MQA Sounds Really Good!

[watchnerd]

Some hear HD others don't but more tests need to be done.

I think the jury is still out on "some hear HD"......

 

[Blumlein 88]

Correct! There was no significant statistical difference found between the large 24/96 files and the more compact MQA files. The test needs tp be done with 24/192 and higher vs MQA as well. Some hear HD others don't but more tests need to be done.

Rather argues against this purification idea does it not?

 

[LTig]

So I suppose you have no preference for anything above CD quality..?

If I have a preference than it is one for recordings which have a SQ which fully exploits what redbook CD delivers. So far the SQ of most recordings is far below that level. The best proof are recordings I have on CD which sound absolutely fantastic and where is nothing more to wish for. As long as the recording SQ ist not at such a level it makes no sense to code it in hires in the first place.

any tests which prove 24/96, 24/192 or 24/384 sounds better than CD quality and also explaining why?

I'd love to see controlled DBTs which prove and explain audible advantages of hires over CD (even if I'm no longer able to hear it since I'm not 20 or younger). Are there any which can stand scientific scrutiny?

 

[amirm]

I'd love to see controlled DBTs which prove and explain audible advantages of hires over CD (even if I'm no longer able to hear it since I'm not 20 or younger). Are there any which can stand scientific scrutiny?

I have run a few put up by Archimago and Mark Waldrep (AIX Records):

===========
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/08/02 13:52:46

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Archimago\24-bit Audio Test (Hi-Res 24-96, FLAC, 2014)\01 - Sample A - Bozza - La Voie Triomphale.flac
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Archimago\24-bit Audio Test (Hi-Res 24-96, FLAC, 2014)\02 - Sample B - Bozza - La Voie Triomphale.flac

13:52:46 : Test started.
13:54:02 : 01/01 50.0%
13:54:11 : 01/02 75.0%
13:54:57 : 02/03 50.0%
13:55:08 : 03/04 31.3%
13:55:15 : 04/05 18.8%
13:55:24 : 05/06 10.9%
13:55:32 : 06/07 6.3%
13:55:38 : 07/08 3.5%
13:55:48 : 08/09 2.0%
13:56:02 : 09/10 1.1%
13:56:08 : 10/11 0.6%
13:56:28 : 11/12 0.3%
13:56:37 : 12/13 0.2%
13:56:49 : 13/14 0.1%
13:56:58 : 14/15 0.0%
13:57:05 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 14/15 (0.0%)

The file names seem similar but one is lowered in resolution (bit depth?) and then moved back to 24-bits with countermeasures added to make mechanical analysis difficult.

It was one of the easier tests to pass compared to others because I knew what to listen for. I read some sarcastic and rude remarks from Archimago on him thinking it is impossible for me to have passed this test. I suggest he undertake some training on becoming a critical listener and where such differences may be audible.

These are the AIX challenge that was posted on another forum a few years ago.
=============

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/11 06:18:47

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\Mosaic_A2.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\Mosaic_B2.wav

06:18:47 : Test started.
06:19:38 : 00/01 100.0%
06:20:15 : 00/02 100.0%
06:20:47 : 01/03 87.5%
06:21:01 : 01/04 93.8%
06:21:20 : 02/05 81.3%
06:21:32 : 03/06 65.6%
06:21:48 : 04/07 50.0%
06:22:01 : 04/08 63.7%
06:22:15 : 05/09 50.0%
06:22:24 : 05/10 62.3%
06:23:15 : 06/11 50.0%
06:23:27 : 07/12 38.7%
06:23:36 : 08/13 29.1%
06:23:49 : 09/14 21.2%
06:24:02 : 10/15 15.1%
06:24:10 : 11/16 10.5%
06:24:20 : 12/17 7.2%
06:24:27 : 13/18 4.8%
06:24:35 : 14/19 3.2%
06:24:40 : 15/20 2.1%
06:24:46 : 16/21 1.3%
06:24:56 : 17/22 0.8%
06:25:04 : 18/23 0.5%
06:25:13 : 19/24 0.3%
06:25:25 : 20/25 0.2%
06:25:32 : 21/26 0.1%
06:25:38 : 22/27 0.1%
06:25:45 : 23/28 0.0%
06:25:51 : 24/29 0.0%
06:25:58 : 25/30 0.0%
06:26:24 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 25/30 (0.0%)

===========
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/10 21:01:16

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\Just_My_Imagination_A2.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\Just_My_Imagination_B2.wav

21:01:16 : Test started.
21:02:11 : 01/01 50.0%
21:02:20 : 02/02 25.0%
21:02:28 : 03/03 12.5%
21:02:38 : 04/04 6.3%
21:02:47 : 05/05 3.1%
21:02:56 : 06/06 1.6%
21:03:06 : 07/07 0.8%
21:03:16 : 08/08 0.4%
21:03:26 : 09/09 0.2%
21:03:45 : 10/10 0.1%
21:03:54 : 11/11 0.0%
21:04:11 : 12/12 0.0%
21:04:24 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 12/12 (0.0%)

==========

oo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/10 18:50:44

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_A2.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_B2.wav

18:50:44 : Test started.
18:51:25 : 00/01 100.0%
18:51:38 : 01/02 75.0%
18:51:47 : 02/03 50.0%
18:51:55 : 03/04 31.3%
18:52:05 : 04/05 18.8%
18:52:21 : 05/06 10.9%
18:52:32 : 06/07 6.3%
18:52:43 : 07/08 3.5%
18:52:59 : 08/09 2.0%
18:53:10 : 09/10 1.1%
18:53:19 : 10/11 0.6%
18:53:23 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/11 (0.6%)

============

The tests don't show a preference but rather my ability to pass an ABX double blind test.

These are extremely difficult tests to pass. They require concentration and trial and error to find the critical segments.

Then again, foobar abx tool is not optimal for this type of testing. The proper tool would let you select segments much more easily.

 

[BillW]

The tests don't show a preference but rather my ability to pass an ABX double blind test.

Do you have a preference for enjoyment? Hi-res (24/96 on up) vs MQA vs CD? And conversely for an expert listener such as yourself what would be the minimum file quality where you stop enjoying the music due to its technical deficiencies? I've read some experts really find CD quality offensive. That level of hearing must be breath-taking.
My hearing ability is firmly within Redbook so I don't know what I'm missing.

Great site Amir, top notch!
Bill.

 

[amirm]

Do you have a preference for enjoyment? Hi-res (24/96 on up) vs MQA vs CD?

In general I like to get the original stereo master, whatever its resolution is. That means HD would be first preference. After that MQA and the CD.

That would be if I were buying such content. With Tidal streaming, I don't care about the format although do like to see high-res indicators light up on my DACs.

 

[amirm]

I've read some experts really find CD quality offensive.

They are living in an alternative reality with that view. CD quality can be exceptional. Certainly far, far better than some of the analog formats these people advocate.

 

[BillW]

In general I like to get the original stereo master, whatever its resolution is. That means HD would be first preference. After that MQA and the CD.

That would be if I were buying such content. With Tidal streaming, I don't care about the format although do like to see high-res indicators light up on my DACs.

Lol! the lights on the DAC! I too get some kind of chemical response when I see 48Khz on my recently purchased D10 vs 44.1. It's like Warp Drive Woot!

 

[LTig]

I have run a few put up by Archimago and Mark Waldrep (AIX Records):

Total: 14/15 (0.0%)
Total: 25/30 (0.0%)
Total: 12/12 (0.0%)
Total: 10/11 (0.6%)

The tests don't show a preference but rather my ability to pass an ABX double blind test.

These are extremely difficult tests to pass. They require concentration and trial and error to find the critical segments.

Then again, foobar abx tool is not optimal for this type of testing. The proper tool would let you select segments much more easily.

Impressive. Is it known why there is a difference to hear at all?

 

[amirm]

Impressive. Is it known why there is a difference to hear at all?

I think it is the effect of resampling.

 

[Listen!]

It's like deja vu all over again!

It seems to be

Rather argues against this purification idea does it not?

It might depend on the way one listens. Although I personally use blindtesting sometimes when judging new componemts like interlinks, powercables etc. I also know that it takes longer to let my brains getting used to something new. Blind ABX tests are unfortunately not the perfect reference for judging audio quality. I would love to find out more about this and at which treshold we are capable to define resolution with our ears during blind ABX test. It is useless if we cannot distinguish HD from SD quality or one DAC from another for example.

 

[Listen!]

If I have a preference than it is one for recordings which have a SQ which fully exploits what redbook CD delivers. So far the SQ of most recordings is far below that level. The best proof are recordings I have on CD which sound absolutely fantastic and where is nothing more to wish for. As long as the recording SQ ist not at such a level it makes no sense to code it in hires in the first place.

Reply Listen! : I agree, the dynamic range of a 16/44.1 recording is sufficient to produce fantastic recordings. But there arecaudible artifacts which are related to the unnatural contribution of brickwall filters which are easier ecposed at. 16/44.1 than at 24/192 or higher. MQA teaches me to search for answers which have to do with the time-domain and the temporal fine-structure of a recording.

I'd love to see controlled DBTs which prove and explain audible advantages of hires over CD (even if I'm no longer able to hear it since I'm not 20 or younger). Are there any which can stand scientific scrutiny?

I love to understand which value a DBT test has related to the extensive measurements and quality definition of, for example ALL digital audio converters which Amir tested and published here. All reviews of a DAC or any other audio component could / should be followed by a DBT to rule out any prejudice or bias. The question is if anyone has the time and guts to do such valuation. I have my doubts if DBT is the proper tool for definitive and absolute judgement of perceptional soundquality.

 

[Blumlein 88]

It seems to be


It might depend on the way one listens. Although I personally use blindtesting sometimes when judging new componemts like interlinks, powercables etc. I also know that it takes longer to let my brains getting used to something new. Blind ABX tests are unfortunately not the perfect reference for judging audio quality. I would love to find out more about this and at which treshold we are capable to define resolution with our ears during blind ABX test. It is useless if we cannot distinguish HD from SD quality or one DAC from another for example.

Most of your commentary goes against the results of such testing. ABX btw can be as long or as short as you wish. Even weeks yes.
I'm also wondering what you've found blind testing interlinks or power cables. ABX seems the way to find out if you can hear a difference.

Maybe it would interest you to try some files I posted. One is a digital original, and the other is an 8th generation copy. Sent thru a DAC and then ADC 8 times. See if you think the degradation for one passage is going to be a big deal or not.

Wish the musical samples were longer, but 30 seconds each.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-choose-the-8th-generation-digital-copy.6827/

 

[Listen!]

Most of your commentary goes against the results of such testing. ABX btw can be as long or as short as you wish. Even weeks yes.
I'm also wondering what you've found blind testing interlinks or power cables. ABX seems the way to find out if you can hear a difference.

Maybe it would interest you to try some files I posted. One is a digital original, and the other is an 8th generation copy. Sent thru a DAC and then ADC 8 times. See if you think the degradation for one passage is going to be a big deal or not.

Wish the musical samples were longer, but 30 seconds each.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-choose-the-8th-generation-digital-copy.6827/

My question is: Is DBT the golden reference standard method for qualifying perceptional sound quality, or do other aspects, related to our hearing and auditory system, play an important role. I am curious how valid such tests are and see some positive examples with, for example, loudspeaker comparison DBT and electronics DBT.

 

[Blumlein 88]

My question is: Is DBT the golden reference standard method for qualifying perceptional sound quality, or do other aspects, related to our hearing and auditory system, play an important role. I am curious how valid such tests are and see some positive examples with, for example, loudspeaker comparison DBT and electronics DBT.

Blind testing is most useful to determine if a difference is heard. Then it can be expanded to show how much difference in a signal can be heard. Something like MUSHRA guidelines can be used to determine levels of quality differences. For positive examples in loudspeakers look at the work of Toole and Olive at Harman. Here is a short blog about some of it.
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

As for other aspects related to hearing and auditory system play an important role, what are you thinking on this? Your hearing is somewhat variable over time. It can be blunted from fatigue and high sound levels. Your abilities to hear some things can be improved with training. Much of the parameters of hearing have been determined via listening tests done in the academic world. Things like Fletcher-Munson curves, masking curves, frequency limits, a whole host of parameters.

 

[Listen!]

Blind testing is most useful to determine if a difference is heard. Then it can be expanded to show how much difference in a signal can be heard. Something like MUSHRA guidelines can be used to determine levels of quality differences. For positive examples in loudspeakers look at the work of Toole and Olive at Harman. Here is a short blog about some of it.
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

As for other aspects related to hearing and auditory system play an important role, what are you thinking on this? Your hearing is somewhat variable over time. It can be blunted from fatigue and high sound levels. Your abilities to hear some things can be improved with training. Much of the parameters of hearing have been determined via listening tests done in the academic world. Things like Fletcher-Munson curves, masking curves, frequency limits, a whole host of parameters.

Thanks for your extensive answers. As most of the readers here are music lovers and 'audiophiles' I am always a bit surprised when discussions about audio formats end up with DBT arguments. I'd like to know if our hearing is capable to hear the difference between a 145,- euro Zen DAC and a 10.000,- euro (or more) high-end DAC. If this is mot the case, what value do all these measurements have..? p.s. sorry Amir, I do not mean to be disrespectful, but you might do a DBT with a cheap and expensive DAC just to rule this out.

 

[amirm]

If this is mot the case, what value do all these measurements have..? p.s. sorry Amir, I do not mean to be disrespectful, but you might do a DBT with a cheap and expensive DAC just to rule this out.

And what if that data never comes? What do you do?

Do you have data on whether your hands are dirty enough to make you sick if you don't wash them after you go to the bathroom? I assume not. So why do you wash them at all?

 

[amirm]

So to be clear, I provide a way to obviate that answer. You can buy provably transparent DACs that have next to no premium. What is your motivation to want to buy something that is much worse? You don't save money. What is the reason then?

 

[Listen!]

So to be clear, I provide a way to obviate that answer. You can buy provably transparent DACs that have next to no premium. What is your motivation to want to buy something that is much worse? You don't save money. What is the reason then?

And that is MUCH appreciated! All I am pointing out is that the DBT argument can be used rightly or wrongly and can be used to stop every dicussion regarding new developments like SD vs HD quality and also with MQA. To my opinion, all this is a matter of choice.. Affordable or expensive products, CD, streaming, DSD or something else.

 

[Blumlein 88]

And that is MUCH appreciated! All I am pointing out is that the DBT argument can be used rightly or wrongly and can be used to stop every dicussion regarding new developments like SD vs HD quality and also with MQA. To my opinion, all this is a matter of choice.. Affordable or expensive products, CD, streaming, DSD or something else.

If a DAC maker charges a 400% premium promising better sound quality, and measurements show it performs like any other good DAC you don't need listening tests. If some listeners insist it sounds better, then you can blind test the two in order to determine if there is a perceptible difference. Is it meant to stop discussion? You bet. Because if you let uncontrolled sighted listening impressions be your standard you'll never reach a conclusion because the sound quality isn't the source of the differences much of the time.

So I don't understand about it all being a matter of choice. It is a matter of choice, but why insist on inconvenient or more expensive methods if they don't offer anything extra except the illusion of choice?