Let’s try this again.
That’s a pretty good dossier you've been keeping on me, Tbone.
Yes, let us examine some of your "facts".
If by VA you mean Vinyl Asylum, well you got me there. I speculate my spending time there would no doubt bring me little if any value.
Your speculation is incorrect. To the contrary, this distributor as well as the mfg'ers of my loaner speakers at each show I exhibited in 2011 were routinely sending their visitors and their dealers up to my room instructing them, "If you really want to hear this product's potential go up to room 2017 or whatever room I was exhibiting. In fact, the most common comment received from my visitors was either, "This is the best sound I've ever heard" or "This is the best sound I've heard yet at the show." Rest assured it wasn't leaps and bounds more musical than the other prominent exhibitors, but but I'd guess just barely.
But you know what's really funny? Since my own product's "magic" doesn't even start to kick in until day 5 or 6 and takes several months to reach its full potential, at a show it's only operating at maybe 3% of its full potential and by day 5 or 6 I've already torn down my tent and headed home. To be fair, what visitors were primarily hearing from with my very humble but well-thought-out system were my fabulous Foundation Research line conditioners. Now I didn't tell them about the FR line conditioners I employ because Foundation Research was already defunct and I was there to promote my own product. On the other hand, my visitors couldn't embrace my technology or product even after explaining the technology and for the most part the only feedback received was, "How much for the speakers?" Gotta' love audiophiles, eh?
Sorry, but you lost me here. My current 2-channel, 2-component system and 2 speakers now only retails for $10k which when I downgraded/upgraded a year ago it was $25k. Now behind the scenes, I've got another $14k in cabling, line conditioners, racks, etc, where the real differences occur. My mentioning costs like $300k, $500k, etc. is always or most always regarding how much others are willing to spend for so little ROI. Where’s the contradiction you accuse me of?
Sorry, but you lost me again. I assume you're talking about my using the phrase, "well-engineered MP3". Yes, Amir, provided some insight there as perhaps I should have said, "well-encoded MP3" or just MP3. Big deal. That had zero to do with the estimated but still factual point I made that you obviously didn't latch on to. Even if I was inaccurate there, surely a smart feller like you understands that nobody knows everything about everything about a given industry. I admit I'm constantly reminded just how infinite my physical and mental limitations really are. How about you? Better yet, how about Stuart?
I beg to differ. I used their own words verbatim in the attempt to expose them for what I perceive they really are. I'm sure it's rather obvious that I've not gone down the technical rabbit holes that many seem to thrive in. Thank goodness. From a bit flipping perspective I cannot debate Stuart's claims. Instead I rely on common sense, logic, and my own technology and performance-related experiences. But then again, Stuart should for the most part also be all thumbs about what should be the rather simple technology I dabble in, my discoveries, methods, executions, etc. So what? The internet is overflowing with paper tigers. Surely, you can see that with the internet, real performance has no significance any more. Pretty incredible when you think about it. Here we are in an industry all about music and listening and sound and trained ears, etc, yet all audio performance judgments and battles are won and lost using our eyes only. Go figure. BTW, I suspect the internet has to be a wet dream for guys like Ethan Weiner and maybe even guys like Stuart.
But I'm confident that any performance comparison between Stuart's best playback system config with his MQA music vs my own humble but well-thought-out system that I’d limit to Redbook-only music together with with the technology I employ and both systems operating at their full musical potentials would quickly determine whether one or the other is a charlatan.
Yes, Tbone, I admit I've tried to get your goad a few times. But only because I thought your sometimes dogmatism and sometimes pit bull demeanor deserved it. But also because you've made yourself very clear that I've not a clue what I'm talking about when it comes to performance, and I've observed you making similar statements directed toward others with seemingly not much in your own corner to back anything up. Hence, my statement here was not a continually twisting of words as you attempt to twist it.
I suppose one can. But I really wouldn't know nuthin' 'bout that. Tell you what. Why not ask Stuart after watching this propaganda video on Meridian's website. https://www.meridian-audio.com/news-events/meridian-audio-launches-mqa-master-quality-authenticated/
Look at who and which company reps are endorsing MQA here and what they are saying about MQA. Talk about incredible? And for anybody who thinks we shouldn't be worried about MQA making much of an impact, I suspect they're not paying attention to the MQA wave about to hit us. We are fools to think Meridian needs the tiny high-end audio sector’s endorsement but if they can get 10 – 25% to go along, that’s icing on their cake. Besides, to the volumes of music consumers outside of high-end audio, with a handful of rave reviews from the likes of Harley, etc, it already appears to them that high-end audio has endorsed MQA as a superior performing format. From all that I can tell, MQA was a collaborative effort from the inside and it’s already a done deal and now it’s just a matter of actually rolling it out to the studios and retail stores. That’s my speculation.
I already have but you didn’t recognize even one of them. For example, when I said.
o It’s IMPOSSIBLE for MQA to achieve anywhere near the performance levels Harley, Stuart, and others claim.
o If Stuart wants to achieve his claimed performance levels, he’s barking up the wrong technology tree,
o Due to the much raised noise floor that essentially puts a severe performance-limiting governor on every last playback system at the speaker we're only hearing roughly the equivalent of the total bit content stored in same version encoded in an MP3 track,
o etc.
Did I give any indication whatsoever that I was not speaking factually? To the best of my knowledge and my experience those are all provable facts. By that I mean provable by me at the ear where the real and ultimate proof is, not on cheap paper. Moreover, I can easily prove what I say on a system retailing at roughly 5% of the price of today’s typical $500k SOTA-level playback system. I’ve barely proved it at audio shows essentially without my product and can certainly prove it with my product functioning at its optional. (BTW, I’m no longer in business.)
All this and essentially every last coveted music characteristic we strive to even get a glimpse of today can be demonstrated and proven by one simple fact. From a performance perspective, most everything boils down to the percentage of bits (music info) that remain audible at the speaker output when compared to the total quantity of bits stored, read, and processed from a given recording’s medium. Which also prove that Harley’s and Meitner’s speculation that, even though they are correct when they say something catastrophic is occurring, it is not at the recording mic’s diaphragm, and this part of their speculation is completely in error. Fact. And the more info that remains audible (due to a lowered noise floor) the more clear, pristine, and even delicate it becomes also. Fact.
That’s why I gave the example and preference of a stunning photograph of a beautiful red Ferrari taken with a 3MP digital camera (extremely low noise floor) being far superior to a blurred (much raised noise floor) photograph of same taken with a hi-rez 8MP or an even higher rez (still blurred) 13MP camera where only a percentage of the picture info remains visible above the much raised noise floor. That too is fact and is an excellent analogy of what happens to the signal in high-end audio.
Whether you want to believe it or not, it’s the noise floor that makes all the difference in the world. And since it is also a fact that outside of Stuart’s little $299 MQA decoder (on the consumer side), he has done zero to address the noise floor in the rest of the playback chain, it should be easily evident that his and others' MQA performance claims are impossible to achieve. For the simple fact that Stuart barked up the wrong technology tree where he cannot address the universal distortions that severely cripple the precision and accuracy of every last sensitive component resulting in all playback systems operating with a severe (think catastrophic) performance-limiting governor aka a much raised noise floor.
Whereas, back to the camera analogy, not even a 50MP or 100MP camera could overcome or minimize the distortions because again, it’s a percentage of info thing, not an information quantity dump or override thing. IOW, without addressing the causes of the distortions at the components, the percentage of the distorted info remains essentially the same regardless of the resolution. That fact explains why even 15 years after the introduction of high-rez formats debates still remain as to whether or not higher-rez offers superior performance to Redbook. Because just like MQA, other high-rez formats did nothing to lower the noise floor at the component level. Whether one is listening to a 50MB 5 min clip of Redbook music or a 394MB 5 min clip of the same music at 24/192, the percentage of distortion remains essentially the same. Fact.
Those whose systems inadvertently do very little to address some of these distortions can find it rather difficult to discern audible differences between Redbook and higher-rez recordings. Those whose playback systems have inadvertently and positively addressed some of these distortions can a bit more easily discern audible differences between Redbook and higher rez formats, but even then it’s certainly no night and day experience. Fact.
There’s plenty of more facts, but since you cannot believe these few basics, there’s no sense in sharing the others.
No speculation on my part is necessary here.
You'll try to refrain from answering? Well, you already failed once in the past 24 hours. But I'll be counting again. One Mississippi, 2 Mississippi, 3 Missis......
That’s a pretty good dossier you've been keeping on me, Tbone.
Yes, let us examine some of your "facts".
If by VA you mean Vinyl Asylum, well you got me there. I speculate my spending time there would no doubt bring me little if any value.
Your speculation is incorrect. To the contrary, this distributor as well as the mfg'ers of my loaner speakers at each show I exhibited in 2011 were routinely sending their visitors and their dealers up to my room instructing them, "If you really want to hear this product's potential go up to room 2017 or whatever room I was exhibiting. In fact, the most common comment received from my visitors was either, "This is the best sound I've ever heard" or "This is the best sound I've heard yet at the show." Rest assured it wasn't leaps and bounds more musical than the other prominent exhibitors, but but I'd guess just barely.
But you know what's really funny? Since my own product's "magic" doesn't even start to kick in until day 5 or 6 and takes several months to reach its full potential, at a show it's only operating at maybe 3% of its full potential and by day 5 or 6 I've already torn down my tent and headed home. To be fair, what visitors were primarily hearing from with my very humble but well-thought-out system were my fabulous Foundation Research line conditioners. Now I didn't tell them about the FR line conditioners I employ because Foundation Research was already defunct and I was there to promote my own product. On the other hand, my visitors couldn't embrace my technology or product even after explaining the technology and for the most part the only feedback received was, "How much for the speakers?" Gotta' love audiophiles, eh?
Sorry, but you lost me here. My current 2-channel, 2-component system and 2 speakers now only retails for $10k which when I downgraded/upgraded a year ago it was $25k. Now behind the scenes, I've got another $14k in cabling, line conditioners, racks, etc, where the real differences occur. My mentioning costs like $300k, $500k, etc. is always or most always regarding how much others are willing to spend for so little ROI. Where’s the contradiction you accuse me of?
Sorry, but you lost me again. I assume you're talking about my using the phrase, "well-engineered MP3". Yes, Amir, provided some insight there as perhaps I should have said, "well-encoded MP3" or just MP3. Big deal. That had zero to do with the estimated but still factual point I made that you obviously didn't latch on to. Even if I was inaccurate there, surely a smart feller like you understands that nobody knows everything about everything about a given industry. I admit I'm constantly reminded just how infinite my physical and mental limitations really are. How about you? Better yet, how about Stuart?
I beg to differ. I used their own words verbatim in the attempt to expose them for what I perceive they really are. I'm sure it's rather obvious that I've not gone down the technical rabbit holes that many seem to thrive in. Thank goodness. From a bit flipping perspective I cannot debate Stuart's claims. Instead I rely on common sense, logic, and my own technology and performance-related experiences. But then again, Stuart should for the most part also be all thumbs about what should be the rather simple technology I dabble in, my discoveries, methods, executions, etc. So what? The internet is overflowing with paper tigers. Surely, you can see that with the internet, real performance has no significance any more. Pretty incredible when you think about it. Here we are in an industry all about music and listening and sound and trained ears, etc, yet all audio performance judgments and battles are won and lost using our eyes only. Go figure. BTW, I suspect the internet has to be a wet dream for guys like Ethan Weiner and maybe even guys like Stuart.
But I'm confident that any performance comparison between Stuart's best playback system config with his MQA music vs my own humble but well-thought-out system that I’d limit to Redbook-only music together with with the technology I employ and both systems operating at their full musical potentials would quickly determine whether one or the other is a charlatan.
Yes, Tbone, I admit I've tried to get your goad a few times.
But only because I thought your sometimes dogmatism and sometimes pit bull demeanor deserved it. But also because you've made yourself very clear that I've not a clue what I'm talking about when it comes to performance, and I've observed you making similar statements directed toward others with seemingly not much in your own corner to back anything up. Hence, my statement here was not a continually twisting of words as you attempt to twist it. I suppose one can. But I really wouldn't know nuthin' 'bout that. Tell you what. Why not ask Stuart after watching this propaganda video on Meridian's website. https://www.meridian-audio.com/news-events/meridian-audio-launches-mqa-master-quality-authenticated/
Look at who and which company reps are endorsing MQA here and what they are saying about MQA. Talk about incredible? And for anybody who thinks we shouldn't be worried about MQA making much of an impact, I suspect they're not paying attention to the MQA wave about to hit us. We are fools to think Meridian needs the tiny high-end audio sector’s endorsement but if they can get 10 – 25% to go along, that’s icing on their cake. Besides, to the volumes of music consumers outside of high-end audio, with a handful of rave reviews from the likes of Harley, etc, it already appears to them that high-end audio has endorsed MQA as a superior performing format. From all that I can tell, MQA was a collaborative effort from the inside and it’s already a done deal and now it’s just a matter of actually rolling it out to the studios and retail stores. That’s my speculation.
I already have but you didn’t recognize even one of them. For example, when I said.
o It’s IMPOSSIBLE for MQA to achieve anywhere near the performance levels Harley, Stuart, and others claim.
o If Stuart wants to achieve his claimed performance levels, he’s barking up the wrong technology tree,
o Due to the much raised noise floor that essentially puts a severe performance-limiting governor on every last playback system at the speaker we're only hearing roughly the equivalent of the total bit content stored in same version encoded in an MP3 track,
o etc.
Did I give any indication whatsoever that I was not speaking factually? To the best of my knowledge and my experience those are all provable facts. By that I mean provable by me at the ear where the real and ultimate proof is, not on cheap paper. Moreover, I can easily prove what I say on a system retailing at roughly 5% of the price of today’s typical $500k SOTA-level playback system. I’ve barely proved it at audio shows essentially without my product and can certainly prove it with my product functioning at its optional. (BTW, I’m no longer in business.)
All this and essentially every last coveted music characteristic we strive to even get a glimpse of today can be demonstrated and proven by one simple fact. From a performance perspective, most everything boils down to the percentage of bits (music info) that remain audible at the speaker output when compared to the total quantity of bits stored, read, and processed from a given recording’s medium. Which also prove that Harley’s and Meitner’s speculation that, even though they are correct when they say something catastrophic is occurring, it is not at the recording mic’s diaphragm, and this part of their speculation is completely in error. Fact. And the more info that remains audible (due to a lowered noise floor) the more clear, pristine, and even delicate it becomes also. Fact.
That’s why I gave the example and preference of a stunning photograph of a beautiful red Ferrari taken with a 3MP digital camera (extremely low noise floor) being far superior to a blurred (much raised noise floor) photograph of same taken with a hi-rez 8MP or an even higher rez (still blurred) 13MP camera where only a percentage of the picture info remains visible above the much raised noise floor. That too is fact and is an excellent analogy of what happens to the signal in high-end audio.
Whether you want to believe it or not, it’s the noise floor that makes all the difference in the world. And since it is also a fact that outside of Stuart’s little $299 MQA decoder (on the consumer side), he has done zero to address the noise floor in the rest of the playback chain, it should be easily evident that his and others' MQA performance claims are impossible to achieve. For the simple fact that Stuart barked up the wrong technology tree where he cannot address the universal distortions that severely cripple the precision and accuracy of every last sensitive component resulting in all playback systems operating with a severe (think catastrophic) performance-limiting governor aka a much raised noise floor.
Whereas, back to the camera analogy, not even a 50MP or 100MP camera could overcome or minimize the distortions because again, it’s a percentage of info thing, not an information quantity dump or override thing. IOW, without addressing the causes of the distortions at the components, the percentage of the distorted info remains essentially the same regardless of the resolution. That fact explains why even 15 years after the introduction of high-rez formats debates still remain as to whether or not higher-rez offers superior performance to Redbook. Because just like MQA, other high-rez formats did nothing to lower the noise floor at the component level. Whether one is listening to a 50MB 5 min clip of Redbook music or a 394MB 5 min clip of the same music at 24/192, the percentage of distortion remains essentially the same. Fact.
Those whose systems inadvertently do very little to address some of these distortions can find it rather difficult to discern audible differences between Redbook and higher-rez recordings. Those whose playback systems have inadvertently and positively addressed some of these distortions can a bit more easily discern audible differences between Redbook and higher rez formats, but even then it’s certainly no night and day experience. Fact.
There’s plenty of more facts, but since you cannot believe these few basics, there’s no sense in sharing the others.
No speculation on my part is necessary here.
You'll try to refrain from answering? Well, you already failed once in the past 24 hours. But I'll be counting again.
One Mississippi, 2 Mississippi, 3 Missis......
