Anyone heard about Meridian's new project called MQA

[stehno]

That's an interesting point. To the extent Meridian inserts itself into the heart of production, there can now be assurances regarding provenance of the content, and purity/avoidance of resampling of low-res content.

Say what? Amirm, you've made some excellent points but I'm sorry to say this ain't one of them.

Who the frick is Meridian or Stuart to insert itself into the heart of production and playback too? Why are you comforted by a middle-of-the-road company whose owner Stuart dabbles with neuroscience to manipulate the sound (think DSP or 3D TV) who also is currently trying to convince some of us that with his decoder and without regard for anything else in the playback system, we'll now hear EXACTLY what the engineers heard in the studio? Why would anybody find comfort having what a appears to be a hack (Stuart) injecting his twist into the mix?

Remember way back the Bob Carver demo where Carver built an amp using a coffee can? Everybody thought Carver was a genius when he demonstrated that his coffee can amp sounded about as good as the expensive CJ amp. To this day, what nobody ever understood was what Carver really demonstrated that day was that an expensive CJ amp really sounded no better than a coffee can amp. Not even Carver.

IMO, Stuart's MQA is nothing more than Bob Carver circa 1980's marketing genius and hype at work. I'm tellin' ya', it's smoke and mirrors.

And with potential backers like TAS, Stereophile, AES, Atlantic Records, Tidal, and quite possibly even Apple, one day we may all be forced to eat from Stuart's trough with rivers of cash flowing in his and others' direction.

 

[amirm]

Say what? Amirm, you've made some excellent points but I'm sorry to say this ain't one of them.

I didn't say that made me supportive of the format. I am not in favor of any new proprietary format. I am just observing the merits when it exists for others who have to make their decisions as to whether this is good or not.

Who the frick is Meridian or Stuart to insert itself into the heart of production and playback too?

He is a professional colleague, and highly respected member of audio industry (an Audio Engineering Society Fellow). So his credentials are not at all a concern for me.

IMO, Stuart's MQA is nothing more than Bob Carver circa 1980's marketing genius and hype at work. I'm tellin' ya', it's smoke and mirrors.

I don't see the parallel. Bob Stuart is both a respected audio researcher and head of a commercial company. Only the latter parallels Bob Carver.

And with potential backers like TAS, Stereophile, AES, Atlantic Records, Tidal, and quite possibly even Apple, one day we may all be forced to eat from Stuart's trough with rivers of cash flowing in his and others' direction.

There is no danger of that as I explained. PCM is and will always be available. No image of the future, even from Bob Stuart, would paint the picture of only MQA content being available.

 

[rbbert]

...Even if MQA lived up to all its promises, I doubt it would make a splash outside of digital audio circles comprised of people who just love digital audio and chase every new digital format in hopes of getting more perfect digital sound.

I can't agree with this at all, sorry. Plenty of careful listeners and audiophiles care about "digital audio" (what you really mean of course is audio with ADC>DAC as part of the recording or mastering chain) and aren't going to be persuaded by Meridian's blatant lack of transparency in what is actually involved in MQA, or the fact that this is one more lossy codec (and believe me, most "digital audiophiles" will reject it on that point alone). The only part (IMHO) of what might be good about MQA is establishing the symmetry of the ADC and DAC processes, an absolute, undeniably worthwhile goal, but one which I don't see MQA (or any other system currently on the horizon) doing in the real world.

 

[stehno]

amirm, I appreciate your position and your respect for the man and for institutions like AES. I obviously do not share the same respect in the least. Especially with Stuart's claims. I recall AES at a recent exhibit had a panel of "experts" which included one who wrote a book, "The Audio Expert". This same author claims that all cables and all components sound the same and are all transparent to the signal and if you're unable to achieve the absolute sound, it's due to recording mic placement only.

Is this the same AES you're speaking of which Stuart is a highly respected Fellow?

The correlation I attempted to make between Stuart and Carver was none other than, it's amazing what clever marketing can accomplish. In spite of the supposed technology being promoted.

 

[amirm]

amirm, I appreciate your position and your respect for the man and for institutions like AES. I obviously do not share the same respect in the least. I recall AES at a recent exhibit had a panel of "experts" which included one who wrote a book, "The Audio Expert". This same author claims that all cables and all components are transparent to the signal and if you're unable to achieve the absolute sound, it's due to recording mic placement only.

Is this the same AES you're speaking of which Stuart is a highly respected Fellow?

There are two halves to AES. One half is a conference where almost anyone can show up and present something. That is presentation you talk about with Ethan Winer.

The other half is far more serious affair and includes the AES Journal. It is that side that bestows Fellowship and subjects articles to peer review prior to publication. Bob has published really nice papers in the Journal for example in quantifying the required noise floor for digital audio to be transparent. His upcoming AES Journal paper on audibility of resampling should likewise be superb.

See for example this article I wrote partly on his research: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/RoomDynamicRange.html

And this one on his latest peer reviewed conference paper on audibility of resampling high resolution audio: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/High Resolution Audio/High Resolution Audio Matters.html

Everyone in audio has an agenda and strong opinion and Bob Stuart is no exception. But as famous industry people go, his work is very highly regarded and so I don't think it is fair to talk down something based on who he is.

 

[esldude]

Having looked over the other patent info. It appears to me yes they intend for MQA to sound better, not just transparent.

Sort of reading between the lines, it looks like if they know the ADC used they intend to undo the anti-aliasing filter in a sense, and then use better filters. Like if the ADC used a 127 tape brickwall filter they will just invert that filter which will give them no filter to muck up the impulse response.

Then they intend to use a mix of minimum phase and slow roll off filters FIR filters it appears. Part of the patent said encoding will have a filter, and decoding will reverse that filter. That encoding will having falling response approaching nyquist and decoding will have a rising response approaching nyquist. There is mention the reconstruction filter will be minimum phase which will cause it to have a drooped response appraching 20 khz. As part of decoding is a 'flattening' filter to make that flat to 20 khz.

And of course their filters are going to be only 6 tap filters it appears. Another reason it won't be a steep filter I imagine. Ringing won't take place beyond 6 samples. There is much more of course, and likely plenty about what the whole system together does to work. But clearly they think they can undo damage of the original ADC filters and substitute their own. They also mention optimum will be if the replay DAC has the same non-ringing filter, but imply that alone will not prevent it from being MQA. There is also talk that they will be using something like half-band or even less filtering. That aliasing will be allowed, but not at any appreciable level below 7 khz where it is most easily heard. Aliasing if kept high in frequency and low in level is beneficial in the sense it makes for better impulse response.

All in the name of impulse response. Hilariously, it is described how the patent fixes issues not fully investigated or shown to be problems, or is premised on what may be going on. Concluding with strange statement it is good to go ahead with a solution without waiting for full investigation of effects. I couldn't have made that up.

It repeats the bit about timing to around 10 microseconds being important and a problem with long ringing FIR filters. Odd as what research there is refers to timing between channels or between ears. Not that level of timing resolution within a channel itself. One of those is not the other. Okay, good enough for audiophiles to get own with the imaginged solution without knowing especially if it markets so well.

For all the monkeying with the signal in between it may in fact do some of what is said. But if audiophiles understood that I think their love of purity of signal would prejudice them against it.

Some very neat, clever stuff here and in the way the other patent describes packing a 96/24 transmission channel into 1 mbps or roughly 2/3 the redbook rate. Still were I a betting man, I would bet this MQA will make about the same splash HDCD.

 

[stehno]

There are two halves to AES. One half is a conference where almost anyone can show up and present something. That is presentation you talk about with Ethan Winer.

The other half is far more serious affair and includes the AES Journal. It is that side that bestows Fellowship and subjects articles to peer review prior to publication. Bob has published really nice papers in the Journal for example in quantifying the required noise floor for digital audio to be transparent. His upcoming AES Journal paper on audibility of resampling should likewise be superb.

See for example this article I wrote partly on his research: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/RoomDynamicRange.html

And this one on his latest peer reviewed conference paper on audibility of resampling high resolution audio: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/High Resolution Audio/High Resolution Audio Matters.html

Everyone in audio has an agenda and strong opinion and Bob Stuart is no exception. But as famous industry people go, his work is very highly regarded and so I don't think it is fair to talk down something based on who he is.

I appreciate your explanations. I have no intention of dissing Stuart for the sake of doing so. But I will be honest. I find it rather difficult to respect anybody who either intentionally attempts to deceive others or anybody who has convinced themselves they are correct (when they aren't) that their so-called advancement must be noteworthy and of value to others. We're all potentially guilty of this to one extent or another. But even Ethan has yet to garner TAS, Stereophile, Atlantic Records, AES (proper?), Tidal, and possibly Apple support in his endeavors. Since Bob obviously has some marketing skills, this makes Bob potentially far more impacting (and dangerous) on the industry, when indeed he may have nothing more beneficial to offer than Ethan and could even make matters worse. Whereas Ethan has no such potential.

Like Ethan, Stuart never meant a thing to me prior to MQA. He has indeed made outlandish performance and other claims for his MQA technology and I think even speaks with forked tongue to appease different audiences. It also seems all of his MQA demos are done on Meridian equipment which also does not improve his credibility. And since MQA performance gains is one of his primary talking points, and since higher rez formats is already barking up the wrong tree when seeking dramatically improved levels in musicality, I can't help but see Stuart as a somewhat sophisticated Ethan Weiner type. Especially when after already making a number of highly questionable statements including the seemingly intentional injection of certain key "audiophile" friendly buzz phrases for what seemed to be only to get unsuspecting "purist" audiophile types behind him.

Harley asked, why are you doing this now in your career Bob, and Stuart replied, "It had to be done." Stuart's response here seems intended to give the easily swayed the impression that what he has to offer is legit and necessary. I don't see either being the case, hence the self-imposed Ethan aura.

But I will educate myself a bit by checking out the links you provided.

Maybe you can answer this question for me. When Bob and others talk about MQA utilizing the available storage beneath the noise floor to store / fold further music info, is he speaking of the noise floor induced by a given playback system or is he speaking of another noise floor further up in the production chain?

Thanks, much.

 

[amirm]

I am puzzled by your remarks about Ethan and Bob. I know them both and they are like fire and ice when it comes to audio. They could not be more opposites of each other. So I am unclear how you can simultaneously dislike both.

As to your question, I need to see the exact quote to answer. For now, part of the answer is actually in my article that references his work. That is, we need to strive to create a digital transport which at all times its noise floor is below threshold of hearing. It is that analysis that shows CD specification to miss that mark (without aggressive noise shaping). Again, that is explained in my article. The other reference is with regards to ultrasonics in music. The levels of actual music content drops way lower there and we no longer need the 24-bit bit depth of PCM to represent it. MQA takes advantage of this fact to reduce the bit rate we need to transmit the equiv. (perceptual) fidelity.

 

[Orb]

Having looked over the other patent info. It appears to me yes they intend for MQA to sound better, not just transparent.

Sort of reading between the lines, it looks like if they know the ADC used they intend to undo the anti-aliasing filter in a sense, and then use better filters. Like if the ADC used a 127 tape brickwall filter they will just invert that filter which will give them no filter to muck up the impulse response.

Then they intend to use a mix of minimum phase and slow roll off filters FIR filters it appears. Part of the patent said encoding will have a filter, and decoding will reverse that filter. That encoding will having falling response approaching nyquist and decoding will have a rising response approaching nyquist. There is mention the reconstruction filter will be minimum phase which will cause it to have a drooped response appraching 20 khz. As part of decoding is a 'flattening' filter to make that flat to 20 khz.

And of course their filters are going to be only 6 tap filters it appears. Another reason it won't be a steep filter I imagine. Ringing won't take place beyond 6 samples. There is much more of course, and likely plenty about what the whole system together does to work. But clearly they think they can undo damage of the original ADC filters and substitute their own. They also mention optimum will be if the replay DAC has the same non-ringing filter, but imply that alone will not prevent it from being MQA. There is also talk that they will be using something like half-band or even less filtering. That aliasing will be allowed, but not at any appreciable level below 7 khz where it is most easily heard. Aliasing if kept high in frequency and low in level is beneficial in the sense it makes for better impulse response.

All in the name of impulse response. Hilariously, it is described how the patent fixes issues not fully investigated or shown to be problems, or is premised on what may be going on. Concluding with strange statement it is good to go ahead with a solution without waiting for full investigation of effects. I couldn't have made that up.

It repeats the bit about timing to around 10 microseconds being important and a problem with long ringing FIR filters. Odd as what research there is refers to timing between channels or between ears. Not that level of timing resolution within a channel itself. One of those is not the other. Okay, good enough for audiophiles to get own with the imaginged solution without knowing especially if it markets so well.

For all the monkeying with the signal in between it may in fact do some of what is said. But if audiophiles understood that I think their love of purity of signal would prejudice them against it.

Some very neat, clever stuff here and in the way the other patent describes packing a 96/24 transmission channel into 1 mbps or roughly 2/3 the redbook rate. Still were I a betting man, I would bet this MQA will make about the same splash HDCD.

Yeah, but technically it is not improving the 24-bit master file.
I guess we were coming at this subtly different POV, I see it as improving sound but not the master per se as that is not touched itself.

Although I wonder if I am a bit wrong on that when it comes to new recordings and remasters using original analogue tapes; esldude does it mention anything about using it as a master replacement solution (tbh I doubt this is feasible for technical reason) or just distribution storage (ignoring transmission side)?
By replacement I mean studio trying to implement this and not 24-bit master file; like you and others I can see many reasons why technically this should not be feasible but wondering if they mention it in the patent - I did not see anything myself back before and also when I originally posted the link to suggest the master file will be replaced in future or touched but asking just in case I missed something.

Thanks
Orb

 

[stehno]

I am puzzled by your remarks about Ethan and Bob. I know them both and they are like fire and ice when it comes to audio. They could not be more opposites of each other. So I am unclear how you can simultaneously dislike both.

That's because from the MQA articles and interviews and the promises made therein, I see much similarity between the two. Sure Bob may have greater intellect, but Ethan's not quite the dummy I wish him to be. Both have followers who respect them, both make outlandish claims that their follower don't pick up on, etc. Ethan may be right or accurate 20% of the time while Bob may be right or accurate 75 - 80% of the time. Nevertheless, if Bob's initial premise that a higher-rez format will allow us to hear exactly what the engineers heard in the studio, Bob could be right about everything else, but the mere fact that he's barked up the wrong technology tree or that I could theoretically hear exactly what the engineers heard on my am/fm clock radio (his implication), would make him and his claims are 100% wrong in this entire endeavor. Thereby making himself no better than Ethan at least in this MQA endeavor. And if Bob is at all successful with MQA, he has the potential to induce far greater damage to existing formats, fidelity, and levels of performance and at the great monetary expense potentially millions, if not ultimately billions of people.

About a month ago, I called John Atkinson out on his nonsensical endorsement of the Vandersteen Model 7A speakers where he claimed to hear "musically perfect.... ... across the board." Atkinson refused to answer my questions and in my opinion, he exposed himself as having untrained ears (which I already suspected) or a sell out or both. Does that mean he doesn't know what he's talking about much of the time? Of course not. But his Vandersteen endorsement completely exposed him and obliterated any remaining credibility I thought he might have had.

I see Bob much the same way. But more importantly, with John and Bob and even Ethan falling way short of the mark in these and perhaps other matters and each having a small host of followers, seats on "expert" panels at AES conferences, etc. these exposed shortcomings should really just be reminders to us that no matter how much we really want to believe "high-end" audio is a mature industry, from a performance perspective it's still very much in its infancy.

IMO, that's the real point people should be walking away with.

Thanks for the response. Again, I'll set aside some time to read your linked docs.

 

[Don Hills]

... And just like the camera analogy, it's not the number of music info bits that remain inaudible, it's the percentage of music info bits that remain inaudible due to the much raised noise floor.

This is not hypothesis, this is fact and is demonstrable. ...

In that case, you should be able to provide proof.

 

[Orb]

Stehno,
I point you back to my point regarding where I point out how traditional amplifier and passive speakers do not sound "natural".
Sorry but I feel you are overreacting regarding Bob Stuart, I am not sure you appreciate exactly his background/expertise and his contributions beyond the company and some others who work at Meridian.
Do you criticise Bruno Putzeys as strongly for being first a commercial engineer rather than look at his background/expertise and contributions for Class-D amplifiers and his stance on negative feedback, his work at Philips,etc?

I think there is a trend these days to be very sceptical of anything coming from engineers associated with an audio company, no matter the background and history of the engineer (quite a few with scientific and true research backgrounds) involved.
Cheers
Orb

 

[esldude]

Yeah, but technically it is not improving the 24-bit master file.
I guess we were coming at this subtly different POV, I see it as improving sound but not the master per se as that is not touched itself.

Although I wonder if I am a bit wrong on that when it comes to new recordings and remasters using original analogue tapes; esldude does it mention anything about using it as a master replacement solution (tbh I doubt this is feasible for technical reason) or just distribution storage (ignoring transmission side)?
By replacement I mean studio trying to implement this and not 24-bit master file; like you and others I can see many reasons why technically this should not be feasible but wondering if they mention it in the patent - I did not see anything myself back before and also when I originally posted the link to suggest the master file will be replaced in future or touched but asking just in case I missed something.

Thanks
Orb

Now realize I don't necessarily agree with Stuart on it all. If the 24 bit master file had impulse response compromised by the filters, and MQA can unravel that, then do new filtering of better quality it would in fact be improving on the master and the sound. That is if you buy the impulse argument (which I don't).

How does that sound in the end? I don't know, and with all the processing going on I would need some explicit example of how it was an improvement and not just a difference (potentially a coloration regardless of how appealing the coloration). I see nothing to make it look like a master replacement. Nor that they are claiming that other than the claim it is Master Quality Authenticated. Perceptually lossless.....blah, blah, blah.

 

[esldude]

I thought this was just precious, PRECIOUS indeed. From the description near the summary of the description of the patent.


Current understanding of human hearing is very incomplete. In order to make progress we have therefore relied on hypotheses that have been only partially or indirectly verified. The invention will thus be explained on the basis of the following hypotheses:

- The ear does not behave as a linear system

- As well as analysing tones in the frequency domain, the ear also analyses transients in the time domain. This may be the dominant mechanism in the ultrasonic region.

- "Ringing" of filters used for antialiassing and reconstruction is undesirable, even if in the high ultrasonic range 40kHz-100kHz.

- Aliassing of frequencies above 48kHz to frequencies below 48kHz is not catastrophic to sound quality, provided the aliased products do not fall within the conventionally audible range 0-20kHz.

- A pre-ring is usually more of a problem than a post-ring, but both are bad.

- It seems best if the temporal extent of the total system impulse response can be minimised.

Regarding the last of these points, the "total system" is intended to include the analogue-to-digital and digital-to-analogue converters, as well as the entire digital chain in between. Ideally, one might include the transducer responses too, but these are considered outside the scope of this document.

"In order to make progress we have therefore relied on hypotheses that have been only partially or indirectly verified. The invention will thus be explained on the basis of the following hypotheses:"

Yes friends the invention is explained on ideas only partially or indirectly verified. Nothing like getting the cart before the horse I guess, not when marketing can fill the gap. If you looked at some of the partial verification it looks even more suspicious. Often nothing more than audiophile magazine pablum about people not being happy with digital and 'guessing' what is wrong, and that becoming a persistent meme in the internet-o-sphere. So even if it works as claimed, and I believe it does, the result is based upon shaky suppositions about what is wrong with digital. Further, things like leaky half-band filters cause genuine aliasing problems which in this case if kept from being in the 0-7 khz range is worth it to get these improved impulse responses at least according to the thinking here. Any wonder if perhaps it has a signature sound. Of course whether that is enhanced fidelity or not......well I am not optimistic myself. Nothing like fixing what isn't broken. All you need is to break it in the most careful way so your fixes have value.

Well, I am sure labels will see if this has traction, if it markets well, if it improves upon a sort of DRM. If it does, then full speed ahead. Me, were I to have files of recordings done with care, and looking at all the conjecture, and processing going on, no way would I allow those files to go the MQA route.

 

[Orb]

Now realize I don't necessarily agree with Stuart on it all. If the 24 bit master file had impulse response compromised by the filters, and MQA can unravel that, then do new filtering of better quality it would in fact be improving on the master and the sound. That is if you buy the impulse argument (which I don't).

How does that sound in the end? I don't know, and with all the processing going on I would need some explicit example of how it was an improvement and not just a difference (potentially a coloration regardless of how appealing the coloration). I see nothing to make it look like a master replacement. Nor that they are claiming that other than the claim it is Master Quality Authenticated. Perceptually lossless.....blah, blah, blah.

Worth remembering that it is also applicable to resolving the upsampling and downsampling processes applied by labels-studio-distribution channel that do seem to mess this up (appreciate not all but unfortunately I bet a fair few do).
Cheers
Orb

 

[Orb]

I thought this was just precious, PRECIOUS indeed. From the description near the summary of the description of the patent.


Current understanding of human hearing is very incomplete. In order to make progress we have therefore relied on hypotheses that have been only partially or indirectly verified. The invention will thus be explained on the basis of the following hypotheses:......
.......

Regarding the last of these points, the "total system" is intended to include the analogue-to-digital and digital-to-analogue converters, as well as the entire digital chain in between. Ideally, one might include the transducer responses too, but these are considered outside the scope of this document.

"In order to make progress we have therefore relied on hypotheses that have been only partially or indirectly verified. The invention will thus be explained on the basis of the following hypotheses:"

Yes friends the invention is explained on ideas only partially or indirectly verified. Nothing like getting the cart before the horse I guess, not when marketing can fill the gap. If you looked at some of the partial verification it looks even more suspicious. Often nothing more than audiophile magazine pablum about people not being happy with digital and 'guessing' what is wrong, and that becoming a persistent meme in the internet-o-sphere. So even if it works as claimed, and I believe it does, the result is based upon shaky suppositions about what is wrong with digital. Further, things like leaky half-band filters cause genuine aliasing problems which in this case if kept from being in the 0-7 khz range is worth it to get these improved impulse responses at least according to the thinking here. Any wonder if perhaps it has a signature sound. Of course whether that is enhanced fidelity or not......well I am not optimistic myself. Nothing like fixing what isn't broken. All you need is to break it in the most careful way so your fixes have value.

Well, I am sure labels will see if this has traction, if it markets well, if it improves upon a sort of DRM. If it does, then full speed ahead. Me, were I to have files of recordings done with care, and looking at all the conjecture, and processing going on, no way would I allow those files to go the MQA route.

I see it more as a philosophy for recording-to-studio-to-client (personally I equate the solution to having multiple endpoints, those being the studio,distributor channel, consumer client) myself but appreciate you are using his wording
And he is correct to say that, because from a scientific scope and context he cannot conclusively prove all aspects of what the solution attempts to resolve.
Better than over-reaching or ignoring how much is actually scientifically proven (which tbh is a pig for some of these points).
Cheers
Orb

 

[stehno]

Stehno,
I point you back to my point regarding where I point out how traditional amplifier and passive speakers do not sound "natural".
Sorry but I feel you are overreacting regarding Bob Stuart, I am not sure you appreciate exactly his background/expertise and his contributions beyond the company and some others who work at Meridian.
Do you criticise Bruno Putzeys as strongly for being first a commercial engineer rather than look at his background/expertise and contributions for Class-D amplifiers and his stance on negative feedback, his work at Philips,etc?

I think there is a trend these days to be very sceptical of anything coming from engineers associated with an audio company, no matter the background and history of the engineer (quite a few with scientific and true research backgrounds) involved.
Cheers
Orb

Hi, Orb. Based on what I think I know I don't believe your comment about how traditional amplifiers and passive speakers do not sound natural. Some may find active speakers preferable because they provide a few different options to play with, fine tune, etc. Some might conclude that by your belief, you must think the speaker cable itself is a significant problem.

But if I were to execute such a config in my own system, I'd venture the system would no longer be worth listening to. If we just take your position on its face, some-to-many of us are already familiar with some positive effects of vibration controlling methods. Let's say, hypothetically, I've applied a superior means of controlling vibrations at my amps while positioned in my rack (pick a vibration controlling method) and I've noticed a definite improvement (small or great). By default, an active speaker implies built-in amplification. That is to say, built into the speaker. Now how do you suppose that my method of controlling vibrations at my sensitive amps in my rack that provided sonic benefit would transfer to the built-in amps at the speaker which is the earthquake's epicenter? IOW, if my amps were adversely affected by under-controlled vibrations at the rack, how much more would my amps be adversely affected if they were mounted inside the speaker cabinet that for intensive purposes is the earthquake itself?

I suppose your answer depends on whether or not you deem your components to be sensitive instruments. I do. Hence, if I attach my atomic force microscope to my rack, apply some vibration controlling techniques, and AFM realizes increased resolution by improved precision and accuracy, knowing the level of mechanical energy a speaker is capable of generating, why would I ever consider conducting my most sensitive research by mounting my AF microscope inside the speaker with music playing?

Now you and Bob Stuart apparently have no problem with that. I do and I know what sonic harm would come if I went with an active speaker.

As for my overreacting regarding Bob Stuart's claims? Nobody seemed to mind much when Memorex had those "is it live or is it Memorex?" commercials in the 70's and it's just gotten worse since then. The hype may not bother you but it does me. And in case you haven't noticed, people will make the most outlandish claims under the sun if it causes you to part with your money. I call that highly questionable character or at the very least somebody who knows not what they speaketh. I don't care how bright they may be.

Why would I criticize Bruno? I read one paper about him about 8 months ago and it seems that he's carved out a niche for himself and his methods and he appears to be some kind of frontrunner. I'm certainly not going to criticize Class D amps as I've had excellent experience with several mfg'ers in the past 10 years. The latest one is where I swapped out a highly rated $8k int. amp for a pair of $2400 class D mono blocks. By the time they reach their full potential (with my help) they literally made that $8k int. amp sound like a $50 BestBuy receiver. And that's no hype.

I'm skeptical of everyone and every institution. If my federal government tells me the sky is blue, I'm going to assume it's red until I can verify it for myself. High-end audio being perhaps the most overly hyped industry known to man, why in the world should I check my brain off there? In fact, I'm most leery of those claiming to be scientists, engineers, and physicists.

As Tesla said, "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

That was about 100 years ago. You suspect that scenario is any better today? Does that scenario Tesla paints seem familiar to you when considering the high-end audio industry?

Maybe not every case, but the scientists, engineers, and physicists I come across seem unable to think outside of their boxes. If it's not found in a text book then it can't exist and they are lost. There's a term for those types but I forget the name, lab coat rats or something like that.

 

[Orb]

Hi, Orb. Based on what I think I know I don't believe your comment about how traditional amplifiers and passive speakers do not sound natural. Some may find active speakers preferable because they provide a few different options to play with, fine tune, etc. Some might conclude that by your belief, you must think the speaker cable itself is a significant problem.

But if I were to execute such a config in my own system, I'd venture the system would no longer be worth listening to. If we just take your position on its face, some-to-many of us are already familiar with some positive effects of vibration controlling methods. Let's say, hypothetically, I've applied a superior means of controlling vibrations at my amps while positioned in my rack (pick a vibration controlling method) and I've noticed a definite improvement (small or great). By default, an active speaker implies built-in amplification. That is to say, built into the speaker. Now how do you suppose that my method of controlling vibrations at my sensitive amps in my rack that provided sonic benefit would transfer to the built-in amps at the speaker which is the earthquake's epicenter? IOW, if my amps were adversely affected by under-controlled vibrations at the rack, how much more would my amps be adversely affected if they were mounted inside the speaker cabinet that for intensive purposes is the earthquake itself?

I suppose your answer depends on whether or not you deem your components to be sensitive instruments. I do. Hence, if I attach my atomic force microscope to my rack, apply some vibration controlling techniques, and AFM realizes increased resolution by improved precision and accuracy, knowing the level of mechanical energy a speaker is capable of generating, why would I ever consider conducting my most sensitive research by mounting my AF microscope inside the speaker with music playing?

Now you and Bob Stuart apparently have no problem with that. I do and I know what sonic harm would come if I went with an active speaker.

As for my overreacting regarding Bob Stuart's claims? Nobody seemed to mind much when Memorex had those "is it live or is it Memorex?" commercials in the 70's and it's just gotten worse since then. The hype may not bother you but it does me. And in case you haven't noticed, people will make the most outlandish claims under the sun if it causes you to part with your money. I call that highly questionable character or at the very least somebody who knows not what they speaketh. I don't care how bright they may be.

Why would I criticize Bruno? I read one paper about him about 8 months ago and it seems that he's carved out a niche for himself and his methods and he appears to be some kind of frontrunner. I'm certainly not going to criticize Class D amps as I've had excellent experience with several mfg'ers in the past 10 years. The latest one is where I swapped out a highly rated $8k int. amp for a pair of $2400 class D mono blocks. By the time they reach their full potential (with my help) they literally made that $8k int. amp sound like a $50 BestBuy receiver. And that's no hype.

I'm skeptical of everyone and every institution. If my federal government tells me the sky is blue, I'm going to assume it's red until I can verify it for myself. High-end audio being perhaps the most overly hyped industry known to man, why in the world should I check my brain off there? In fact, I'm most leery of those claiming to be scientists, engineers, and physicists.

As Tesla said, "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

That was about 100 years ago. You suspect that scenario is any better today? Does that scenario Tesla paints seem familiar to you when considering the high-end audio industry?

Maybe not every case, but the scientists, engineers, and physicists I come across seem unable to think outside of their boxes. If it's not found in a text book then it can't exist and they are lost. There's a term for those types but I forget the name, lab coat rats or something like that.

Sorry but Bob Stuart and Craven are as much a front runner when looking at from his background and digital transmission and audio.

Anyway coming back to my context of the issue with traditional power amps and passive speakers, this is critically one reason digital active speakers are better (not the only reason I agree) and it is not one of belief but fact.
Just read papers by Craven/Gerzon/Linkwitz and others and the factor I mention is a comparable one to Robert Stuart's on digital and its issues.
BTW even Grimm Audio (Bruno is one of the founding engineers that you accept) mention the following with their active speaker (so also applicable to digital aspects and also amp-speaker group-phase issues at extreme low-high FR and crossover):

Global phase correction tightens up the impulse response without causing pre-echos.
The result sounds organic, analogue and above all, right

And from their brochure:

The correction of the measured response is done digitally in DSP („Digital Signal Processing“).
Digital processing offers a much higher degree of correction then possible in the analog domain, and without the distortion associated with analog components.
Digital sources are fed directly into the DSP, in case you like to listen to an analog source we included a very high quaity AD converter in the system. The DSP in the LS1 takes care of three important tasks: response correction of the drivers, cross-over between the drivers and phase correction of the cross-over. Let‘s look at the response correction first.
And remarkably this means we first need to step back into the analog domain of acoustics. The acoustic behavior of a loudspeaker cannot be corrected electrically so it should be taken care of first

From a technical perspective one can refer to those people I mentioned earlier and their various papers.
How important is this to the current discussion, not much apart from the possible similarity regarding the challenges of "natural" sound from a phase-time and response perspective.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Don Hills]

... IOW, if my amps were adversely affected by under-controlled vibrations at the rack, how much more would my amps be adversely affected if they were mounted inside the speaker cabinet that for intensive purposes is the earthquake itself? ...

Are your amps audibly affected by the vibrations present in a typical equipment rack? If so, they're defective / poorly designed. It's not rocket science to build an amplifier that's not sensitive to vibration. (Actually, it can be rocket science - it's hard to imagine a more severe environment for a sensitive servo amplifier than a rocket booster.) I'd make some exception for tube amps, but I don't know of any active speakers with built-in tube amps.

 

[Tony Lauck]

I thought this was just precious, PRECIOUS indeed. From the description near the summary of the description of the patent.


Current understanding of human hearing is very incomplete. In order to make progress we have therefore relied on hypotheses that have been only partially or indirectly verified. The invention will thus be explained on the basis of the following hypotheses:

- The ear does not behave as a linear system

- As well as analysing tones in the frequency domain, the ear also analyses transients in the time domain. This may be the dominant mechanism in the ultrasonic region.

- "Ringing" of filters used for antialiassing and reconstruction is undesirable, even if in the high ultrasonic range 40kHz-100kHz.

- Aliassing of frequencies above 48kHz to frequencies below 48kHz is not catastrophic to sound quality, provided the aliased products do not fall within the conventionally audible range 0-20kHz.

- A pre-ring is usually more of a problem than a post-ring, but both are bad.

- It seems best if the temporal extent of the total system impulse response can be minimised.

Regarding the last of these points, the "total system" is intended to include the analogue-to-digital and digital-to-analogue converters, as well as the entire digital chain in between. Ideally, one might include the transducer responses too, but these are considered outside the scope of this document.

"In order to make progress we have therefore relied on hypotheses that have been only partially or indirectly verified. The invention will thus be explained on the basis of the following hypotheses:"

Yes friends the invention is explained on ideas only partially or indirectly verified. Nothing like getting the cart before the horse I guess, not when marketing can fill the gap. If you looked at some of the partial verification it looks even more suspicious. Often nothing more than audiophile magazine pablum about people not being happy with digital and 'guessing' what is wrong, and that becoming a persistent meme in the internet-o-sphere. So even if it works as claimed, and I believe it does, the result is based upon shaky suppositions about what is wrong with digital. Further, things like leaky half-band filters cause genuine aliasing problems which in this case if kept from being in the 0-7 khz range is worth it to get these improved impulse responses at least according to the thinking here. Any wonder if perhaps it has a signature sound. Of course whether that is enhanced fidelity or not......well I am not optimistic myself. Nothing like fixing what isn't broken. All you need is to break it in the most careful way so your fixes have value.

Well, I am sure labels will see if this has traction, if it markets well, if it improves upon a sort of DRM. If it does, then full speed ahead. Me, were I to have files of recordings done with care, and looking at all the conjecture, and processing going on, no way would I allow those files to go the MQA route.

I would not place too much stock in the wording of the patent, unless you have considerable experience in the patent arena. In particular, the patent gives a glimpse into the thinking of the inventors, but it does not follow that the product has to utilize all of this thinking. It does seem likely to me that the patent application would not have been filed if the intention was to make MQA an open standard. For me, that is the biggest takeout from the patent (which I haven't read, other than the portion you quoted).