MQA bails on Rocky Mountain Audio Fest*

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by ls35a, Oct 7, 2017.

  1. Dreams266

    Dreams266 New Member

    Location:
    NJ
    I will give a listen soon. Someone moved my speakers and I'm having the pleasure of trying to get them aligned again. Get back to you. What was used to make the files?
     
  2. Higlander

    Higlander Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Florida

    Come come now!
    I was quite fair to you with my reply, hopefully you are jesting with Member Tim Muller!

    Or does your humor and sarcasm need some touching up....:winkgrin:
     
  3. Dreams266

    Dreams266 New Member

    Location:
    NJ
    They are same size files.....trick I guess?
     
  4. Higlander

    Higlander Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Florida
    That sounds like a catch 22 though.

    If someone claims to not hear what you do, you say their equipment is at fault. If they have good equipment, then it defaults to their hearing...:rolleyes:
    Logic dictates we first have to ascertain with no uncertainty, your claim is substantiated.

    Then we can dictate the why or what makes others hear it also or not.
     
    Tim Müller likes this.
  5. Dreams266

    Dreams266 New Member

    Location:
    NJ
     
  6. missan

    missan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Stockholm
    No they are not the same size.
     
  7. Dreams266

    Dreams266 New Member

    Location:
    NJ
    I'm sorry but the audio world doesn't work like that. People have all different types of experiences and given its got a lot of subjectivity, and different equipment giving the readings. The obvious, non-subtle things are generally agreed upon but still a lot of people are going to like something else the majority don't. The opinions on 24 bit are no less convincing then any other factor I see discussed in the communities. There are just as many people who dismiss that vinyl is ever better than CD..and they as convinced as you are about hi res. If you are the kind of person who will only believe something if you can see it on a graph then I need to know no more.
     
  8. Dreams266

    Dreams266 New Member

    Location:
    NJ
    OK I see its dropbox. Get back soon
     
  9. Higlander

    Higlander Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Florida

    People can hear differences when listening to the same exact thing though.
    Hearing
    Equipment
    The listeners expectation of hearing something
    Different mastering's or changes that result in different or better or worse sound not directly related to the media itself.

    I do not think we can simply rule out someone by saying it is poor hearing or substandard equipment.
     
  10. Dreams266

    Dreams266 New Member

    Location:
    NJ
    Yes, that def happens and I've def found myself hearing things but I know when I'm positive about something.
     
  11. Dreams266

    Dreams266 New Member

    Location:
    NJ
    I don't hear a difference that would make one more enjoyable than orher on these files
     
  12. missan

    missan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Stockholm

    OK. The 24/88 file is #2, the 18.1.
     
  13. Dreams266

    Dreams266 New Member

    Location:
    NJ
    How did you get the music passage to be exact at both ends? What did you use to make it? Something being in 24 bit doesn't automatically make it better. My original comment waa specifically about the quality of the DAC used to make the files
     
  14. missan

    missan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Stockholm

    My point was that it´s not necessarily so that it´s easy to hear a difference between 16 bits and 24 bits. That I favor 24 bits doesn´t mean I would go out and state that people should be able to hear a difference.
     
    Balthazar, Claude Benshaul and Kyhl like this.
  15. Agitater

    Agitater Forum Resident

    Location:
    Toronto
    Nope. I think @Highlander is correct. You’re trying to game the discussion. That sort of gaming is transparent, so it doesn’t advance any point you’re trying to make. People see through it here, and @Highlander rightly pointed it out.
     
  16. markc2

    markc2 New Member

    Was lucky enough to hear a system that was full range and quite excellent. Went from vinyl to digital and then to 15 ips tape, then to 15 ips master tape. It wasn't until we got to the 15ips master tape taken directly from the studio that everything to me was perfect. Nothing missing nothing extra just what felt like real singers and musicians in the room.

    I think that high res could be a future. It's just samples taken at higher rates so to me that gets more information of what the original picture looked like. Look at 4k high def tv's I don't think you will see anyone arguing (please bring back my 480i tv or below). Just as you could make the argument that some TV's from that time were amazing at what they did, 1080p and 4k and what they've accomplished with color gamut are to my eye's amazing.

    To me we better keep those master tapes safe until the bit's and bytes settle. Vinyl to me will always be "more" if the chain is analog or very, very good digital. My only real personal experience going from CD or 44k to higher sample rates, is that I don't get a headache as the sample rates go up. Wasn't expecting that result but I will happily enjoy it!
     
  17. Higlander

    Higlander Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Florida
    With High res audio though, I think the tricky part, (again NOT saying you are wrong per se) is that many see the limits of 16//44.1 as already going beyond what any normal human's hearing will be able to discern, especially in a relatively noisy home environment, and even in a very quiet home environment.

    Again, I see nothing wrong with High Res audio at all,I like it in theory, but in practice, not sure there is an advantage really.

    With 4K TV we are increasing detail in the picture in regards to small details or high frequencies being captured, and it is easily seen or measured.
    With High Res audio, we are extending the bandwidth way beyond human hearing, but CD already goes beyond what 99% of people can hear, especially Males over 25 years old even.
    We are extending the noise floor even lower than 16/44.1 but it is already far below most source material or electronics with just CD.

    Also, I see comments about how easily the advantage can be heard, but controlled tests do not back up those claims.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2017
    Tim Müller, GetHappy!! and basie-fan like this.
  18. basie-fan

    basie-fan Well-Known Member

    It's a common misconception that higher sample rates capture "more" audio information than 16/44. Technically they do capture more but it's above the limit of human hearing (and microphones, and instruments); it's just ultrasonic noise. The Redbook engineers chose 44.1 kHz because that's the sample rate that allows for perfect mathematical reconstruction of the analogue signal up to 22.05 kHz, which is beyond the upper limit of human hearing. A higher sample rate will take you above 22 kHz but there's no need for this (unless you are a bat). The bit depth of 16 allows for very large dynamic range, greater than vinyl and more than enough in a home environment, however some recording studios work in a higher bit depth because it's easier and more convenient to work within a larger DR envelope until the final mastering to CD.
     
  19. Claude Benshaul

    Claude Benshaul Well-Known Member

    The only scenario I can think of where MQA makes sense is a world where we are restricted to two options: Either we listen at 128Kbps MP3 or MQA.
     
    Metralla, Tim Müller and DaleClark like this.
  20. Higlander

    Higlander Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Florida

    Good description.
    I have seen several wrongly describe Higher resolution to mean a more detailed sound within the audible spectrum.
    In the normal home listening environment, even 16/44.1 is overkill.
     
    Tim Müller likes this.
  21. Claude Benshaul

    Claude Benshaul Well-Known Member

    The counter argument is that the mathematical reconstruction is unable to model perfectly what the human ears and the audio processor located between them is able experience from a live performance or pure analogue reproduction. Since this argument is going on for the last 30 years or so, if not more, I believe it's more a defense of a belief system than anything else.

    The beauty with belief systems is that it is impossible to refute them but it's possible to exploit the basis of the belief system and expand on it. For example it's easier to convince someone than 4 speaker cables are better than 2 than to convince that cables don't matter (I hope I'm not going to derail the thread here). Therefore it is impossible to convince someone who really believe that 44.1/16 is not enough that it's more than adequate - but it's possible to convince him that he is right, but see...look at the shiny MQA we have for you!

    Unfortunately this is a decoy, because while this hypothetical believer is busy admiring the bling, he is not paying attention that the album was mastered by a bunch of baboons.
     
    showtaper likes this.
  22. Dreams266

    Dreams266 New Member

    Location:
    NJ
    You make the point that I have somewhat failed to make. Some people expect to be able to see a graph to prove every audible experience but it is readily known that you can't do that. Those properties that provide things like soundstage, decay, "air", etc are not going to necessarily show up on someone's digital graph. However, it is these properties that often set one source above another. It is also sometimes these fine properties that are imperceptible to some because of hearing limits and/or being lobbed off by their equipment, including my own equipment. I have heard the difference between with hi res on systems beyond the capabilites of my home system where the difference was obvious. That's the end of the story for me. The rest of the story is that you have a VERY large group of experienced people who have the same experience. It takes balls to state that all those people are hearing things
     
  23. missan

    missan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Stockholm
    The odd thing were that You thought my files were the same.
     
  24. missan

    missan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Stockholm
    One thing that is that people stating they hear an obvious difference between 16/44 and high 'resolution', they are never responding. They are never replying to what must be very easy task. It's always the same, silence.
     
    Tim Müller likes this.
  25. htom

    htom Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    The point of hi-res is higher resolution, whatever you may make of that term. In digital video it would mean a more accurate representation of the image transmitted, both in picture detail (sampling rate) and color accuracy and saturation (bit depth). With digital video the technology has yet to match the limits of the human eye to resolve detail or color. With audio there seem to be well defined limits as far as audible frequency range and dynamic range are concerned. The sampling rate of 44.1 kHz can theoretically handle the audible frequency range. The argument here might be whether or not it is necessary to reproduce frequencies beyond 22.05kHz since most electronic equipment cannot maintain a flat response beyond that upper limit (not that much out there has a flat response within the audible range). But as far as capturing every bit of information on an a

    A bigger question is what effect increasing the bit or word depth has. Redbook's 16 bit word length means for any single sample, there are 65536 possible levels of amplitude. For hi-res, usually 24 bit depth, there are 16777216 possible levels. This means for each amplitude step in a 16 bit sample, hi-res has 256. This would seem to be point to increased detail in the audio. So what does this mean?

    I suppose in my case, what this means is that increased detail means each individual sound in a mix should be more accurately represented, assuming the equipment is capable of reproducing it. So, a very dense mix may mean I can make out individual instruments more easily. This should make a difference when hearing something like an orchestra where a large string section has many violins trying to play the exact same note in a given moment. Since that usually isn't possible presumably we'll have many sounds made within an extremely narrow frequency range and dynamic range. What I have heard in some comparisons (and mentioned in other posts on the same subject) is that where it is possible to hear something like tape hiss (perhaps equal to white noise, but at a very low level) the ability to hear it as separate from the actual music is more pronounced with a higher bit depth. It is not louder and there are probably not more audible frequencies or an increased dynamic range. There is simply the ability to perceive the hiss separately from the signal, or put another way, the hiss is not blending into the signal itself as much. For completeness' sake, the recording in question was I Robot from The Alan Parsons Project, which was released in both 24/96 and 24/192 versions on DVD/DVD-A some years back. I could hear the separation of the tape hiss from the music as the noise heard being slightly higher (as in height, not sound level) against the music (which did not move either up or down) in the 24/192 version against the 24/96, even on headphones. This makes sense to me as the noise does not recede behind the music if the noise level did not change.

    I would think that even with simpler recordings the effect would be the same. More accurately representing the tape hiss or even background noise in a recording means it becomes more separate from the music itself.

    Does all equipment make it possible to hear this difference all (or any) of the time? I'm not sure. But the movie analogy seems applicable here. We want the image on the big flat screen to at least match what we saw on the much larger screen in the theater. It doesn't seem like a bad thing to create an audio format that is a bucket with the potential to hold all the information the original recording held.
     
    markc2 likes this.

Share This Page