MQA-capable DACs
- pop, jazz, classical orchestral tracks 24/96 vs. MQA encoded 24/48.
- 3 groups of listeners Expert Listeners (sound recording grad program), Musicians, and Casual Listeners - 10 in each category for total 30 listeners
- 5-way ANOVA analysis did not show any difference of standard PCM vs. MQA with the main dependent variable being a slider-based "clarity rating".
- Figure 5 in the paper is the summary for the data - I included this in my blog post in the link below; data split between listener group and headphone vs. speakers.
- Summary paragraph in discussions:
"Based on the results above, subjects did not make
consistent ratings of the clarity attribute when
comparing a 96-kHz WAV file and its 48-kHz MQA
encoded "twin". This might be interpreted in two
ways: firstly, that the "de-blurring" processing in
MQA encoding does not necessarily provide
additional clarity over the original, and secondly, that
MQA is successful in providing a smaller, more
easily "streamable" copy of the source WAV file,
while maintaining a very similar level of clarity."
No surprise here guys and gals. Reverse engineering of the MQA renderer basically tells us that they're just using low quality filters which along with the lossy algorithm for the ultrasonic spectrum embedded in the lowest bits of each 24-bit sample form the heart of this technique.
MQA filters shown here:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/07/measurements-audioquest-dragonfly-black.html
-------
Archimago's Musings : A 'more objective' audiophile blog.
Archimago wrote,
"- 3 groups of listeners Expert Listeners (sound recording grad program), Musicians, and Casual Listeners - 10 in each category for total 30 listeners"
> > > > Let's examine these 3 groups more carefully
1. Musicians are noted for playing skill, not listening skill.
2. Casual Listeners are not known for their listening skill at all, that's why they are called "casual listeners."
3. Sound recording grad program (Expert Listeners) are known for their sound recording skill, not sound listening skill.
So we have Total 30 listeners. Big deal. That's supposed to be convincing but it's not It's a logical fallacy.
nt
nothing more to say here
Get a hairlip.
Nt
Nt
Who do you think has the appropriate listening skills to evaluate an audio format?
What are some possible answers?1. High end Electronics designers
2. High end Speaker designers
3. High end cable designers
4. Audiophiles with big expensive systems > $100,000
5. Audiophiles who claim they have excellent hearing
6. People who test very well on hearing tests 20 to 20k Hz
7. High end magazine reviewers
8. Wives of audiophilesI'm not (rpt not) saying any of those would be my choice(s)
Edits: 06/20/22 06/20/22 06/20/22
So who would you pick as expert listeners? Because when you objected to the three groups of listeners in the McGill study you doom a format like MQA. It can't survive in a market as small as high end audio.
Didn't I just answer your question?Dr. Doom
Edits: 06/20/22
No and I quote "I'm not (rpt not) saying any of those would be my choice(s)"
I would like to hear your choices.
Uh, I thought my list was fairly complete, did I miss anybody?
Thanks, very interesting. So it sounds like informal listening tests revealed differences between WAV and MQA but it's unclear when or if formal (controlled blind tests) tests have been performed. Is there an update to this info from last year?
Did you download the paper? Something submitted by a university to the AES as a paper *isn't* some informal listening sessions. As far as I know, it was the most formal set of listening tests on MQA vs. other. Like I said above, you're either trolling or not very knowledgeable about these sorts of things.Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
Edits: 06/14/22
clearly you believe in science. Geoff sells snake oil audio tweeks. Some of the most absurd kinds which is saying a lot.
Hi,
I don't know who Geoff actually is - but thanks for pointing that out.
Doug Schneider
So I feel a little foolish for actually taking part in a discussion with someone like that. To think, there are people who make products that actually work - and there are people who make products intended to take people's money and provide nothing else. It all makes sense.
At the end of the day, however, I feel sorry for people who make products that simply do nothing - because that's how their careers and businesses are remembered.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
The review is listed in the "Reviews and Awards" page of the Machina Dynamica web site,machinadynamica.com/machina7.htm
While the link is a dead link, I found this quote from the article online:
"After unwrapping the nondescript plastic timepiece and placing it on a side table, I noticed that the system's midrange performance had become more emphatic. It was as if the Cyber-800 had sprouted a brace of 845 triode tubes in place of its little 6CA7 power tubes. I was so impressed with the Clever Little Clock (CLC) that I ordered another one, which yielded additional midrange power and realism. (Recent photos of my room reveal a third clock, but it's there for overkill purposes only.)" "A Tweak Too Far" by James Saxon - Soundstage A/V
soundstage has another review that is less positive,
https://www.ultraaudio.com/equipment/machina_dynamica_clock_signature.htm
This one concludes:
"I was disappointed that the Signature Version of the Clever Little Clock didn't work for Jeff and me. But why didn't it work? We discussed this at length, and came up with the following. First, from a reasonable thinker's standpoint, is the question most readers of this review will ask themselves: Why would stickers on a pair of batteries, a preset Future Time, and a couple of rare-earth magnets on a $20 digital clock, make your audio system sound better?"
Edits: 06/15/22
Hi,
I don't know where that James Saxon quote came from, but he was never a "reviewer" for us. James wrote a column that often involved shows and other things, so maybe somewhere in there.
The review linked is a review and it says pretty clearly that the thing didn't do anything.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
I was set up by the two nitwits from Soundstage, two giggling teenage girls. Of many hundreds sold that was the only case where the clock didn't work. Draw your own conclusions. Soundstage is as far as I can tell very mediocre and it looks like you deserve each other. You don't know anything about me or the clock and yet you don't mind spreading this gossip, like little old ladies. You better read the headline of the OP again and take it to heart, dude.
Edits: 06/16/22 06/16/22 06/16/22 06/16/22 06/16/22
Hi,
You're a real "keyboard warrior," aren't you?
Well, it's OK that you think about us like that. Admittedly, with many magazines it's quite easy to get a great or "rave" review. Too easy. We just tell our writers to tell the truth.
Thanks,
Doug
You and your stumblebum magazine wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and peed on your legs. Re-read the title of this thread, "professional audio journalism is an oxymoron." Thanks for helping prove Scott's point.
Edits: 06/17/22 06/17/22 06/17/22 06/17/22
...-
Exceptionally keen thinking on the Soundstage reviewers' parts.
"But why didn't it work? We discussed this at length, and came up with the following. First, from a reasonable thinker's standpoint, is the question most readers of this review will ask themselves: Why would stickers on a pair of batteries, a preset Future Time, and a couple of rare-earth magnets on a $20 digital clock, make your audio system sound better?"
You've obviously been at Soundstage too long. Talk about a bogus operation. This is what happens when you listen to Scott, our resident audiophile hater and conspiracy theorist.
Edits: 06/14/22
Thanks. I've been there too long, I guess, because I founded it.
And we do things like measurements on top of our listening, which I suspect is bogus to you too.
Let's agree to part ways.
Doug Schneider
Keep swinging, eventually you'll hit something.
Part ways? Not now that you are on his radar as a threat to his scams. Sorry about that. He will slander you, troll you and stalk you on Audio Asylum. It sucks that the forum moderators allow it. I suspect he donates money to the forum and they don't want to lose that.
Although even as a scammer he is second rate. His business looks like a back yard/garage operation. Not in the same league as Ted and Synergistic "research." Have to use quotes on the research part. No way they reseach anything other than marketing strategies and eye appeal design for his snake oil.
But anyway....
Cleanup on aisle 3.
Edits: 06/14/22
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
