|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
199.10.28.20
I've been on few occasions in the position where some high end audio store was demoing some systems/components to me, and the back-and-forth switching almost always made for an extremely impressive experience. Like "here is configuration A, give it a good listen; now, here is configuration B -- ta-da!!!"
Those stunts always made me think in the back of my head -- "there must be a trick to this..."
My latest impression: MQA. Listened to John Coltrane "Giant Steps" in MQA format. Sounded bloody awesome! I could easily follow every Coltrane's nuance on the tenor sax, things I've never heard before because of the blinding speed of his playing.
Then listened to the same track in red book format -- the music just collapsed. Everything else remaining equal -- same volume, same configuration. Simply going from MQA to CD the music just died.
How's that possible? Is there a trick to it, or is it really such a genuine improvement?
Follow Ups:
.
The issue you present calls for a second opinion. I have faith that you can't be fooled twice.
Most CD playback doesn't sound particularly good.... I think if a higher percentage of CD playback presented sound close to the best CD playback, there wouldn't have been this never-ending quest for "new and improved" digital audio playback formats..... Which in most part sound even worse to me than typical CD playback.
Haha!
In A/B comparisons volume must be matched to 0.1dBspl otherwise the louder one will almost always sound 'better'.
In A/B comparisons volume must be matched to 0.1dBspl otherwise the louder one will almost always sound 'better'.
In this case the difference in spl cannot be the explanation, because I cranked up the volume on the CD playback to way higher level than it was with MQA playback. Still, the CD sounded dull and lifeless in comparison.
Now the OP needs to listen to the same selection on a properly played, select vinyl pressing!
My latest impression: MQA. Listened to John Coltrane "Giant Steps" in MQA format. Sounded bloody awesome! I could easily follow every Coltrane's nuance on the tenor sax, things I've never heard before because of the blinding speed of his playing.
Then listened to the same track in red book format -- the music just collapsed. Everything else remaining equal -- same volume, same configuration. Simply going from MQA to CD the music just died.
Who knows what was actually being played..... I guess the best way to find out for sure is visit someone who has an MQA source, and listen to the music of your choice.
nt
all the best,
mrh
MQA strikes me as being similar to the old Pacific Microsonics High-Definition Compatible Digital (HDCD) format. The main difference is that MQA is run off of lossless music files (WAV, FLAC, etc.), HDCD was run off of Redbook CDs. Both can be played decoded or non-decoded.
MQA stands for "Master Quality Authenticated" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_Authenticated). From what I understand (and my understanding is very superficial at this point), MQA addresses the inevitable glitches in the way analog signal gets converted to digital. There are allegedly so-called 'temporal smears' that result in erroneous timing of the attack, decay, etc. of the recorded sound.MQA proposes to fix those smears by going back to the master source and aligning the digital signal with it. As a result, the MQA converted digital files are supposed to be closer to the original source recording than any PCM hi-res digital format.
Edits: 05/15/17
I actually stumbled across it again today in a slightly different context (see link below) -- having had two run-ins with an unfamiliar three letter acronym* (uTLA) in one day, I decided to look it up! ;-)
It's apparently a proprietary thing, too (imagine that).
-------
* Technically it ("MQA") is not a TLA. An "Acronym" is supposed to be pronounceable. MQA is not pronounceable (except, perhaps in Maltese, Hawaiian, or some other native American languages). NASA is an acronym; AFL-CIO is not.
acronym vs. initialism
all the best,
mrh
The tracks may have come from different engineering/mastering efforts even though they originate from the same performance. In my experience this tends to make more difference than playback resolution or you may have experienced observer's (listener's) bias.
Make sure all the experimental variables that could matter are controlled and try make blind/double blind observations. These measures can increase you confidence in outcome and your interpretation of the results.
> > The tracks may have come from different engineering/mastering efforts even though they originate from the same performance.
I've been casually following the MQA discussions for quite a while and there have been a number of complaints about demo issues with MQA versions not being from the same master as the Red Book or file being used for comparison.
I've been casually following the MQA discussions for quite a while and there have been a number of complaints about demo issues with MQA versions not being from the same master as the Red Book or file being used for comparison.
Even so, could those differences in mastering result in such startling differences in playback?
Yes
Give me an original multitrack master and I could mixdown several different masters that were so far apart in sound you would think they were totally different sessions. Remastering can create the biggest improvement in sound you can get, not the format
Alan
Yes
Give me an original multitrack master and I could mixdown several different masters that were so far apart in sound you would think they were totally different sessions. Remastering can create the biggest improvement in sound you can get, not the format
I'm confused now -- are you talking about remixing or remastering?
many times in remastering they go back to the original multitrack and remix. That new mix is then mastered.
Alan
many times in remastering they go back to the original multitrack and remix. That new mix is then mastered.
How could it be any other way? Is it possible to remix but not master after that?
Yes. Remixing is taking the original multitrack tape or digital file and creating a 2 track file which can then be used for mastering. You have to master to get something that can be played back by consumers such as a CD. I suppose you could take that 2 track file and post it directly on a site so people could play it back. However mastering can add eq, reverb, and compression to further change the sound
Alan
The same complaints apply to comparisons of Hi Rez files vs CDs
Alan
As our ear gets more sophisticated, our ability to pick up small nuances is greatly increased..
So we are noticing tiny changes, and think of them as huge.
I know this is what has happened to my abilities.
As you say, small details JUMP OUT. those are maybe 0.01% of the music or less!
If a salesman was trying to trick you wnat was the motivation? We need to know more about the circumstances. Was it an A/B demonstration of two components one of which was much more costly then the other? Was it just a demonstration of Tidal Masters which the salesman doesn't actually sell it being an online subscription?
Could it be a genuine improvement? Yes according to the several Tidal Masters users here on AA.
Do salesmen trick customers? I doubt that audio is different to any other sales environment where commission or other inducements to sell one product over another exist.
Have I ever experienced trickery? Well I recall years ago when the salesman at one store I knew used to stand in front of the amplifier he wanted to sell, facing the customer. He would put his hand behind is back and surreptitiously turn up the bass control. The comparative amp that he didn't want to sell went through the same process but with the bass being turned down.
Have I ever experienced trickery? Well I recall years ago when the salesman at one store I knew used to stand in front of the amplifier he wanted to sell, facing the customer. He would put his hand behind is back and surreptitiously turn up the bass control. The comparative amp that he didn't want to sell went through the same process but with the bass being turned down.Haha, that's a good one ;)
I remember few years ago I was auditioning some equipment at a high end audio store, and the store owner was trying to get me to buy into some weird thingys called "Acoustic System Resonators" (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue43/resonators.htm). These were retailing for $2,800.00 for their top 'platinum' model -- basically a small wooden plank with a tiny metal bowl screwed on the top. The resonators are placed on the room walls, following the instructions that come with the product. Looks like ultra high end snake oil, right?
So the guy plays some tracks without those resonators in the room. Then he stops the playback, brings the resonators into the room, and places them around the walls. Plays the same track again, and BAM! -- everything just blossoms into vivid, amazing music!
I'm pretty sure there was some trickery to it. I just cannot fathom how would it be possible that these tiny metal bawls affect the sound to such a degree.
Edits: 05/15/17
You can't trust non-blind A/B comparisons. Here's what led me to that conclusion.
Remember the VPI "Magic Bricks"? Early 1980's. Blocks of mu-metal in attractive wood cases, intended to be placed on your electronics and suck up stray magnetic fields to improve the sound. I bought a pair and started listening to them at home. With them (on top of my Kenwood L07M amps at the time), I thought things sounded better, clearer, better defined, than without them. But to A/B them, I had to get up, walk across the room, move them, go back to my chair, listen again... So I moved my amps right next to my chair - I could just lean down and lift the bricks on or off the amps. I heard the same change in the sound. Terrific! Then I tried hearing the change without moving them. I just told myself I heard the change. And ya know what? I heard it!
TLDR - it was all in my head. The bricks went back (I got a refund). And I have been very skeptical of non-blind A/B comparisons ever since. 'Cuz the mind plays games :-)
TLDR - it was all in my head. The bricks went back (I got a refund). And I have been very skeptical of non-blind A/B comparisons ever since. 'Cuz the mind plays games :-)Can't argue with that. But in my case, it was the opposite -- I was SUPPOSED to easily hear the difference (the change) between Red book and hi-res, but I couldn't hear any differences. I was psyching myself into hearing them, rooting for the hi-res, but had to admit it to myself that Red book sounds pretty much the same as hi-res playback (providing, of course, that we're listening to the indention mastering, only rendered in different resolutions).
Edits: 05/15/17
Can't answer logically without system details.
Cheers,
SB
Can't answer logically without system details.
Fair enough. Unfortunately, I don't have those details.
However, would it be possible to discuss this in a more general vain -- do you know of any trickery that could be applied when A/B testing a system? I'm asking because I've been more than once in a situation where a salesperson would play me one configuration, and then play another configuration (like swap the interconnects), and the sound suddenly improves like 100%! Seems almost supernatural, that much of a leap.
A B&M audio store was remodeling its main speaker showroom when I happened to walk inside. They had one of those "sophisticated" speaker switching boards comprised of rows and rows of pushbuttons which was supposed to allow the salesman to select any combination of sources, amplifiers, and speakers at the touch of a button or two. After looking at the back of this device when it was pulled out of its console I was suspicious of this switching panel when I discovered that certain buttons ran the signal through a strange looking device that seemed to be loaded with various resistors, etc. while other buttons connected these same components together without the "benefit" of going through the strange looking device. Suspicious? Hell yeah!
I also think of the infamous Monster Cable demonstration setup that was employed by Best Buy to sell the "upgraded" cables by showing how superior Monster was to basic speaker wire. What a joke. They were running the signal through a 100ft roll of 18ga cheap speaker wire on one position of the switch while the 10ga Monster Cable side of the demo was only about 10ft long. Did the Monster Cable sound better? What do you think? ;-)
I'm not trying to say that all or most audio dealers are dishonest, but the two examples that I witnessed were questionable to say the least.
Cheers,
SB
Evidently they have some good equipment!
Find out if the MQA was played through the $200 MQA Dac, or the $20,000 MQA Dac.
The Stereo Stores I've bought from leave me in the room alone, with all the equipment in plain view, for me to adjust as I please.
I will say that ICs and Speaker Cable upgrades make a LOT of difference to me in my systems over the years.
I heard those metal thingies once.
I don't like the idea of something Ringing while I'm listening, my Piano, for example.
Maybe those bowls actually had the effect of doubling the sound without distorting or covering the basic sound.
I'm more of a Wall-Hanging/Rug guy...
Find out if the MQA was played through the $200 MQA Dac, or the $20,000 MQA Dac
Yes, he showed me, it was a $599.00 MQA DAC.
So, if you SAW the CD ( what kind of CD player? )
and liked MQA better, that's what MQAers are saying.
But maybe it was a cheap CD player.
Maybe another would do much better.
But to me, I prefer Hi-Res over Redbook.
And a $600+- Dac is very reasonable.
Can you do some follow-up at the Store?
Remember volume levels have to be the same. Even a .2 db difference will favor the louder
Alan
Remember volume levels have to be the same. Even a .2 db difference will favor the louder
Good point. Incidentally, I found that I consistently prefer quieter configuration when comparing two variants and different volume levels. So I don't think it's necessarily the case that a louder configuration is always favoured.
But to me, I prefer Hi-Res over Redbook.After doing some A/B testing, I realized I cannot reliably detect differences between Redbook and hi-res. They sound 'dangerously' similar to me.
However, MQA sounded drastically better to my ears.
I'll try to get more specific details about the demo I listened to...
Edits: 05/15/17
Interesting!
What is your set-up for Redbook and Hi-res Playback?
What is your set-up for Redbook and Hi-res Playback?
I'm using Mac mini as the media server, streaming files via ethernet cable into Logitech Squeezebox Touch, and from there into Beresford Bushmaster DAC via digital coax.
Both the Touch and the DAC are powered by battery.
The true benefits of high resolution recordings require a bit more than what a Touch and modest DAC can deliver in order to fully appreciate.
The Touch itself is limited to 24/96. You might consider joining the ranks of many others who have sold their Touch players and have moved onto the Raspberry Pi platform for a near even swap money wise with decided performance gains in transparency and low end response.
Point taken. I know that Touch is by now a legacy platform. But I'm putting all my time and money now into the analog system, so I don't have the cycles needed to replace the Touch with Raspberry Pi (although I do have the little bugger sitting in my drawer).
If you get a minute, would you be able to point me at a good resource for the DIY project for setting up Raspberry Pi to stream hi-res content?
I asked the same question back in February. Responses found here .
Your 5V battery supply will work the RPi, but you most likely will need a different cable. Fortunately, getting a USB to mini-USB is pretty easy.
do you know of any trickery that could be applied when A/B testing a system?
Any number of ways! The mere switching itself can combine electrical characteristics of connected gear. Such a test would be irrelevant to me without knowing the particulars. Exactly what was switched? You could have been comparing MQA to a 128 kbs MP3 stream.
As for MQA vs Redbook, one reason why many DAC and music vendors refuse to sell that format is they are coy about what goes on and refuse to provide source for a truly valid comparison.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: