Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

What becomes problematic is when more recent albums are done in "midrez" Pro Tools which many industry people have stupidly adopted out of laziness/deafness.  Some supposed hirez files are just upsamples on these shitty masters.

 

No. There is nothing wrong with Pro Tools. It's how you use it.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

There are, in fact, many microphones that capture north of 20khz.  But that's not what you need for the benefits of hirez recording.  Hirez is really about improvements in the audible range.  Hires adds more accurate timbre of instruments and better imaging.  All that leads to a more natural presentation that sounds much more like real musicians in a real space than CD.

 

What becomes problematic is when more recent albums are done in "midrez" Pro Tools which many industry people have stupidly adopted out of laziness/deafness.  Some supposed hirez files are just upsamples on these shitty masters.

 

But there is much hirez done from either higher sampling rates or analog tape to DSD /hirez PCM transfers.  I would argue the latter are the ones that most of us here would agree sound the best.

 

Of course, there are some stunning sounding CDs due to an excellent original recording and a great mastering.  But in those case, I often find that newer hirez versions are actually the best of all...provided the tape has remained in good shape.

 

I'm going to follow the rules of the Hi-Res Music logo for what are high resolution recordings. 

Link to comment

"Hi-Res Audio" and "Hi-Res Music" are two different animals.  Hi-Res Audio is from the Japanese Audio Society and is generally put on hardware

 

Hi-Res Music is from the RIAA, is put on Music, and as far as I know, is only for North America. 

 

Personally, I think it is a bit of flim-flam, at least in North America. Maybe Europe is a little different.  (By "film-flam" I mean all marketing hype.) 

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

The problem here is that the A/B is contaminated by the level of quality of the upsampling/downsampling algorithm used.  


1. So you are saying sox and secret rabbit code are contaminating the quality? We won best of show in Munich 2017 from 2 hifi press outlets, and sox upsampling was active ;) > 1000 others brands and hundreds of competing rooms. Oh and we did this in 3.5 years we are on the market.

If nobody can hear the difference between 24/96 and a sox filtered version, why do we care?

 

Quote

A better test is to make a recording and split the mic feed into two recording boxes, one recorded at 16/44 and one at 24/96, level set to same.  Use acoustic instruments to make it easier to discern the quality.  

 

Quote

Then do just basic editing on both, then you have a fair test.


2. Editing in 16/44.1 is stupid if you can record in 24 bit and have more headroom to work with. It's like shooting in JPEG with a pro camera if you can shoot RAW, and then use the 14 bit / color headroom for grading to output an 8 bit / color final result. Editing in 8 bit will limit what you can do in POST. Beginners shoot in JPEG.

So it again shows you are
technologically illiterate.

Editing in 24 bit with dithering to 16 bit for the distribution file can still lead to 120dB of dynamic range. Just like a 4 color CMYK printer can output the illusion of millions of colors by distributing the error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range
 

Now combine 1 and 2.

Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist

Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said:

What becomes problematic is when more recent albums are done in "midrez" Pro Tools which many industry people have stupidly adopted out of laziness/deafness.  Some supposed hirez files are just upsamples on these shitty masters

 

Completely clueless

Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist

Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I could show you recordings that would blow your mind and are better than anything I've ever heard, that were also done on a ProTools rig. Blaming the tool doesn't make sense. It's all about the people involved.

 

The first stage of this recording was done with ProTools in 32 bit 48 Khz as project resolution ;) Those files were then sent to us, we did the 432 conversion approved by all band members, and then it was mastered using analog Manley gear by the label's mastering engineer.

On hifi shows I see them Shazam these tracks when we play them, and for a new-jazz album it's certainly in a very high standard, and much higher than what is expected for the genre:

http://432evo.be/index.php/432-hz-en/tick-tock-by-jazzprofilactika

So claiming ProTools is mid-res is a completely foolish reaction from Lee. There's a lot of sh* pop music probably produced with ProTools, but claiming it's midrez is foolish. A fool with a tool is still a fool.


 

Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist

Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I could show you recordings that would blow your mind and are better than anything I've ever heard, that were also done on a ProTools rig. Blaming the tool doesn't make sense. It's all about the people involved.

 

You are not reading what I wrote above in responding to Ron and taking my words out of context.  It's not the app that is the problem, it is the implementation.  If you talk to someone like Joe Palmaccio, he will tell you that you need 24/96 to be effective.  Mark Waldrep would say the same thing repeatedly, at least up to the last year.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, FredericV said:


1. So you are saying sox and secret rabbit code are contaminating the quality? We won best of show in Munich 2017 from 2 hifi press outlets, and sox upsampling was active ;) > 1000 others brands and hundreds of competing rooms. Oh and we did this in 3.5 years we are on the market.

If nobody can hear the difference between 24/96 and a sox filtered version, why do we care?

 

 


2. Editing in 16/44.1 is stupid if you can record in 24 bit and have more headroom to work with. It's like shooting in JPEG with a pro camera if you can shoot RAW, and then use the 14 bit / color headroom for grading to output an 8 bit / color final result. Editing in 8 bit will limit what you can do in POST. Beginners shoot in JPEG.

So it again shows you are
technologically illiterate.

Editing in 24 bit with dithering to 16 bit for the distribution file can still lead to 120dB of dynamic range. Just like a 4 color CMYK printer can output the illusion of millions of colors by distributing the error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range
 

Now combine 1 and 2.

 

It's not your algorithm I am judging.  It's that the split-mic feed approach provides a better test and there is nothing interfering with the format differences.

Link to comment
Just now, Lee Scoggins said:

You are not reading what I wrote above in responding to Ron and taking my words out of context.  It's not the app that is the problem, it is the implementation.  If you talk to someone like Joe Palmaccio, he will tell you that you need 24/96 to be effective.  Mark Waldrep would say the same thing repeatedly, at least up to the last year.

Your implication is that Pro Tools can't handle high-res formats, and that's patently false.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, mansr said:

Your implication is that Pro Tools can't handle high-res formats, and that's patently false.

 

False.  I did not say that at all.  I know Pro Tools can handle hirez formats.  I have worked on pro recordings with it. The implication was that many in the studio are 1. either doing 24/44 or 24/48 out of following a standard or laziness, or 2. because the labels sometimes request that.

 

Many more seasoned engineers are arguing for all recordings to be done in at least 24/96. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

False.  I did not say that at all.  I know Pro Tools can handle hirez formats.  I have worked on pro recordings with it. The implication was that many in the studio are 1. either doing 24/44 or 24/48 out of following a standard or laziness, or 2. because the labels sometimes request that.

 

Many more seasoned engineers are arguing for all recordings to be done in at least 24/96. 

 

Funny, I didn't see any mention of Pro Tools in your explanation of how you described Pro Tools.

 

Edit: Meaning this -

 

The implication was that many in the studio are 1. either doing 24/44 or 24/48 out of following a standard or laziness, or 2. because the labels sometimes request that.

 

Many more seasoned engineers are arguing for all recordings to be done in at least 24/96. 

 

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...