Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: Thanks... posted by Charles Hansen on May 28, 2017 at 12:35:01
Charles, thanks again for addressing what so few seem to understand, and it is no wonder, with the confusing marketing MQA employs.
Yes, absolutely, they claim to correct errors at the time of digital capture by the original ADC.
But as you mentioned in previous posts, and as I know very well a project may have used MULTIPLE ADC's during the production. Then different ones during mixing and the same applies for mastering.
One thing I would like to point out with DSD, but specifically when remastering classic analog recordings:
There is a very good way to do it with NO additional DSD processing.
And that is do all your EQ and compression settinsg, and what ever
else in ANALOG, then capture that to DSD. Done. Essentially you are
taking a "DSD photo" of what is coming off the mastering chain.
That is how Mobile Fidelity and other audiophile labels are doing for their SACDs, and they sound spectacular to me.
The Pyrmaix workstation can edit and master in DSD, however some manipulations require conversion to so called "DXD" first.
Here is a thought, it may be crazy, but since your QA-9 is designed as you say, it would be VERY interesting to do some digital archiving with it and and then compare it an "MQA" processed version. The results would be very revealing, in a number of ways.
> > it would be VERY interesting to do some digital archiving with it and and then compare it an "MQA" processed version. The results would be very revealing, in a number of ways. < <
It seems to me that there is a big long chain that starts with the microphone in the recording venue and ends with the speakers in your listening venue. Improving anything at all along the chain improves the sound. Using a better sounding A/D converter would improve the sound for all customers, regardless of their playback system.
Unfortunately there don't seem to be as many "audiophiles" on the recording side as on the playback side. It isn't that easy to compare most pro equipment. Microphones are typically selected for known results ("desired colorations") in specific circumstances. Most gear isn't even compared - can you imagine trying to compare the sound quality of two different 128-channel mixing consoles? Occasionally a studio will re-wire everything with some "audiophile" cabling, but I'm unsure as to how they select which cable to use. It seems that endorsements from highly visible engineers count for as much as anything in the "pro" world.
Every time I have seen a "pro" audio guy evaluate gear, they will set it up in their system so that they can do rapid A/B switching. I have never seen anyone listen for more than 5 or 10 seconds before switching. This is very unfortunate as that type of listening test is extremely sensitive for only one subjective experience - frequency response. It is an exquisitely sensitive way to tell if two DUTs have different frequency responses. It is far, far less sensitive to other "audiophile" parameters such as imaging, soundstage depth, resolution, coherency, and so forth. And it is essentially useless for letting one know which DUT creates a greater sense of emotional connection with the recording artist.
I don't think there's much mystery about the sound quality of MQA. They always start with a high-resolution digital file. Then three processes are applied. One is to reduce the bit depth to ~17 bits with noise-shaped dither. This can never improve the perceived resolution. (NB: Various noise-shaping curves can introduce various sonic signatures. I am told that Sony/Philips listened to many choices before selecting the 7th-order filter used for DSD, and many have noted a similarity in the high-frequency characteristics of all DSD recordings, where the highs tend to sound soft, delicate, and airy, regardless of the program material - I remember having phono cartridges with similar colorations.)
The second process compresses quad-rate audio with lossy techniques, discarding further information. The third process is to add a (digital) filter to filter out some of the artifacts of the original A/D converter. This is also removing information contained in the original file. (It is easy enough to do this without the need for a proprietary system, as first demonstrated by Wadia in the late 1980s.) What sort of differences would you expect to hear from the type of processing that MQA performs?
As always, my posts are strictly my personal opinions and not necessarily those of my employer or voice coach.
"What sort of differences would you expect to hear from the type of processing that MQA performs?"
As you note, all of this can be done without a proprietary "format", god knows I use term oh so loosely, fees, and the need for new software and hard ware.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: