|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
96.245.3.219
In Reply to: RE: Benchmark weighs in on MQA posted by Mr_Steady on August 17, 2016 at 08:28:48
I agree. I am open-mindedly interested in MQA, and I think I understand much, though far from all, of the theory and research behind it. Also, based on his track record, I see no rational reason to believe that Bob Stuart is a charlatan. I also think that MQA's ultimate success in the market is not a slam dunk at all.I also strongly agree that MQA absolutely must coexist with other non-MQA DSP functions in our systems. Stuart did address this question briefly in his long response at CAForum. But, I still have lingering concerns about the details.
From Stuart's response there, it seems MQA could be made to work in a digital HT processor and still allow the processor to do bass management, room EQ, etc. Basically, the processor does the MQA origami unfolding to hi rez LPCM, then applies DSP, then passes it off to the MQA DAC stage. But, it far is less clear what would happen in a PC environment, even if there were an open PC codec to perform the origami unfolding.
Digital crossovers requiring multiple DAC's would seem extremely difficult if not impossible while using MQA "de blurring" DACs. Fortunately, digital crossovers are not in my plans.
Edits: 08/17/16Follow Ups:
Fitz & Duke,
I have a hunch that if MQA is adopted at all it will be because the owners of the music want the Digital Rights Management if provides. I bet it galls the heads of the record companies no end to think that someone somewhere is ripping 16/44 streams onto a hard drive. It's probably giving them ulcers. How MQA sounds will probably have nothing to do whether it is adopted. Oh they may use that to sell it to you, and get you pumped up about it, but that won't be the real reason.
As long as MQA limited to streaming I don't care, but if it is used in hi-res file purchases I won't buy them.
The thing that got me about that article was a dac designer who intimates he can't hear the difference between 24/96 and 24/192. Why the hell would I buy a dac from him?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Many people can't hear that difference
Alan
Mr_Steady: "I have a hunch that if MQA is adopted at all it will be because the owners of the music want the Digital Rights Management if provides. I bet it galls the heads of the record companies no end to think that someone somewhere is ripping 16/44 streams onto a hard drive. It's probably giving them ulcers. How MQA sounds will probably have nothing to do whether it is adopted. Oh they may use that to sell it to you, and get you pumped up about it, but that won't be the real reason."
I think what galls the heads is that their "crown jewels" - 24/48, 24/96, 24/192, etc. "studio master" files are being distributed and copied.
MQA is a compromised format. PERIOD. It promises time domain "de-blurring" but cannot do anything about speaker time alignment issues even if it does something good in the digital data. It claims resolution like 24/192 but in reality it *cannot* achieve the same 24-bit resolution. AND we know that above the baseband 22kHz (44kHz sampling rate) or 24kHz (48kHz sampling rate), the rest of the ultrasonic spectrum is lossy reconstructed.
By doing this, the record labels happily sell you this hybrid of lossless/lossy without giving away the full crown jewels on the basis that this is somehow good for streaming (which I contend is ridiculous because it eats up 50% more bandwidth than Tidal 16/44 and is less compressible than just straight 24/44 PCM).
At some point in the future, the record labels will happily sell you again something better than MQA and closer to 24/96 or 24/192 that we already can obtain today.
We might not call it DRM in that we do retain the right to copy MQA files I suppose. But it is a form of control of user rights in that we have to buy MQA sanctioned/licensed DAC hardware. And we cannot access the hi-res portion of the MQA file without such hardware. This means people currently using HQPlayer or do convolution DSP for room corrections will not have access to the full resolution digital for playback.
Needless to say, I feel MQA is a step backwards and the points above do need to be expressed openly. The audiophile press seems to have a hard time being critical of something which is so obviously flawed!
-------
Archimago's Musings : A 'more objective' audiophile blog.
The audiophile press seems to have a hard time being critical of something which is so obviously flawed!
The audio press lives off of hardware sales, albeit indirectly via advertising budgets. So the audio press as a whole has a self-interest in perpetuating the upgrade cycle.
You are right. But, does that mean every single upgrade, every new technology, every review is just part of a vast commercial conspiracy cynically to sell more gear? Some might well be and provide no improvement.
But, you cannot just broad brush everything. And, there is a profit motive behind every innovation, good, bad or indifferent. If there is no incentive, why bother to innovate at all in anything, anywhere?
It remains to be seen whether MQA has something useful to offer. Even if it does, will it succeed in the marketplace? The jury is still out, IMHO. Unlike many, my mind and ears are still open.
Amen!
It would be nice if MQA underwent the quick death that it deserves. Instead, it appears that it will drag on for months/years and neurotic audiophiles will continue to demand DACs that can decode MQA. Sigh.
Our best hope is that the labels will never add MQA titles to any substantial degree. I, for one, will not buy a single one. Heck, my small collection of DSD titles includes only 2 albums that I paid for - and DSD, at least, is a format with a redeeming feature!
"We might not call it DRM in that we do retain the right to copy MQA files I suppose. But it is a form of control of user rights in that we have to buy MQA sanctioned/licensed DAC hardware. And we cannot access the hi-res portion of the MQA file without such hardware. This means people currently using HQPlayer or do convolution DSP for room corrections will not have access to the full resolution digital for playback."
I agree. I used the term DRM, and that is not correct. However what I was trying to get at was that it is a way for the record companies to sell us hi-res while retaining the master tape version for themselves. They certainly have the right to do that. The fact that it can only be used on licensed hardware sure makes it walk and talk more like a DRM duck.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Since MQA encoded files can be played on any dac I don't see the problem An MQA encoded file played on my Master 7 dac sounds a little better than the original non MQA file
Alan
nt
Seems you are correct."In addition to delivering unprecedented sound quality, MQA offers record companies a compelling solution to delivering to consumers the best possible sound while still protecting their archives. When you play an MQA file through an MQA decoder, you hear the high-resolution studio master, yet you never actually possess the high-resolution studio master. That high-resolution signal exists only at the decoder output, in analog form but matches very closely the analog in the studio. Of course, you can store an MQA-encoded file (it's formatted as a 44.1 or 48kHz/24-bit FLAC file) with all the high-resolution information embedded in it, but to access that hi-res information you must play it back. It must be noted here that MQA has no form of copy protection or digital-rights management (DRM) whatsoever. Contrary to what some Internet posters think, MQA is not an evil scheme to institute DRM."
--------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Edits: 08/18/16
as to describe to the rest of the asylum what are the sonic difference between 24/96 and 24/192?
I know I'd be glad to know what the differences are! Where should I begin listening to hear the most obvious difference?
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
Finer resolution. More definition. More micro detail, and thusly sounds more realistic.Have you ever listened to a 15ips reel to reel tape? I never have, so that's a real question. Did you notice any type of difference between that and a CD? Would you be so kind as to give your impressions to the rest of the asylum?
Edit; I realize these are three adjectives describing the same thing, and that may be all hi-res does better, but to people who spend more that $50 on cables and AC cords you would think that's huge.
I will be honest with you. It's enough of an improvement for me that I have decided to rebuild my music collection with 24/192 files as much as I am able. I keep seeing very high end dacs like say a used Meitner UA1 for sale, but I make the choice that I would rather have $4,000 in 24/192 files than a new dac. YMMV.
------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Edits: 08/18/16
Cool! Enjoy your new music collection!
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
"Have you ever listened to a 15ips reel to reel tape? I never have, so that's a real question"
I have. That 15 IPS tape was not transparent compared to the live microphone feed, which sounded better. But this was some years ago and it was 1/4 inch tape, so it could be that newer machines and tapes are more transparent.
When I buy downloads, my custom is to purchase the highest available resolution. My experience is that 192/24 versions often sound better than 96/24 versions. (There were a few cases where the 192/24 recordings were made from an analog mixdown of 96/24 session tapes, where the gain was minimal.) My experience has been that record labels offering the highest quality recordings offer their downloads at 192/24 as well as 96/24. This is a clue that their engineers are trying for the best possible quality and that they are marketing to audiophiles looking for the best possible reproduction.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
We recorded in the studio at 30IPS. 2" multitrack or 1/2" 2 track masters. Very close to the live control room feed. Todays digital using the best dacs even at 16/44 come close to that sound but not there yet. I do not see any great sonic advantage to so called hi rez, especially at the premium prices they are charging
Alan
If all recordings were 24/96 multi-channel, I would rest content! ;-)
My experience has been that record labels offering the highest quality recordings offer their downloads at 192/24 as well as 96/24. This is a clue that their engineers are trying for the best possible quality and that they are marketing to audiophiles looking for the best possible reproduction.
More likely they are offering 96k and 192k to maximize their profit by selling at two different price tiers. Those of us who suffer from audiophilia nervousa can be baited into spending another 7 bucks or so, just so we don't feel like we might be missing out on something if we buy the cheaper 24/96 version. Meanwhile the labels still have something they can sell to the more price conscious shoppers who won't shell out $25+ for an album.
I haven't really compared the 96k and 192k downloads of the same album because I haven't wanted to buy twice. But I've downsampled a few of my 192k albums to 96k for experiment's sake, and I'll be damned if I can consistently tell a difference. Occasionally the 192k sounds a hair different, usually smoother, but these moments are fleeting and not very repeatable.
Try it yourself and report.
I can hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit files (and proved it to myself using foobar's comparator). I am hard-pressed, however, to distinguish 44/24 from 192/92, nevermind 96/24 from 192/24.
That said, I don't doubt those that claim to hear the difference. I recall that Charles Hansen (whose ears and gears I trust) said that the real benefit from quad-rate sampling is that it eliminates the need for brickwall filters. The files I used for my testing were downsampled from 192/24.
Lots of different algorithms to downsample. Some good, some bad
Alan
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: