High resolution

[Mulder]

Hello!
Some DA-converters implement MQA, some do not. I do not intend to start a new discussion on MQA, but I am wondering about one thing. Behind MQA is the assumption that high-resolution music files give a better sound than CD, ie 16/44. If we ignore the fact that individual recordings may sound better or worse regardless of format, is there any technical or other evidence that higher resolution than the CD format gives or can give better sound?
Best Regards

 

[Frank Dernie]

Hello!
Some DA-converters implement MQA, some do not. I do not intend to start a new discussion on MQA, but I am wondering about one thing. Behind MQA is the assumption that high-resolution music files give a better sound than CD, ie 16/44. If we ignore the fact that individual recordings may sound better or worse regardless of format, is there any technical or other evidence that higher resolution than the CD format gives or can give better sound?
Best Regards

None that I have been convincing so far.
Useful for recording because it gives margin for error and adjustment, but offers nowt for distribution.

 

[Mulder]

No. I am also not convinced that any improvement can be perceived. In that case, this means that the very basic assumption for MQA is false, ie no matter how well MQA works, it cannot contribute any added value whatsoever.

 

[BDWoody]

If we ignore the fact that individual recordings may sound better or worse regardless of format,

That's really the key right there. Beyond 16/44 you are gaining information that you can't make use of as the listener.

As @Frank Dernie said, in the recording/mastering process there is value (from what I've read/gathered), but once it's packaged up and ready for my ears, not so much.

 

[BDWoody]

No. I am also not convinced that any improvement can be perceived. In that case, this means that the very basic assumption for MQA is false, ie no matter how well MQA works, it cannot contribute any added value whatsoever.

I agree with that conclusion.

Have you spent any time looking into sampling theory? A little understanding of Shannon-Nyquist and how sampling works can relieve a lot of stress about what you may be missing.

 

[Mulder]

I was actually most thoughtful about the discussion about MQA. It is discussed back and forth about how MQA works, what different implementations look like, and whether it involves a form of DRM. I have also reacted to the fact that amirm, even though he has not been clearly positive about MQA, has still indirectly defended MQA, or at least criticized MQA's critics, without asking the basic question of what MQA can contribute. I have not seen the basic question asked at all: do we have any advantage of high-definition sound at all (as listeners, not as producers). But, as always, I thought that maybe there is some new knowledge or some aspect of this that has passed me by.

 

[Feanor]

Hello!
Some DA-converters implement MQA, some do not. I do not intend to start a new discussion on MQA, but I am wondering about one thing. Behind MQA is the assumption that high-resolution music files give a better sound than CD, ie 16/44. If we ignore the fact that individual recordings may sound better or worse regardless of format, is there any technical or other evidence that higher resolution than the CD format gives or can give better sound?
Best Regards

For me personally 16/44.1 is adequate and, in fact, indistinguishable from higher resolution. (Granted, I'm deaf above 10 kHz.) The quality of the recording is many times more important than higher resolution.

 

[vavan]

I have not seen the basic question asked at all: do we have any advantage of high-definition sound at all (as listeners, not as producers). But, as always, I thought that maybe there is some new knowledge or some aspect of this that has passed me by

didn't you see Mark Waldrep related threads?

 

[Sukie]

Hello!
Some DA-converters implement MQA, some do not. I do not intend to start a new discussion on MQA, but I am wondering about one thing. Behind MQA is the assumption that high-resolution music files give a better sound than CD, ie 16/44. If we ignore the fact that individual recordings may sound better or worse regardless of format, is there any technical or other evidence that higher resolution than the CD format gives or can give better sound?
Best Regards

16/44.1 was originally used as this was perceived to be the audible limit. I listen to Hi-Res (non-MQA) recordings on Qobuz but can't tell the difference between these and CD quality. A well engineered recording played back at CD rate is far more satisfying than a poorly engineered recording at Hi-Res.

For what it's worth, my take is that Hi-Res marketing is based upon "TV modelling". HDTV (and now UHD) brought obviously perceivable differences when compared to SDTV. We all got used to the idea that higher resolution = better experience. When applying this to audio though, it's a very different story.

MQA seems to be based around something that happens back at the mastering stage, but I've yet to be convinced that it's anything more than a generous sprinkling of fairy dust.

I'm not anti-MQA, nor anti-HiRes, I'm just not convinced.

 

[Berwhale]

There is some discussion of the audible (or not) benefits of Hi-Res here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...solution-audio-controversy-on-wikipedia.9336/

 

[Mulder]

didn't you see Mark Waldrep related threads?

No. Where do I find his threads?

 

[vavan]

No. Where do I find his threads?

Just search for his name here or even go directly to his website and see couple of recent entries including announcement of his AES paper

 

[paddycrow]

I have yet to listen to the same song on 16/44.1 and something higher. I can't say 24/96 sounds any better, but it's only marginally higher price so it has become the format I purchase most.

The last back to back comparison I made was AAC to ALAC. I was mostly successful picking the compressed file, but not 100%.

 

[Sal1950]

No. Where do I find his threads?

Start Here,
http://www.realhd-audio.com/
IMO, as a studio who's output and livelihood has depended on making and selling HiRez recordings, he has to be about one of the most honest people in the industry. His public postings that HiRez is indistinguishable from Red Book offers him nothing but a possible loss of income.
He's one of the shining lights in an industry full of snake oil salesman and con-men.

 

[Mulder]

Just search for his name here or even go directly to his website and see couple of recent entries including announcement of his AES paper

Well, I did search for his name, but it didn’t result in any hit.

 

[Kaiede]

I agree with that conclusion.

Have you spent any time looking into sampling theory? A little understanding of Shannon-Nyquist and how sampling works can relieve a lot of stress about what you may be missing.

That video is a very good demonstration, I think my one wish is that he could have commented on why using low-pass filters in the ADC and DAC stages is important. He kinda glossed over the output stages in particular to say the DAC doesn’t output a stair-step, which while true, ignores what I think is the important bit as to why it doesn’t.

 

[Tks]

16/44.1 was originally used as this was perceived to be the audible limit. I listen to Hi-Res (non-MQA) recordings on Qobuz but can't tell the difference between these and CD quality. A well engineered recording played back at CD rate is far more satisfying than a poorly engineered recording at Hi-Res.

For what it's worth, my take is that Hi-Res marketing is based upon "TV modelling". HDTV (and now UHD) brought obviously perceivable differences when compared to SDTV. We all got used to the idea that higher resolution = better experience. When applying this to audio though, it's a very different story.

MQA seems to be based around something that happens back at the mastering stage, but I've yet to be convinced that it's anything more than a generous sprinkling of fairy dust.

I'm not anti-MQA, nor anti-HiRes, I'm just not convinced.

Personally, I'm actively anti-MQA because they cannot substantiate nor open their tech to proper third party audit for evaluations on even confirming what they're talking about is even occurring.

Hi-Res is virtually 'open source', there's no company holding the rights to it's use or implementation per se. It's just higher bit depth and sample rate. Nothing unknown going on, and free for anyone to evaluate and experiment with. I personally like it simply due to it being an indication of perhaps the recording setting wanting to get a good quality recording and still offer it to the customer without downsampling and such.

MQA, they've been caught making far too many claims they're unable to substantiate nor properly elaborate on. They also offer no real proof of their "better sound" claims if we hold equal the recordings being processed.

 

[RayDunzl]

Well, I did search for his name, but it didn’t result in any hit.

https://www.google.com/search?q=mark+waldrep+mqa

 

[Mnyb]

Start Here,
http://www.realhd-audio.com/
IMO, as a studio who's output and livelihood has depended on making and selling HiRez recordings, he has to be about one of the most honest people in the industry. His public postings that HiRez is indistinguishable from Red Book offers him nothing but a possible loss of income.
He's one of the shining lights in an industry full of snake oil salesman and con-men.

Mr Waldrep also happens to do absolute stunning records re sound quality, if there somehow would be possible to hear the difference his recordings would be good test material. His material is actually hirez for real too.
Not the usual upsampled 70’s recordings with a practical sq equal 12-13 bits or something that’s to common.

A large of my DVDA collection comes from him .

That said I tried to compare and could not tell the difference. A key here is to downsample a known true 24/96 or 24/192 record yourself ! Not compare a CD or streaming something with a hirez version. There are just to many mastering of stuff the likelihood that it’s actually the same master is very slim . So you will compare apples to oranges.
It can be useful to compare masters too, the new hirez may not always win .

What’s really stunning is multichannel DVDA or probably also multichannel SACD , it did not sell well and are now dead media . But that was the real win with those formats discrete lossless multichannel.

 

[Sal1950]

But that was the real win with those formats discrete lossless multichannel.

Mark Waldrip's Bluray releases are awesome. Each disc usually offers the recording in 5.1 multich with both a audience listeners prospective and one with the listener being from an on-stage perspective at 24-96. Also included is the usual 24-96 stereo track and sometimes even a binural headphone mix.
Great stuff and well worth the cost if you have a multich blu-ray capable rig.
We need to support the good guys.
TIA, Sal