Careful, i was warned when saying something similar regarding twiin a past post.
Please take down this picture of my brother. you are not authorized to use it
I recant, the MQA purchase is among the most laudable examples of philanthropy.
- Rich
Careful, i was warned when saying something similar regarding twiin a past post.
Please take down this picture of my brother. you are not authorized to use it
I just saw that. If they offer plain CD quality flacs in the Hifi tier and MQA in the Hifi plus, I just hope that those CD quality flacs won't be just folded MQAs! That would be the cherry on top
Audirvana trial is free if you want to check it. Anyone else want to try this? The file is the 2L #053 (bottom one):
http://www.2l.no/hires/
Because 4 official patents, a paper endorsed by AES, and several articles written by three of the world's most prestigious audio magazines aren't, but the wrong tests measuring things the system is not intended to accomplish - prepared by two amateurs that didn't know what they were measuring-, those are the ones to be trusted... right?Too bad none of those sources are trustworthy.
Too bad none of those sources are trustworthy.
@Archimago and @GoldenOne do you agree to the above?prepared by two amateurs that didn't know what they were measuring
Because 4 official patents, a paper endorsed by AES, and several articles written by three of the world's most prestigious audio magazines aren't, but the wrong tests measuring things the system is not intended to accomplish - prepared by two amateurs that didn't know what they were measuring-, those are the ones to be trusted... right?
Try to stop regurgitating and start arguing.
You are seeing 2l-053 as an 88.2K track? I have 96K. (the 96K file is titled 2L-053_04stereo-96kHz-24b.flac). But you are getting much better tracking in the unfolded part than I have been able to get. I wonder what I am doing wrong. What software are you using for recording?
I compared 2l-053 24/96 khz PCM with the 2l-053 MQA. Audirvana shows 24/352.4 khz but outputs only 88.2k (aka first unfold).You are seeing 2l-053 as an 88.2K track? I have 96K. (the 96K file is titled 2L-053_04stereo-96kHz-24b.flac). But you are getting much better tracking in the unfolded part than I have been able to get. I wonder what I am doing wrong. What software are you using for recording?
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19396
I think @Archimago refers to this one, within his study
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html
This paper aims to examine perceived clarity in MQA encoded audio files compared to their unprocessed state (96-kHz 24-bit). Utilizing a methodology initially proposed by the authors in a previous paper, this study aims to investigate any reported differences in clarity for three musical sources of varying genres. A double-blind test is conducted using three groups—expert listeners, musicians, and casual listeners—in a controlled environment using high-quality loudspeakers and headphones. The researchers were interested in comparing the responses of the three target groups and whether playback systems had any significant effect on listeners’ perception. Data shows that listeners were not able to significantly discriminate between MQA encoded files and the unprocessed original due to several interaction effects.
Oh wow, I didn't notice that on Audionirvana. I wonder why the MQA is 88K when the original is 96K? Anyway, I recorded again at 88K, but still my spectra do not track as well as yours. Hmm...I compared 2l-053 24/96 khz PCM with the 2l-053 MQA. Audirvana shows 24/352.4 khz but outputs only 88.2k (aka first unfold).
Recorded with Audacity via virtual cable as you say.
Comparing done with DeltaWave & Adobe Audition.
Because 4 official patents, a paper endorsed by AES, and several articles written by three of the world's most prestigious audio magazines aren't, but the wrong tests measuring things the system is not intended to accomplish - prepared by two amateurs that didn't know what they were measuring-, those are the ones to be trusted... right?
Try to stop regurgitating and start arguing.
If you want to show that someone isn't a liar, citing that same person isn't going to work.Because 4 official patents, a paper endorsed by AES, and several articles written by three of the world's most prestigious audio magazines aren't, but the wrong tests measuring things the system is not intended to accomplish - prepared by two amateurs that didn't know what they were measuring-, those are the ones to be trusted... right?
Try to stop regurgitating and start arguing.
Jisus man, how many times do we have to repeat the same? Those "repeatable"measurements are measuring the wrong things:Of course, because they are repeatable measurements are unrefuted by MQA.
ASR includes measurements posted by accomplished amateur's. The response to measurements should be other measurements or technical in nature. The response is not to waive white-papers at people.
This is not the site to rely on pedigree for a good review.
The character assassination team is still hunting Archimago.
- Rich
IDK,Jisus man, how many times do we have to repeat the same? Those "repeatable"measurements are measuring the wrong things:
1- square waves, high amplitude white noise, and presumably big amplitude impulse tones completely outside the maximum amplitudes of the music the system is programmed for, as all of them contain upper octaves and ultrasonic in high amplitudes. MQA is not intended to register high amplitude in ultrasonics, because there is NO MUSIC with that profile, and because that space is better used for custom filters fixing time domain issues. If you understand what MQA does (and if both accomplished amateurs are in fact accomplished, they knew it BEFORE doing those tests), you don't need a test to know a square wave will not perform OK.
2- A bit perfect match that by definition is impossible, as MQA replaces those below the noise floor with dithered information. Again, what an accomplished MQA reviewers should know in advance.
3- To make things worse, MQA assumes the noise band is dithered; these tests omitted that basic step, and so, the algorithm is fed with wrong information. It is obvious the multitude of anomalities would occur doing that.
4- Even if all of the above were not an issue, even then you wouldn't get that pretended bit-perfect match, because the system is intended to be lossless compared with analog input; but to fix the flaws of that input (by correcting time domain issues) if instead that input is digital.
5- If MQA were performing as bad as their conclusions say, the plots above ( that even then are incomplete, since they are comparing a 352K input with a 88.2 Khz output, leaving information the system has registered unprocessed) wouldn't have the degree of coincidence they have. Then... something must be wrong with those tests, don't you think?
What you are questioning is the very definition of the MQA design (noise shaping, encapsulation of data in noise bands, limited amplitude in high frequencies, deblurring of time domain information, etc), because all of that differs with your immaculate conception of how perfect a simple Redbook file is. If so, you don't need to backup your criticism in test trying to demonstrate the things the system is not intended to do.
What you are questioning is the very definition of the MQA design (noise shaping, encapsulation of data in noise bands, limited amplitude in high frequencies, deblurring of time domain information, etc), because all of that differs with your immaculate conception of how perfect a simple Redbook file is. If so, you don't need to backup your criticism in test trying to demonstrate the things the system is not intended to do.
So NO, this amateur music lover still isn't convinced
No need to guess. All he's done is parrot MQA talking points. I wonder how much they pay.Let me guess, you don't actually understand any of this.